on the record and spell your last name?
As soon as you unmute yourself.
yes hi hi mr sabatina can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
please on sabatina 1742 emerson street philadelphia pa 19152 thank you do you swear
for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do do you also agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes and finally if you email the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and or plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes to all the above except we don't have a letter before we go any further mr sabatina
would you please by your last name s-a-b-a-t-i-n-a thank you thank you you may proceed
frank yes uh i believe mr mcdermott is going to place the exhibit up i don't know he i just
texted me that he was somehow cut off
uh we lost him in the last hearing i don't know how i'm sorry mr chairman but uh mr mcdermott has
been uh reconnected and he has been promoted to panelists at this time
darman i believe it was sworn in minutes ago please identify yourself for the record and proceed
My name is Peter McDermott. I'm with Sabatine and Associates for this case,
and I'm going to try to share my screen now.
Here we go. Can you see our screen?
yes okay yeah we'll start off obviously this is the index of the list of exhibits
we do have the application for the zoning and the use registration
and the app the notice of refusal of the proposed use
application for appeal to the zoning board
Project information form, deed, the tax clearance certificate, and the commercial activity license.
Here's some exterior photographs.
The building is a former Catholic school, St. Joachim's.
There's pictures of the postings, interior photographs.
As you can see from these pictures, it was obviously a former school, and the application is for use.
Part of the building is a school for GE, GDE or whatever, you know, for people who have possibly dropped out or couldn't finish their education, and another portion of the building to be used as a daycare.
there's a site plan
can we go back to the site plan
there was on the refusal it mentioned
the fact that there was no
parking designated however as you can see from the rear of the building
there is ample room to provide parking as needed.
There's ample room to provide parking as needed.
There's a floor plan which shows the existing school and the proposed child-based care alongside of that.
here's a zoning map of the area
as is evident from its prior use to try to open this building for an educational facility is not
a stretch and that's basically what the owner has intended there was some we had several meetings
with the RCO the first meeting on March the 4th
seemed fine. And then later on, we received, noticed that they had additional questions
and they requested another meeting, which we had again on May the 6th, which
and we had that on may the 6th the only question was whether or not we were going to be we needed a
an affidavit of restricted use for the upper floors.
However, inquiring to the Michael Jackson of the fire code unit,
he indicated back to my clients that that was only necessary
if the upper floors were not compliant with the building code.
We also, at the meeting, voluntarily advised the people that we would seal off the third floor if they had an issue with it.
And I don't know why we don't have a letter of their findings, but it was a recent meeting, May to 6.
Perhaps they'll send the letter later on.
Were you at the May 6th meeting?
Yes, I was.
Do you know if the vote was taken, and do you know what the outcome of the vote was?
No, I did not know the vote was taken.
When we left the meeting, they were still questioning whether or not we needed an affidavit of restricted use, which, according to the fire code, we don't.
which we research. We don't need it. What we did, we are clients willing and able to
close off the third floor to prevent access. There was some concern as to whether or not the
children, young children in the daycare might wander up to the third floor. And, you know,
we offered to simply seal it off, but we can't get an affidavit of restricted use
because they don't issue them
when the floor is in compliance.
All right.
Have you concluded your testimony?
Yes, it does.
Is there anyone else you need to bring on?
Questions from the board?
Hello. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Mr. Chair, Sloan Fulks has his hand raised. I'm all alone. I'm just picking his thumbs up.
Thank you. Good afternoon again, Mr. Fulks. You're still under oath. Please identify yourself.
Good afternoon, Chairman Chico, members of the ZBA board. My name is Sloan Fulks,
Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinones, Sanchez, 508.
The I was I was in attendance at the meeting last week, the final RCO meeting between the RCO and the applicant, the app, the the the RCO did request this affidavit.
I was in attendance at the meeting last week.
Their concerns were safety around safety regarding the children that would be attending the the daycare and access to the third level, which was not in use.
They did request this affidavit. I do not know why they haven't submitted their letter, but I know that this would be, the letter that they would submit would be a proviso that they would request.
I humbly request the RCO hold their decision for a week until the RCO can submit their letter.
You mean the ZBA hold?
The ZBA. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, this this has been going on since March of 2020.
We've met with them. We cannot comply with something that simply doesn't exist.
And that was the only issue that was raised.
Sharon, I need you on this one. If we put a proviso in that the third floor is not to be utilized or sealed off, would that be a proper proviso?
um mr sabatina would that be consistent with your plans for the property would you be willing
yeah i'm sure my client would be willing to seal the third floor uh off uh while there's no no use
being taken place there so mr folks that would satisfy that issue that was yes yes sir but again
the the rco was very adamant in requesting that that affidavit be provided by the city
um i i don't think that a week would be onerous to the applicants i do know that the the you know
um one way or the other uh they're going to move forward the process i do know that the
that the rco is not in uh complete opposition uh toward the project they're just concerned
about the safety and the welfare of the children understood mr chairman mr chairman yes tom the
The ceiling off of the floors above is a building code issue.
Yes, Chair.
Actually, this is Sharon again.
If you could hold the record, hold the vote for one week, closing the record except for receipt of the letter from the RCO, which will be read into the record.
And I could, during that time, confirm with Ellen and I whether this would create a problem if you were to add that proviso.
All right, John, just give us another week.
it'll be resolved yes uh you just have in mind that it doesn't exist we can't get an affidavit
understood i think but made that made me to be that message may need to be uh uh clarified with
the community and mr folks i think will handle that and mr sabatini can i say that if we it
would take more time if the board were to add a proviso that um ellen i would object to so
So one week to clarify that would probably be helpful to your clients as well.
All right, then.
Okay, so Shara, we're going to just, we'll hold this for one week.
The case will be voted.
The record is closed aside from a letter from the RCO, which if submitted in the next week will be read into the record.
So that case number MI2020-000121-4290 North Penn Street. The record is closed. We will hold this matter until next week's executive session to review the letter from the RCO.
Thank you, ZBA.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Is it necessary for me to attend next week?
No, it'll be done in executive session. Correct, Sharon?
it will be um discussed in executive session if a letter is submitted in the next week it will be
read into the record and there will be a vote but there will be no testimony so not necessary for
you to be here thank you all right john thank you all right with that that concludes the two o'clock
list i believe excuse me mr chairman yep i'm sorry this is peter mcdermott from uh 2840 home avenue
i don't know why i got cut off but i just wanted to finish my statement on 2840 so the applicant
and their attorney did clean up the site plan for us the only other thing that the 64th ward
were worried about was the amount of trash in the area and they they um confirmed with us that they
were going to routinely do maintenance around the area and make sure that the trash was picked up
so that that site is actually uh has a large slope in it and the address on home avenue actually
backs up to the confluence of solly avenue and lexington avenue and at the top of their site
There was an unbelievable amount of trash that we wanted to make sure that was put on record.
there was an unbelievable amount of trash
that we wanted to make sure that was put on record
that that has to be cleaned up.
Mr. McDermott, this has already been voted
and we're not sure if the applicant is even still present
or his representative.
So the record is closed.
Miss Aludia, with all due respect,
we're in a different world right now with pandemic
and me getting cut off is a little bit different.
Well, we understand that.
Well, that is part of it.
It's a challenge for all of us
and we're sorry that you got cut off.
You were actually breaking up for a while
and then we lost you completely.
You hear me good now, right?
Yeah, we hear you perfectly now.
Yeah, we can.
Chair, if I could mention.
This is Tanya.
There appears to be other individuals
who wish to weigh in on this case.
Same case, Holm Avenue?
Or Penn Street?
Are we talking about 2840 Holm Avenue?
um i have i have someone with their hand up that's asking
penstreet he's saying mr gross is here
um we already voted that um no you haven't voted yeah i'm happy
you were holding it for one week for the letter from the rco if mr sabatina is still here and
others would like to testify. I should hear it. Jason, could you please allow the one with the
hand up to speak, please? Mr. Aaron Gross has been allowed to speak. Mr. Gross, please identify
yourself. Mr. Gross, Mr. Gross, hold on, hold on. Would you please spell your first and last name
I'll swear you in. Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Gross. That's spelled A-A-R-O-N-G-R-O-S-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I affirm. Apologize for the technical problems we're having today. Please proceed.
No problems at all. I'm an attorney for the owner of 4290 Penn Street, and I was also on that
meeting last week. The document that you saw of the email exchange between Michael Jackson
and the owner was that was between myself and Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sabatino was correct in stating
that this proviso is literally non-existent and I understand where the RCO is coming from and
they said they have a double standard for safety and we agree to that but this document is actually
a document that is necessary only prior to a CFO. If a CFO is issued, it means that this document
was never necessary. It's under the city's website listed under documents that are necessary to obtain
a CFO. And I understand the confusion because we stated that we weren't using it. However,
I just want to be clear that the owner doesn't want that the use is granted with the proviso
that the third floor, that we need to come back to you guys to be able to use the third floor.
We just want to, you know, we want to be amenable to the RCO and allow them to, you know, give
them assurances that we're going to make the building as safe as possible. But the whole
discussion was based on a misunderstanding, which I understand where that came from,
but it was based on a misunderstanding of the applicable laws and documents.
Thank you.
Any questions anyone have?
Sharon, do you have anything to add?
Just one question, and I'm not sure that I completely understood the last statement,
but would a proviso, the proposed use is going to be on which floors of the structure?
On the first floor.
so proviso stating um approved use limited to first floor only would that satisfy the rco
i believe that would but again i think they still need to be somebody needs to clarify to them that
the document they were requesting they they said that because the city requires such a document
therefore it's a safety issue and therefore they don't want to they want to have a double standard
but well the thing is that if if it is required then it will be required as part of the building
it's not required that's what i'm saying mr gross hold on please yeah sorry if it isn't required
we can't require it the board can't require it if it is required you'll be required to
um submit it as part of the in order to get a cfo so no problem thank you okay thank you i think
that hope anyone else
sure that appears to be all thank you very kindly thank you we're going to take a
Chair, that appears to be all. Thank you very kindly.
Thank you. We're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll be back here at 10 of, what's it called, 20 of, 10 of?
Everyone, my name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.