questions from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing commercial residential mixed
use cmx1 the accountant has demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances
that prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code the planning
commission recommends that the board grant the perseverance for off-street parking and parking
cell dimensions mi 2024 000 374 2228 south 12th street i vote yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes
iowen my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you all
anastasia we'll see you a little later this morning yes sir okay we're going to hear number
two, three, and four together. Number two is MI 2024-002-411-3212 West York Street. Number three
is MI 2024-002-412-3212 West York Street. And number four is MI 2024-002-413-3208 West York
Street. Darlene Treat is the attorney. There is a letter.
Darlene Treat is the attorney. There is a letter of opposition from Strawberry Mansion for all three properties.
Good morning, Commissioner Darlene Treat on behalf of the applicant.
Good morning, Counsel. Could you spell your name, please, for the court stenographer?
Darlene, D-A-R-L-E-N-E, Treat, T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-T-T.
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 and their relationship to the three properties?
I believe I have several clients on the line today.
One is a Don Pinckney, one is a Aaron Holloway,
and I have the architect Thomas Holloman on the line today.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed and share your screen.
Are you able to see my screen?
We can.
Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm representing 3208, 3210, and 3212 West York Street.
Basically, Commissioners, all of these properties are very, very similar, and I'm asking today to have a two-family dwelling approved in each of them.
I'm going to start with 3208.
Commissioner, my clients purchase these properties that have been not in use for many, many, many years.
From what I can see in the L&I files, the last time there was an active license here was 2003.
There was a restaurant and bar located on the ground floor of all three properties.
But we filed an application to have this property developed and to be used as a duplex, as a two-family dwelling.
We were refused, indicating that two family dwellings, household living, is expressly prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Commissioners, I submitted a host of forms, the PIF, the deed, property information, tax information, but I'm going to scroll down to the plans right now.
I'm going to reduce them just a little in the beginning so you can see the whole plan.
So, Commissioner, this is the site plan for 3208 and is very, very similar to the site
plan for 3210 and 3212.
Basically, this is a two-story dwelling.
we plan to clean up the brickwork in the front of the building and do some
cladding here on the bays here as you can see this is the back of the building
again just two stories we're not asking to add a third story we're trying to
keep in line with the aesthetics and the design of the other households I'm in
the community and you'll see there are no current households on this block on
per se. But this is the back of the dwelling, and you can see there is an exit out the back
of the dwelling. And we also put in a window well here for an additional exit out of the
back of the dwelling. And again, this is property 3208. Here is the site plan, how the property
lays out on the block. And I'll show you a little better pictures later on.
here is the floor plan and I'm going to enlarge it so we can go through
each floor so here we go so commissioners the first floor we would like to have what we would
call a bi-level apartment no living no bedrooms in the basement we have a and I'm just going to
enlarge that a little teeny bit more so you can see it a little better.
So basically, this is a bi-level apartment.
You can come into the apartment.
You can see on the ground floor, we have a bathroom and we have two nice size beds.
Ground floor, we have a bathroom, and we have two nice size bedrooms within code.
You can come downstairs to the first floor, and on the first floor, we have a kitchen, a living room area, and we have a den area, and we also have a bathroom.
There's also a window well area here for lighting, and we have a laundry washroom down here for the guests of the residents to use.
This apartment also is approximately 1,063 square feet.
It's a nice size apartment with nice amenities and a nice appointment.
if you come up the stairs here you can go to the second floor and on the second floor here
commissioners we're requesting a one unit two bedroom apartment again you have a bathroom area
a kitchen area a den living room area a bedroom in the front and a bedroom in the back and that
is basically the makeup of 3208. Now, I took various pictures just to give you a look of how
the block is. I'd like to indicate to you that I did have two meetings with the Civic Association.
The first meeting, I noticed 178 individuals in the community, and no one appeared besides the
members of the Civic Association. And the second meeting, I noticed 185 of residences for the
meeting and the individuals who came were just the members of the RCO. But these are how the three
properties sit on the block. Again, previously, and I saw a full license for 2003, at least from
the LNI records, and I'm not a member of this community, so I'm not trying to be misleading.
This property hasn't been in use for 20 years. When it was in use, it was two units being used.
The first unit was being used for commercial purposes, and the second floor was used as a apartment.
I'm going to scroll down some more to just give you a general look of the area and what the properties look like.
The commissioners, as you can see, this area is in need of development.
This is actually 32nd Street here. And as you can see, there's no development here along 32nd Street. I'll show you a little better picture later on, but there's not much development down York Street this way. And at this present time, density nor parking is really an issue in this neighborhood.
it. Here's an additional picture. This is the other side of York Street. Again, parking's not
a problem. Again, there's no... But I do know that the... Darlene, you froze up for a while. Could
you go back, please? I'm sorry, Commissioner. I didn't hear you. You froze up for a period of
time there. Could you just go back a little bit so you can repeat? We didn't hear you. Oh, I'm
I'm sorry. That's right there. You can start right there. No, no. Start. Start with the corner shot where you just left off.
Right. So this is actually on York Street, our side, where this would be thirty two hundred, which is also a lot now.
Thirty two hundred thirty two to thirty two four and thirty two six is currently a lot.
And there is an application in front of the zoning board currently for these lots on the corner.
There is no development here on the other side of the street on 32nd Street.
Parking is ample in the neighborhood, and there isn't much development down here also down on York Street.
This is the opposite side of the street of York Street, 32nd going down to 31st Street.
There's another big, big empty lot. I don't believe it's an official parking lot that's recognized by the city of Philadelphia, but it is a huge empty lot, and many of the residences in the neighborhood park in that lot.
this is the back of the properties
just to show you that behind these properties there's also not much development on these
properties this area is really in need of much development that's another picture of the next
corner and you can see again there is parking there are not many structures on york street here
and there are not many structures on 32nd Street. This area is in need of newer, what I would say, more
This area is in need of newer, what I would say, more affordable development.
This is actually Arizona Street, right in back of York Street, the same 3200 block.
As you can see, there are many vacancies here and there are vacancies on the corner.
Again, the neighborhood is in need of some development.
That looks like a duplicate picture.
And this is the other end of York Street.
These lots are 3200, 3202, 3204, and 3206.
Our three structures here are the only structures on this block at this time.
I do see that there are applications in front of the board for these lots here presently.
that's another look at uh arizona street which is directly behind york street to just show you that
uh the areas in need of uh development uh commissioners i uh noticed the meeting two
times one in july and i sent out 185 notices i did the posting i noticed it again in december
I sent 178 notices. Again, only individuals from the RCA came to the meeting. And
I believe this was the third posting. Again, Ms. Emerson did email to me today about a posting,
and I did send her a separate picture.
I do have the pictures of the posting.
Commissioner, in closing, I would like to say
that this area is in need of development,
residential development.
This property has a history of two units.
One was commercial and one was residential.
The actual use that we are asking for today
is actually a lesser use than this property
had previously been used for. If in fact a commercial was on the bottom, let's say a bar,
a restaurant, it would bring many, many, many more people to the area. It would bring trash,
blight, and some other elements that may go with a restaurant bar. What we are requesting today
is two units so we can provide what we would call a reasonable housing for the community.
And when I say reasonable, I mean units that persons that currently live in this community could afford.
I don't believe that two units is an overuse because the same amount of people that would be in two units would be in one unit.
My clients aren't trying to put five pounds of sugar in a 10-pound sack.
We're not asking for an additional floor, which we could ask for and have a setback.
which would take away from the aesthetics of the community,
nor are we asking for a roof deck,
which would be different from almost all the properties in the community.
We did meet with the community.
We were open to suggestions, and we did take some suggestions.
And I'm going to show you specifically what they were.
Let me reduce this a little bit more for you.
When we went to the meeting the second time, the RCO had concerns about egress window well here,
indicating that trash accumulates here, and it just wasn't a positive thing for the community,
and we're more than happy to eliminate the window well here. Basically, we would like to
present affordable housing that persons in this community could live in,
small families, single individuals. Commissioners, I can go through the other three packets and they
are basically identical except that 3212 is a little bit larger than 3208 and 3212. Again,
the bi-level apartments are in excess of a thousand square feet and the two-bedroom apartment
on the second floor is approximately 550 square feet.
Commissioner, if I can, I would like to address the letter
that the Civic Center, excuse me,
excuse me, the Civic Association sent in opposition.
the Civic Association sent in opposition.
There were...
Tom Citro.
There were several points that the Community Association pointed out in their letter,
and I would like to address them.
Number one was a lack of hardship.
Commissioners, this property had been two units.
It was laid out for two units, and we'd like to continue it with the two units and the current fittings that it has.
In regard to health and safety concerns, the letter speaks of the kitchen being below grade and the risk of carbon monoxide.
Our commissioners, number one, we have the carbon monoxide units for our units, but secondly, our units aren't gas. They're all electric, so there would be no carbon monoxide exposure.
In regard to the egress well unit, we're more than happy to take the egress well unit out of the front.
We just thought that would be good for extra safety concerns.
The letter also indicates that there are inaccurate bedrooms dimensions.
I disagree with that.
Our bedroom dimensions are accurate and they are within code and above code.
And again, I have the architect on the line today, and he'd be more than happy to answer any questions in regard to the sizing of the bedroom units.
The fifth concern was insufficient living space, and I would just disagree with that altogether.
that these are nicely appointed and nice size apartment units and have nice amenities for those
who choose to live there. The sixth one was an inappropriate bedroom access and I don't really
understand that either because you can come in through the front door of the apartment and
traverse through the apartment and get to the back room, the back bedroom. There is a
egress regular door that you can walk out the back bedroom and get to the backyard. But that's
certainly not the only way that you can access the rear bedroom. In regard to the best use of
properties, this is the best use of properties. Philadelphia has a housing shortage. They really
have an affordable housing shortage. These properties have gone undeveloped from at least
from what L&I seems like at least 20 or 25 years. The development that we are requesting today is
actually a lesser use than the property had been used previously. And with that, commissioners,
I'm more than willing to answer any questions and so is my client or the architect.
Why don't you do this? Why don't you bring your client on to adopt your testimony? If the board has questions relative to the design, then we can bring Mr. Holloman on. So for this point, bring on your client to adopt your testimony, then we'll take it to the board, okay?
Okay. Mr. Pinckney, can you hear me?
Yes, I can hear you.
Mr. Pinckney, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Donald Pinckney, D-O-N-A-L-D, Pinckney, P-I-N-K-N-E-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Counsel, can Mr. Pinckney speak on all three?
Okay, please proceed.
Mr. Pinckney, are you part owner of 3208, 3210, and 3212 York Street?
Yes, I am.
Mr. Pinckney, have you heard the testimony that I've given to the board today?
Yes, I have.
Mr. Pinckney, if you were to testify today, would you be able to adopt my testimony as true and correct?
And Mr. Pinckney, did we both attend two community meetings?
Yes, we did.
And, Mr. Pinkney, did we have anyone from the actual community besides the actual RCO staff come to the meeting?
No, we did not.
That's all I have, Commissioner.
Questions from the board.
I have a question.