Okay, Chair, we have 36 attendees, and we can start as you wish.
Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's DBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Thomas Holliman.
President.
Thank you.
And our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
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.
The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phil .gov. For the benefit of
our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testify.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six 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 answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony. Any comments should be directed to our executive director,
Tanya Sunken. Let's take a look at our continuances for today's hearings. Number three, MI 2022 -005 -968 -5524
Pulaski. That's a joint application from the applicant, the council office, and the CDC.
That case is continued. Number five, MI 2022 -002 -926 -1630 South 6th Street. That case is
continue until March 29th at 9 .30 a .m. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just wanted to clarify the
address on the record, 1430 South 6th Street. Thank you. Okay, 1430. And also, number 8,
MI 2022 -002 -927 -1426 -28 -South 6th. Is that right, Hillary? No?
Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair.
That case is also continued to March 29th at 9 .30 a .m.
Number 10.
MI 2022 -005 -973 -3200 Tyson Avenue.
That case has been continued.
First listing.
Number 14, MI 2022, 002 -928 -549 -51 North 10th Street. That case is continued.
And number 15, MI -2021 -002 -827 -2132, North Downey Street, that case has been continued, is going to be marked, must be tried.
Are there any comments relative to the cases that we've continued?
Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette Benson. I'll be co -hosting today.
Thank you.
We have Diane Monroe with her hand up, chair.
Ms. Monroe, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Hi, good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Okay, thank you.
Diane Monroe.
M -O -N -R -O -E.
Diane D -I -A -N -E.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I did.
what case do you want 10th street but the address that i have here is 549 -51 north 10th street
I have 549 to 51 North 10th.
Is that being, that's, that's canceled?
That case is being continued.
It is being continued because we did try to, okay.
Because we did try to set up an open community meeting.
And they sent me an email back in August, the 26th, and they requested to be removed from our open community meeting, which was scheduled for September the 21st.
This case is continued, ma 'am.
Thank you very much.
We haven't heard anything from them.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
Mr. Anastasio has his hand raised.
in this case all right um mr anastasio please this anastasio you can unmute yourself and wait
for the chair good morning mr chair good morning sir could you state your name please and spell
for the court report sure verne v -e -r -n anastasio a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o right you swear or firm tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do could you comment on this case please
I have really not a whole lot to add. I understand the case is continued. My client and I are revising the number of units. And when we have plans to reflect that, we'll bring it back to Ms. Monroe. Until then, we're in a holding pattern.
Council, thank you for calling in. We appreciate that.
Are there any other requests for continuities?
Chair, we have a Mr. Glansberg. Mr. Glansberg, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Chairman David Glansberg. How are you?
All right. Could you state your name? You stated your name. Could you spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yes. Glansberg. G -L -A -N -Z -B -E -R -G.
Right. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Of course.
What case do you want to talk about?
I'd like to talk about 5408 Chestnut Street. James Smith. I was contacted last night.
All right. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
mr chair this case is on the 330 list all right this case will be heard at 330 sir
would it be possible to get it adjourned that is my request i had back surgery last week
are you are you are you the owner no no i'm the attorney who wants to represent mr smith
and uh my office i'm not even can we continue that now that we have to do it later
we have we'll have to announce it on the record at 3 30 because that's when that's when they've
noticed three yeah we did receive the request from mr glansberg this morning i'll announce
that at 3 30 sir thank you but i don't need to be on at that point correct that's right
thank you have a great day okay good bye -bye are there any any other requests for it continue
of this chair we have joseph console mr console please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good morning mr console could you state your name please for the court reporter yeah it's
joseph console c -o -n -s -o -l -e right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do are you talking about 2797 welsh road no i'm not i've i have a few this
morning. I'm talking about 2 ,400 Oakdale. Okay. That's another 3 .30 chair. That's 3 .30,
Mr. Consul. I thought that that was listed at 9 .30 as well. No, no. That one's at 3 .30.
All right. Well, still continued. Everyone agrees, but okay, cool. That's fine.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other requests for continuance?
Chair, we have Mr. Anastasio again. Mr. Anastasio, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
You've already been sworn. Are you calling about case number seven?
I think it's, yeah, 1938 North 24th.
Yes. Are you withdrawing that case?
Yes, sir. Thank you.
Okay, so MI 2021 -002 -607 -1938, North 24th Street.
That case has been withdrawn, and thank you for calling in.
Thank you, sir.
Number six, MI 2022 -005 -975, 2019 South 22nd Street.
We have no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
Kimberly King is the owner.
Ms. King, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Miss King, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
So MI -2022 -005 -975 -2019 South 22nd Street, that case is continued. Mark must be tried.
Any other requests for withdrawal?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Okay, so we're going to go to our add -on list.
Case number one will be handled by our vice chair.
I'm just trying to pull the sheets up.
So it's MI -2022 -005 -422 -2315 Parris Street.
Request for reconsideration.
So my vote is yes for reconsideration, Ishmael Shaheed.
Excuse me, Mr. Shaheed, can you indicate yes to reconsideration and rehearing, please?
Sure. My vote is yes for reconsideration and rehearing.
Thomas Hollowan, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
James Snell, my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Thank you. Number two, MI 2022, 02233 -5607, the 13 Germantown Avenue.
the vote on this matter will be held pending receipt of a current lease.
We're going to go to our...
Excuse me, sorry, Mr. Chair.
We will actually, we got, we received the lease.
We will vote the case at the start of the 2 p .m. list this afternoon.
That case will be moved to 2 p .m.
Yes, thank you.
All right.
Okay. Number one of our regular list. MI 2022 -005 -934 -332 Carson Street. Henry Clinton is the attorney. We do not have an RCO letter at this point.
Hi, Mr. Chair. It's me again.
This is coming back. It is a panelist now.
Okay. Hillary, we have a letter.
Yes, we just received a letter. It's a recommendation of non -opposition from Manny Young's Neighborhood County.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Henry Clinton, H -E -N -R -Y, Clinton, C -L -I -N -T -O -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Brian Flanagan, F -L -A -N -A -G -A -N. Mr. Flanagan is on the call, and he is one of the principals of the LLC, which owns the property.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed into our offices all the required documents and exhibits that are required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have, Mr. Shaghi.
Thank you. Please proceed and show your screen.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Is that visible?
It is.
Okay. Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Henry Clinton, on behalf of B &B Projects, LLC, the principal of which is Brian Flanagan. He's on the call, along with Derek Spencer, who's the architect. In the event, there are any questions from the board about the architectural nature of the project.
submitting my presentation package, which contains exhibits AA to A11.
And this is the refusal.
First of all, this project involves a lot subdivision on the 300 block of Carson Street
in Manioc section of Philadelphia.
And the two lots that are being subdivided, or the lot that's being subdivided into two
lots is basically the same size as the other lots on that block.
and we're asking for a garage for the property.
And you'll see from the photographs and from my zoning records
that there was a garage approved about a year and a half ago by the board.
And in addition, we have the RCO support, overwhelming support.
So the refusal basically addresses two issues.
One is the minimum lot area of these two lots are not the 1 ,000.
The minimum lot area of these two lots are not the 1 ,440 square foot lot that is required by the code, but the two lots are similar to the other lots on the block.
The second refusal had to do with the garage, indicating that the garage is not permitted in the zoning district for the reasons as outlined in the refusal.
As I said at the outset, there is a garage adjacent to this property already, and you'll see it is a narrow street and very difficult to park on the block as is.
This is a letter of support from the Manioc Neighborhood Council, indicating non -opposition, 11, and one person in opposition as a result of our community meeting.
photographs of the site. This is the aerial photograph again indicating this was one large
lot. We do have approval for a subdivision basically cutting this large lot into two
and then the size of the lot will be equal to or similar to other lots on the block.
So this is looking down toward the river in Mount Yonk. The vacant lot is to the right
indicated by the black line. You can see there's no parking on the street at all.
Again, this is looking uphill on Carson Street.
This is the lot looking straight on from Carson Street. Our plans,
which were revised as a result of the community meeting, the community asked for
change in color of the brick, change in color of the windows, changing the garage door,
and a few other changes, all of which we've made. And we feel that's why the community ended up
issuing a letter of non -opposition. Again, some more photographs for perspective for the board
indicating unit A and unit B, which would be two single family homes. And you can see the bottom
Left photograph, as well as the top left photograph, this is a home under construction next door with a garage, and our house will be similar in layout in that there is a garage on the first floor.
Subdivision plan indicating the equal distribution of the two lots, partial A and partial B.
floor plan there is a basement there would be a living room in the basement with an access well
on the first floor garage bedroom second floor will have the living area dining and kitchen
and on the third floor two additional bedrooms so it's a three -bedroom home with a rooftop deck
and a garage this is the elevation that we have revised per the community group suggestion
again just some more perspectives for the board this is the red brick which was desired by
the RCO we also changed the height of the parapet wall as well as the garage door
the remaining documents are typical documents that we would see in a presentation such as this
tax certification. I wanted to get to the zoning map just to show the board
that the size of the lots on the block as compared to our property, you can see they're all about
the same size. Some are below, some are over 1 ,000 square feet. Ours are just a little bit
over 1 ,000 square feet. So it does fit in with the remainder of the block. One other document
I went to show the board was the zoning record from the adjacent property at 330 Carson Street
right to the west. Single -family home with private parking garage was granted in October
of 2018. Here's the zoning use permit from that time period, again, indicating single -family house
with the garage. So in summary, this application or request for variance basically fits in with
the remainder of the block. It's in harmony with the code. We're not asking for any issue
with regard to height, open space, or rear yard. And we have generally the non -opposition
of the community group. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would rest and ask that my client
adopt a testimony? Sure.
Mr. Flanagan, can you
unmute yourself?
Mr. Flanagan, can you please
raise your hand?
Mr. Flanagan, can you please raise your hand?
Brian, can you hit raise your hand as an icon on the screen?
Brian, can you
raise your hand as an icon on the screen?
Mr. Flanagan, please unmute yourself. We'll wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Flanagan. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Brian Flanagan, B -R -I -A -N -F -L -A -N -A -G -A -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Flagon. Have you heard my testimony?
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
And one thing I just wanted to point out for the board, I've been showing the wrong elevation of the house.
This is the elevation that the community group approved, which is a change in color from from red brick to a lighter color to match some of the existing homes on the block.
So I just want to clarify that for the board.
And isn't that correct, Mr. Flanagan, that we are now changing the elevation to a lighter brick and also including some glazing on the front garage doors?
That is correct. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Flanagan.
Thank you, counsel.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just have a quick question for Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Clinton, you mentioned something about a change in height of the parapet.
Is that a change on the site plan?
No, that will not affect the site plan, Ms. Emerson.
Okay, thank you.
Sure. The other thing I should mention is the two lots that we're subdividing will be 1 ,138 square feet and 1 ,032 square feet. I don't think I said that during the presentation.
You said it was slightly over 1 ,000, but thank you. I appreciate it.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Carolyn Witt with her hand up.
Ms. Witt, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hello, my name is Thomas Kuna, and it is spelled T -H -O -M -A -S, last name Kuna, K -U -H -N -E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am. I'm located at 317 Carson Street.
Proceed, sir.
I just had a general question about what they plan on doing with the telephone poles that are currently in front of that open lot.
Any of the telephone poles that are going to be in the way of turning into the garage will have to be relocated.
In front of another person's house.
Or in between the two houses so it's not obstructing anybody else's access.
That was my general question.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other? Thank you for calling in, sir. Any other questions from the audience?
I see no handshare. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. Sarah Bond, City Planning Commission. S -A -R -A -H -B -A -N -H.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed.
the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning change to rsa3 the dimensional requirements
of the zoning code do not create an economic detriment for the appellant and the proposed
dimensions by creating two lots with front -loaded garage parking conflict with characteristics of
the surrounding neighborhood the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board
deny the variance. Thank you. MI 2022 -005 -934 -332 Carson Street, I vote yes. Thomas Holliman,
my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes. Thank you,
Council. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're going to jump to case number four, MI -2022 -006 -008 -6300
Drexel Road. Recommendation of support from the Overbrook Farms Club.
Applicant also has a letter of support from the nearby neighbor.
An historical commission confirms his properties in an existing historic district.
Jacqueline Blinstead, and William Rush.
Ms. Blinstead is coming back in as a panelist.
Sure, thank you.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Jacqueline Binstead, J -A -C -Q -U -E -L -I -N -E -B -I -N -S -T -E -A -D.
Jacqueline Blinstead, J -A -C -Q -U -E -L -I -N -E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And this is for the erection of an addition above and at the side of an existing detached
structure, detached accessory parking structure, for no change to the existing single family
household living for the addition of an accessory dwelling unit for no change to the two structured
garage off -street parking spaces size and location as shown in the plans whereas the expansion of a
non -conforming structure is not permitted in the required rear yard and the required rear yard
in the rsd3 zoning district is 25 feet our vice chair has a few questions for you okay okay
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits into our offices five days in advance of this hearing?
The exhibit was emailed five days in advance and one support letter I emailed on Monday, just two days ago.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Green button on the bottom.
I had it.
Share screen.
Share screen.
Well, this is harder than it looks should be right at the bottom right the green screen
little green arrow share screen right at the bottom of the zone right i'm clicking it
i click on the share screen and then it should open up another window giving you options of
what document you would like to share right click on the document then you can hit that
other shit yeah there you go you're up oh you can see it oh fabulous we're up all right great
Great. Okay. So as you explained, the refusal is for an addition on top of and a little bit to the side of a non -conforming structure, my garage.
Here's the application for appeal, project information form. You're seeing all this?
Yes. Okay. The deed for myself and my partner, the co -owners, and here's his authorization letter allowing me to speak on his behalf.
Tax cert. Here's the full zoning information. We'll get a little bit more detail a few slides below.
It's a corner property, so posting on both sides of the street.
So here's more detail. This is what we would like to enlarge. The garage would be underneath this
and there'd be a little addition to the side and an apartment on top of the garage. No change to
the existing house, no change to the side yard. This is the existing house. This is the garage
that's there now and we would like to build on top of it and a little bit to the side. No change to
the house. And we'd like the garage to be made as if it was a historic carriage house that's
always been there. So we'd like to use the same kind of Pompeian brick with the same kind of
brick pattern. So this is what you would see from my driveway. This is what you would see from my
next door neighbor's house. This is what my backyard neighbors would see from their backyards.
This is what you would see from the side street. There's a big yard in front of it, but you would
see that from the side street, from Lancaster Avenue on the side. So this is the garage. It
could fit two cars. The small addition to the side would be primarily for the stairs and a small
elevator. So my mom could get to the apartment above. And this would be her living space. So
a little bit of storage for the stairs and the elevator, but living space would be above the
garage. So this is what's there now, and this is what we would like it to be. So it would look like
And this is what we would like it to be.
So it would look like it's been a carriage house that's always been there.
it's been a parish house that's always been there.
So this is the footprint now.
This is the garage footprint now.
This would be the additional little bit of footprint.
These are some neighbors that have two -story garages that look a lot like their main houses.
And I want to keep in that style.
So this is what you currently see from Drexel Road.
This is what you would see if it was built.
This is what you currently see from Lancaster.
This is what you would see from if it was built.
We sent the letter to 70 plus neighbors
about the RCO meeting and today's meeting.
And the RCO meeting, the seven board members supported it,
and none of the other attendees at the meetings
had any opposition.
The letter from RCO.
This is from the Historic Commission explaining
that uh an adu is okay because it's a historic district and this is the support from my the
support letter from my next door neighbor that's it questions from the board no mr chair no mr
chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience i see no handshare planning commission
Thank you, Chair. Sarah Bond, S -A -R -A -H -B -A -N -H. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single -family zoning. The proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2022 -006 -008 -6300 -Drexel Road, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
All right. Number two, MI 2022 -005 -970 -2797, Welsh Road. Joseph Consul is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from the Home Circle Civic Association.
Mr. Consul is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Consul. You've already been sworn.
State your name for the record, please.
It's Joseph Consul, C -O -N -S -O -L -E.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My client is Ms. Nadine Ellerby, and she is the owner of the property.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed into our offices all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this hearing five days in advance of this case?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Did that work?
It does.
All right. So this property is 2797 Welsh Road. It's on the corner here of Welsh and Sharpley. The property that we're here for is the, if you're facing it, the left house of this attached house here.
The reason we're here, and I'll move my packet over here, it's because Miss Nadine Ellerby shortly after moving in paved a portion of this area on the left here to use as an additional parking for a second car in front of her house.
And unbeknownst to her, she required a variance because that was encroaching on a required front yard.
And so after several years, it eventually got around to being in front of L &I, and they told her that she needed to get this variance.
So she's here seeking approval to use these two spaces in front of her house as parking.
As you can see on this road, there's lots of parking up and down.
In front of her house is blocked off, and it really should be blocked off even further because cars have been hit, parked, her car specifically, parked in front of her house prior to her actually creating the space first.
Her car specifically parked in front of her house prior to her actually creating the space for herself, because this corner here, and if she's on, which I believe she is, she could attest to how fast the cars whip around this corner here.
So we were here seeking approval to use that space as parking for her.
We went in front of the Home Circle Civic Association.
We got full support. Everyone thought that that was a fine thing for her to do, given the location of her property and the lack of opposition.
Proof of our mailings.
And just proof of our photos.
We submitted plans to legalize this as was required by L &I. So those are the plans that she had drawn up and submitted.
and our tax clearance certificates and proof of ownership for Ms. Nadine Ellerby.
She took possession in 2018.
I don't have anything else to add except to call Ms. Ellerby.
Ms. Ellerby, could you raise your hand if you're on the chat?
I'll get to it.
and miss you can unmute yourself okay can you hear me good morning could you state your name
please and spell it for the court reporter okay my spell my name nadine n -a -d -i -n -e last name
ellaby e -l -l -e -r -b -y right you swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. I do. Proceed, counsel. Good morning, Ms. Ellerbee. Good morning. How are you? I'm well.
Did you hear my testimony now regarding your property on Welsh Road? Yes, I did. Do you have
the car pictures? I don't know if the board needs to see the vehicle being smashed up, but you can
briefly find out the danger posed at this corner here. Briefly, briefly, please.
would you just tell the board? Yeah, they even put a stop sign there. We really was talking
about getting speed bumps. Cars come down shiply and it's just bad. People's car, my car got hit
one night at 3 .30 in the morning. They hit my car, ran that corner right there. See how the tree is
tilted? The brown stuff at the bottom of that pole was from a car hitting it. People can't even park
around the corner that's how bad it is right there you see the stop sign on your right hand
they don't stop no one stops and that's a real I didn't know when I brought the house that the
intersection was that bad it's a real bad and I had I moved my car because I was just shocked
how fast they come down there and they tore my car up I wasn't even there a year
okay I have nothing further to add questions from the board
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Hi, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single -family zoning.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the variance.
Thank you.
M -I -2022 -005 -970 -2797, Welsh Road.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Blishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, board.
Thank you.
We're going to go to number nine.
MI 2022 -006 -005 -310 West Queen Lane. Michael McKillney is the attorney. There is a letter
of support from the FAIF CDC with provisions and letter of support from, or letter of non -opposition,
I'm sorry, from Solo Germantown.
They also have provisions.
Chair, Mr. McElhaney is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Could you identify your client, please, in relationship to the property?
My client is Mazaltov, M -A -Z -A -L -T -O -V, Development LLC.
Gary Murray Jr. is the member of the LLC.
All right. And our our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
all right and our our vice chair has just a few questions for you good morning counsel do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed
in all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance of
this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed and share your screen
There it goes.
Apologies for the delay.
Here we go.
Mr. Chairman, can you see the index on the screen?
We can.
Excellent.
My name is Michael McElhenney, M -C -I -L -H -I -N -N -E -Y, with the Law Office of Orphanities and Toner,
here on behalf of the owner of Mazel Tov Development.
As a preliminary matter, members of the board, we have at a pre -marked exhibit packet,
Exhibit 9 is our ZBA appeal.
Exhibit 10 shows just the property was posted with zoning notices and the community meeting
notices.
Exhibit 11 is the 14303 notices.
We did meet with the RCOs twice, January 12, 2023, and February 21, 2023.
23. My client's deed is at Exhibit 12 and the tax report showing all taxes that are currently due
have been paid. And actually, as of yesterday, all the taxes have been paid. As Mr. Chairman
referenced, we do have a letter of support from the coordinating RCO that's at Exhibit 1. And a
second RCO sent a letter of non -opposition with some provisos. Exhibit 2 is the refusal for the
subject property. My client is proposing to erect an attached building with a roof deck, roof deck
access structure, a three -story building for single family use. And we are requesting an
off -street parking garage at the rear of the property for one car parking and with a second
store for storage. The property is zoned RSA 3, which creates dimensional and use refusals based
off our plan the garage that we're proposing is 19 feet high whereas the code by right is 10 feet
the rear yard depth is 15 feet our proposed is zero we're building back by the rear property line
and third we are attaching to the neighboring building to the south of us as this building's
property 16 feet wide an 18 foot side yard will be impossible
exhibit three is the aerial map the zoning map and then an aerial map or two
The property is zoned RSA 3, which is on the east side of West Queen Lane.
We are surrounded by RSA 5 to the north, RM 1, RM 4, and CMX 2 .5 across the street, and then CMX 2 .5 to the south of us.
Photograph 2 of Exhibit 3 is just orienting the board across the street from our property is a PHA development, and the middle ground of open space is actually cemetery ground.
And the third photograph, this is a photograph showing aerial map with the deed lines. And the reason I included this is our property is 310 West Queen Lane. Most of the properties are rectangular in nature. One thing that's unique here is 312 Queen Lane is rectangular.
But at the end, behind 310, there's actually a 15 by 15 foot area that will never be built on by 312.
It's not really buildable. It will create a buffer space between our garage that we're proposing at the rear and 308's garage that's at the rear of its property line.
Photograph four is showing the other properties on this block of West Queen Lane that are that have rear garages, properties at the rear of Pulaski Street.
at the rear of Hansberry Street to the east, Morris Street to the south, it's common for the
properties in this block in this area to have rear garages that are at the rear property lines as we
are proposing with our project. Photograph four or exhibit four is just an aerial view, a 3D view
showing the neighboring properties, John B. Kelly School to the east, Germantown Cricket to the east
as well, and the PHA housing development opposite our property. I'll jump to Exhibit 5, which are
photos of the subject property in block. We are the vacant lot in the middle of the screen to the
left of the White House. To the left of our property is a cobblestone curb cut and driveway,
and that's a common access drive for 308 to the left of us and 310, which is our property.
The properties to the going north are residential buildings and then commercial at the corner, three -story structures.
North are residential buildings and then commercial at the corner, three -story structures.
And to the east of us, looking at page three, are residential properties, none of which have these, the neighboring properties don't have an eight -foot side yard similar to what we cannot have.
Going south on the block are just other residential houses, all of which have off -street parking as we are requesting with our property.
at the farther south southern end we have single family houses and abandoned and abandoned house
and then at the far end of the block at marsh street we do have a new construction condo
apartment building that property zone cmx 2 .5 and then resident apartment buildings and a chinese
restaurant the properties on the west side of the property are residential in nature three -story
and two -story structures and directly opposite our property is the PHA development that I referenced
and I took a photo at page eight just showing the on -street parking availability but we are
proposing off -street parking similar to the other properties on this block and area of the Germantown
area. I did take a photo of the screenshot of the potter's field the burial ground across the street
from us. And to the north is just other PHA properties and the commercial properties at
the corner. Moving on to exhibit six, which is our site plan. The proposal is for, the property
itself is 16 feet wide. It's 130 feet deep, 130 and seven inches deep. The front of the property,
I'm going to zoom in for the zoning table. The front yard's an eight foot minimum required. We
have a 20 foot front yard. We're matching the property we are attaching to, to the south.
We will have a steps walking up to a recessed entryway. The property will be a three story
with a roof deck and it'll be approximately 33 feet tall. They're under 34 feet tall.
i did reference that common driveway between 310 our property and 308 that's evidenced on the
the zoning plan at the rear of the property we end up with a 44 feet seven inch open space rear yard
part of which will have pavers or paved so allow the car to come in and out of the rear garage
and at the very rear we're proposing the garage structure that'll be approximately 19 feet tall
it's 20 feet deep 16 feet wide for one car parking and as i mentioned before behind our property
the 312 west queen lane has a 15 by 15 foot segment that buffers our property with the
neighbor's property at 308 that has the big rear garage at the back of the property
turning to the elevation just showing the three -story structure
with a mansard roof in the front and the pilot house towards the back which makes it
not as visible from the street and for the garage we made clear to the neighbors and as on our plan
the ground floor is store is for the car the upper level will be just a storage space non
non -living space, which was one of the provisos from the RCO. They do not want that to be living
space. Exhibit seven is a rendering of the proposed structure. We're proposing red brick
building, as Mr. Murray has done on his other properties, with that mansard roof on the front,
sloping and creating an eased transition into the roof deck.
and the third photograph of page three of this exhibit just shows the proposed second story
garage at the rear of the property and as I mentioned on the front we're matching the
front property lines of the building we are attaching to the side yard of eight feet as I
mentioned is not possible here where the property is 16 feet wide you would be left with an eight
foot lot to build on with and that's not that's not possible as far as the layout looking at page
two of exhibit seven we are proposing a four bedroom three and a half bath building uh the
community did request no bedrooms in the basement as part of this we do not have a basement so that's
not an issue here um the proposed ground floor is currently set up with one bedroom and a bath
it's designed as the conceptually the client was looking to do a house where a in -law or a parent
could live with the family, but the lower level could be an office, a den, or other use.
But it's really designed to have full living space, bedroom, bathroom, living room for an
older individual as part of the family to live at the property because it is a large house that's
because it is a large house that's being proposed. The upper level at the second floor is one
being proposed. The upper level at the second floor is one bedroom.
bedroom, full kitchen, living room, half bath, and then the third floor is a bedroom, two baths,
and a master bedroom at the front of the property, and then access to that roof deck.
At Exhibit 8, I just included historic photos of the house that used to be at the property.
at 310 West Queen there was a house and the rear of the property was used for
parking along with 308 that both properties use that common drive to access the rear rear of the
property in the rear garages and the last exhibit was just a Sanborn map just showing the common
drive between the properties and the garages that are at the rear of the property I'd submit to the
board that this with the support of the community a single family house at this property at this
location with the rear off street parking where there's an existing curb cut and common driveway
is a acceptable use it brings cars off the street does not have any detriment to the community and
in fact is a betterment of the community that is seeking more single -family houses
in this neighborhood with that members of the board I can answer any questions that
may be or have my client come on to adopt my testimony or answer any additional questions
you're okay with the provisos so the provisos from solo germantown we're we cannot do grass
in the front yard because part of my client listen i'm fine okay i have interior trash storage
no sleep and accommodation on ground floor and no household living in garage
yes we're okay with those we have trash inside because especially with the rear garage we can
store trash in the in the garage if necessary separate from the house all right could you
bring your client on mr murray could you please raise your hand
mr murray please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
hi mr murray could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
Mr. Murray you have to unmute yourself
Mr. Murray
counsel you're an officer of the court we'll take your uh testimony um questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr jim questions or comments from the virtual audience
Chair, we have Allison Weiss with her hand up.
Ms. Weiss, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Ms. Weiss.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, thank you.
Allison Weiss, A -double -L -I -S -O -N -W -E -I -S -S, Solo Germantown Civic Association.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Uh, yes, I am quite puzzled by the fact that they cannot do grass in the front area, because that was a large part of the discussion at the meeting was greening the areas at that site.
So I don't understand why there is no provision to add a front lawn.
So we want to comment on that.
Yeah, and it's not that they can't do grass in the future. We don't want to commit to that, especially with the ground floor being proposed for an elderly person to be living there. We might have to install ramps for a future owner, and we need the access and availability of those options.
If grass is required, that could prohibit who could live in that front unit or change the design.
that there was a large discussion at the meeting about how a disabled person would enter and we
were told that the side and the rear had a same there was no need for a step in the rear elevation
or the side so that the person was able to access the property in that manner not having to use the
front as an entrance. So we're a little confused. That is correct that the rear could have an
access that's ground level or a sloped ramp, but I don't think it would be proper to have
an elderly person or handicapped or whomever might be in that first unit to force them to
to force them to only use the rear entrance.
only use the rear entrance. I just don't understand.
I just don't understand why that didn't come up at the meeting when we discussed it at length.
It did.
No, it did not.
We were told very clearly that the access could be in the rear and that grass could be installed in the front,
because they talked about having a cement patio in the front.
and we said we would prefer to have more greenery and there was like i said there was a long
discussion about how a person could enter that property without having a ramp and that there
was the entrance in the rear of the property that was at the same level and it entered right into
the apartment of the well it's not even an apartment it's a it's a room in that house
So if there's some plan for a future time to turn that into a multifamily, then we need to address that now.
There is no multifamily application as part of this proposal.
It's a single family use as requested by your community group extensively over the years.
The commitment of a proviso of grass in the front was not agreed to.
Could it be installed in the future?
It could be, but the client needs options for accessibility and viability of the property while giving the community what they want, which is a nice single -family house.
Well, it's going to be very difficult to install grass over concrete.
Well, concrete can be removed, just like if we put grass down and the house is next to it on a patio.
It's very expensive.
Ms. Weiss, I understand your position.
Thank you.
is there anyone else in the virtual audience chair we have charles richardson with his hand
up mr richardson please unmute yourself and wait for the chair good morning mr richardson could
you state your name please and spell for the court reporter good morning mr chair charles richardson
from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall richardson is spelled r -i -c -h -a -r -d -s -o -n
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Proceed, sir.
Councilwoman has no opposition to the proposal as it stands, and she will stand behind the RCO, the coordinating RCO who wrote the letter with regard to support for the property.
Thank you very much for calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
chair i see no other hands at this time planning good morning planning commission please
mr chair sorry this is hillary i just had a quick question for mr mckelony um one of the
provisos that was suggested by both of the rcos was no sleeping accommodations on the ground floor
but it sounds like you're saying that you want to have that um as an option potentially for
and like an in -law suite in the future i did not see that proviso it just says i just read that to
you you know it says no bedrooms in the basement we don't have one of them one of them referenced
the first floor as well yeah like it because there is no yes there is no basement but it that's why
both says ground floor i had i had written ground floor because it had basement and one of the
letters also referenced that there was a first floor. Yes, we are not agreeable to not having
a living space on the first floor level. We are agreeable to no basement and no living space in
the basement. Okay, but there is no basement. Yeah, there is no basement. I did not catch that
on the rco letter the the clarification from the community meeting was no bedrooms in a basement
we confirmed there's no basement level being added or dug or affecting the neighboring property
in terms of excavations but the i don't think that a bedroom on the first floor creates the
same concerns that some communities have with bedrooms in actual basements okay just like any
other residential house on the block that can have a living space on their first floor and and does
okay that that's what i wanted to to verify because there was no yeah there was no basement
but they were still asking for a proviso for for no bedrooms that sounded like on the ground floor
the first floor so that's i just wanted to verify whether or not your client supported that
i could have him raise his hand and come on himself he is back trying to unmute but um that
would eliminate the whole point of having a family member being able to live with their family
in terms of an apparent caregiver situation.
So that would affect the concept for sure.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
You have no household living in the garage.
You have no household living in the garage?
No household.
No household living.
And the owner is not available.
The owner is not available.
I'm sorry, Chair.
Hi, Sarah.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Murray, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Murray?
It looks like he's trying to unmute, Chair, but it's not unmuting.
Let's go to the Planning Commission.
thank you chair sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission s -a -r -a -h -b -a -n -h
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single family zoning
the appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances
or conditions of the property the city planning commission recommends that the board deny
both the use and dimensional variance. MI 2022 -006 -005 -310 West Queen Lane. I vote yes
with proviso. Interior trash storage and no household living in garage.
i'm not sure if he's there okay ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso james snell my vote
is yes with proviso
Is your U yes too?
Thomas, yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes.
Can you do your name?
I'm sorry.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes, we're proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 11, MI 2022 -005 -931 -622 North Front Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
um letter of non -opposition from council member squilla
with provisos letter of support for northern liberties neighbors association
mr council you you've already been sworn could you state your name for the record please
joseph council c -o -n -s -o -l -a can you identify your client in relationship to the property
Yeah, the client is the Iron Dahlia LLC. Representatives are Steve Stiles and Jacob Godshall. They are the tenants for the space that we're here to discuss.
All right. Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Good morning. Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay. Hey, everyone. Joe Consul here, 622 North Front Street.
The proposed first floor tenant of this space is the Iron Dahlia LLC.
see those uh it's two um body artists steve and jacob and they're on the call to verify my
testimony we are here seeking a special exception to use this space this commercial first floor
space as a body art studio uh zone cmx2 so we have a referral we uh met with nlna in february
they support the application. They ask that our hours be 10 a .m. to 9 p .m., which my clients
agree with. They have some trash storage and pickup provisos, which we agree with,
and a sound noise proviso, which my clients also agree with. And the plan that we had submitted
showed four workstations, and that's the max they wanted to include in the proviso to the extent
that's something you can put on the proviso we agree with that as well
proof mailings here's the photos this is what the spot used to look like
it was in home care service sort of distribution spot and there's the space
the setup what the property is going to look like when it's ready to go and we include
what the property is going to look like when it's ready to go and we included in the packet just
some information about the clients some examples of their art as well as a copy of their lease
and the necessary tax documents and project information form all follow that in the packet
i'll call either steve or jacob to adopt my testimony
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Gottschalk, will you unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Jacob Gottschalk, G -O -T -S -C -H -A -L -L.
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed counsel good morning jacob did you hear my testimony right now regarding
uh iron dahlia and your lease at 622 north front street yes i did do you agree with what i said
and do you adopt it as your own yes i do okay questions from the board
no no chair no no questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair i see no hands at this time planning commission
thank you chair sarah bond s -a -r -a -h -b -a -n -h philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed use zoning
The proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the special exception.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -005 -931 -622 North Fern Street.
I vote yes with provisos.
Hours of operation 10A to 9P seven days a week.
trash stored in rear yard, no exterior music, and maximum of four workstations.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, Board.
Council. Number 12, MI 2022 -005 -952 -1469 North 57th Street. Eli Gabay is the attorney for the
owner. Letter of support from HMC Square Community Association.
Chair, we have Mr. Ginsburg with his hand up. Would you like me to promote him?
Please.
He'll be coming back in shortly as a panelist chair.
good morning mr chair good morning to the board this is lionel artem ginsburg l -i -o -n -e -l last
name a -r -t -o -m hyphen g -i -n -z -b -u -r -g uh for noah properties llc i'm here with uh with ziff noah
the owner of noah properties llc and i'm here in place of valley goodbye and i'm ready to go
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Identify your client, please, in the relationship to this property.
This is Mr. Ziv Noah. He is the owner of Noah Properties LLC, which is the owner of the property.
Thank you. And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents to proceed with this case and exhibits five days in
advance of this hearing? We have. Thank you. Please proceed with you and share your screen.
Can you turn your video on? There you go. Thank you, sir. Proceed. Yep.
here we have 1469 north 57th street the denial here is because the property
is zoned rsa5 for for some unknown reason as as the panelists can see the corner
here is a uh was formerly a store a bodega of some
is a was formerly a store a bodega of some sort going back to the construction of the building
the building got uh rescheduled rsa 5 i guess at the last remapping uh the issue inside is is that
the uh the former store area is on a lower level than the rest of the building and as a result
even if you were to expand the rest of the building to include that there would have to
the interior steps put in to put it on the same level. The proposed change is to make the corner
former bodega a one -bedroom apartment with handicapped access. Hold on one second. I will
switch to here is the here is the deed showing that it is owned by noah properties llc
uh the rco supported the change with the following provisos that the first floor is
wheelchair accessible that the landlord's responsible for snow removal and that the
landlord will put a sign in the window with his contact information for the property management
company in case there are any problems with snow or trash uh there were seven support one non -opposition
from the rco could you put that letter up please yep one second get that back into zoom
one second i'm having zoom issues
All right. Why is it not letting me share?
I need to have it as well, just in case.
You should have had this supplied, but let me...
I'm sorry.
We just see the building.
Yeah, I'm having technical difficulties. Give me one second.
The window that is letting me select the application is not coming up.
i'm sorry i'm having technical difficulties give me uh let me stop share and reshare hold on a
second
it is not letting you screen share one moment i'm sorry if you want to skip to the next listing
i'll get it fixed we have copies of it right yeah you have a copy of the rco it was given to you at
the last yes what was the vote what was the vote sir the vote was the vote was uh seven in favor
and one uh not opposed okay proceed keep going keep keep going on the
basic issue the basic issue here is whether this whether this corner property which should be
which is down on a lower level from the rest of the building already has separate meters already
has separate uh everything uh should be usable as an apartment and the uh i'm sorry i'm really
i'm going to have an apartment on the first floor apartment on the second floor
it would only be a first floor apartment because the if you see the rear of the property that goes
up to the second floor and goes through to the front okay just a corner store okay
it's still not letting me reshare and in fact has locked up by i would have to log back out
of zoom and back in again uh why don't we bring your client on okay all right hey good morning
everyone. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter? Yes, first name
Ziv, Z -I -V, last name Noah, N -O -A -H. I am the owner of Noah Property, sole owner. Right. Do you
swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, counsel.
Mr. I can give a briefing after the whole thing. Mr. Noah, do you support what I have just
stated, do you
adopt my testimony? Yes, I do.
I also have additional stuff.
If there are any questions asked
from the board, I open it up
to questions. I finally got the RCO
did he adopt your testimony yes i do
Did he adopt
your testimony? Yes, I do.
all right questions from the board
no no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no answer this time chair planning commission
let me try that again thank you chair sarah bonn philadelphia city planning commission
s -a -r -a -h -b -a -n -h the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential
single -family zoning the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of this property
the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance
Thank you. MI 2022 -005 -952 -1469 North 57th Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, I vote yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thomas?
Counsel, you have your three votes.
Thank you.
Number 13. MI 2022 -005 -967 -929 -North 19th Street. Oleg Sokoloff is the attorney.
There is a recommendation of support from the United Francisville Civic Association.
Mr. Sokoloff is coming back in as a panelist now, Sharon.
Okay. Good morning, counsel. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Oleg Sokolov, O -L -E -G -S -O -K -O -L -O -V,
on behalf of the applicant, 200 West Girard Holdings, LLC, and I have with me a Ms. Jennifer
Tran as representative of the entity. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do, Chair.
our vice chair has just a few questions
thank you
good morning counsel
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy
good morning Mr. Shahid I do
have you emailed all the
required documents and exhibits
required to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing
thank you please proceed
thank you very much
good morning to you as well
is everybody able to see that
yes okay great i will i will attempt to be as brief as possible as this board has heard a number
of these requests from from me um we are here seeking permission to use one unit out of a two
unit building for the purposes of visitor accommodation, more commonly referred to as
short -term stay. This property is located at 929 North 19th Street. That would be 19th between
Girard and Poplar. As you can see, the use refusal was generated as a result of this
property being in an RM1 district. Here's the D to 200 Block West Girard Holdings.
I'd like to take you through some photographs of the unit, please.
Here is the property.
Here's the interior of the property.
What makes this property unique is it is a five -bedroom, which, as the board well knows, is not suited for regular long -term rentals, as it would require either a boarding house or rooming house exemption in order to be used.
You can see that this property is immaculately kept by the owners.
A little background, there are no hotels or many short -term stay options in this area,
and this property has been used for this purpose over the years with full compliance with previous City of Philadelphia requirements and regulations.
this is an attempt and a request to bring the property into conformity with the current
ordinances required for visitor accommodation. This property in the past has been used often by
families who are coming in to see newborns or for events for people who live in the neighborhood and
want their family to stay close. As you can see, this property is surrounded by a mix of
As you can see, this property is surrounded by a mix of zoning categories, including CMX 2, CMX 2 .5.
Our project information form.
Our application submitted on 9 -13.
Proof of mailing.
Oh, pardon me.
Community notice letter.
An RCL meeting was held on February 8th with the UFCA, the United Francisville Civic Association.
At that time, we did receive support of the community, which is evidenced by their letter here.
it was quite strong to support, 29 in favor, five in opposition, and four in non -opposition.
And here is our tax status showing that all taxes and other assessments on the property
have been paid. If I may, Chair, I would like to invite Ms. Jennifer Tran just to quickly
raise her hand and adopt my testimony.
I'm a lot of curiosity. Is there a number of the apartment or the first floor, second floor,
third floor? I'm sorry, Chair. It's the second floor. The first floor is a long -term year -to -year
rental. And the third floor? The third floor, I believe, is part of this unit, too.
Okay, so there's two units. There's two units. There's one on the first floor and then this
larger unit that occupies the second and third floor, if I'm not mistaken, but Ms. Tran can
correct me if I'm wrong. Sure. Hi, Ms. Tran, could you state your name, please, and spell for the
court reporter? Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chair and the board. My name is Jennifer Tran, J -E -N -N -I -F -E -R -T -R -A -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed. Thank you. Good morning, Ms. Tran.
Good morning, Oleg. Yes, to confirm, the unit is on the second and third floor of this two -unit building.
Okay, great. And is it, just so the record, and we're all clear here, is it, has it been described as Unit 2? Is that the mailing address, or is it B?
It's Unit 2.
Okay, great. And did you hear my testimony before the board here today?
Yes, I did.
And do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Is there anything you would like to add to my testimony while you're here?
Yes, please, if you don't mind.
Yeah, so I'm here today because, you know, we just want to be compliant with the new visitor accommodations regulations.
As Oleg stated, I've been managing this rental for over six years since 2016.
We've welcomed over 200 groups to Francisville and also used to host guests in my home a block down the street on 19th Street as well.
And because of the unique large size of this unit, most guests are families or groups of friends, coworkers, or neighbors who come to town for weddings, reunions, college graduations, conferences, sporting events, or just sightseeing.
We don't permit pets, parties, or smoking.
I heavily screen potential guests to prevent parties.
We have a zero tolerance policy, and I'm really proud to say that we have not received any complaints from the downstairs tenant or neighbors in over six years since we've been operating this.
I'm still very much involved in the day -to -day business.
I manage this listing.
I'm the first point of contact for any questions or issues that might arise.
and um uh in closing and with the community's strong support again i just want to be compliant
with the new philadelphia regulation and uh come to the board today to seek this variance that
would allow us to continue the short -term rentals thank you questions from the board
thomas are you back on
we'll get thomas back one after the break questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair my planning commission
thank you chair sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission s -a -r -a -h -b -a -n -h
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning
The appellant has not shown that the property cannot be used in constrict 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 zoning board deny the variance.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variance.
Thank you.
Thank you. MI 2022 -005 -967 -929 -North 19th Street. I vote yes. Temporary variance expires 3 -15 -26, and to be clear, it's 929 -North 19th Street, Unit No. 2.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Counsel, you have your three votes.
Thank you, board.
Is there anyone in the morning group of hearings that case has not been called?
I see no hands at this time, chair.
Thank you, everyone. Let's make sure we send Thomas. Thomas got knocked out. We want to try to send him another introduction. There he is.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
We can hear you now, Thomas. You're breaking up a little bit.
Okay. I'm back. I'm going to try and see if I can get it clear. Okay?
All right. We'll work with you during the break.
Thank you.
all right all right see everyone at 2 p .m thank you very much see you later all right then thank you
Hello? Can you hear me?
Nicky?
Can you hear me, Fatina?
Nicky, Nicky, could you help Thomas a little bit, please?
Okay, Thomas, what's going on?
Oh, yeah, I can hear you.
Can you hear me at all?
Yes, yes, I can hear you.
Am I clear or am I breaking up?
No, you're clear.
Okay, all right.
I was breaking up.
I had to go out and come back in.
Okay, I can hear you fine now.
Okay, but I'm clear now, so I should be okay with the next session.
Is there a question, Nikki?
I don't have a question, no.
Okay. All right, then. Thank you.
Why don't we press...
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's ZBA hearings.
Our vice chair, Ismail Shahid, should be on shortly.
Our board member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, 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, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six 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 answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our executive director,
telling you something. Let's look at our continuances for this, say, afternoon's 2 p .m.
meeting. Number five, MI -2022 -006 -188 -1445 -59 -North 32nd Street. That case is continued.
Are there any comments relative to that case?
I see no hands at this time, Chair
Are there any other requests
for continuances?
Chair, we have someone with the phone number
ending at 3552
Call her with the phone number ending at 3552
Can you please unmute yourself and wait for the Chair?
Would you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Follow with the phone number.
Follow with the phone number.
You get 3552, please unmute you.
You get 355.
Can you hear me now?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Adrian Fernandez, F -E -R -N -A -N -D -E -Z, Swampoodle Neighborhood Process Association, RTO.
All right, do you swear or affirm and tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
What case?
1518 West Lehigh Avenue?
We have no exhibits for that.
That's the first listing.
I'm getting ready to call that now.
Okay, thank you.
I want to ask one more question.
At this time, are you also looking at the 3 .30 continuances, or will that be when -
No, I'm going to have to wait for 3 .30 for that.
I can't get ahead of myself, okay?
Okay, thank you, Chair.
Sure, sure.
Any other requests for continuance?
Chair, we have a Brittany Gardner. Ms. Gardner, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Good afternoon, Chairman. It's Attorney Brittany Gardner, B -R -I -T -T -A -N -Y -G -A -R -D -N -E -R.
I actually represent 1518 West.
Okay, hold on. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, told the truth, nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I do.
You have case number one, which is 1518 West Lehigh.
We do not have any exhibits.
First listing.
Yes, I submitted a continuance request on February 28th.
So I'm not sure.
The case will be continued.
So MI 2022 -006 -211 -1518 West Lehigh Avenue.
That case is continued.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Chair, we have a caller with the phone number ending at 8108.
Caller, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hello?
Hello?
Paula, please unmute yourself.
I believe it's star six to unmute yourself.
Hello?
Chair, they still haven't unmuted themselves yet.
Okay, we're going to move forward.
Number two, MI -2022 -006 -500 -2000 -Hain Street.
Aaron Stratford is the owner.
We have no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
Mr. Stratford.
Aaron Stratford, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
chair i see no hands at this time so mi 2022 006
500 2000 hayne street that case is continued mark must be tried we're going to go to our add -on list
now? We're out on the list. First one, MI 2023 -000 -840 -526 East Mercy Street.
hold on one minute number one the board found that this appeal was timely filed
based on constructive notice of the permit
the appeal is denied with the proviso this matter is an enforcement issue
that is more appropriately handled by the department of licenses inspections
Thomas Holloman
James Snell, appeal denied
Excuse me, Mr. Holloman
and Mr. Snell, can you indicate if you agree with the proviso referring it to
enforcement? Yes, appeal
Thomas Holloman, appeal denied and I agree with the
proviso. James Snell, appeal denied
and I do agree with the proviso. Thank you. Number two, MI 2022 006.
MI 2022 -006 -114 -734 Latona Street.
I vote yes with proviso. Maximum two units. Building height must comply with RSA 5 Zoning District.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, yes, with provisos.
Thank you. Number three, MI 2022 -005 -930 -12301, McNulty Road, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
we're going to go to our our our regular list now we're going to start with number four
mi 2022 excuse me mr chair sorry this is this is hillary we had an additional add -on did you see
that on the list germantown avenue i don't are you looking at the new list yeah oh i i i don't
see that hillary i didn't i didn't see it on the list oh okay it was number four the fourth add -on
on at two o 'clock sure i'll take care of right now okay
that was earlier today right yeah that okay that was okay and we and we have everything we need
with this? We have everything, but if you
don't have the full notes, then I think we should vote it next week because
there were a question about whether to include
a temporary special exception. So MI
2022 -002 -233 -
5607 -13 Germantown Avenue. We will vote
on this next Wednesday at 2 p .m.
Okay, now we're going to go to number four, we're going to start with, right, Hillary?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Okay, MI 2022 -006 -215 -150 Fairmount Avenue.
Justin Epperstein is the owner, applicant, it's pro se.
Mr. Epperson?
Mr. Epperson is coming back as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Hello. Can everyone hear me and see me?
I can. Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Justin Epperson, J -U -S -T -I -N -E -P -P -E -R -S -O -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So this is for the erection of a four -story attached structure, not to exceed 55 feet,
that includes a full basement with egress, a roof deck, access by interior, access stairs,
size and location as per plans for the proposed use as a two -family living the use refusals
one in the cmx 2 .5 district in order to promote active uses at the street level
buildings must contain a use other than residential on the ground floor frontage
within the first 30 feet of the building two under the transient oriented development overlay
district. If permitted under the base zoning district, at least one of the following uses
required on the ground floor, retail sales, commercial services, public, civic, and institutional
uses, office uses, enclosed public spaces, enclosed gardens, and one zoning refusal in the CMX2
commercial zoning district, a minimum rear yard depth equal to the greater of nine feet or 10 %
in the lot whereas the proposed rear yard is at five feet sir have you submitted all the forms
you needed to send into the zoning board uh i did sir and i was speaking to sharon saluda earlier
i'm here for two properties that are adjacent to each other and it would make it would make
more sense if we did 152 first so i mean i'm kind of beginning doing them both together but it would
make more sense at 152 first and yes i did submit everything all the documents that were required
all the documents that were required and i was like i said chatting with her email
and I was, like I said, chatting with her email
with sharon saluda this morning hillary this is uh
with Sharon Saluda this morning.
this is 150 and 152 yes yes i'm sorry i thought i thought it was 150 that was requested to go first
um it is we can go with 152 which is number um just number eight mr chair okay we can do
number eight than number four. Thank you. I'll read that. So MI 2022 -006 -216 -152 Fairmont Avenue
for the erection of a dorm on the four floor, for the addition of a rear deck at the second
floor level of the existing structure, a two -family household living size to be shown, one use refusal
and the CMX 2 .5 in order to promote active level. Buildings must contain a use other than
residential and other than parking along 100 % of the ground floor frontage and within the first
30 feet of the building measured from the front building required first floor. One zoning refusal
not provided at the building additional level nine feet whereas you have eight feet three inches.
Have you sent all your paperwork in for all this?
Yes, sir, I have.
Why don't you share your screen and start?
And by the way, you have a letter of support from Northern Liberties Neighbors Association and a letter of non -opposition from Councilman Squalor.
That's correct.
Green button on the bottom.
Share your screen.
Give me one second.
Is it working?
You see where it says share your screen?
Yeah, I clicked that.
Here you come.
It was just kind of.
You're good.
Directions.
i see all my other stuff up here
okay can can you see that we can okay so uh 152 fairmount ave on the far left there under the red
boxes as you can see also have a couple drone shots to kind of give you a better idea 152
on the far left there you see if you see all these houses here it's 152
four six and eight they're all zoned commercial mixed use cmx 2 .5 but they're all being currently
used as duplexes as in four six and eight current use is a duplex 152 which is the subject property
is currently being used as single family but i would like to renovate it and convert it into a
duplex here's another shot this is from above second street uh i -95 quarter there a little
small section of Fairmount right here. And on the corner, we have these other commercial buildings,
which I think are up above 50 feet high, but you can see the other angle. This is all being used
as residential right now. This is from above. So 152, the subject property right here on the
ground level, a hundred percent of the lot is built on already. So there is zero backyard on
the ground floor. And as you mentioned earlier, the two variances I'm seeking, number one is to
not have a commercial storefront on the bottom on the ground floor and then by me renovating
the fourth floor which would be a dormer here it kind of triggered a rear yard setback
nine feet required but I would only have eight foot three inches and that would be because of
this area right here and as I mentioned before the current existing structure has 100 % of the
ground level built on so by me renovating this it triggered it on the fourth floor for the rear
yard setback. So that's the two variances. Here's the zoning data. CMX 2 .5 allows us up to 55.
We're just going to be renovating the existing structure, not adding anything onto the height.
Here's the layout. I don't know how much you want me to speak to this. I can kind of skim
through this unless you had questions on the layout. It's a standard duplex layout that's
kind of conjoining with the rest of the block, the same layout.
Second floor, I have a kitchen and living room.
Third floor, one bedroom, one full bath.
And then the dormer and the addition on the rear would create me a loft with another full bath up on the fourth floor.
What was the basement again? Show me the basement again.
Here's the basement, bedroom, full bath, utility closet, and then there'll be egress in the
Here's the basement, bedroom, full bath.
front.
There's already an egress window in the front.
Like I said, the whole block is all kind of built the same with the same front egress
at the ground level.
Renderings from the exterior here, pretty straightforward.
Just kind of goes over the existing building height, existing dormer.
existing building height kind of gives you the layout going from the third to the fourth would
be a spiral staircase and then here's the uh city plan with parking the streets showing the egress
well here in the front and then like i said before the ground level is already 100 built
on with the existing structure there so that's kind of it for 152. we'll go back to one other thing
never mind that's on the next one but um yeah so that's the area do you have any questions on
what i presented thus far questions from the board
no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission see no he is at this time thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair david fecto f -e -c -t -e -a -u with the city planning commission do you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank you
david uh thank you sir the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed
use zoning at this location, the applicant has shown that the current zoning creates a hardship
to the expansion of this legally non -conforming residential property. Commission staff has also
received a request from the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association to review the zoning around
North 2nd Street with an eye towards potential zoning map changes. So the City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the proposed variances. MI -2022 -006 -216 -152 Fairmont Avenue,
I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snow, my vote is yes.
Thank you. You want to move on to 150 Fairmont Avenue? Yes. All right, all your paperwork has
been sent in for that. Am I correct? Yes, sir. Proceed. Okay. So thank you for letting me do 152
first. So it kind of makes sense. We already talked about the block and the drone shots and
the zoning. So for 150, right, you can see right here, there's a vacant lot right next door to 152.
Yes. So this is the proposed renderings. And to start with, my goal here is to keep
the fenestrations and the look of the block the same so i still we are a little higher here this
building it looks a lot higher than it really is but the legal building height proposed for 150
is 43 feet and four inches and then the current height of the adjacent buildings are 41 11 so
we're about a foot and a half higher i plan on doing the dormers and the brick and everything
kind of the same to kind of match what's on the block i know northern liberties is pretty
big and strict on that with their local zoning with builders and developers and
or even investors just kind of conforming to what's going on from a fenestration and a look
standpoint so I try to honor that their request with that to kind of build it to make it look the
same and not build a huge blob big building that looks completely different and modern at the end
so I know that's kind of irrelevant to the variances but I just figured I'd throw that out
there here's another drone shot of the vacant lot next door and this is the same thing this one's
zone commercial mixed use and i plan on proposing a duplex here's a overhead shot very similar to
the other one same shot from before same same zoning data before this this current vacant lot
or all these lots are 15 by 37 so the two variances on this are the commercial mixed use
and then with me building new construction i was seeking a variance for the rear yard depth versus
nine to the proposed, which would be five due to the hardship of it not being a very
deep lot and building new construction, trying to squeeze a living room and bedrooms on this
very shallow lot.
And if I wasn't able to get the variance and it being commercial mixed use, it would be
almost next to impossible to create some sort of commercial space on the ground floor with
it only having 30 feet to work with there.
So that's the hardship that I'm seeking there.
almost identical layout to the previous at 152 to include the rest of the block the same same
layout as all the other duplexes it'll be one bedroom one full bath on each floor
And then with this one, there will be, it will be a proposed roof deck.
and then with this one there will be it will be a proposed roof deck
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a Larry Friedman.
Mr. Friedman, please unmute yourself.
The chair.
Hi, Mr. Friedman. Could you mention, state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Larry Friedman, L -A -R -R -Y -F -R -E -E -D -M -A -N, the zoning chair for Northern Liberty, 700 North 3rd Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
As was stated, we are Northern Liberties.
um when when uh second street was rezoned or remapped cmx 2 .5 uh on this on the east side
they went all the way to hancock street and instead of carving out just for second street so
this goes all the way up uh all the way up to laurel we're currently working on that so these
two properties, 150 and 152, were always single family dwelling, RSA 5 and before that R10A.
So when we saw this, we immediately had to get that going. In the meantime, it's what it is. We
got this. This is what we're looking at. We were okay with 152, not requiring the commercial first
floor because, as you can see, it's as is. It blends right in. The problem we had with 150
was it became one of those cherry -picking situations where 55 feet is allowed, but
CMX 2 .5 requires commercial. So, we attempted to work out a compromise position, which was
You could have the residential on first floor, but abide by what would be a multifamily RM1 concept on that end, so it would blend in with the other houses and also maintain a nine -foot setback because the house right behind that is pretty much right up against this.
So if you go up 55 feet, it's way too close to that other house.
So that was our compromise request.
We feel it's fair.
It allows for two units, just like 152, but it doesn't jut up and look semi -ridiculous
because this was never meant to be CMX 2 .5.
So, Larry, say this again.
Ken, you don't like the height of this?
Yeah, we would like it to blend in with the adjacent houses.
Again, CMX 2 .5 is an incorrect zone for this.
It was always single family.
So we're working that out.
But in the meantime, you know, we feel a compromised position would be, yeah, you can have the residential on the first floor, thus having a duplex.
But let's bring that down and let's have it blend in with 152, 4, 6 and all those the houses next door.
And also maintain nine foot setback because because you're right up against that house behind you.
OK. All right. Thank you, Larry. We appreciate it.
You're welcome.
Am I able to come back? Yeah, please.
I was trying to find the raise the hand thing and I couldn't. As I mentioned in the beginning, the proposed 150 is only one foot five inches higher than 152 legal building height. And the five foot backyard, I feel is necessary with the layout with building this new construction property.
and the rest of the block is the ground floor is a hundred percent built on so i would actually be
the only yard that has a backyard the only building that has a backyard on that block
and we are providing it's a corner property so i'm trying to find the uh the ground the first
oh yeah first floor here it is a corner property so there is means for egress egress well there's
stairwell coming out the back and then there's also going to be a fence here with a door just
show the show the uh show the one uh drawing you have above yeah where it shows no no show me the
which one's there yeah keep going no i'm gonna i want the one that shows
how this is going to look compared that's it there okay yeah are you are you saying that's
how this is going to look compared that's it there okay yeah are you
like an optical illusion there that it it looks a little higher but basically because there's a
42 inch parapet wall but it's on a slant and on an angle to kind of conform with that so it
it's not an act it's a rendering it's not a the i guess it just looks a lot bigger than it really
is but you're saying that's only a foot bigger than the the rest of the of one foot five inches
is for legal building height.
And then you would have the parapet wall
that goes on an angle and makes it look
a little bit higher than it is.
But yeah, it just looks like a lot higher it is.
But architect's on line here somewhere.
He might be able to chime into that,
but the legal building height.
Why don't we bring your architect in?
Mike Armstrong, he's on here somewhere.
And then I'll bring up the legal building height over here.
Mr. Armstrong, please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair.
Mr. Armstrong, state your name, please.
Michael Armstrong.
And spell it for the court reporter.
M -I -C -H -A -E -L.
Last name A -R -M -S -T -R -O -N -G.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Yeah. So this section drawing is a good drawing to show.
So the building height for zone -in purposes measured to the top of the roof would be 43 foot four, where the height to the peak of the adjacent buildings was roughly that one foot plus that Justin was talking about, lower than that.
And then you can see we're providing a 42 inch parapet for the roof deck, but no pilot house. It's an unenclosed stair up to the roof deck to keep the height as low as possible.
And then we're also angling kind of like a little mansard roof at the parapet wall to blend in with the other sloped roofs design wise and also kind of help with that additional height of the parapet up there.
Questions on the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments besides Mr. Feldman from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Okay. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location.
the applicant has shown that the current zoning creates a hardship that would prevent the applicant
from building a residential property which will match the character of the block
city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed variances
i 2022 -006 -215 -150 fairman avenue i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
thank you
Let's move to number three.
Thanks, guys.
Thank you.
M -I -2022 -006 -191 -835 East Ontario Street.
Alan Ockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Impact and a letter of non -opposition from Council Member Lozada.
The applicant also provided 10 neighbors on the block, a petition from 10 neighbors on the block.
Mr. Nockamson is back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockamson.
Spell your name for the reference.
Yes, A -L -A -N, last name Nockamson, N -O -C -H -U -M -S -O -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Digno Valio, and he's in the virtual audience.
Thomas, could you do a couple, few of the follow -up questions for me?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required?
All right, five days in advance to this year and did you meet with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
thank you all right so we're going to go talk about 835 -37 ontario streets uh first we'll
Thank you.
review the notice of refusal uh then we have a letter of support from impact cdc the coordinating
rco for this matter as well as a letter of non -opposition in the district council member
We also have a petition from nearby neighbors as well. Then we'll review the user registration permit, 16971, which shows that this property has been previously used as a triplex, and that's one of our refusals.
Next, we'll review nearby RSA properties with non -conforming rear yards, which is another one of our refusals.
And then the third refusal talks about nearby RSA accessory parking, because that's what we're seeking as well.
Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings.
Our RCO meeting notice, where we met with the community at a well -attended meeting.
Our applications for appeal that we filed with the ZBA.
Our deed to the property, showing that Family Home Development, Inc., is the owner of the property.
And again, Mr. Vallejo is in the virtual audience, who is the member of that organization.
And he'll, at the conclusion of my presentation, be sworn in and adopt my testimony as his own.
And then our Certificate of Tax Claims.
So notice the refusal.
So this is an RSA -5 property, but this property has a long history of multifamily use.
And what we're trying to do is combine these two properties at 835 and 837 East Ontario streets, having a building structure, which is on one of the properties and legalizing that triplex, which has been in existence for some time, and then using the side yard for parking.
Again, not uncommon for that to happen. In addition, we're building a structure on top of the existing first floor already, and because of that, the non -conforming use of that, the minimum rear yard requirements not being met, but all, again, it's not being met currently on the first floor.
All we're trying to do is build an addition on the upper floors. So again, none of this is uncommon in the neighborhood, and we'll show that through our presentation.
First, we have a letter of support.
As you can see, the impact CDC supports our application.
Just a little bit of background.
The way that Mr. Valio found the property is his mom lives next door at 833 East Ontario.
This has been an eyesore and it's his property for some time.
So he purchased this property with the hopes of revitalizing it in a way by having this triplex and off -street parking.
So it's really important to him to make sure that this property is no longer a nuisance to his mother.
And then here's the letter of non -opposition, or actually says support here, from the district council member, you know, because the community was in support of this project.
and here's a petition again you know mr you know my my client as well as his mom uh you know are
very familiar with the neighborhood his mom lives next door so he was able to generate a petition
easily from nearby neighbors who would be most directly impacted in support of this project
and then use registration permit again as you can see as of 1941 this property was used as a
triplex. And that's what we're trying to do. And then one of the refusals has to do with
the rear yard depth of the property. And so we just did an analysis based on nearby properties
within a one block radius. And you can see there's a number of properties which would not conform to
the zoning code as well. And as you can see for our property at 835, we do already have full lock
coverage and we're just building on top of it so it's not like we're expanding the building
structure outward just on top but that non -conforming use is creating a refusal
for that reason alone and then nearby accessory parking so 3401 g street
has accessory parking 817 -19 east ontario which is on a block has accessory parking
and then 827 east ontario street has accessory parking and then next door to us at 839 -41
one has nearby accessory parking. And then maps of the area. Again, all we're trying to do is
combine these two lots, have the structure as a triplex, basically have a side yard as off -street
parking. Trash would be stored outside as well. And then this is just from a Google Map perspective
where we are. We're between H &G and Russell and Thayer streets. And then photographs of the
and uh russell and uh fair streets and then photographs of the property as you can see this
property.
property is in desperate need of tlc and that's what my client hopes to do by reinvigorating this
property uh and again his mom lives next door right here and then just you know the zoning notice
posters showing that we did post the property well in advance of today's hearing again you can
see from two different angles we posted both properties and then east ontario street to the
right of the property east Ontario street to the left of the property and then our plans and
drawings again showing that there's an ample side yard for allowance of parking and for storage of
garbage outside and then you can see this is the addition right here and again we're not increasing
the depth of this property this property already has a depth on the first floor which in which is
is a non -conformist that Philadelphia zoning codes.
And then this is just the consolidation plan for the property.
And then this is just our floor plans.
As you can see, there's no living in the basement.
And then the first floor has the unit number one,
and then unit number two is a bi -level in the rear.
And unit number three is the front portion
of the second floor.
Our RCO meeting notice, we met January 12th at 6 p .m., 166 addresses were notified of the meeting, a list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal, Family at Home Development, Inc., you know, it was the client we filed on their behalf, one with the notice of refusal, our private information form, our deed to the property showing that they're the owner of the property,
as well as a certificate of tax plan
showing that they owe no money
to the city of Philadelphia
with respect to real estate taxes.
With that being said,
I would ask that my client, Mr. Berlio,
virtually raise his hand to be sworn in.
Mr. Nockman, one quick question.
Was that a garage next to where you want to park?
Yes, exactly.
That's exactly my example.
Can you show that photo one more time?
Oh, yeah, sure.
so that's a garage right yeah i mean you can see the garage here
and you want to park to the left of that exactly here's the garage right here that's 839 -41
and there's another instance at 827 east ontario in 817 -19 east ontario so there's there are three
instances on this block alone
where there's accessory
parking.
All right.
Could you have your client state his name, please?
Mr. McPherson, what is your client's name?
Mr. Valerio.
Mr. Valerio, please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name,
please, and spell for the court reporter.
Sir, could you state your name and spell for the court?
Digno Valerio.
Spell it, please.
D -I -G -N -O -V -I -L -R -I -O.
dig no valerio okay do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes proceed counsel uh mr valerio uh you heard everything i had to say today about your matter
yes yes okay and it's true and correct yes
yes and you adopt it as your own testimony yes
yes thank you questions from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience chair i see no hands at this time okay planning commission thank you chair and members
of the board, David Vecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential single -family zoning this location. The dimensional variance
for rear yard depth is a documentation of a long -term non -conforming condition. However,
there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this new zoning lot that would
require off -street parking to be provided when it is not allowed in the zoning code. So the City
so the city planning commission recommends the board deny the variances for off -street parking
Planning Commission recommends the board deny the variances for off -street parking.
thank you mr knockinson you want to respond yeah again there's three instances on that block
817 -19 uh 837 839 -41 and there was one other instance on that block where there was off -street
parking so it's not our character to have parking of this sort in the neighborhood
And honestly, it's not the safest neighborhood to begin with.
So having this off -street parking will help allow my client to rent the property for the safety of their tenants.
MI 2022 -006 -191 -835 -East -Ontario -Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
i think we're going to see you a little bit later mr all right thank you sure number six
mi 2022 006 309 2205 to 07 north front street uh ronald patterson is the attorney
we do not see an rco letter yet hi mr chair this is hillary we did get one um over the break there
is a recommendation of support from east kensington neighbors association along with a letter of
non -opposition from council member lizetta thank you very much mr patterson could you state your
name please and spell for the court reporter sure mr chairman good afternoon ronald patterson
P -A -T -T -E -R -S -O -N. Right. 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 and their relationship to
this property? Sure. My clients are Josh Mann, M -A -N -N, and Graham Gernshimer, and they are
the owners of
Curio, C -U -R -I -O,
which is the equitable
owner and developer
and operator of this property.
Equitable owner meaning
this is under an agreement of sale
contingent upon zoning.
Mr. Howellman has
just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon.
Do you agree to waive the reading
of the review?
Yes, I do.
Did you email all the documents that you required?
Did you meet with the RCO, and did you have a letter?
We did.
I don't have a letter, but we have a memorandum of agreement.
I'm sure that the RCO has a letter, Mr. Angleman.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Sure. Thank you.
Can you see my screen?
We did, and then it just went away, Ron.
Oh, okay. Sorry.
Yeah, we're good.
Good. Thank you.
So this application,
there regards 2205 North Front Street.
It is just north of Susquehanna Street.
The property, as you see, is this building here.
It is oddly and peculiarly shaped in an L -shape. It fronts on North Front Street, sorry, and the rear here on Emerald Street.
It is a vacant five -story building. It was built in 1875.
It is an historic building in a sense, not designated historical, but historic in that it was built and used by Fleur, F -L -E -U -H -R, Furniture.
And at one time, it was the tallest building in that area.
Mackensington area. It's been vacant for 17 years. The zoning is located in the CMX 2 .5
commercial zoning district. What's proposed here is to repurpose and restore this fine building
back to life. It consists of five floors, a basement, and a roof. And generally, we'll get
into more specifics. We're proposing to create an eat -in restaurant, a micro hotel, and utilize
the roof by enclosing it and leaving a small portion open for outdoor activities. So as to
the restaurant, on floors one, two, five, and proposed on the sixth floor, which would be the
roof, obviously, we have a by -right zoning permit for that eating restaurant on floors one, two,
and five. The restaurant is to be a French -influenced food restaurant. And so this application
in regards in closing the roof partially, which is by right, and then using the partially open portion.
partially, which is by right, and then using the partially open portions here and here for
the restaurant use. And because the roof deck is proposed to be used for a non -residential
purpose, it's not permitted and requires special exception by the board.
The second use is a proposed micro hotel use or visitor accommodation, as it's called under the
code. It's not permitted in CMX 2 .5, so that requires various relief. What we're proposing
are six units on two floors. So as the restaurant's concerned, as I stated, floors one, three,
and five, we have a permit, we're enclosing the roof, has been designed to capture and
contain and alleviate any sounds emanating from the roof, which would be back here and
on the front. We've designed an enclosure as well as an array of plants that acts as sound
absorbent materials to absorb what we know are the high frequency sounds, which are the ones that
emanate the farthest distance. And to that end, we hired a sound engineer to help us with this
design. And as you'll see, when we get to the end, I'll show you the MOA. We have an agreement as to
no use of glassware, silverware, plateware, and other restrictions as to this use,
and which is why we feel this will have no adverse impacts on the neighborhood. The deck
space is minimal. As I mentioned, all exhaust from the restaurant will be to the roof.
Here's a floor plan of the different floors. Here is the basement, and the basement area here is
where the trash will be stored for all uses.
The hotel use, which we'll get to,
has trash stores on the two floors here and here,
and some trash shoes,
but all trash will be stored in the basement
until it's removed by commercial trash hauler,
which will be removed from this loading area here on Emerald Street.
I'll show you.
Sorry.
All right. That's not good. There we go.
There's some interior photographs of the proposed restaurant.
can you see this exhibit one it did not come up did not come up okay
try this again
We see you.
Yes, I'm going to go back to this exhibit.
You see this exhibit?
We do. We're good now.
There's just some photos on the front on Front Street.
There's a side view. You see this old ghost sign here. This is Emerald Street that I've mentioned. Front Street, this is the corner. You can view the property near the L. Sorry.
It's real important on Emerald Street here is where the trash will be removed and all deliveries will be obtained.
I'll show you a floor plan and some elevations to show you
how the property will be reused here.
As to, so as I mentioned about the exhaust,
the trash, the MOU provides
that we will close the roof at 12 a .m.
We believe that the use of the roof deck
with our design and protections
will cause or create no adverse impacts
over any other permitted use allowed there.
Days and hours of operation,
Sunday, Monday through Thursday,
5 p .m. to 10 p .m. Friday and Saturday, 5 to 11, with the roof closing at 12 as per the MOA.
As to the hotel, we're proposing on floors three and four, six units.
We're proposing six units.
Sorry, can you see the floor plans now? Yes.
Okay. We're proposing six units. Each unit has one bedroom.
Two units are 850 square feet, so they're quite spacious for 450 square feet with a lobby on the first floor.
The reservations will be made by either calling the property or through online, and there will be management online.
So we feel that the hotel and the restaurant does promote and support each other, which is kind of a common combination we're seeing throughout this area.
I did mention about the trash, and I showed you the floor plans.
So, in conclusion, we feel that the peculiar configuration of the property, the buildings, its past current and surrounding uses created unnecessary hardship to viably use the building for permitted use, yet we believe the hotel, as described, will have no adverse impacts in the surrounding area.
As I mentioned, we met with East Kennedy Neighborhood Association and the board several times held a public meeting, and we've entered into a detailed MOA I was showing you on the screen, although we're not offering as a proviso condition to the board because it goes beyond zoning related issues, but more operational issues.
I wanted just to show you that we feel that these issues address any adverse impacts that may arise.
So with that said, I'd like to ask Josh Mann to raise his hand and be promoted as a witness.
State your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter.
May I please unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
State your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter.
Sure. My name is Joshua Mann, J -O -S -H -U -A, last name M -A -N -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Josh, you've heard my testimony and presentation. Would you agree that it's true and accurate?
Yes, I do.
And would you adopt it as if you were your own?
Okay, and you recognize we're here for the roof deck and the hotel, and I'm showing you the rendering here.
And as far as the operation of the roof deck is very limited based upon the MOA, would that be accurate?
That is correct.
And all the trash, both from both uses, will be stored in a basement and removed by a commercial trash hauler?
Yes, indeed.
And how often is that proposed?
Daily.
And so you will be the owner and the developer as well as the operator. Is that correct?
That is correct. Yes.
You have and Graham have years and years of experience operating restaurants.
We do in all around the city.
OK, so you're familiar with the issues and trash and storage and loading. That's what I'm getting at.
Is there anything else you'd like to add that I may have missed or you'd like to inform the board about?
um no i think you covered it okay and lastly we did agree uh uh to the uh the items in the moa
and uh you're comfortable with uh being able to conform with those yes we are absolutely great
thank you um questions from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
here i see the hands at this time okay planning commission thank you chair david effecto city
planning commission mr chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change the
commercial mixed use zoning at this location the applicant has not stated that the hardship exists
that would require granting a visitor accommodation or a non -residential roof deck city planning
Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variances. And I'm sorry, Chair, if I may,
we do have one hand, Ms. Ramos. Okay. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for
the court reporter. Ma 'am, and you're unmuted. Hi, could you state your name, please?
there's something may be going
my apologies chair you can continue okay thank you um mi 2022 006 309 2205 207 north front street
I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon.
Thank you, counsel. Great, thank you. Good afternoon. Okay.
Okay. Number seven, MI 2022 -006 -184 -242 Palace Street, TB 157873. And we're going to hear that
along with number nine, MI -2022, 006182, 242 Callow Street, TA -17157873.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney, and we're going to do both together.
Mr. Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Mr. Nockamson, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Alan Nockamson, A -L -A -N, last name Nockamson, N -O -C -H -U -M -S -O -N.
Mr. Nockamson, could you identify your client for both these projects and their relationship
to the property?
My client is the property owner of B2 Properties Entity 4 LLC.
And then the virtual audience is one of its representatives, Papa Dimbale.
Okay. Mr. Hallman has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the refusal and stipulate this accuracy?
Did you meet with all of the exhibits and documents as required? Five days in advance of this hearing? Did you meet with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
uh yes uh in all respects and actually i do uh object to the accuracy of the refusals in one
respect and remind me of this um but there's an existing curb cut for both properties one of the
properties actually the streets department recognizes the curb cut the other uh property
they don't recognize the curb cut and that goes to the crux of our argument um and as far as
providing all materials five days beforehand we did the only thing is is that we just received
the amended refusal so that and then that was within the five -day period those materials were
handed to Ms. Emerson and the ZBA within the five -day period we would like to present this
matter by reviewing the amended refusal and to for the board to hold for a vote hold a vote so
we can present the amended refusal to the community. Thank you. Please proceed and share
the screen. We've had conversations about that. We will have a resumptive hearing and we have a date
once you go through, okay? Great, thank you so much.
All right, so I'm going to present 242 Kalos Street parcels A and B. These are combined materials.
I did submit separate materials for these separate zoning matters, but for purposes of the presentation, I figured we would streamline the situation as much as possible.
242A Calo Street is actually going to be known as 240 Calo Street, and 242B Calo Street should be known as 242 Calo Street.
During our presentation, we're going to review the notices of refusal, the original ones.
Our request to amend our zoning appeal by taking into account the community input, and we'll explain what we ask to change, and then we'll review the current revised notices of refusal.
um the coordinating rco wissahick interested uh citizens association better known as wicca
did send correspondence to the zba uh regarding this matter but i believe that was based on the
previous drawings they have not seen the current drawings um we'll review maps of the area photographs
of the property example of interior photographs again v2 properties is a pretty well -known
developer in the city of philadelphia they've twice been recognized as developer of the year
by the philadelphia inquirer um at one point they they sold more units than any uh developer in the
city of philadelphia um so they're well known and recognized and acclaimed um so you'll see some of
their interior photographs you'll then we'll review the original plans that we had versus
now the revised plans are RCO meeting notices because we had separate notices sent for each
of these zoning appeals because each property has its own appeal or applications for appeal
as well as the deeds of the property and then our certificate of tax clearance.
Again, Mr. Dembale is in the virtual audience. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that he would virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and then I'll ask him a few questions, and then he can adopt my testimony as his own.
Again, Mr. Dembale is in the virtual audience at the conclusion of my presentation.
And then at the conclusion, again, we'll just ask the board to hold this matter so I can appear in front of the coordinating RCO in the community and make the same presentation to them.
All right. Our notices of refusal, I mean, straightforward is this. We're not trying to increase density here. We're trying to put two single family homes here. We're in a more suburban part of Philadelphia, you know, Wissahickon area. And, you know, we have a curb cut on each property.
and what we originally tried to do was just put a single family home with a front -loading garage
and leveraging those curb cuts and we received a couple refusals so there's a mix between parking
pads and porches in this neighborhood and it was really important you know for the community to
have porches where possible and there's an overlay in that respect and that's kind of where we ran
afoul of some of the items here um and then the other thing is we have like a not exactly a steep
slope but it's the slope is steep enough where we have to be careful where we put the building
structure and it's not the biggest lot you would expect in was to hicken either so we've got a lot
of things to balance off we have a curb cut we want to like repurpose it um one of the refusals
references the existence of the curb cut. This one, 242 Kalos Street A does not, I don't believe,
but 242 Kalos Street B does recognize it. So again, we have a lot of things going on here.
So the first refusal for 242 Kalos Street, again, A, single family, we're not being denied because
of that we're being denied because um we have to have a front setback of at least seven feet to
match the adjacent property to the left of us again you'll see they have a parking pad so we're
trying to match that parking pad but they don't have a porch so that's an issue we're required to
have a porch so and it's not the deepest lot to begin with so originally we were just going to do
a garage
to leverage
the land that we do have
because again, it goes really steep
in the rear too and we want to have a functional
backyard as much as possible
so we moved the building structure
as close to the front as possible
so that was one of the first refusal
we moved it to the lot line
we're not matching
the building facade to the left of us
and then there was something about
the building height we don't need to worry about that we fix that in the next you know round of
revisions and then in the overlay if you see the third refusal for this property we didn't have a
porch where a porch is required for new construction we fixed that as well and then the last thing is
about the accessory parking this one does not recognize her curb cut the other one does and
then here's the other one and this is 242 calo street b uh which is really uh 242 the other one
was 240 same thing trying to put like front loading garage here uh we only got two refusals
for that and that has something to do with the building facade which we don't really need to
worry about but we got no other refusals uh we had nothing about the front yard because the front
yard wasn't to the media left of us wasn't like set back with a parking pad it was all by itself
so um that's where we are with that and then so we met with the community uh honestly they didn't
really like our project too much because you know and i agree with them they felt insulted because
we didn't recognize the overlay in terms of putting together porches having it looked within
the character of the neighborhood and you'll hear me say over and over again if you walk by the
property filters users propose does it stick out like a sore thumb or is it something that fits
with the fabric in the neighborhood so we decided to you know scrap the plans with the front loading
garages because that would be out of character and um these are the things that we asked for
permission to go back to l and i for removal of interior accessory parking added an accessory
surface parking to the front of the building structure which you'll see for 246 in the whole
row that's exactly what is there um adding a front porch to be in conformance with the overlay
now we have because we did the front porch we had to push the building structure back a little bit
so we reduced the backyard depth from 28 feet to 13 feet and we'll talk about that as well if we
did notice or refusal because the notice refusal saying we're not doing 13 feet we're really doing
five feet where nine feet's required
five feet where nine feet is required, but we are because of how steep it goes in the back,
but we are
because
in order to have a functional rear yard, we put a deck there so they can at least have something
to congregate in the back, but that's occupied area. So we did create a refusal with that,
but there's a rationale behind that that's unique to the property itself.
And then we did a walkout basement added to the rear of the building structure. Again,
because of the steep slope we're able to get through the rear through that walkout basement
and then the deck was added to the rear of the building again to have a functional backyard which
kind of goes to one of our refusals so and then we've got the authorization letter from the zba
and then we you know and this is for both properties um and then we got a revised refusal
right and this is for 242 calo street a uh which is uh which is really 240 and we got these three
refusals uh whereas parking in the front and we put porches on whereas the parking in the front
yard shall be prohibited well well first of all um park there has been a curb cut there before
and all we're trying to do is repurpose it and what we're trying to do is mimic what's still
left of us at 246 kilos and all along that street so what we're offering is not out of character
then the next refusal you guys where it stands from the ground level to the deck are prohibited
in the case of an attached building again because of the slope we needed to create steps you know
for our deck to in order to go down um as well as because we have a basement level that kind of
slopes down so that makes sense and then the third thing is about the parking again all we're trying
to just repurpose the existing current cut there now as far as 242 oh and then we have the the
front yard setback um because we're sending it back we're sending it back um beyond what the
setback is for the property to the left of us part of the issue is that we have a porch which
is being required upon us where the porch with the properties to the left of us is not being
required of us. And we want to have a legal parking pad there. So that's why we have the
setback there. And then in terms of the rear yard depth, we're nine feet required, we're in five
feet proposed. We really have 13 feet. It's just the fact that we have an occupied area with the
deck to allow the rear yard to be functioning. And then the same thing is going on with 242
calo street b which is 242 again same refusal this time when they when ellen i evaluated 242
calo street b they have a refusal now about the parking in the front yard being prohibited even
though we have a legal curb cut there where before the parking issue was knocked right up
same thing about the steps with the deck again same thing we have a pretty steep slope
and we need to have a functional rear yard and the rear yard depth as well.
Now, we did get correspondence from Wicca, and again, this really has to do more so with the previous plans.
They did reference the fact that, you know, we are trying to get a parking pad in front.
I referenced it during our meeting. I never stated I was going to do that.
you know, when I since met with them and before this hearing, I said, well, we kind of want to
conform to the overlay requirements of having porches, maybe putting a man's sort of roof on
here, making it fit more within the character of the neighborhoods, but leveraging the curb cut,
the existing curb cuts with parking pads. And then in this letter, they referenced the fact that,
you know, they've been opposed to off -street parking in the past at 241, 247, 249, 279
Rochelle Avenue, which is a completely different block, which, you know, again, I looked at it
online just before the hearing. That's not a block where, like ours, where to the left of us,
there's a whole line of parking paths. So we're trying to, we're mimicking what's there already,
as opposed to those other properties in Rochelle, where it is out of character to have parking
pass. So again, this is the vote based on the previous presentation. Again, we're hoping to
meet with them after today's hearing, and then we'll report back to what they have to say.
But regardless of whatever the community input is, we're trying to really do something that fits
within the character of this neighborhood and the past use of this property with off -street parking.
And then just maps of the area. Again, we're not trying to increase density in any way. These are
rsa5 properties and all we're trying to do is make them single functional single family homes
and then this is just kalos uh street you know from a google map perspective
and then photographs of the property as you can see there's a mix of again we'll see from a better
and then photographs of the property as you can see there's a mix of again we'll see from a better
angle but here's some porches here as you can see this house is set back you can see from here the
there is beginning of the row of off -street parking and parking pads you can also see from
this picture these this is the curb cut right here so it's one existing curb cut that's long
and we're going to leverage it by hopefully having these two homes on it with off -street parking and
then you can see again, this is the posters that we posted prior to today's hearing in conformance
with the code. And then again, you can see that these properties have been vacant lots or of some
sort, not usable lots since 2008. This is as far back as Google Earth goes. So we're hoping to make
these functional single family homes, you know, and I keep stating this over and over again, we're
in strange economic times here.
Interest rates are really high.
Construction costs are very high.
You know, prices are at best stagnant,
if not going down for single family homes.
It's really hard to do these projects
without everything working out the best it can.
And we really do need these off -street parking spots
to make this an economically viable project.
And then you can see,
here's Cale Street to the right of property you can see there's a whole line of off -street parking
and then you can also see there's porches so we have like a friction between trying to match the
character of the neighborhood with the porches but also recognizing that there's off -street parking
to left of us and a whole line of them it looks like there's at least four homes with off -street
parking, which we're trying to mimic. Plus, our past has off -street parking, where it is an
existing curb cut. And then Calo Street, directly across the street from us, there's an apartment
building, which has a parking lot across the street. Not saying that it's apples to apples,
but again, it's not out of character to have off -street parking in that respect as well.
And then this is Calo Street to the left of the property. And you can see that's a little bit of
the parking lot, but also, again, the porches. And then this is just an example of B2 properties.
You know, they really do care about high -quality product and good customer service.
And I always try to give you examples of what bathrooms, living rooms, kitchens are going to look like.
And then these are our plans and drawings.
Again, originally, we were going to put the building structure at the front of the lot with an interior garage.
That did not play very well in front of the community.
And I acknowledge that was probably not the best way of handling the situation.
But we're trying to pivot and fit something more in character.
But the most important thing is, is we're trying to, under the circumstances where you have a steep slope, where you're trying to mimic what's still left of us with off -street parking and the existing parking and trying to get the porches in there.
There's a lot of moving parts here.
And we're trying to do the least modification possible under the Philadelphia Zone.
So again, this is just the first set of drawings.
And you can see this is like, again, the front loading garages, which we do not play well in the front of the community and for good reason.
Now, we switch things up and we have a very solid porch here, which is going to mimic what's in the neighborhood.
We have our deck back here.
And as you can see, we really, our rear yard step is 13 feet.
It's just the occupied area with the deck because, again, the slope, deep slope, if you want to actually have a functional backyard, we needed to create a deck back there, which created some issues with our rear yard setback.
And then this is just the other property as well.
And then just the floor plans, just very, very basic floor plans.
You've got a front porch, you have a living room, you have a dining room, you have a kitchen.
we because of how we had to push the property more forward it's not even that big of a building
structure but it's a nice building structure and then you know we have a lower level where we have
a family room down there um and that's for both units and these are twins essentially and we try
to mimic that twin feel and then you know for the second floor we have two bedrooms a bath a washer
dryer. And then the third floor is a master bedroom that you would expect with a roof deck
on an upper level. And then you can see here, we really did try to mimic the more historical
feel of the Wicca, where we have a porch, brick facade, mansard roof with dormers. We really did
try to mimic that as much as possible. And then we met with the community on January 4th, and
you know on january 4th and there's two sets of uh notices with proof of
And there's two sets of notice.
mailings and things like that and then here are applications for appeal
our deed to the property and it's in one dv2 properties entity four oops
240 and
242 kilos. But for
record keeping purposes, the
city has it as 242 kilos
parcels A &D.
And then there are
certificate of tax claims
showing that
$800 .69 is owed
for, it's still under one
tax ID
number, but that's for 2023
taxes, which aren't due
until March 31st of this year.
With that being said,
I would ask that Papa virtually raise his hand
and state his name for the record, be sworn in,
and we would be more than happy
to take any questions from the board.
Could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court reporter?
we see his hand we see a hand raised no no hands
I see no hands at this time
I see no hands at this time chair just a moment chair two hands have just gone
okay uh Mr. Dockamson what is your client's name uh uh it's uh Papa uh Dembale or it would be
Robert Dewey.
Mr. Popper, please unmute yourself and wait
for the chance.
Could you state your name
and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
My name is
Papa Dembele. First name
is P -A -P -A.
Last name is D -E -M -B -E -L -E.
Do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes.
Proceed, counsel. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Debelli, you heard everything I had to state about your zoning matter.
And is it correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the audience, virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
We have a Carlos Hurtado.
Mr. Hurtado, you can unmute yourself.
Hold on, Hillary.
Hold on a second.
Yeah, so because this is going back to the RCO with revised plans,
I suggest we do all public comment on this matter at the resumption hearing.
Okay, good, great.
Do we want planning to take a position?
If they're prepared to take a position on the revised plans,
or if they would rather wait until after their community feedback in case there are other changes, yeah.
David?
You know, if there could be other changes, I think we prefer to wait.
Okay, good.
All right. So there's going to be for for MI 2022 006184 242 Kalo Street 157873 and MI 2022 006182 242 Kalo Street 157873.
there's going to be a resumptive hearing on april 19th at 2 p .m
and at that time mr chair we will we will take um any uh public public comment uh planning
commission recommendation and of course a response from mr knockamson right thank you
okay thank you mr knockamson stay stay on a minute see where jim is
Bill, I'm sorry
No, no, we're fine
You don't have to be sorry, we're fine
I'm sitting here trying to
become unmuted and I was having an issue
Alright, Mr. Nackamson, number 10
MI 2022
0061717510
Thoron Avenue
Thuron Avenue. Letter of support from the 10th Ward Democratic RCL and a letter of support from
Letter of support from
Council Member Phillips. So, Mr. Chair, I'm going to defer to my colleague, Alex Goldberg,
who will be making that presentation. Yep. Thank you. Mr. Goldberg, could you state your name,
please? Spell for the court reporter.
do we see mr goldberg's hand mr goldberg please unmute yourself and wait for the
can you hear me yes we can mr goldberg could you state your name please and spell for the
court reporter alex goldberg a -l -e -x -g -o -l -d -b -r -g right do you swear firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing about the truth? I do. Is your video on? It's not. I don't think
I'm promoted to be able to do that at this point. Could we do that, please? There we go.
He's been promoted, Chair. He's going to come back in as a panelist shortly. Sure.
Hi. Mr. Goldberg, could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Gregory Granovsky. He's the property owner of 7510 Theron Avenue.
All right. And Mr. Holloman has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, sir.
Good afternoon.
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Did you meet with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, in all respects.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay, are you able to see my screen?
We do.
Okay, great.
Again, I'm Alex Goldberg of Nockimson PC.
I'm here with Greg Granoffsky, the property owner of 7510 Theron Avenue.
We are seeking one variance to use this property as a duplex.
As you'll see in my presentation, this property, along with all of the surrounding properties on this portion of Theron Avenue, were built as duplexes, have a long history of duplexes.
But this one, however, the prior owner had passed away and his estate failed to keep the licensing up.
When Mr. Granovsky purchased the property, he wasn't able to get a rental license.
since it wasn't, you know, able to be legally used as a duplex,
and hence why we're going through this process.
So here's my table of contents.
You have the notice of refusal, just one refusal for the duplex,
a letter of support from the 10th Democratic Ward,
a unanimous letter of support.
And my understanding is that a letter of support was issued by Council Member
Phillips' office.
We don't have that letter, but I understand it was sent to the zoning board.
We have the letter.
Great. And then a map of the 7500 block of Thrawn Avenue.
You'll see nearly the entire block is being used as a duplex.
A red fin posting just to show that when Mr. Granovsky purchased the property, it was advertised as such a multifamily property.
Some maps of the area, photographs, very simple plans and drawings, a meeting notice, the application for appeal, the deed, and the certificate of tax clearance.
So here's the notice of refusal.
So the application is actually for the duplex as well as the removal of an interior off -street parking space.
So these properties have rear -loading garages from a rear alley street.
When Mr. Granovsky purchased the property, there was a make -safe violation for some serious structural images related to the rear wall of the property.
So in order to resolve those violations, which he's done, he sort of infilled the garage with a rear wall.
So that's part of this application.
You'll see it on the photos to make sure, you know, to stabilize the rear of the building.
You know, when Greg purchased the property, he spoke to the neighbors.
A lot of this structural damage had caused water leakage issues during heavy rain flowing into the neighboring property.
So they were quite happy that he was not only cleaning up this sort of dilapidated property, but also fixing those structural issues.
Here's our letter of support from the 10th Democratic Ward.
We met with him on January 25th.
You can see here, he was unanimous, 24 votes of support.
Here's the 7500 block of Thrawn Avenue.
So we took a look on Atlas to see a public record, and you can see 20 properties.
uh to see a public record uh and you can see um 20 properties uh and nestled in the middle
and a green icon is our property actually when we presented at the rco meeting the neighbors were
confused why we this was even happening because they you know in their words this already is a
duplex uh and you know we explained sort of the process uh here's some photos of the neighboring
properties they all look the same they all look the same inside they're all duplexes here's a
real estate listing you can see under about this home this is a listing from when he purchased
the property it was advertised as a multi -family home there's an atlas map the property is between
east johnson street and east cliveden and forest ave and gilbert street and another google maps
perspective here's some photographs so this is the front of the property look
just like the ones I just showed you and the rear you can see here this is the
work that was done to fix those structural issues the properties
currently vacant has been since he purchased it he's waiting for this
permitting to go through hopefully to do some you know cosmetic repairs on the
inside there is one additional interior alteration that I'll show you you know
that's that's useful to the future tenants of this property's property uh here's the notice
posting on the front and on the rear to the right of the property and to the left and here's the
plans and drawings so here's the site plan um the floor plan is very simple the one uh thing that
he's hoping to add to the uh interior here is uh stairs going downward um into a shared hallway in
the rear to allow the the upstairs unit access to the rear because that's where trash is picked up
from this is a mid -block property and they're all attached so not having this um would require
you know either trash yeah i'm not even sure it would have it would require the tenant to walk
around the the existing structures there so now uh you know it's easy for the upstairs tenant to
get to the rear yard here's the meeting notice again we met on january 25th at six o 'clock it
was a well -attended meeting. Here's the properties we mailed and the proof of mailing.
The application for appeal. And here is our deed showing Gregory Granovsky owns this property,
has since 2022. And finally, the tax clearance showing the only outstanding tax for 2023,
which is not quite yet due um with that uh i will ask mr granofsky to adopt my testimony
mr goldberg did you say you were going to show us something inside did i hear that yeah i could
show again so it was just oops can you see the presentation the it was just yeah i was just
referencing the the stairway uh okay all right okay allowing uh yeah the upper level unit access
that's fine all right good thank you
sir could you state your name and spell for the court reporter if you're in the virtual audience
can you please raise your hand mr granowski please unmute yourself
wait here yes hi could you state your name please and spell it for the report reporter
My name Gregory Granovsky is a G -R -Y -G -O -R -I -Y. And the last name is a G -R -A -N is an N -C -O -V -S -K -I -Y. Good afternoon.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Proceed, counsel.
Hi, Mr. Granovsky. Did you hear my presentation today?
And was it true and correct?
And you adopted as if it were your own?
Thank you.
So questions or comments on the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair.
David Fechtow, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this location.
The applicant has shown that the property has a history of use as a duplex.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the use of variants, but deny the variants for removal of an off -street parking space.
Thank you. MI -2022.
Do you mind if I just respond to that briefly?
Go ahead.
Yeah, so just on the point of the rear, the off -street parking space, that was a means to resolve serious structural damage that was causing issues for the abutting neighbors.
um you know so so you know hence why he he sort of filled in the garage
Um, you know, so, so, you know, hence why he, he sort of filled in the garage to stabilize the property.
Okay. MI 2022 -006 -171 -7510 Thoron Avenue. I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. You have your three votes.
Thank you.
Okay. So number 11.
MI -2023 -001438, 7078 Lincoln Avenue, Michael Phillips is the attorney for the appellant, Leonard Reuter is the attorney for the city, and L &I.
This appeal is for the revocation of a zoning permit, 102 -6214.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just want to make a note at the outset because I know there are a number of people here regarding this case. Because this is an appeal against L &I, we will not be taking public testimony. We also want to remind people to please not comment or testify in the chat box. Thank you.
thank you very much um so i think let's see here we have an order of what what we're thinking about
i'll know what let me swear you in first mr phillips could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter good afternoon chairman bergman michael phillips with claire harris and
harvey bransburg on behalf of the property owner slash appellant 7078 partners lt right you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Leonard, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, may it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter for the City
of Philadelphia, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. So this is what we've
worked out today. This is what we'd like to do in the order of the hearing. The city
makes its case for a revocation the appellant explains why the permit should not be revoked
there'll be no public testimony and there will be no recommendations from the planning commission
is that okay everybody agree that's okay with me i wasn't uh planning on going first so it'll just
if you just give me a moment to get to gather some of the sure yeah sure
so what i'll do then is um i would ask that i can share my screen you you can all right
let me i i have to make sure i close other things otherwise this whole thing will crash
that's not it your screen's coming up yep sorry wrong document
michael wouldn't want me to see that
well actually i guess i can just present the what happened here
So a zoning permit was applied for back in October of 2019, and that was a permit to alter an existing structure at 7078 Lincoln Drive.
And I believe Mr. Phillips has provided the board with the zoning documents that he has retained, the site plan that shows this property.
This was an older structure. It is not, I should point out, because I think there might be some confusion in the public's part about this, this is not an historic building in the sense that it is not currently on the register of historic places.
It is a garage dating probably from a garage and auto, possibly at some point, auto repair facility built in the early part of the 20th century.
For a number of years, it had been in dilapidated condition.
In and around 2013, the property had fallen into unsafe conditions and a portion of the roof had collapsed.
I'm not sure whether or not there had been a fire.
I was not able to find any indication of that, although I've heard that that may have been what precipitated the collapse of the roof.
So the roof membrane was removed again at the time violations were issued.
Those violations were for a while complied.
There was an engineering report that was provided to the city at the time, but from 2013 to relatively recently, the only thing remaining at the subject structure was basically the four walls of the building, which is, again, only a one -story structure and some of the roof trusses.
There was an engineering report that was provided to the city at the time.
And let me see if I can try to pull up photographs if I can.
Sorry, I'm on the city's network and computer.
And before, so it was, and I'm not making a complaint about this whatsoever, but it was relatively short notice of this hearing.
i think we found out on friday so i was not able to present witnesses however i believe
and i would hope to get a stipulation from mr phillips about the authenticity of some of the
photos that i'll be presenting i don't think there's any dispute about the zoning documents
so let me share my screen again try to
so this uh is you you should be able to see this is a vote great this is a photograph um
uh showing the property as it existed uh in december of 2021 and you can see
uh the remainders of some of the roofing structural materials um or i should say
the the trusses these were roof trusses um that spanned most of the width of the building
i don't know how many there were i think there were three or four and so the property was
essentially in the condition that you see here pretty much since from 2013 uh up until
i guess approximately september or october of 2022 so a zoning permit had been applied for
to basically rebuild within the four walls of the structure and to build up i believe four stories
additional height keeping the footprint of the existing structure and keeping
the remaining walls with the exception of a portion or maybe all i think it's just a portion
of lincoln of the lincoln drive wall unfortunately i do not believe i have the actual
permit itself it was in 2019 it's predates eclipse and not everything got into eclipse
no that's the building permit plan sorry about this i relieved him i thought michael was going
to go first um sorry leonard this is hillary i'm sorry sorry to throw you off michael if you want
to pull i know you had sent some of those documents to the board and you may have them
handy if you want to pull up the permit that that's fine if leonard's okay with that yeah i'm
okay yeah if you don't have anything else to share from your photos on i'll i can just share
um my documents and yeah i think it just showed that plan that you're you've got there let me um
share and and if i'm correct i believe that the documents are are stipulated to by by both parties
accepted by both parties that's right uh the all the zoning documents all the city documents that
were presented to the city uh engineering reports plans uh the permit um that's all stipulated too
that's the appeal all right um
is it the zoning permit
the zoning permit or the building permit the zoning permit's fine yep if you could just blow
that up that'd be great so anyway this permit uh was issued january of 2020 and it is for
uh the erection of a four -story addition on top of an existing one -story structure
it included two development bonuses for fresh food market and the mixed income housing bonus
and I will put on the record that they chose the payment in lieu option for the mixed income
housing bonus that money has been paid into the trust fund and in addition I should point out
that this permit was issued by Wright and I'm not aware that any appeal had been filed from
the issuance of this permit. Subsequent to that, the developer
Subsequent to that, the developer applied for a construction permit for new construction.
And this is sort of where we get to the crux of the matter and why I think that mostly this becomes a question of legal interpretation.
So, in the application for the zoning permit, the zoning permit application indicates what they're doing, but the zoning permit application itself and the plans do not indicate that there are trusses at the property or that the trusses were going to be removed.
so the building permit was then issued on the basis of the zoning permit approval and then of
course the building permit plans were approved but because of at the time of the building permit
application it was determined that there were some structural concerns this was the building
permit application was done under what they call a special inspections regime which required there
to be an engineering report uh in the midst of all this another unsafe violation had been issued
and they did present uh and there were in fact violations that were issued there was an appeal
taken to the board of l and i review during the pendency of that review that appeal um which was
brought by a different attorney and this is about in 2021 um they did present engineering reports
And the building permit was still under review, but it was determined that once that construction permit was issued, it would resolve the unsafe conditions.
So that violation was marked, complied with the issuance of the construction permit and the submission of an engineering report, and everything was fine for a while.
Then in, I think it was early October, the department made a determination that, in fact, there had been an error in the issuance of the permits.
And the department went out and issued a violation notice for a demolition without a demolition permit.
So without getting into too many more details about that,
a demolition permit would be required if you're removing more than 500 square feet of a wall
or removing two -thirds or more of the structural elements or joists at a property.
So Ellen and I had determined that, in fact, the problem here and why the zoning permit was issued in error is because at the time the application and plans were submitted,
the department was not informed that the trusses that you saw in that photograph were, in fact, going to be removed.
So as a result, because of the removal of those trusses would have been considered a demolition of the property, a demolition permit would have been applied, would have had to have been submitted, and perhaps more importantly, a zoning permit for new construction would have been required rather than alteration.
And this, of course, implicates the other issue, which is that the building is currently nonconforming. So had a zoning permit for new construction been applied for, it would have resulted in a refusal and a requirement to obtain a variance for the proposed construction.
in addition since the time of that application and permit issuance the code has changed there
have been changes to the mixed income housing bonus i believe the fresh food bonus no longer
exists and at least they would not have been able to obtain it but again so the department again
made the determination that the zoning permit had been issued in error because the code let me pull
up the code section because the code and an accompanying code bulletin again define a
demolition as being among other things removal of two -thirds of the joist of a structure and here
all the joists had been removed so in october the city then issued and that's a letter that michael
wrote to me but uh so the department again then determined uh that it was a demolition so they
that it was a demolition. So they issued a notice of intent to revoke the permit, which I believe is what's on appeal here. And in the meantime, they issued a stop work order. So an appeal is originally filed to the board of L &I review, because also the construction permit was also going to be revoked.
issued a notice of intent to revoke
So, thank you, Michael Wright. And this is the revocation letter that was issued by L &I at the beginning of October.
So, the appeal was taken to the Board of L &I Review because it involved the construction permit.
There was some discussion with Mr. Phillips and with the various board councils and the department.
and there was some thought of taking it to the board of building standards on the construction
permit but ultimately we made a determination that because everything really depended upon
the validity of the initial zoning permit that was going to be revoked that that matter had to
be heard by the zoning board because the zoning board has plenary authority over zoning matters
So the question before the board then is whether or not the city's intent to revoke the zoning permit 1026214 is valid based upon its determination that this zoning permit actually should have been denied or should have been given a refusal because it should have been considered a new construction rather than an alteration.
so again if I can just have a moment
so the city also has
a code bulletin on this that again specifically defines
a demolition as consisting of
the removal of two or more joys. It's actually, sorry, not a code bulletin, but what's called a
code solution and again it references 14 305 sub 6 of the philadelphia code which talks about what
a non -conforming structure is and when the non -conformity is lost and then also uh it
references the administrative code and i can try to share my screen to show the code solution i'll
stop my share. Thanks. If I can figure out how. Hold on. Great. Thank you. Did I stop it yet?
nope not yet
if i just close out of my exhibit the whole thing will that should do it yes i can now share thank you
so this is the code solution and again uh it explained this was issued back in
2017 so again a repair so it doesn't specifically define demolition says a repair is defined by any
of the following interior work which does not result in increased gross floor area no replacement
of up to two -thirds of the structural framing members when work involves the replacement of
any portion of an exterior wall and that's the section that we're dealing with here so because
It's the city's position, L &I's position, that two -thirds of the structural framing members were being removed, as well as a portion of the exterior wall along Lincoln Drive, that that exceeded the threshold of a mere repair or alteration, and that it was, in fact, a demolition.
And therefore, a new construction permit should have applied.
So that's basically the entire case.
And that was that's the rationale of why the city removed issued the stop work order and has issued the notice of intent to revoke the zoning permit is, again, because of the city's position that the permit was improperly issued.
I should also point out that the city's position is that the permit was not vested because a zoning permit doesn't vest if the application materials were not full and complete.
I should also point out that the city, the city's position.
And we don't believe we believe that because the site plan and the zoning permit application materials did not indicate that the trusses would be removed, that it was an error on the part of the applicant and that not necessarily I'm not suggesting necessarily that that was done intentionally in order to avoid having to get a new construction permit.
But, again, it is the position of the city that the permit did not vest and that we are still able to revoke it at this point.
So if you have any questions about that, I'd be happy to answer.
As I said, the city didn't have the ability to get a secure witness on short notice for this case.
However, again, I think it's essentially a legal question.
There's no dispute that the trusses were removed, and there's no dispute about what the permits were for and what had been done, or there's no dispute about the wall along Lincoln Drive having been removed, which, again, was part of that new construction permit.
The only issue is, was the removal of the trusses the removal of two -thirds of the structural framing members?
And, you know, that's pretty much what the case is.
Or was the, and or was the permit vested by the time, by October, when the city issued the stop work order?
Mr. Phillips, you want to respond?
Absolutely.
and if i can share my screen as well um
well i think you have to stop your share oh i'm sorry i didn't even know i still doing that pardon me
Thanks.
Thank you.
Before I get into my exhibits, there are two key points I want to raise.
First, that while I appreciate that there's stipulation to the documents and the permits of record, we don't believe the city has satisfied its burden to show that there were structural framing members of this building that were removed or that this zoning permit in any way violated the zoning code.
The second is on the vested rights issue.
And I want to start with that because this is a it's really just a grave injustice.
There's no other way to put it.
In October, in January of 2020, this zoning permit was issued for the erection of a four
story addition on top of this existing one story structure.
The one story structure had no roof.
Therefore, it's not a building.
It's only a structure. And implementation of the fresh food market bonus and the low income housing bonus.
This was approved and the permits were issued. Now, January 2020 is two months before the pandemic.
So that's why we have a large gap in time after that happened.
But by December of 2021, my client has now paid $300 ,000 into the city's affordable housing trust in order to have its building permit issued.
It has secured over $5 million construction loan that has two years remaining on it.
and it is underway with its construction and work under these approved permits by the city
and in reliance on these permits from the city. It wasn't until one week into that work, October
of 2022, that my client received this letter regarding the revocation
of its permit. And you'll note that the replication represents that it's based on
the fact that more than two -thirds of the structural framing member in the entire front
wall were removed, and complete demolition was performed without a demolition permit.
Now, that's just, quite frankly, not accurate factually or legally. The zoning code, as I noted,
The zoning code, as I noted, defines a structure as, you know, as a building essentially without a roof, and that's what this is.
So this is where it defines a
But structural elements are the components of a building that are necessary for the stability of a building.
And these roof trusses were left over from the roof that was moved in 2013 and bore no relation whatsoever to the actual stone structure.
And I have some photographs. And again, the content, the removal of the wall and all of the construction that was to be performed was under approved plans that never showed these trusses, that relied on the zoning, that further relied on our engineered existing structure findings.
that specifically, and the reason I have another copy of this is they're the same copy, just the
stamp is over. But this specifically states that the structural bearing of the new design
will rely on a steel frame built up on new concrete footings, bypassing the existing
stone wall. It also references that the new design of the building will not use the right
rear or left existing walls for any major structural bearing. These trusses, as further
shown in a makesafe report that was issued on December 23rd provided to the city, also further
established that the stone wall was stable. And here's the photographs of the stone wall.
Those remain stable. And it also referenced, I think importantly, that
the perimeter walls previously served as a load bearing walls for the roof. So it was the opposite.
it. The trusses did not support this building. This building supported the roof and the trusses
were were were left over. This also report that was provided spoke of the trusses and provided
photographs of the trusses. And as you can see, they are not even attached to the sidewalls.
They're not on top of the roof. They are strictly in the interior and were left over
from the removal of the roof in 2013 um here are just some more photos um and this notes with
respect to it that uh these are the original steel roof trusses so the city speaks to joist
speaks to structural members of a building but there is not a scintilla of evidence
that the city has presented to show that these roof trusses had any structural support or
stability of this four -wall stone perimeter structure. And to the extent that they did
to come back two and a half years after a zoning permit has been issued, after $300 ,000 has been
paid into the city's affordable housing trust after a six and a half million dollar construction
loan has been obtained and my client has retained its contractors to begin work on the building
to then come and say, well, your zoning permit is revoked because we believe that the removal
of these trusses, which was always contemplated and was fully disclosed in the building permit
set somehow warrants the revocation of all of the permits, it's mind -boggling how we
ended up here.
But we're here, and my client desperately is looking to proceed with its work and its
construction.
These actions have threatened to jeopardize its construction loan with its lender.
It only has my client only has a year left. And my client has done everything according to the book.
They obtained the zoning permit. They obtained building permits. They obtained make safe permits.
They were in constant communication with the city of Philadelphia.
The last thing is, as Len pointed out, the code. And here's the nonconforming structure position of the code.
Now, my client's zoning plan did maintain the perimeter of the wall, but removed the top. Now, for any non -conforming structures, which this would have been because there was no rear yard setback, may comply with the code.
comply with the code. However, once you go beyond the first story, everything above the first story
However, once you go beyond the one.
must comply with the code. So we had to have a nine -foot rear yard setback and had to maintain
75 % occupied area. This plan accomplished all of that. And lastly, we have, this is a section
and lend was referring to repairs or renovations of non -conforming structures are permitted.
And this defines the repair as a replacement of up to two -thirds of the structural framing members
when work involves a replacement of any portion of the exterior wall. Again, structural framing
members is not defined by the code, but the code does define structural elements as the components
of a building necessary to the stability of the building. In no way were these trusses,
these original trusses that were for the roof that had been removed in 2013 at all related to
the perimeter stone wall so the revocation of the permit on those grounds is invalid the city has
not submitted any proof or evidence to show it was valid and moreover we do have a vested right in
this my client has a vested right uh in this uh in the zoning permit and relied upon the city's
issuance of that zoning permit in making in making the 300 000 payment to the affordable
housing trust to securing a $6 .5 million construction load and to having the building
permit, which was approved by the city, in retaining all of their design professionals
and engineers for this development. As Mr. Breuter noted, it's a by -right development
And to invalidate everything that happened based upon removal of trusses that have no structural bearing whatsoever and did not constitute a complete demolition would be a grave injustice.
I do have my client, Mr. David Mednick, who is one of the members of the 7078 Partners LP here to adopt my testimony relating to the payment of the $300 ,000 payment in lieu and securing of the construction loan as those facts would need to be established by him.
And I do want to reiterate that the city has not submitted any evidence or facts beyond Mr. Reuter's argument to suggest or to establish that these trusses constituted structural elements of the building.
Do you want to bring your client on?
Sure. Mr. Mednick's still here, if you could.
Mr. Mednick, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm unmuted.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
David Mednick, M -E -D -N -I -C -K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Mednick, you heard my testimony and everything that I stated earlier today, did you not?
I did.
Okay, and you are a member or partner of 7078 Partners LP?
Okay. And is everything that I stated true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
It is.
Okay. And that includes the construction loan and the $300 ,000 payment in lieu made to the city in connection with the building and zoning permit?
Yes, that's correct.
I have no further questions.
If I could just ask a couple questions, Chair.
Proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Mednick, thank you for coming this afternoon.
How long have you been involved with this project?
That is, were you involved at the time the construction, the building permit was issued?
Did this project qualify for a tax abatement?
I believe.
It does? Okay.
was that tax abatement for new construction or tax abatement was for uh renovation of an existing
structure i'm not aware of what the if i i don't know i don't know how to answer that
you don't know what type of tax abatement you have for the property i don't but it was for
the construction of the property whether new or renovated so so it was for new construction
he said he didn't know i don't know nor do i know how his tax abatement is at all relevant
to whether or not there were trusses that constituted structural well i think the question
is which which well if he says he doesn't know he doesn't know so we'll just leave it to argument
Well, if he says he doesn't know, he doesn't know.
So we'll just leave it to argument.
I don't have any further questions.
So what I'm going to do is we're going to take this to executive session next Wednesday, and we will vote at the two o 'clock meeting.
Okay. In closing, I would just like to state that the city has not produced any evidence, witnesses, or facts to establish that this permit should have been revoked and that this trusses at all constituted structure, and it would just be a grave injustice to remove this permit.
I would say, you know, I think the city's attorney did start off by saying, you know, he was going to testify and explain it.
And so I think we're going to take his testimony. So, well, I consideration and if I could also just respond again, I don't the city wouldn't.
It's simply not in a position at this point now that the trustees have been removed to to have to demonstrate whether there or not they were structural elements.
Mr. Phillips has provided the board with the engineering report, the leak report, which has photographs.
We would advise the board to look closely at the photographs and make a determination about whether or not those trusses are or not structural elements.
But again, I point out conversely that Mr. Phillips also has not presented an engineer or anybody to testify about whether those trusses were providing any any structural support.
um but uh you know and again we both sides were sort of relying on the materials that were
provided to ellen i uh you know a while ago because again nobody's in any position at this
point to make a specific determination uh you know we we couldn't provide anything now because
the trusses are gone they've they've been gone since at least october so um you know where ellen
is basing it upon their determination that, you know, trusses provide or are structural elements.
They have a code solution that specifically mentions joists. Joists are basically roof
trusses. I mean, roof trusses are basically joists. I mean, they're, they're provide, they,
they, they, they serve the same purpose. And again, I don't even know if the, if what's shown
in in this report specifies you know what the trusses are doing here so it would have been
helpful if there had been somebody to testify about what the truss what purpose the trusses
served uh if you know if any um but so but again it's it's the the the language of the code speaks
for itself and the language and the code solution speaks for itself um and the lni is is relying
on on the language of the code because we're not in a position at this point to make a determination
that the trusses were removed and to ellen i that constituted a demolition
and and just in response to that i'll say we have the photographs in front of us that show the
these trusses were not attached to the wall the city accepted this make safe report the city
accepted the building permit plan the city cross -referenced the zoning permit set plan
with the building permit plans prior to issuing the building permit in 2021.
My client relied on all of those permits issued by the city of Philadelphia
in making the $300 ,000 payment in lieu and securing its $6 .5 million loan.
And as Mr. Reuter just stated, the city right now, as we sit here today,
They cannot establish or prove that these trusses were providing any structural support to the walls.
And as you can see within the photo, it's not even attached to all of the walls.
So and lastly, it is not the applicant's burden of proof to show to establish why this permit should be revoked.
that is on the city and the city has not satisfied that that burden we have the photographs and
everything that the city relied upon that we stipulate um is accurate and that the city has
stipulated uh these documents were relied upon and and if i could just and i sorry apologize for the
phone ringing back there um and and just in closing just one last remark um which is you know
we the the zoning board hat we believe has the discretion and the authority to make a
determination in this case about whether or not the permits are vested and whether or not the
zoning permit was properly issued in the first place. I would say with respect
uh in the first place um we i would say with respect to the vesting issue um as generally
speaking soft costs are not considered uh in terms of determining whether or not um a permit
has vested there has been some money expended on uh the construction work that proceeded for a few
weeks um but with respect to you know mr phillips fees or the engineers fees uh architectural fees
that kind of thing uh that normally wouldn't count the payment into the trust fund uh
be honest i would imagine if a project doesn't happen that that payment would be uh i believe
would be refunded so um but again uh as a rule soft costs you know themselves wouldn't necessarily
be considered uh for purposes of vesting a permit the standard payment in lieu agreement
specifically provides that the $300 ,000 is non -refundable. And that is money that the city
has accepted and that my client relied upon and clearly would be vested because my client relied
upon these permits. Had this issue come up during the building permit phase or at any point in time
had the city said, you know what, looking at these plans and looking at the construction that you're
proposing, which clearly did not include these trusts, it would be impossible. Where do these
trust is fit within a floor plan. Um, so, so looking at, at all of that for the city to issue
the permits and then to come back and say, uh, you know what, we're going to revoke all these
permits. Um, it just, it, it, it, it doesn't make sense. Um, and, and, and I, you know, it is in no
way, um, you know, uh, fair to use the most common sense word. Okay. So look, I thank both
of you we will rule on this next week uh before uh okay excuse me mr mr chair this this is hillary
can i can i just ask one question um the there's reference of the new other trust is not being on
the plan obviously not being part of the new structure were were the trusses attached to
anything in the ground, on the walls. It's kind of unclear from the photos. Yeah, it states right
here, the original steel roof trusses remain are supported by stone piers and steel columns. They
were laterally braced. Again, they didn't attach to the walls. They didn't provide any support for
this stone wall structure. They supported the roof, which is no longer there.
So were the, were the trusses, or the, I'm sorry, the piers and the columns that held up the trusses, were those removed as part of the trusses being removed?
I, I am, I can't speculate as to what was or wasn't, it was not all the work that was done was in conformance, though, with these approved building plans that do not, that, that speak to where the steel columns would be put, to speak to the structural stability.
I mean, all of these issues were addressed within the comprehensive building permit set, and this building permit set was only approved after the structural engineer provided their documents, as well as the make -safe documents, which referenced and showed these steel trusses.
So, they did not provide any support for the structure, and that's the main point.
Understood. Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, we would all agree that at some point, Ellen and I came out and felt as though there should have been a demolition permit.
Yes, however, I actually that's, you know, Mr. Chair, that is that is an important point.
And I do want to say at one point, Ellen and I came out and they said, hey, we see what was done.
We believe there should have been a demolition permit.
Correct. And Mr. Chair, there is one important point that I didn't mention on that about the demolition,
whether there should be a demolition permit because that happened a month uh i believe a
week into my client's work and when they removed the front wall of the building and that that was
uh the initial issue and i'll just pull up this um the violation notice that that references
um uh removal of that entire that front wall and that's where this all came uh came to bear
we pointed out that both the removal of the front wall was explicitly mentioned and and approved as
part of the building permit set but moreover that the removal of that front wall does not
constitute a demolition because the code defines a demolition as the removal of a structure
larger or or exceeding one story or 500 square feet and this front stone wall did not it was
one story there's no dispute about that and it's a linear object that did not uh exceed five uh
So we believe that there was never a requirement of a demolition permit.
But what I'm saying to you is that at some point,
Ellen and I came out, front wall, tresses,
Front wall, tresses, they believe there should have been a demolition permit.
they believe there should have been a demolition permit.
Now, whether...
Now, whether that was right or wrong, but we all agree that's what happened.
Yes, in October 2022, that is what happened.
And the city, I mean, I'll concede that the removal of the front wall itself would not have constituted, by itself, would not have constituted a demolition.
The L &I's position on the revocation is because of the removal of the trusses.
And that's that's the whole dispute is did these are these trusses structural and or were they, I should say.
OK. All right. So we will we'll next Wednesday at two o 'clock, we will vote on this.
OK. Thank you very much. And thank you both of you, by the way.
thank you and i want to also thank the board for for uh scheduling this on on such short notice
after we uh get out of the board licensing inspection yes thank you very much and may
be excused yes you can both you can um is there anyone from the two o 'clock list case hasn't been
called we're going to take a five minute break and then we'll be back and we'll finish the list
a 3 .30 list
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
How does everybody look?
I'm at your service, Chair.
Okay, thank you, John.
Ready to go.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, you can start as you wish, Chair.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the 3 .30 ZBA hearings.
the 3 .30 ZBA hearings. With me is Thomas Holliman, our board member.
With me is...
Present, Mr. Chairman. And James Snell, our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. Also here is Hillary
Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunket. Be advised, these proceedings are
going to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting tanyasunket at philip .gov. For the
benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before
testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your
hand and star six 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 answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony. Any comments should be directed to our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkin. Let's look at our continuances for this afternoon.
Number one, MI 2022 -002 -908 -740 -44, South Street. That case is continued.
Number two, MI -2022 -005 -981 -58 -Gallon Road. That case is continued. Number three,
Number three, MI 2022 -002 -822 -6701 Rising Sun Avenue. That case is continued. Mark must be tried.
Number five, MI 2022 -005 -977 -2400 Oakdale Street. That case is continued.
And number six, MI -2022 -006 -001 -5408 Cheslin Street,
that case is continuing.
Is there anyone who has comments relative
to the cases that I just called?
Chair, we have a Jonathan Wall with his hand up.
Mr. Wall, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, thank you. Mr. Wall, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, it's Jonathan Wall, J -O -N -A -T -H -A -N, last name Wall, W -A -L -L, and I just had a question.
One minute, one minute. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And what case are you concerned with?
This is the property at 740 to 44 South Street.
So when it's continued, there'll still be an opportunity for protestants, right?
Oh, absolutely. Yes.
Okay, sorry. I'm just not.
Absolutely.
That was my only question. Thank you so much.
Okay, sure. Not a problem, sir.
Is there anyone with a request for continuance?
Yes, Chair, we have Leah.
We have Leah DiBatteo.
Ms. DiBatteo, please unmute yourself away.
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
hi this is leah di mateo l -e -a -h -d -i -m -a -t -t -e -o right do you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes what case are you interested in this is for 58 west
Gowan, which has continued. I had sent in a letter seeking to send some revised plans to L &I.
I just wanted to check in and find out what the next step is for that.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Ms. Matea, we've received your letter. We are processing it. And
if it is approved, you will receive a letter from the zoning board to take to L &I to have your
revised plans reviewed for an amended refusal. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right.
Okay. So I also have case number seven, MI 2021 -004 -842 -426 East Clearfield Street,
Maria Rodriguez. We have no exhibits. This is the third listing.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
i see no hands at this time chair number seven mi 2020
Number seven, MI 2021 -004 -842 -426 East Clearfield Street, third listing, I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Holloman, I vote to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
We're going to go to number four, MI -2022 -005 -978 -3245 Edgemont Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Hilary, do we receive a letter for this?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
There was a letter sent of support from ProPAC.
Thank you.
this the anastasio is coming back okay
good morning sir
afternoon i'm sorry good afternoon mr chair i believe i swore you once today right yep okay
So just state your name for the record.
It's Vern Anastasio, V -E -R -N -A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O.
I represent Daniel Mendoza, who is the property owner.
Thank you.
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate his accuracy?
did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance here yes sir
yes and we have a letter that i forwarded uh to attorney emerson dated february 1st of this year
in full support uh by the rco thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you
okay this is the property in question it's a corner property two -story
it is for 3245 edgemont street purchased by my client uh being purchased by my client
as a pre -existing non -conforming to family dwelling here's the first floor plan
living room dining room open sort of area we have a large bathroom kitchen and one bed
and the second floor there's a stair in the middle second floor is a two -bedroom apartment
and first floor is 795 square feet second floor is 662 square feet
And then the total living space is about 1 ,457 square feet.
This is the property as it exists.
We also have some interior photos to show you that this was renovated prior to my client.
I'm getting it under contract.
And we also have at some point this property was illegal to family dwelling. We have two not new heaters, two water heaters that were put in around 2013, upgraded to gas meters and to electric meters.
it's the property again here's some proof of posting
we did in fact meet with propac which is the rco in that area we met on the 1st of february
and here's proof of mailing 205 individual households we've also included in our exhibit
which is total of 45 pages the deed to the property as well as proof of taxes paid
Under separate cover, we forwarded, and I still move into evidence, a letter from Propac RCO dated 1st of February in full support of our appeal.
Because of the corner location, because of the previously built out physical interior, and because it has two water meters, furnaces, electric meters, and gas meters, with the community support, we respectfully request the granting of this variance.
Is your client here to adopt your testimony?
I believe he is.
If Mr. Mendoza can raise his hand.
Mr. Mendelsohn can you please raise your hand
Chair I see no hands at this
Counsel you're an officer of the court
We'll accept your testimony
Questions from the board
No Mr. Chairman
No Mr. Chairman
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no answer this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this location.
This appears to be the legalization of an unlicensed second unit where a deli used to operate.
the legalization will bring the property closer in line with the intended use
contemplated in the comprehensive plan and so the city planning commission recommends the board
grant the use variance thank you MI 2022 -005 -978 -3245 Edgemont Street I vote yes
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes James Snell my vote is yes thank you counsel thank you all right
Number 8, MI -2022 -005 -983 -2106 North 9th Street.
Lee Elsey is the attorney.
Do we have an RCO letter?
No, Mr. Chair, we do not for this case.
Was there a meeting?
Yes, there was.
chair mr ms lc is coming back as a panel okay
hi good afternoon mr chair hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes my name is lee lc l -e -e -e -l -s -e -y right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Could you identify your client in relationship to this
property? Yes, I am the attorney, as well as the architect of record. And my client is
Fam & Co LLC, represented by Mr. Serge Valiansky, who is present.
Our Mr. Hallman, our board member, has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of refusal and stipulates to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Did you meet with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
We did the mailing. We did meet with the RCO. We do not have the letter. I've been in touch with Ms. Shirley of the Northeast RCO, who is the primary RCO of the matter.
She apologizes for the confusion. The letter got by her. We will present it as soon as available, I can say, from email with her.
um there was no opposition we will thank you thank you please proceed and share your screen
okay thank you uh screen is shared uh apologize after the weather yesterday we've had a little
bit um odd internet speed here let me know if i need to repeat anything uh
The address is 2106 North 9th Street, currently a vacant lot, as you can see in this picture.
We're located on North 9th Street off of Diamond Street.
We've highlighted within these images some of the nearby properties that have received variances for duplex use,
as well as additional coverage similar to ours in addition we've added a few more that have been
more recently granted variances this is a a common variance in this neighborhood here's
some photos of the existing you can see it's located next door to a shell as well as a vacant
lot. This is the property prior to demolition. My client purchased it in 2018 with the purpose
of rehabbing it. It was condemned by the city and they had to demolish it. You can see nearby
You can see nearby duplexes that have received variances or the other side of the street actually some of them did get variances or did get duplex status by right because of the overlay that falls in the middle of 9th Street separating our side of the block from the other side of the block.
duplexes that have received variances.
Here's the posting of the zoning notice dated February 22nd.
deed of the client zoning plan showing a proposed two -story or sorry three -story
duplex with pilot house and a roof deck. Our zoning refusal we have a refusal
um based on duplex use within the north central philadelphia overlay
outside of the overlay a duplex would be by right and in this rm1 district but within the
within this overlay we generated a refusal for use we were also proposing to occupy 81 .5 percent
of the site where the maximum allowed is 85 percent. This is a relatively short site,
so the additional space really helps the units to function as desired by the community.
The lower unit, Unit 1, is 1 ,083 square feet. It is a three bedroom, two bathroom that occupies
the entirety of the cellar as well as the first floor. Now, our cellar is raised high enough
above grade where the egress windows do not require egress wells, and it requires steps
to get up to the first floor. Unit 2 occupies the second floor and the third floor. It is
1 ,212 square feet. It's a three -bedroom, two -bathroom, and it has sole access to the
pilot house and a roof deck above. Here's our notice letter to the RCO, our mailing certificate
kit showing 186 mailings, quite a few for this one.
We've included some zoning archive documents showing refusals up and down the block seeking
essentially the identical duplex relief that we are looking for.
uh our appeal our project information form as well as our tax certificate
now we had a we had a meeting with the neighborhood which involved the turnout of
it's been a while now i believe it was in the range of four to five neighbors
There were concerns having to do with just construction and seeking to understand how management of the building would work and who is the owner, whether they manage other buildings.
I believe all of those questions were addressed favorably, and the community is not opposing us.
we will provide the letter. Once it's prepared, Mr. Voliansky, are you present?
What is your friend's name, Mr. Elsie?
Serge Voliansky.
Mr. Voliansky
Ms. Voliansky
could you please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair
could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter
Mr. Voliansky
is his hand raised
he put his hand down now he put it back up to him
yes can you hear me hi yes could you state your name please
your spell for the court reporter sergey voliansky
s -e -r -g -e -y -v -o -l -y -a -n -s -k -i -y
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed counsel thank you uh mr
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Voliansky, are you a member of FAM and Co. and authorized to act on behalf of the entity?
Yes, I do.
Did you hear my statements and review the documents in the packet?
Do you adopt my testimony and authorize the truth of the statements and documents?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Board. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Hi, Planning Commission. Thank you, sir. David Fecto, City Planning Commission,
Mr. Chairman and board members. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
multifamily zoning at this location, the occupied area variance is less than 10 % of what the code
requires. So we would argue that that variance meets the spirit and purpose of the zoning code.
However, the applicant has not shown that two dwelling units would be required for the lot to
be used to gain economic value. So the City Planning Commission recommends the board deny
the variance for the second dwelling unit. Hillary, we're going to wait for the RCO letter.
Mr. Elsie, do you know when the RCO letter is going to come in? The meeting was held in November.
Yeah, I apologize for that. She said she was working on it today. I was hoping she'd get it
to me by now or join the meeting. I don't believe Ms. Shirley Kitchen is on. I hope to have it
available tomorrow okay so maybe we'll hold for one week mr chair that's fine
yep okay we'll hold for next wednesday two o 'clock
yes that's fine mr chair and the record is two o 'clock thank you thank you council we appreciate
it and the record is closed except for receipt of the rco letter okay
All right, number nine, MI -2022 -006 -049 -3334 North 17th Street.
David Orphanides is the attorney.
Mr. Orphanides is coming back. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. How are you? Could you state your name and spell it please for the
court reporter. Certainly can. My name is David Orpanides. My last name is spelled O -R -P -H -A -N -I -G -E -S.
Could you identify your client? Oh, hold on. I'm sorry. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth, but you look like you're frozen, David?
Oh, I am? Can you hear me? I can hear you, but you're not moving.
i'm a ventriloquist huh uh i'm not sure why i'm not moving that's interesting um okay
could you identify or do you swear or affirm to tell truth the whole truth not but truth
i do uh could you identify your client in relationship to the property certainly my
client is 3340 building owner qozb llc okay mr hall has just a few questions for you sir
yes good afternoon good afternoon council do you agree to waive the reading of refusal and
stipulate to his accuracy i do did you email five days in advance did you meet with the rco
and do you have a letter uh we met with the rco we have a letter i forwarded all the materials
except for our posting photographs on friday which was five days before um i just didn't
have access to them from the person that posts them. And I provided that to the zoning board
staff and the attorney on Monday. They were posted, notice was posted as required by the
zoning code. And then I provided, we were working on some revisions to the zoning drawings and I
provided those to the zoning board attorney today. Thank you. Please proceed to the screen.
Sure. I'm hoping this is going to work.
You see my screen? We do. All right. So that's good. So you don't need to look at me in any way.
So. So good afternoon. Again, my name is David Orphanides from Orphanides and Toner LLP.
And again, I'm here this afternoon on behalf of 3340 building owner QOZB LLC. I have with me
Anthony Miles from 3340, building owner, QOZB LLC, who will then.
from 3340 building owner qozb llc um who will eventually uh make some statements possibly but
none but will surely adopt my statements that i make we have kurt raymond from cicada architecture
and planning who did the original zoning drawings that were submitted to the city of philadelphia
that resulted in the issuance of the notice of refusal that was appealed to the zoning board
and then we have banu allaman from umbra architects who are prepared they revised zoning
drawings and they were just uh not substantially revised but um that we would ask the zoning board
to stamp if uh they were inclined to grant the variances that we are requesting today
so uh to jump right in um 30 the two properties in question are 3332 and 3334 north 17th street
the proposal is to consolidate these two uh properties into one lot um i will get into what
that proposal is in a minute, but to get to some nice stuff, we did meet, as mentioned,
as I indicated, Mr. Holloman with the coordinating RCO, the RCO that was designated by the Planning
Commission as the coordinating RCO for this property and this project, Allegheny West Civic
Association. We sent out two rounds of 14303 notices that are included in my exhibit book
at tab 21. And it was a pretty well attended meeting. And you can see that as a result,
we received their support with their letter dated January 17, 2023, which is the same date
as the meeting. Tab two of my exhibit book includes a number of other letters of support
and partnership. You're going to hear from my client or hear partially from me that this project
has been in the works for quite some time. It's a project that involves a lot of different city
agencies, stakeholders in the community, surrounding the community, national organizations
to provide this much needed use that we are proposing here that does require a variance at
this particular location. So here at Exhibit 2A, you have a letter of support from State Senator
Sharif Street. And then you have a series of letters of support and partnership from different
organizations, including the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia, SCI Cambridge Springs
Optical Lab, Satisloe North American, Pride Enterprises Incorporated, iDesigns LLC,
and the Greater Philadelphia Business Coalition on Health and Salus University.
I'm not going to go through each of these, but I think this is one of the few cases where I've had this many letters of support
and partnership with such a wide variety and array of different organizations and stakeholders, as I mentioned.
So the application is to consolidate, as I indicated, these two properties.
And I'm going to show you with an aerial image in a second.
Where is it?
There we go.
The two properties in question.
So we're a couple blocks west of Broad Street.
You can see overall, you see in the general area, this is the Nicetown Tioga area, and you could see at a tab that I have later in my exhibit package, an article by a publication or a blog called Road Snack, that this area, this article is from 2019, not a lot has changed, was rated, this area, this neighborhood was rated as, for a couple years running as the worst,
if not one of the worst for a variety of reasons. I hate to say that. I don't like to say worse,
but in need of development, in need of support and in the city of Philadelphia. And you can see
here, obviously, oops, obviously right off of Broad Street, you have temple facilities located
nearby to us. You'll hear either my statement or my client's statement or adopting my statement
that they have attempted to find suitably zoned properties
for their proposed use in the immediate area
on areas or properties that are properly zoned
where they would be able to do it as a matter of right.
But with Temple being so well established in this area,
those properties or those buildings,
buildings that are vacant properties
to build a building don't exist.
But then there's a reason
why we're looking at North 17th Street.
I'll get to that in a minute.
Here you can see our property over here.
The property includes a vacant lot, which is $33 .32, and then $33 .34, which is a vacant
which is 3332, and then 3334, which is a vacant building.
building.
But you can hear, again, a lot of green, a lot of vacant lots in the immediate vicinity of our property.
In fact, from our property at 3334 North 17th all the way up to West Ontario,
which is a cross street to the north of us, all vacant.
Across the street, all vacant to West Ontario.
So if you go back here, you see there's only a couple of houses, a pocket or island right here, a house here, a couple of houses on the other side.
And other than that, all vacant lots.
These houses are mostly utilized for multifamily living.
The property is owned RSA 5.
And you're going to see why we think this is an appropriate use here.
But here you can see, again, just a lot of vacant land.
um the the this area has been studied uh quite extensively um we have included a tab 7 8 and 9
there's a tioga goals and strategies report from 2016 a tab 8 there's the north 17th street
conceptual design for multicultural multi -use development and then a tab 9 there's a north
district plan from 2018. What these plans, what these different reports and plans speak to is
the history of North 17th Street as a commercial corridor. And here you can see here in a Tioga
Goals and Strategies report from 2016, outlining the 17th Street business corridor. And then right
in the middle, pretty much, is our property located between, again, West Ontario Street to
the north and west west moreland street to the south and here again the 17th street business
corridor we're at the uh you know at the southern end of that um the north 17th street conceptual
design for multicultural multi -use development called amongst other things that the community
indicated oops that they needed in the community were pharmacy medical services and physician
services you'll see that's what we're looking to provide here and the target zone was 17th street
the north district's plan talks about the changing nature of employment in this area
as you can imagine with temple located up in this area there's an ongoing shift as indicated
to health care and education the north district plan also mentions how well connected this
neighborhood is to public transportation one of our refusals is not providing off -street parking
for the proposed use and um the the proposal here is to provide services to the immediate community
one stop um right now um the services that we'd be providing um diabetic and optimal
ophthalmologic i always have problems with that word optometry um but it's more than optometry
um services i just have problems with that word getting it out um we'll be drawing locally mainly
from the community um both in terms of the people that work there as well as the um the patients
and the customers but um there is the area is well connected um to public transportation and
the north district plan talks about the issues with general health and access to health health
care in this issue or in this area and the need for that and this this proposal is designed to
provide that. So I'm going to the notice of refusal. As I indicated, we call for the lot
adjustment, the consolidation of the two lots to erect a semi -detached structure, 63 feet,
two inches in height. Just so you know, the roof height is 53 feet, eight inches. But because the
pilot house, there's no residential component here, but because the pilot house is not intended,
and this is one of our refusals, is not for residential use. And because it's slightly
larger in order to comply with commercial building code requirements than the 125 square foot maximum,
it counts in the height of the structure. That roof deck is intended for the use of not only
the employees of the building, but also for the guests and the patients of the facility.
the the the proposed use is the retail sales of consumer goods medical equipment general
industrial manufacturer medical equipment and medical dental and health practitioner a group
practitioner there's no on street off street parking proposed and hence we got the off street
parking refusal that's based upon the the gfa that we have here and
That's based upon the GFA that we have here. And as I mentioned, there's a refusal for the size of the pilot house and the overall height of that that then gets included. And the uses, because this is RSA 5, we have the uses, the refusals that are indicated.
And...
do. I would like to real quickly bring in, have Anthony Miles promoted to a panelist,
and I'd like him to speak real quickly about what his proposal is.
There is a description of what the project for the, we call this the Tioga Diabetic
Optical Laboratories. And as you can see, this is a tab 14. It talks about the
who the owners are. Dr. Furman, who is directly involved in this throughout the process and will
be there, who's a practicing optometrist and ophthalmologist, is I think also on the call
today and she can answer questions and speak to what we're looking to propose. You can see the
service areas. And then again, you can see the two uses. The one is the optical laboratories
where there'll be manufacturing dress
and safety eyewear lenses.
And then the other are diabetic and optical services.
And I'm not sure if Anthony has been promoted yet,
but I do want to say before he's promoted
that we did meet on February remotely
with the planning commission on February 28th.
We voluntarily requested
a zoning appeal preliminary review meeting that they're having now for various projects
and uh the other day on march 9th actually they issued a summary report where um they agreed with
us that there is an unnecessary hardship here um that there's a need for consolidated diabetic care
in north philadelphia west of broad street that our development team includes health professionals
who have unsuccessfully searched for buy rate development opportunities in the area as i
indicated the proposed manufacturing use is consistent with the incentives provided by
the keystone opportunity zone this property is located in a keystone opportunity zone
the dimensionally we provided them with statements by our team that this property even though we do
have a health refusal or health refusal a height refusal um that mainly for the pilot house but
even to the roof we exceed the permitted height for rsa5 that the the layout is very tight and
very lean there's no wasted space um all the space that we have and the height that we have is
designed with intention to provide these needed services to the community um both you know locally
to where we um where we are located located the surrounding community and other uh citizens of
the city of Philadelphia um we uh in that in that uh meeting as a result of that meeting the the
Planning Commission staff acknowledged uh that the 17th Street quarter which this property these
properties are part of has a history of commercial use and that the proposal is consistent with the
adopted plants to revitalize and re -develop the 17th Street commercial corridor. And again,
there is a hardship in the area related to the need for diabetes care in the neighborhood,
which is an environmental factor that we did not create. I did mention that the
dimensional variances are the minimum necessary. And again, I can have Dr. Furman, the architects,
and Mr. Miles speak to that. And that even though we have a manufacturing component here,
The manufacturing of guy glasses has it's it doesn't produce any odor, any noise will have a minimal of any external impacts.
We plan on proposing in terms of the impact on traffic we did.
I do mention about the great access to public transportation, obviously being so close to Broad Street, but even over into the neighborhood as well.
There are quite a number of bus lines. In addition, will be if you take a look at the photographs that I included.
in my exhibit book, you would see that this block right now with the amount of vacancies
is very, here you have the subject property, vacant lot and the vacant building. But you can see
up and down the block, because there's no development, there's a ton of available
on -street parking, but we'll be proposing loading zone in front of the property to allow during
business hours, not in the evening when people come home, the ability for people to pull up and
drop off patients or customers, and also for the loading of materials and for finished products.
And also for the loading of materials and for finished product to go out.
This is not, even though there's a picture of a tractor trailer, that's, I'm assuming that's somebody that lives on the block.
We don't expect our deliveries coming in or coming out.
There'll be more box trucks, small box trucks, no tractor trailers.
It's not that level of manufacturing.
So, again, we are consistent with the adopted plans.
I mentioned the Tioga Goals and Strategies Report and the North District Plan, and I think I've addressed the parking aspect for the granting of a variance or variances by the Zoning Board.
And real quickly, I don't want to drag this out, but I really think it's important that Mr. Miles and Dr. Furman just speak for a couple minutes.
because of the use variants here. I'd like them to speak about the need and the vision
and the limited impact of what we're looking to do here. Mr. Miles and Dr. Furman, if you could
please be brief, but you did a really great job of explaining this to the planning commission
staff when we had the zoning appeal preliminary review meeting. So I'd just like the zoning board
to hear it. Sure. Am I permitted to speak, Mr. Chair? You have to be sworn first. Okay.
I think you're muted, Mr. Chairman. Anthony, could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter? My name is Anthony Miles, M -I -L -E -S. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
The whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do.
Pushe. Yes. Thank you, David.
And thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the opportunity.
This is a project with huge community impact.
The facility, again, as Davis State, has two functions.
One, manufacturing of prescription and safety eyeglasses with state -of -the -art equipment, no noise.
and also the Center for Pediatric and Adult Diabetes. Diabetes, our primary target is the
28 ,000 diagnosed diabetics in North Philadelphia, East and West, as five zip codes, as well as
the greater Philadelphia. We've gotten a tremendous amount of support from various stakeholders who
who have been working with us for over a year
to put this facility together and get it designed up.
Dr. Fuhrman, who's on the call,
is going to be the CEO of the facility.
Dr. Fuhrman currently operates an optometry practice
in Mount Airy, the part of Philadelphia,
with 5 ,000 patients.
She'll be getting another doctor to run that facility
and come over here full time.
Do you want to get Dr. Fuhrman on?
Sure. Yes, please. Real quickly.
Dr. Fuhrman, if she could be promoted to panelists, please.
Dr. Fuhrman, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
I'm here.
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Dr. Furman yes I'm here okay could you state your name please spell for the court reporter
it is Chalice Furman C -H -E -L -I -S as in Sam E -F as in Frank I -R -M -I -N right do you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do proceed the Tioga section of
Philadelphia and North Philadelphia in general, um, is especially at risk for the, um, epidemic
of diabetes. Um, that area, um, has about 17 % diabetes, diabetics that are identified currently,
and that is, um, more than the national average. Um, the concern is in 2030, about 50 % of people,
um, will be affected by diabetes and pre -diabetes, um, affecting mostly black and brown populations.
Unfortunately, only 50 % of people with a Medicare or Medicaid benefit use that benefit to identify, excuse me, to get their diabetic eye exam.
The importance of eye exams and diabetes is that they are able to determine whether or not you are at greater risk for kidney failure, heart attack, and stroke.
Most people don't use that benefit. We are using this as an opportunity to capture that population.
Most people don't use that benefit. We are using this as an opportunity to capture that population
in an effort to offset the major societal damage that having a long -term debilitating disease will
create on the community at large. Currently, right now, we are very concerned. Most, if you've been
listening to any medical people, most people are concerned that in 2030, the weight of
the weight of the amount of people on the health care system in Philadelphia will definitely
strain the system. And not only that will impact the community in terms of finances,
children education, and basically how families are going to sustain themselves.
Our goal is to really change that and have a significant impact and just really become an
example of creating a small army of community educators, allowing them to educate themselves
and really try to turn that statistic around so that we are able to really impact people's
lives in general, but especially just the city of Philadelphia.
Thank you, Dr. Furman.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we do have revised zoning drawings.
The main change is that on the original zoning drawings, we had the elevator only extending
to the fifth floor, and there was an elevator override at the roof deck.
It was determined during the course of getting to the zoning board that that elevator needed
to extend actually to the roof deck.
It is a dimensionally compliant elevator pilothouse.
It's less than 125 square feet.
It's more than 10 feet above the roof deck surface, and it's set back at least a minimum
required from the street frontage in the rear of the building um but we do have those um attached
at tab three of our exhibit book both a clean and a clouded version of that um so if the board i just
wanted to put that on the board's radar that if the board were to elect to um grant the requested
variances that they um that they would be subject to stamping the revised drawings um hillary uh
And I have had a conversation. We were working to get these finalized until this morning to hear the case, close the record, have the vote held maybe next week after she's had a chance to review and make sure that, you know, there's nothing else going on with the revised zoning drawings between now and then, which, you know, we're, we find, we find acceptable.
um so uh and one last thing is that uh the zoning board did i just wanted to bring to your attention
the zoning board did grant a variance for a five -story building the next block up just
recently at 3424 um the 26 north 17th street um you know similar actually more developed
residentially than our block um the height of the roof is pretty similar they were at 50 feet
were at 52 feet um and but they had a pilot house that extended uh a lot more than a lot taller than
ours um because they were at 64 feet so i just wanted to bring that that they're you know it
every property speaks for itself i'm aware of that but again the um you know this area is in need
it's a blighted area blighted properties long -standing vacancy um run down buildings
And again, being on North 17th Street, there's all the plans speak to population, bringing people to live there and bringing businesses to North 17th Street.
And that's what we propose to do. And there's clearly a great need to having this facility here and a benefit to providing the services that they're going to be providing.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thomas is on the phone he's listed in so I but I know that he's listing in
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time planning commission
thank you chair Bergman David Fecto with the city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change to multifamily to residential multifamily zoning
at this location the proposal for commercial development is consistent with a city planning
commission produced neighborhood plan which recommends extending commercial development
further south on north 17th street the applicant has not shown however that providing a roof deck
is strictly necessary to enable use of this property so the city planning commission recommends
the board grant the use and dimensional variances except for those related to the roof deck
um and again real quickly mr chairman it's just it's that there's not going to be at there's
There's not going to be – we provide the required open area, but there's just not a lot of – we're trying to make this a very healthy -feeling facility, and part of that is providing some outdoor space.
we provide the required open area
And as you can see, it's it's something that's going to be minimally used during the working day and will not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding neighborhood, but will have a benefit to the clients, customers and employees of this facility.
so we're going to hold this vote um and what i'm going to do is uh i'm probably conflicted
in this so i'm going to have our vice chair who's who's not here right now he'll watch the tape and
and he'll go over the vote and i hillary will shoot still shoot for next wednesday yeah next
wednesday should be fine mr chair at 2 p .m we'll do next wednesday but david i'm going to i'm going
to conflict myself. I understand. I understand why. And just real quickly, I think I have to
have my statements adopted by. Oh, sure. Absolutely. So first, Mr. Miles, he's already
been sworn. I'll just run through Mr. Miles and then maybe the architects real quickly.
So, Anthony. Yeah, I'm here. Okay, great. You've already been sworn. So did you hear the statements
that I made today to the board?
And I wanted to, again,
I want to highlight
that we have tried to find
properties and buildings
that allow this use
in this area of need,
but without a variance.
And they were not successful
as most of those properties
are controlled by Temple, correct?
That is correct.
All right.
And are the statements
that I made to the board today
true and correct
to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt them as your own?
Okay. And then I think Kurt Raymond from Cicada and then Banu Alleman real quickly.
So it's just the architect. Yes.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Kurt did the original zoning drawings, his firm, and then Banu's firm did the revised drawing. So I just wanted to quickly have them both adopt.
Can you hear me?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Kurt Raymond, K -U -R -T -R -A -Y -M -O -N -D.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Kurt, did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
I did.
And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
They are.
And would you adopt them as your own?
I would.
And then real quickly, Banu?
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
They would have to raise their hand.
Banu, could you raise your hand, please?
Okay, he's available, Chair.
Okay, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Banu Otaman with Umbra Architects.
Spelling is B -A -N -U -A -T -A -M -A -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Hi, Banu.
Did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
yes i did are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes they are and would you
adopt them as your own yes okay and you anything that says umbra architecture on it architects is
what you and or members of your firm prepared um that we provided to the board today correct
correct yes correct all right thank you very much thank you mr chairman bergman i thank you um
is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 330 case has not been called
all right thanks everyone good day a lot of nice work today thank you very much
thank you everybody see you next week thank you good evening all right good evening
see you later y 'all have a good one have a good one all