Good morning. My name is Carol Tenere and I'm the, today I'm the, yes, Carol, can you
give me three minutes? We're allowing people to come into the room at this present time.
So give me three minutes before you start.
Got it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
sure we can be with Kim. Okay. Good morning. My name is Carol Tenere and I'm the Vice Chair of
the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I will be the Acting Chair today. I'll be participating in
today's hearing along with Board Secretary Confessor Plaza and Board Members Thomas
Holloman and James Snell. Board Administrator Lakeisha Dandy and Tanya Sonkett are also present.
Our attorney, Sharon Saleta, is also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
This is available to the public and on the web and otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine, then star six to unmute yourself.
And I'll repeat that. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine, then star six to unmute yourself.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
That's 267-270-5548.
And leave your email address and address of the property at issue.
Fourth, the question and answer box is not for testimony.
Any comments are to be directed to Ms. Tanya Sunkett or Ms. Lakeisha Dandy.
Are there any continuances?
If there are requests for continuances, please raise your hand.
Excuse me, Madam Vice Chair, the number one is being on your list is being continued.
Okay, calendar number 3265 1224 Herbert Street. This case is continued.
If there's anyone who disagrees with that, please raise their hand.
No hands at this time.
Madam Vice Chair, we also yesterday received a request from attorney Michael Lambert.
He was requesting that number six on your list be continued.
I advise Mr. Lambert that since this is the forced listing that he should appear and request the continuance.
Could we check to see if he is present?
Is Mr. Lambert present?
Mr. Lambert you can unmute yourself okay hi folks can you hear me yes I can definitely hear you
can you put your name on the record please and then I'll swear you in yes madam vice chair
Yes, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you so much. My name is Michael Lambert,
thank you so much my name is Michael Lambert ID number
ID number 88422. I'm here on behalf of 1224 Herbert Street.
Okay, and this is the fourth listing. Can you explain anything about this?
Yes, briefly. My client has had LLI issues that she's been trying to resolve. They're not that,
They're minor issues, but due to the COVID situation over the last year, she has been having difficulties getting everything done, getting people out.
Things are doing a lot better at this particular moment, but we just ask this board to get this final continuous and give us extensive time if the courts want to do that so that my client can resolve this issue.
because COVID has significantly slowed her down over the last year in terms of getting the matter
resolved as well as getting LNI out there to take a look at it and that's her that's her issue thank
you um you know I I hear you but there are no exhibits it's a fourth listing there are many
people who have been able to get their things in order I'm gonna vote to dismiss the case
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
I understand.
I thank you for your time and patience, folks.
Please have a great day. Thank you so much, Mr. Lambert.
Thank you. Be safe, ma'am.
Excuse me, Madam Chair, Vice Chair.
This is Sharon again.
There was one other case that should have been read
as a continuance.
Number five. Yes, please.
Calendar number
1959, 2408 North 31st Street. This case is continued.
No more hands, Chair. Okay. Are there any additional requests for continuances or
withdrawals? If there are, please raise your hand.
no hands at this time oh um one second i have a call-in user
call-in user you can unmute yourself
hello can you put your name and address on the record please
Yes, Adrienne Fernandez, Swamp Middle Neighborhood Process Association, RCL.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
And are you requesting a continuance?
Yes, I swear to tell the truth.
And I have a question.
I was confused about whether 2646 North 17th Street was dismissed.
Also, was the same with the address?
Okay, it wasn't clear on that. So 2646 North 17th is also dismissed?
I don't know what also is, but it is dismissed.
Okay, there were two addresses read with one applicant. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I could just request too that we just make sure we get the spelling
of the last name. That would be very helpful. Thank you.
And Madam Chair, this is Sharon again. In case you'd like to call this, sorry,
In case someone is waiting for this one, number six, 2646 North, oh, I'm sorry, where was I?
Number seven, rather, 2709 West Allegheny Avenue.
This is the fourth listing.
There are no exhibits.
The original attorney on this matter was Rich DeMarco.
I emailed him yesterday.
He is no longer representing this, this applicant, but you might want to call it to see if the applicant or someone representing him or her is here.
Thank you.
Calendar number 0723-2709 West Allegheny Avenue.
I guess it's apartment one, number one.
Is there anyone here on this case?
here i have a hand i'm not sure they're with this case one second okay
miss carter you can unmute yourself um are you speaking towards this case
no i'm not thank you
okay no hands for that case no hands okay so i will
start the hearings calendar number 33 I didn't know if Ms. Carter wanted to do a continuance
calendar number 334. I didn't know if Ms. Carter wanted to do a continuance. I thought you were
still on that case. Excuse me, Madam Chair, were you going to dismiss Allegheny Avenue or make a
decision on whether it could be continued a fifth time or fourth time? Do you know what? I was
waiting. I was waiting to see if there was anybody else. There's no one here for that case. Is that
correct no hands yes no hands okay that case is dismissed calendar number 07232709 west
allegheny avenue number one dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed thank you okay and miss
Ms. Carter, are you here to request a continuance?
Ms. Carter, you have to unmute yourself.
we can go forward here okay calendar number three three four one twelve thirty seven south 19th
street. The applicant is Shanita Hadley and no hands at this time chair. Oh, one second.
there she is miss hadley yes hi hi are you able to hear me i can hear you can you put your name
and address on the record and please spell your last name shanita hadley h-a-d-l-e-y
Address is my personal address or the address for the zoners?
Your personal address.
My personal address is 1946 South 23rd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19145.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership,
tax compliance refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes i do everything was submitted
okay you may proceed
Ms. Hadley, you can begin
to present your case
Oh, sorry
Yes, hi, so my name is
Shanita Hadley, I am presenting
a case in front of you guys
Can I ask you a question
and ask a question?
Ms. Hadley, are you calling on the telephone?
I am. I'm actually on my laptop. I've been on my laptop since this morning. I have no idea. I tried different browsers, but my audio is not working on my laptop.
Okay, no problem. So that means we won't have exhibits here. Thank you, Ms. Hatton.
okay sorry about that so i am presenting a case i submitted everything um i want to say maybe 10
days prior to it was built it was between five no it was between seven and ten days party so
everything was due i submitted everything i cc like the supervisors that was supposed to be
attached in the email. But anywho, I am presenting my case.
I own the property on 1237 South 19th Street. It's currently
a single family home and I am presenting
a VBA variances where I would like to
convert it into a multi-family dwelling, a tri-place.
I have my plans already drilled.
What is on either side, on each side of
your house? Are they single family, multifamily? Excuse me, this is Sharon. I'm sorry to interrupt,
but in case the board would like to see the photos and other exhibits, I did just email
them to you since the applicant isn't able to share them. Oh, great. Thank you, Sharon.
you're welcome what's on what's on the right and left um side of the property are
What's on the right and left side of the property are single-family homes.
Okay, what is on the rest of the block?
On the rest of the block, on the corner of 19th and Wharton, there are a multifamily dwelling.
There's also a multifamily dwelling on 19th and Cedar Room, which is on the other end of the corner.
But throughout the block, there are single-family homes.
What's the square footage on each of the apartments?
The square footage, I don't have that offhand of each of the apartments.
I did have the full square footage of the house, which was approximately 1700 square
So you did meet with the RCO?
Yes, I did, and I did get their approval.
Okay, I know there's also, is there anyone here who would like to speak on this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair. I have Ms. Gamble.
hi miss gamble hi hi can you put your name and address on the record please and spell your last
name yes this is petra gamble last name is spelled g as in game a as in apple m as in man b as in boy
l e my address is 2305 federal street okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing about the truth yes i do okay and you i think you represent the rco yes i do okay
you can proceed okay i just wanted to put on record that we the rco voted and we had a three
to two in support of the of this property but the community also voted and they were
not in support of this property uh in a vote of one to two so one person was in support two were
opposed boy does the board have any questions no no is there anyone else here who would like to
speak on this case no more hands at this time chair okay planning commission
Good morning, Vice Chair Tanari. How are you doing?
Hi, good. How are you?
Ian Hegarty with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, I-A-N-H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
Madam Chair, for this case, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing
single-family zoning at this location, which covers the whole block and has been in place
for many decades we just don't feel the applicant's hardship claim is supported by any evidence of
unique physical conditions the lot is a regular shaped lot next to other single family homes
and so the city planning commission would recommend that the board deny this variance
thank you calendar number 3341-1237 south 19th street my vote is no
My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. Thank you.
Calendar number 3354, 1611 West Gerrard Avenue. The attorney is Meredith Verliger.
we have darwin coming in as a panelist okay
good morning madam chair this is darwin beauvais uh believe it or not it will be me
oh well we are so lucky we are so lucky can you put your name uh an address on the record and
spell your last name, please, and then I'll swear you in. Darwin Bovey, Darwin, D-A-R-W-I-N,
B-E-A-U-V-A-I-S, counsel for the applicant. I'm at 1500 Market Street at Dilworth Paxson.
At this time, I will also ask, I believe there's Omri Shiet and Frank Renner from
uh shiet and frank renner from g and r realty if they could be identified as well
I don't know.
okay first do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
i always do madam chair so yes okay do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter uh yes to everything and we made several
attempts to meet with the rco to which i can i can explain as part of my presentation but uh
but I assure you the council member's office was also made aware of the snafu as well.
Okay, excuse me, this is Sharon. We also did, Ms. Ferlinger did communicate that to us,
that there were several attempts to schedule an RCO meeting that she was requesting to go forward.
Despite there not having been a meeting, I guess the board should first
um make a decision on whether that will be permitted oh and that's that's fine if if
i i can i can make my presentation i can lead with that if if possible um i believe i'm sharing my
screen and if we can go to uh exhibit 12 which is one of 13 exhibits that i have exhibit 12 if
you are looking, you can toggle it to page 55, which is right here. Here is a memo that's part
of our exhibits that shows our communication. We started in February 12th. Once it was identified
that we had to reach out to the RCO, we talked to Reverend Nash, who was the lead for the MAP
holistic CDC. We forwarded all the information. Then in February 12th, we sent a letter
with the plans and the refusal. On February 16th, we emailed Reverend Nash to try to get
a meeting. March 11th, we spoke about this meeting. March 12th, we sent notice to all the RCOs
and to the president's office regarding the meeting.
Those mailings also went to the nearby neighbors on the same day, March 12th.
We also sent the nearby RCOs notifying Ms. Van Story and Ms. Bundy of the meeting on March 12th.
We tried to communicate on March 18th with Reverend Nash.
We emailed on March 24th with Reverend Nash, Ms. Van Storey, Ms. Bundy for the Zoom meeting.
We even called on the 24th to remind them of the RCO meeting.
And on the 24th of March, no one showed up.
And by 618, we sent another email asking about his presence.
Then no one showed up that day.
I believe one community member who was also confused because there was nobody else at that meeting.
Nevertheless, we tried again on March 25th.
We advised everyone, can we meet on April 14th?
We also reached out to both the coordinating as well as the other RCOs.
Then on March 26th, we reached out and emailed the information.
March 26th, we also reached out to the nearby neighbors.
April 13th, we reached out directly to the leaders.
April 13th again, we called, and then no one showed up on the 14th again.
this is proof of all of our mailings and we did certainly been a good faith effort my gosh
yes and and we did reach out to the council person's office told them about our snafu
i believe mary is on the line right now and it's it and it's my understanding
right now and it's it and it's my understanding that she actually reached out to Reverend Nash
who did indicate that we that they were okay with the project
and if Mary's on the line she can confirm this conversation that will be great and then we can
move forward with the rest of the presentation. Okay Mary are you there?
Hello. Good morning. Hi. I can. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name, please? Yes. Mary Jones, M-A-R-Y-J-O-N-E-S, from Council President Daryl Clark's
office, City Hall, room 494. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. You may proceed. Yes. Like council said, they have
made multiple attempts to schedule this meeting with the RCO. They have kept us posted of,
or kept us abreast of everything, all the communications.
And I did reach out to Reverend Nash last night
and he told me that they have no opposition
to this project or matter and neither does our office.
Thank you so much.
Okay. Thank you, Mary.
You may proceed, Dorwin.
With that said, members of the Madam Chair, members of the board, right, as I mentioned, my name is Dorwin Beauvais.
I represent the applicant in this matter, and the applicant is the G and R group.
We have exhibits 1 through 13 that include our tax clearance certificate, our deed,
information about who we are, our zoning application and refusal, site plans, floor plans,
zoning map, and area photos, as well as a memorandum of law and zoning permits of the
surrounding uses. So, with that said, let me just begin with who GNR Group is. And we have on the
line Omri and Frank, who are representative of GNR Group. They're basically a residential
investment firm that, a real estate investment firm that focuses on residential
projects here in Philadelphia. They do focus on affordable housing in a sense that they do
do a lot of Section 8 housing. They do consider all types of housing stock, one families,
I mean, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms. And it all depends on the type of structure that they have. They rarely build from the ground up. So in my opinion, they're a great source for dilapidated projects, dilapidated homes throughout the West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia area.
but they also will, excuse me, build ground up as well. So this particular project is 611 West
Gerrard Avenue. It's zoned RM4, and we are looking to add an addition to the building to
create a multifamily unit in order to accommodate eight families. Now, our refusal as a result
is for parking. And if we can, I want to just jump to exhibit 13 so you can physically see the
property. The property itself already exists. So it's along Girard Avenue. It's well-kept
already, but it had been vacant for years. And what we are looking to do is to create
this addition. Let me just bring the zoning plans up, which is 21. We are looking to create an
on. We are looking to create an addition where we will add this additional story. This did not
In addition.
create our parking refusal. It's RM1. We're allowed to have the RM4. We're allowed to have
this additional story, but because of this additional story, this generated the refusal
based on LNI's interpretation of the code. Our floor plans will keep the units pretty much,
will reconfigure the interior of the units and to create a total of eight families or eight
residences. And maybe if Frank or Omri is on the line, maybe they can walk us through
what the floor plans and what the program of the project looks like. Is Frank available? Frank
Renner? We'll have to raise his hand one second.
Mr. Renner, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Yes, hi.
Hi, Mr. Renner, can you please put your name on the record and spell your last name and then I'll swear you in?
Yes, my name is Frank Renner, R-E-N-N-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You may proceed.
Thank you, Frank. Can you walk us through what the floor plans look like and explain to the board the unit count and the like?
You can guide me as to what page we should be on, but we're starting here.
Yes. As you mentioned, there are eight units and I believe these are eight one bedroom units.
As you can see on this page, we are on the first floor, and there are no bedrooms located in the basement.
We do have a rear new addition, as was seen in the zoning diagrams.
And, yep, when you move forward, the units range from, I believe, 550 to 600 square feet.
And they are each one bedroom units. As mentioned, we didn't get a refusal on the design or the size or the number of units or anything like that. As mentioned, the refusal was from the parking requirement.
all right um yeah any any any more okay so like i mentioned thanks frank so like i mentioned
rm4 is where the property sits and if we can want the board to note um something unique to the
property where this tree is in our red dots that's our property if you can see there is
parking here frank can you tell me whose parking lot that is
um i'm sorry i'm not familiar
i'm not sure if omri is on the line for that one um omri is with g and r um or
Or can you raise your hand and be identified?
Hi, hello.
Is he?
Is it Omri or Omni?
It's Omri.
It's my first name is O-M-R-Y.
Okay, and your last name?
Please spell it.
It is S-H-I-T as in Tom, R-I-T as in Tom.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
So, Omri, whose parking lot is this?
When I travel over there, it looks like it's public parking by payment.
So, and that was the one point, Madam Chair, that I just wanted to point out,
That even as we look at the property, even though we have a refusal for parking, I believe part of the reason why the community was supportive is that, one, in order for us to accommodate.
the community was supportive is that, one, in order for us to accommodate parking,
we will have to demolish the building in order to do that. That doesn't make sense to us. It
doesn't make sense to the building. I think that creates a hardship in itself. But the least
amount of variance or the least amount of impact would be to allow us to park in this public
location if if there's a need it needs so now what what what i do uh uh laud the applicant and
the community there's no provision there's no proviso requesting that they understood that
this property should maintain its its essence even though if we can put this addition on there
create additional residential housing, the parking is not an issue in this respect.
So because of that, we're asking that the board grant our application.
As I mentioned, we have the support of the community in order for us to even accommodate
what the code is required, requires a demolition of the property to which we believe that
that creates a hardship in itself does the board have any questions yes madam chairwoman what is
the uh trash plan for this uh development omri could you yes i can answer first of all in the
middle of the building each floor have a room uh trash room and we're going to wear use as in all
property waste management to remove the trash twice a week as we're using in all our properties.
Thank you. So you'll have commercial trash pickup? Correct. Thank you. Planning Commission?
thank you madam chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
comprehensive plan uh recommends no change to the existing multi-family zoning at this location
um as council has stated the applicant's property is narrow for its size it's located on a major
arterial both of those conditions support the claim of hardship since the applicant is physically
unable to meet their code requirements for adding a parking space um so the city planning commission
recommends that the board grant the variance thank you is there anyone else here who would
like to speak on this case please raise your hand yes chair we have um tina marie russell okay
good afternoon good morning me hi tina can you put your name and address on the record and spell
your last name sure tina marie russell um 1631 west sesquahanna avenue and spell your last name
please sorry r-u-s-s-e-l-l do you swear for me to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
i do thank you and they proceed i just had a question about the trash um the property manager
that they're going to use for the trash do they have a history on that particular um their quality
of their work this area has been steadily becoming overwhelmed with multi-family units that are not
being properly managed and the trash is becoming a great eyesore so um is there any type of proviso
we can create to make that not happen here? I think we can, Sharon, I think we can just add
commercial trash pickup, correct? That's correct. Okay. Okay. And do we have anything that prohibits
boarding homes as a proviso on this as well, or any type of single family, single room usage
that looks like a boarding? Excuse me, this is Sharon Sletta. That would require a new application
and an additional
new refusal so
it's automatically
not included in this project
yes thank you
so no proviso for that
no proviso
for that
okay thanks
thank you is there anyone
else out there
in virtual world
and just
there is
Yes, Ms. Allison. Ms. Allison, you can unmute yourself.
Yes, Ms. Allison. Ms. Allison, you can unmute yourself.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, can you put your name and address, spell your last name?
Allison Weiss, W-E-I-S-S.
And I just wanted to...
One second, do you swear for me to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Certainly, yes.
Thank you, you may proceed.
I just wanted to add that I just looked up that parking lot that supposedly was public parking.
And that's owned by the St. Joseph's Repertory School.
Just FYI.
No, it's not public property.
But it most likely is available because they don't part there at night.
I'm saying you have to talk to St. Joseph's Repertory.
Understood.
That's the other side.
That's the other side, Omri?
I think so, no?
Okay, calendar number 3354, 1611 West Gerrard Avenue.
My vote is yes with commercial trash pickup.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beauvais.
Calendar number 3312-2036 North Grath Street.
There's either a Karen Bahmed or Beata Cosmitter.
And Madam Chair, this is Sharon.
There are no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
hi can you hear me i can hear you can you put your name on the record and spell your last name
my name is carim bahmed b-a-h-m-e-d do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do. Okay, you have no exhibits. Why? I submitted everything over the weekend.
I don't know what exhibit is missing. I submitted everything I could during the weekend. Can
I ask a question, Madam Chair? Sure. Where did you send the exhibits there? I sent everything
I think to, I have my email here, sent, I sent to LCUZBA,
PCPC Zoning
Jason Hunt
Karima
Cantana
However, I send
everything on Sunday
On what day?
On Sunday
So that would
not be five days in advance
But it does appear, Sharon, that it was sent to you.
He said he did face the letter.
I'm looking for that now.
Could we move this back a couple of cases so that I can try to find the exhibits and go through them?
We'll look in the RTO box.
If I can ask the Z-Day staff to look in the RTO box.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
um sir we're going to move on to the next case while the staff and the administrators try to
find this um documentation okay thank you sure calendar number 3341 30 north 23rd street
the attorney is jared klein
he's coming in now as a panelist okay good mr klein name it name an address on the record and
spell your last name please certainly jared klein from blind rome it's k-l-e-i-n it's 130 north
18th street in philadelphia okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about
the truth yes i do do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. Can everybody see that?
Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. Can everybody see that?
Yes. We also have a letter, and I'm sure you're aware of it, from the Logan Square Neighborhood Association of Non-Opposition.
Correct. And in light of that, I will keep my presentation nice and brief.
Thank you.
So this is an application for 30 North 23rd. It's the Riverwalk South Building that's part of the PMC Property Group development there.
This application is for the commercial space on the ground floor.
And the application is for essentially a doggy daycare.
The business is called Doggy VIP.
They have a current location elsewhere in the center city area.
They're moving to a bigger space here.
And what they do is basic dog and cat spa services and boarding services,
similar to many other businesses I'm sure the board is familiar with.
As you noted, we did meet with Logan Square Neighbors Association.
There was overwhelming non-opposition with a proviso that the boarding be limited to cats and dogs
and not include cremation or vet services, which we are fine with.
It was never our intention to do any of those things.
So if the board is inclined to add that as a proviso, we're certainly fine with that.
This is the letter, as the vice chair referenced, just to give the board some brief context.
This is the area that we're talking about.
The property was posted, as the board can see on these photos.
And to just orient you, this is the aerial view of the property.
The dog daycare is going to be located here.
and people will be able to enter the river walk through the arch street entrance there will be a
drop-off area here so there will not be standing traffic in any of the roadways for drop-off or
pickup and they will have a dog run available here as part of the general amenities area for
this development so they'll be able to move the dogs out of a back door here and give them
some outdoor play space without disturbing the rest of the rest of the development
this is some general information about the services that doggy vip provides
and within the packet of materials i submitted to the board we had copies of the tax clearance
lease agreement and the mailing that was sent to the neighbors um in light of the strong community
non-opposition i won't take the board's time to go through any of that uh and i will open it up
for any questions. Okay, does the board have any questions? No. Sharon, can I use that as a
proviso, no cremation or vet services? I apologize, Chair. You were asking, could you add a proviso
saying no cremation or vet services? Yes. Yes, that's fine. Okay, great. Planning? Yes. Can I
just briefly have my client who's on the line adopt my testimony sure eric shellmeyer if you
can raise your virtual hand i adopt your testimony oh my gosh do you swear for him to tell the whole
truth and nothing about the truth i do can you spell your name please put it on the record
um eric shellmeyer e-r-i-c s-h-e-l-m-i-r-e
thank you but that was a resounding adoption it was that was that was quite the endorsement
thank you eric it's unbelievable i don't have anything further madam vice chair okay planning
commission thank you madam charity and higgy for the city planning commission
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing multifamily and core commercial
zoning at this location.
Animal boarding is not permitted as a matter of right anywhere in Center City or University
City and so despite a lack of physical hardship, the City Planning Commission would recommend
that the Board grant this use variance as a matter of reasonable accommodation of a needed
Thank you.
Does anyone in the virtual audience have any questions?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Calendar number 3341, 30 North 23rd Street.
My vote is yes with no cremation or vet services.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you very much.
Good luck.
Calendar number 3318-4124 Haverford Avenue.
4124 Haverford Avenue. The attorney is Brett Feldman.
The attorney is Brett Feldman.
Mr. Feldman, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn.
Hi, Mr. Feldman, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes. Good morning, Madam Vice Chair, members of the board. Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. I represent the property owners, zoning applicants, Palatin West, and their principals, Leora Moshe Barrazzani.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
No, I do.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
photos and or plans copy of the refusal or referral and have you met five days in advance
of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter all right yes and as far as
the letter um they submitted a letter i believe yesterday uh or monday from the west palatin
saunders park rco in support for this thank you you may proceed great if i may share my screen
Great. I'll get right to it. I'd also ask that our project architect, Jerry Roller,
be unmuted, as well as our principals, Lior and Moshe Barizani. So here's the exhibits
1 through 12, which at Aspian Cook are into the record. At Exhibit 1012, you see our community
letter of support with provisos. Here is the site. It's this building right here. It's a
currently, I guess, one and a half story building. It's at the southeast corner of 42nd Street and
Haverford Avenue in West Philadelphia. Pelton Saunders Park neighborhood across the street is
the big Drexel athletic complex that takes the whole block with field after field after field.
This is what the building looks like right now. We obtained approvals about a year and a half ago,
completely code compliant to add a four-story addition to that existing one-story building.
First floor would be commercial retail. Second floor would be offices. And this whole project
is just about the offices on the second floor um and then the third through fifth floor would be
37 apartments um we have the permit uh attached um again that's that's the building right right
now next to a four-story building uh that uh we my clients own as well and then there's the drexel
fields over here um here's some pictures here's the posting poster again here's the permit that
we obtained in 2019 for the five-story building, first floor retail commercial, second floor
offices, and 37 apartments above. Here's all the approved plans. We also are very proud to be part
of the mixed income bonus. We're making almost, I think, a $370,000 contribution to the City Housing
Trust Fund as part of this project. And this application in no way impacts that. We're still
making the funds um still making the payment um the whole refusal here today is and that's what
the that's what the approved building looks like again we're not changing anything to the outside
the envelope the height um that's what it looks like um here are the here are the floor plans for
the approved building the whole project is the whole application is about the second floor
We obtained approvals to do a kind of like a mini incubator, like an office incubator in the neighborhood, real small office space on the second floor that we thought was a great idea, you know, would provide some opportunities for some office incubation.
Approximately about 80 people occupancy in the second floor.
I think we all know with COVID, the last thing right now that banks and other folks want to look at is small office space on a second floor of a building.
So what we're looking to do, instead of having the 80-person occupancy on the second floor, we are looking to switch that over to, initially it was 14 apartments.
We have worked, I don't know, for four or five months with the community group, the neighbors, Pam Andrews.
We now reduced it down to 12 apartments on that second floor instead of the 80 occupancy office on the second floor.
office on the second floor, a mix of two bedrooms and one bedroom. These are all good size units.
A mix of two bedrooms and one bedroom. These are all good.
Mr. Roller can certainly get into, you know, units and sizes. Again, we still have all the
same trash storage. It's all internal trash storage. But that really is the hardship.
This is what we got to prove. This is what we wanted to do. This is what we went to the banks
for. And we're now a year and a half out with a building that's actually having structural
problems now if you go out there now there's actually fences that we've had to put up because
of l and i because of the continued degradation of the building so we need to get need to get this
project uh going and um the second floor has really been the problem as far as from a financing
perspective so that's why we went to the 12 units we have that letter of support from the community
mr roller i i think you're out there if you just want to raise your hand and if there's anything
further you'd like to add as far as the switch from the second floor office is to the now 12
units on the second floor, please feel free to jump in. Hello, this is Mr. Roller. We can hear
you. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name and then I'll
where are you in? Certainly. It's Jerry Roller, R-O-L-L-E-R, JKRP Architects, 100 East Penn Square,
Philadelphia PA 19107. Thank you. Do you swear for me to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do. Thank you. You may proceed. And Jerry, just to, again, reiterate, we had this
five-story building proved as of right. There's nothing pertaining to the height, envelope, trash
storage nothing other than the second no the only change here is to convert what was a second floor
office into uh second floor apartments uh the the office idea was a good idea at the time
uh it has proved to be untenable and unfinacable uh nobody wants to uh go into office space or to
finance office space today uh and therefore the logical use of that space would be office the same
volume of the building will be there. It doesn't affect anything else other than adding 12 units
to the overall. And in fact, probably reduces the overall population of the building because
you have 24 offices on this to begin with, and you could have two people in an office
theoretically. So this would be a much more heavily populated floor than it will be as offices.
um madam vice chair are there any questions for mr rolla um is the board of any questions
yes no what is what is the total number of uh dwelling units it would it would be it would be
51 now we had 37 approved initially we would be adding um we would be adding for 12 12 it's
It's actually going to be 49.
Thank you.
Excuse me, Mr. Feldman, that is different than the number that the proposal that Ellen and I reviewed.
Correct.
It's two less.
Correct.
And we would agree to that as a proviso.
We've made that abundantly clear with the community group.
And they've also, I know, attached in their letter of support.
And unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the letter of support.
If you could forward me one.
Can I just go to that right now?
Yes, please.
And you would agree to a proviso stating maximum 49 units total.
Is that correct?
I mean, it's, yeah.
I mean, or you could do 49 is the right number.
And I just, you know, obviously, always traffic and parking.
We did our own study.
I mean, there's just day after day of, you know, we think parking availability there.
But we are actually working with the community group to see in the proviso letter.
We're going to be supporting on-street permit parking, you know, community cleanups.
There's a whole – it's been a good relationship.
We've done a lot with them, but this is their letter of support.
Here it is, letter of support.
And then these are the provisos.
I don't think you can put these all in your – any approval that you would grant,
but we've got a side letter already documenting our acquiescence to these provisions.
Does the board have any other questions?
Okay, is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions?
We have Andrew Goodman.
Good morning. Hi, Mr. Goodman. Hi, good morning. Can you put your name on the record and spell your last name, please?
Good morning, Mr. Goodman. Hi, good morning. Can you put your name on the
Absolutely. Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of Third District Council Member Jamie Gaudier, Room 586, City Hall.
Thank you. Do you swear for me to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you very much. Madam Vice Chair, members of the board, the council member has no opposition
to the variance being requested at this address this morning.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ian Hegarty for the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning at this
location. And I have to say we find the applicant has not supported a claim of hardship with
evidence of unique physical conditions or shown that the zoning prevents economically viable
development of this property in accordance with the zoning rules. The previously approved plans
benefited from the use of by-right bonuses. Any further dwelling units are just simply in excess
of what's allowed under the code in this zoning district. And so the City Planning Commission
recommends that the zoning board deny the variance. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me. This is
Sharon again, Madam Chair, just to confirm that I've gone through the requested provisos
and agree with Mr. Feldman that none of those other than the 49 unit limit is enforceable.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Calendar number 33184124 Haverford Avenue. My vote is yes with a maximum
of 49 units. Yes, we're proviso. Yes, we're proviso. Yes, we're proviso. As always, thank you for your
time and consideration. Thank you. Calendar number 1385, 535 Hansberry Street. The attorney is
Alan Nockermson. And excuse me again, Madam Chair. After this case, if you could go back to
grad street we were able to sign the exhibits thank you great so that's number four
okay mr knockamson are you there in virtual world
he's coming in now as a panelist thank you
hello mr knockamson can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
please yes good morning madam vice chair members of the board my name is alan knockamson a-l-a-n
last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n address one two three south broad street suite 1600
philadelphia pa 19109 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos plans five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and
do you have a letter yes in all respects thank you um and it's also noted that solo germantown
civic association has submitted a letter of opposition so with that you may proceed thank
Thank you. Thank you. May I share my screen? Absolutely. All right. Great. Can you see my screen?
Yes. All right. Great. All right. So I'm here for 535 Hansberry Street. The property is at the
corner of Whitsahickon and Hansberry. You'll see that what we're trying to do from this rendering
is to match the architectural detail and feel of the property that's to the right of us and
in the general neighborhood. You'll see during our presentation the table of contents is the
index of exhibits. First exhibit will be the deed to the property showing that the corporate entity
that my client owns owns the property. Second exhibit is the certificate of tax clearance
showing that my client has good standing with respect to real estate taxes as to the property.
Third exhibit is the notice of refusal. We will go over the different refusals and the zoning
classification and why there is justification under the circumstances for this board to grant
the pending zoning appeal. Exhibit four, you will see the permit for this property in 1958.
You will see that it evidences that this as of 1958 was a two unit property. This is a corner
property so it's non-common for properties you know that are corner properties to be multi-unit
you know that are corner properties to be multi-unit and does have a multi-unit history
and does have a multi-unit
and then after 1958 this became a rooming house so I did review the zoning file for this property
I do not see any use of single family not to say there hasn't been but I haven't seen anything
in the zoning file in that respect for this property exhibit five you'll see the application
for appeal to showing that we filed the appeal of this notice refusal to zoning board adjustment
Exhibit 6 is the zoning map as well as the Google map of the property in the surrounding area.
You'll see from the zoning map that we are, you know, a single-family designation from a
classification point of view, but we are surrounded by RM1. Additionally, you'll see from the Google
maps that we're across the street from the VA regional office as well as a child care center,
and it does look like Drexel University has some space across the street as well.
Exhibit 7 you'll see photographs of the property as well you know it's a vacant lot right now as
well as the surrounding area. Exhibit 8 will show you the plans and drawings and Exhibit 9 you will
see the letter and we'll go over their letter of opposition. So first thing is 3027 Daring Street
LLC owns the property of 535 Hansberry. And then you'll see a certificate of tax clearance for
this address showing that they're in good standing with the City of Philadelphia.
Then the notice of refusal. So this is an RSA 3 property. We have two refusals for this property.
We're proposing to put a two-unit household living in this property. And that's really
not 100% the case because you'll see from our drawings we're trying to make this into a two-unit
condominium. And instead of having units on multiple floors, what we're trying to do is
we're essentially cutting the building in half. So these are really two single-family homes.
Instead of subdividing the property, what we're doing is just creating, it's a different way of
doing it, but for all intents and purposes, these are two single-family homes. And you'll see that
from the drawings and from the floor plans. And these are going to be for sale. And because of
the way we configured the property, given that it's a corner property, we were able to have a
trash plan that made sense for this property because each of the homeowners will have access
to that rear yard to also use it as a common element for their own entertainment value. We'll
have a patio set out there, things like that. So when Solo objected to this project, they objected
for two reasons, essentially. First, they objected because they believe that this is a single family
neighborhood and that this should remain single family. First, as we stated, there's a history of
not being single family. But secondly, it really is single family. You'll look through the floor
plans. Second reason they objected, essentially, was because they didn't want another rental in
the neighborhood. You will see that, you know, based on what we're stating, that this is going
to be a condo for set. So second refusal is the amount of parking spaces. Two is required, zero
is proposed, and you'll see based on the irregular shaped lot, because we're very wide at the front
of our lot, we're very narrow on the end of our lot, it would be practically impossible for us
to put off-street parking there. And you'll also see from pictures that we've taken over the
course of multiple days uh this week there is not a parking situation in this neighborhood there's
there's plentiful parking in in this neighborhood we took most of these pictures between 10 and 11
o'clock at night knowing that most people if they're going to you know park it's by then at
least so so after that you'll see the permit so for 535 hansbury 1958 it stated the present use
the property as of 1958 was two-family and afterwards they had a new use as a rooming house
showing its multi-family history again no other indication of public record as this property in
the zoning file which shows that it's been used any other way application for appeal
and then the zoning map again this is our property you can just see even from the shape
of the property it's a regular shape it's very wide in the front it's about 35 feet in the front
and very narrow in the back 17. We're also there's a hill so it would be very hard to put a parking
spot there as well given that there's a retaining wall and it's an elevated property plus this
closer crosswalk so you know a lot of times where I hear from neighborhoods and community groups is
that they don't want curb cuts first at all because it's taking parking off of the street
but secondly especially close to an intersection and this looks like a more commercial-ish type
of intersection on Wissahickon. Then you'll see the google map where we are again we're at the
Then you'll see the Google map where we are. Again, we're at the corner of Whitsahickon and Hansberry. And then you'll see that there's a lot of commercial uses across the street from us. Whitsahickon is more commercial in nature. You'll see the BA of Philadelphia Regional Office, the Academy for Early Learning. You'll see Drexel University has probably some type of satellite campus there. You'll see there's a Zipcar place. There's a Dunkin' Donuts.
corner of Wissahickon and
So again, this corner tends to be more commercial in nature. And again, from a planning perspective, usually most of these properties, their corner properties are multi-unit in nature.
and photographs of the property this is a vacant lot you know this is from the from Hansberry
this is the side of the property from Whitsahickon as you can see we're very elevated and we have a
retaining wall so it would be somewhat difficult to put parking in there additionally if we put
parking in there that would be considered occupied area and given that this is an RSA3 property
We're over 50% of open area right now within the code, but if we were to put parking there, that we would run afoul of that open area requirements or open area requirements.
Plus, it wouldn't give a good purpose for the backyard as much because we want to make it more of a community with the two single-family homeowners, one facing Hansberry and one facing Wissahickon as well, plus a place to put garbage.
So this is the property on Hannesbury to the right of the property, to the left of the property, and you can see this is like on Wissahickon across the street, is the VA facility on Wissahickon to the right of the property, and to the left of the property, you can see there's a big corporate facility here on Wissahickon.
And then you'll see that it's not uncommon even on this street to have multifamily.
So it's a mix between RSA-3 and RM-1, but, you know, there's RSA-5 and RSA-3, 511 Hansberry, 509 Hansberry, that both are multifamily, even though they're not RM-1.
So there's multifamily use in the property.
So these are pictures that, and I have much more pictures.
I just took the ones that, you know, established, you know, what we're looking at.
Some of them were blurry.
Some of them, you know, you couldn't really decipher what was what.
But you'll see that there's parking right here.
And then you'll see this is in front of our property, parking here, parking along here, parking here, parking here.
So there is an adequate amount of parking in the neighborhood.
And this is at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock at night.
Most people are done for the day.
if there was this is not we're not taking part you know shots of the neighborhood at five o'clock
where people may be at home or may not so we really want to show you based on hey the night's
over what's left over in parking and then here the architectural plans drawings again another site
of the uh of the rendering of the property there'll be one single family home three bedrooms
three baths approximately 2,000 square feet going facing Hansberry and then there will be a second
single family home facing Wissahickon as well again both going up and down and then you'll see
that you'll see the irregular shaped lot as well as it gets very narrow towards the rear where we
would be expected to put parking if possible but you'll see like here's unit number one you go
through the porch and you have unit number one unit number two which is also uh vertical uh you
would just like a single family if you know even though it's called multi-family it's not just
because of the way we're not subdividing it but these are two single family homes again brick
facades but if you walk through the floor plans for the unit number one you walk through hansbury
through the front porch you have an open floor plan on the first floor there's there is a wreck
area uh on the basement area and then the second floor you go up a flight of steps there's two
bedrooms a bath and a laundry room and then the third floor is a it's a master suite same thing
for unit number two so you go through on the what's the heckin front door like it like it would
be a single-family home. You have an open floor plan. There's a rec room in the basement. These
are identical three bedrooms, three baths. Second floor is the two bedrooms, bathroom, and the
laundry room. And the third floor is a master bedroom. And we did meet with Solo. They did
opposed to project, but if you look in their notes, it was primarily because of
But if you look in their notes, it was primarily because of the rental situation, which there's not going to be one.
And then secondly, they said this is a single family neighborhood and they want to keep a single family, which is not completely accurate.
Showing, you know, the multifamily on the block, that's not RM1, as well as the multifamily around there, plus the commercial use across the space, plus the history of this property as a corner property.
All of that I've seen of public records multifamily use.
So with that being said, I would ask that Sean Thomas virtually raise his hand.
He's the principal of the corporate entity that owns 535 Hansberry.
Mr. Thomas.
Thank you.
Is Mr. Thomas in the audience?
There's no hands at this time, Chair.
Yeah, I know he was on, but as an officer of the court, I would hope you would take my testimony as true and accurate that if Mr. Thomas was here, he would adopt my testimony.
I have a Linda White.
Is that somebody that you need, Mr. Allen?
No, but it could, you never know how people designate themselves on their phones, so I'm not 100% sure that would be Sean or not, so.
Ms. White, are you here for this case?
Okay, I wanted to speak on behalf of the community.
Ms. White, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
miss why you just have to unmute yourself
uh did you hear me white miss white can you put your name and address on the record and spell
your last name yes my name is linda l-y-n-d-a white w-h-i-t-e and my address is 540 west queen lane
and i live around the corner from this property that is okay do you okay one second do you swear
or a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, and you said you wanted to
speak on behalf of? I want to speak as a resident, a homeowner, that is literally around the corner
from this property, and I want to speak on behalf of Northwest neighbors of Germantown, and I also
participated in the solo meeting with this potential home, with this applicant. So, Madam
Vice Chair, I would just object to Mrs. White's testimony on behalf of the neighborhood, unless
she's part of an authorized RCO and she's an authorized representative.
That was my next question. Are you an authorized member of the RCO?
I am an affiliate with the RCO.
What does that mean?
Well, I participated in the meeting that the RCO held.
So you attended the meeting?
I attended the presentation, which is not the same as what we're seeing today.
So you can't speak on behalf of the RCO, but you certainly can speak on behalf of yourself.
And I'd like to say that, first of all, the renderings of this property do not represent
what this property has been over the numerous years that it has been vacant.
It has not, and the property that's being shown is the property that's next door, as I recall, and I've been a neighbor here since 1992, and primarily the neighborhood is a mix of residential homeowners as well as multifamily units.
That block is a residential block that is across the street from the Germantown Cricket Club and a BFW.
Certainly, what he showed you was a picture of the U.S. Reserve on the corner,
and certainly Dressel is several blocks beyond that.
and Henry Avenue Queen Lane train station is probably one of the closest commercial entities
And Henry Avenue, Queen Lane train station is probably one of the closest commercial.
of that block and what we were presented over the years it has not been well maintained
and it is and I live here and have lived here night and day and now I'm a retired person so
I know what the what the community looks like night and day it is there's hardly any parking
space. On my block, we all have driveways. And if we didn't, we wouldn't have a place to park
night and day. It does change depending on the time of the day. So this picture of parking,
I don't know when it was done. But what I can tell you is I'm literally around the corner from this
and you would never, I've never seen this. So I don't know when this picture was taken.
So I am, I want to say in terms of the architecture of what was presented during that
meeting with the RCO is not what we saw. It was presented as a rental and not a condo unit.
And it was presented as a unit that was not characteristic with the architecture of the
community. And so it was more than just the parking and the rental. Certainly our interest
is in single family units as opposed to rental properties because the block, that 500 block of
West Hansberry is a mix of home ownership and some multifamily units, but it's a very
tight community so that what I'm trying to say is that this presentation is not what I recall
the presentation to be. And I want to just vigorously state my opposition and ask that you
I deny this appeal. Thank you. So, Madam Vice Chair, I'm just going to pull off my screen. This is the presentation we had on 1215. So, the only thing that's different is we didn't have the rendering. We tried to describe the rendering, but we didn't have the rendering at that moment.
So, other than that and adding pictures about the parking situation, it's the same exact thing. All my presentations are the same to the community. I have the RCO, excuse me, the notice of refusal. I had at that time the zoning permit showing that in 1958 it was a two-family that was being converted into a rooming house for this property.
the same type of zoning map same thing here and i'm not saying that it's you know there it seems
to be some building complex here that's across the street on west of hicken where you saw from
the pictures there was the va uh philadelphia regional office there's an academy for early
learning within this complex if you go further down the queen lane it looks like there's some
type of satellite off satellite campus for drexel um but it's the same pictures like you know in
terms of pictures, these are just pictures, I didn't even get these off of Google, like these
are pictures that I believe, and by the way, I spoke to my client, he's trying to, he did virtually
raise his hand, but he took these pictures of this property, so it's a neat maintained corner
property. I mean, does this grass overgrow sometimes? Yeah, and then when he deals with it,
obviously, but you know, he tries to maintain it the best he can, but this is exactly my
presentation I really try to keep it apples to apples you know for the for the community and the
zoning board same site plan again showing you know it's a vertical single-family home essentially
they're two units but it's form over substance
because they're really just single-family homes 2,000 square feet both of them this is the only
thing we showed them in terms of kind of rendering and that's on our site plan as well I mean our
floor plans it was a brick facade so all we did for you know this presentation was to show a
rendering of what we anticipate it's going to look like and then that's it so that was a vacant it
was a vacant lot before yeah it was it's a vacant lot now that's why that that was a its current
condition and by the way here are the pictures showing across the street the commercial aspect
of it. And most importantly, again, it's a mix between RM1 and RSA3 with a CMX component. And
even this RSA3 part, this is where the VA hospital is. So typically, and again, it's a regular
shaped lot. We're not trying to differ from what the history of this property is. We want to put
it as two single families. We're calling it two units because it's a condominium. For all intents
of purposes, it's two units. And we're trying to keep within the character in the neighborhood
through our, you know, not just a rendering, but what we showed the community and what's part of
our zoning package. So that's it. Is Mr. Thomas on the line? And if he is, can he virtually raise
on the line? And if he is, can he virtually raise his hand to adopt my testimony and add any input
his hand to adopt my testimony?
as well? Sure. Mr. Thomas, you can unmute yourself. Wait to be sworn in.
Mr. Thomas, or hi, Mr. Thomas, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name, please? Yes. My name is Sean Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-F. My address is 4937 Local Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19139. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Mr. Thomas, you heard everything I stated today.
Yes, I have. And is it true and accurate? Yes. And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Tony? Yes, I will. And then the photographs that I showed, specifically the ones, well, this one,
this is a true and accurate representation of what the lot currently looks like, right?
Right. Yes, it is. Okay. Yeah. And those were pictures taken, right, of the lot?
Yes. Okay. Yeah. These are not Google, like we got it off the internet. Now, this we did,
like you know to the left and the right where Mr. Thomas had those pictures taken to show the
current you know a current representation and then in in terms of the parking what time were
these what time were these pictures taken and when were they taken? They was taken Monday night and
last night the first one Monday night was around 10 30 then we came back out there around 11 20
last night and I emailed it to you stating parking last night what it was at 11 30 11 20
is somewhere around there but it was time stamped in the email that sent you yeah so um I have no
further questions for Mr. Thomas but by the way Mr. Thomas do you have anything else to add that
I didn't that you didn't hear me state during my presentation no you pretty much said everything
okay thank you does the board have any questions no no
Chair we still have a few hands raised. Okay great one by one we'll take them.
Madam Chair if I could ask that if it's okay with you it does appear that we have multiple
witnesses up to eight if we could request only a minute or two of testimony
to keep things moving I would appreciate it. Okay thank you also something new and different.
Absolutely.
Okay, I'm going to go with Mr. Charles Richardson.
Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Madam Vice Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
Were you before us earlier?
No, this is my first time of the day.
Name and address on the record and spell your last name, please.
Sure. Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You may proceed.
Okay. The Councilwoman is going to be opposing the granting of this variance.
She feels that there's no physical hardship that's been shown and that this is very much an overuse of the property.
She feels the block would be better served by the construction of a single-family home at that site.
Instead of rental, as they tried to address it as not being rental, they are actually essentially subdividing the property that was intended for a single-family home.
In addition, situated behind this property on the 5200 block of Wissahickon Avenue are primarily single-family homes.
So, you know, it's kind of being misrepresented a little bit.
To that extent, they talk about what's across the street on Wissahacken Avenue, which is totally an industrial site, primarily going all the way down to the expressway.
So, you know, there's two different sides of this street.
And one functions primarily for the residents and the other functions for those organizations that are across the street.
so therefore again the councilwoman is opposed to the to this uh granting of the variance thank you
chair we have a calling user um and then an 8122.
calling you user you can unmute yourself
Hello, can you hear me?
Hello, can you hear me?
Okay, Chair, we have Charisma. Charisma, you can unmute yourself.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your name?
sure my name is spelled c-h-a-r-i-s-m-a presley p as in paul r-e-s-l-e-y my address is 507
west handsbury street okay and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes i do okay you may proceed so um during that and there's you excuse me you have
one minute because we have a lot of cases. So you can speak for one minute and it has to be
something new and different. Sure. During that meeting, it was Mr. Thompson and Clementa at
their meeting. And what they showed us was two homes with two apartments in each of them. And so
this rendering is new. Also, the upkeep of this property has not been upkeep except after the
meeting. We showed pictures during that meeting. We're not just talking about grass overgrown.
We're talking about grass that can hide a 10-year-old child, and nothing has been done
to really upkeep it, and it has not been shoveled until this season after that meeting. And so,
you know, these drawings are new. Our block, we do have problems with parking because we have
parking on Wissahickon, and we have apartments on Skylar, and I live in the middle of the block,
and I can come home and not find parts at all.
So that was the only thing I wanted to say.
So I don't support this development.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, Madam Vice Chair.
Yeah, I mean, as an officer of the court,
I take these things rather seriously.
You know, we're not about bait and switch.
Those are the same floor plans
that we showed to the community.
We're not trying to put two units
and maybe that was why the community was against it.
I don't know.
Now, Ms. Amazon did present to the community, but these are our presentation materials.
Ms. Amazon's on, but I'm sure she can testify as well that these are the same presentation materials.
Other than adding about the parking and the rendering, the floor plans, again, it only reinforces the fact we want to have two single families here, each are 2,000 square feet.
this lot's almost 3,000 square feet. So dividing that in half to 1,500 each and having a 2,000
square foot home on each lot, that makes sense. This property has been vacant for a number of
years. And I know financial hardship's not a consideration of this board, but it's not feasible
to put one single family home on this lot. So having two single family homes of a 3,000 square
foot lot, which essentially be divided in half to 1,500 square feet each, each of them being
sold separately makes a lot of sense. Okay, I'd like to hear from the next witness.
Ms. Lindsay? Hi, this is Lindsay Diamond. Hi, can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in. It's Lindsay Diamond, D-Y-M-O-N-D.
My address is 503 West Hansberry Street, 19144.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You have one minute, and it has to be something new and different.
So just to confirm that most of the properties around this proposed property are single families.
And the rent and sale prices of properties in this area do support a single-family home.
Sales range from $350,000 to $450,000, and that's in the past year, not even considering
the current real estate market.
So there is the financial ability to build a single-family home and make money on that
single-family home.
If they were rentals, there's also the ability to take in enough rental income to support the...
I want to object to this testimony because it sounds like expert testimony.
Okay. You're opposed to this, correct?
Are you talking to me?
Yes, I am.
Yes, I'm opposed to this for various reasons.
Okay. I'd like to hear from the next witness.
Ms. Allison, Allison, you can unmute yourself.
yes hello allison hi solo hi solo germantown civic association okay can you put your name
Yes. Hello, Allison. Hi, fellow German.
and address on the record and spell your last name allison weiss w-e-i-s-s solo germantown
civic association 4908 wayne avenue philadelphia pennsylvania um we did submit our letter of
opposition do you one second do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about
the truth yes i was sworn in earlier thank you i know oh that's right you are sorry that's okay
that's okay um i just wanted to say that um we did submit our letter of opposition and um we
represented uh what was discussed at the meeting uh that was conducted by clementa amazon at mr
knockamson's office i don't believe he was there at least he didn't speak um and it was presented
as rental units not condominiums and so that is a big change and the photographs that we saw
that the neighbors took of the condition of that property for the many years this owner
was in possession of the property was terrible like someone said previously you could lose a
child in there and in fact there was a child hidden in the photograph um so we would uh
like i said we we did not have um knowledge of the um
for sale condominiums and if they would be for sale we would like to ask if they would be owner
occupied as opposed to rental condominiums that would be retained by the owner excuse me this is
sharon slitta sorry to interrupt but um just for the record the courts have held that a zoning
decision cannot be based on the form of ownership whether it's a rental or an owned owned property
so you are opposed to this project
okay uh next witness
uh tina marie russell miss russell you can i meet yourself
can you hear me yes i can tina name and address on the record and spell your last name
Tina Marie Russell
I forgot my address
1631 West Susquehanna Avenue
and I'm calling my statement
is that
R-U-S-S-E-L-L
and I'm just responding
to support the
the dial but the main thing I want
to ask is the
and I know I don't know if I can say this or not
But I just want to ask, the attorney went on for a large amount of time, took up a lot of activity of space, but now the community is being asked to only speak for one minute and never to repeat themselves.
We have to have as much time as the attorney to make sure that all people can be heard thoroughly because everyone should be treated fairly.
I just wanted to make sure I said that statement, because it just feels like the attorneys are having a long amount of time on this, and they can rebuttal, and they can come in and chime in whenever they want, and as long as they want, but the people get to speak for only a minute, and I just wanted to make sure that I put that on the record, and I, too, am supporting the denial.
I'm sorry, Chair, this is Tanya. The Administrator, may I speak to that?
Yes, sure you may.
I just would like to put on the record for all involved. This is a zoning board hearing. The attorneys and the applicants pay to present and go forward. Therefore, they have lengthy time to put on their case so that all involved, especially the board, can make an informed decision.
The community has a chance to discuss and weigh in at the community meeting.
They are allowed to come to the zoning board hearing to give testimony.
However, the board can determine how long they can speak because we typically have 40 cases on a given day.
I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that.
So we do give preference to the applicant slash attorney because they're the ones that paid to go forward to present all information to the board.
I just wanted to make sure we're all clear.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Tanya.
Thanks, Donna.
And then, I'm sorry.
Sorry. With all due respect to Team Mary Russell, I respect her opinion about whether she opposes support or non-opposition, but my understanding that this is outside the boundaries of her organization, and I don't believe she's within the affected area, nowhere near the affected area.
Sorry.
With all due respect to Team Marie Russell, I respect her.
but I could be wrong. So I'm just saying I would object to her testimony. And again, if we need an
additional conversation with Solo to cement somehow that these will be owner-occupied and
sold units, I would ask if there's an opportunity for Solo to reconsider their position if these
are condos. And again, I did not present. So I don't know what Ms. Amazon, how she presented it
to me but my understanding through my client was that these were always going to be two unit
buildings um and is there excuse me is there a representative here from solo germantown civic
who would be willing to speak to that is there any chance that if you get together again for
i hate to say this another meeting
there may be there may be a change in your opinions miss rogers
hello hi can you put your name and address on the record and are you with solo germantown civic
yes this is allison weiss hi allison hi um i would say from hearing the testimony and from
hearing the people at the meeting that they would prefer single family
so there would be nothing gained by another meeting i don't think so but uh if there are
other people on this call perhaps you could poll them yeah i mean the only thing i would say this
is really single family it's it's only multi-family in technicality because we're not subdividing a
3 000 square foot property but these if you look at it these are two single family structures well
maybe you should subdivide your property and come back and make a presentation for the community
is there another is there another witness and and I think that'll be the last witness
I'm not saying that it's going to be the last witness but I think there were six people with
their hands up is there anyone after Ms. Weiss um yes um it's a Mr. Toomer
But because he has the old version of Zoom, it's not letting him present.
He's going to have to call in.
Lakeisha, can we promote Ms. Amazon so she can get on the record?
Hello?
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Name and address, please.
Yes, my name is Thornton Toomer.
My address is 533 West Hansberry Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1-9-1-4-4.
Okay, and can you spell your last name?
Yes, T-O-O-M-E-R.
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
So my family's been here over 40 years.
Where the lot is at, there has been a single family living there, the boys.
second thing it's impossible to park on our block because we have like he said we have the VA
we have the apartment builders on Skyler we have some apartments on Whistler Hicken and then the
commercial building that he's pointing out that he can't figure out what it is it's actually a
police station third thing the last time we had this zoom meeting we talked to Sean Thomas the
person who owns the lot and he was supposed to come fix the pavement and still never ever came
and he was supposed to come and speak to the residents and still never did that so I'm gonna
say I'm opposed because everything that he said before still hasn't happened and to the lawyer
he's saying it's gonna be one family on the lot you keep saying one family but there's gonna be
two families there. And how it was presented to me, it was supposed to be two families in each
unit. So four families all together. At least that was what I was told by someone who was
hanging up the sign at the lot. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other
witnesses? Yes. Thank you. Good morning. Come on to Amazon. Hi. Name and address. Please
Hi. Name and address, please, and spell your last name.
and spell your last name?
Of course, Clementa C-L-A-G.
Of course. Clementa, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A. Last name Amazon, A-M-A-Z-A-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Thank you. Do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed.
Of course, so I did present this particular project at the community meeting, and it was always a duplex, meaning two units, and the letter that we received from Solo Germantown also describes it as a duplex, two family dwellings, so I'm not sure where the confusion comes in, in terms of having four units all together.
I think it's the single family that they want.
no i understand i just wanted to address the comments in regards to
this being a different project that was presented during the community meeting versus what's being
presented currently okay thank you does the board have any questions no yes miss madam madam chair
or whoever I'll be today. Okay. I just have a comment from the architecture look of the
building. It has one door on Hansberry Street. So it pretty much look like single family.
That's all I like to say. Well, there's one door on Hansberry and one on what's the heck in.
Do you see that now, Tom?
Yes, it's a porch, which is consistent with the other houses on the block.
No, but did you also understand that we have a separate entrance for the other unit on
Wissahecken?
Correct.
Okay, just wanted to make sure.
That's why I just wanted to make sure that there's not one entrance for both units.
There's an entrance for each unit.
And yes, we are trying to be consistent with the general feel and look at the neighborhood.
It's still your advantage to have one door on Hansberry.
Thank you. Thank you.
Are there any other witnesses? No, Chairwoman, you can continue.
Okay, Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Tenari, Ian Hegarty from the Philadelphia City
Planning Commission. I want to address a couple things. One, the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the existing residential single-family zoning on this block. We did consider the zoning
in this area in the 2018 Upper Northwest District Plan and found the existing zoning to be a
rational designation. Despite adjacent multifamily and commercial zoning that was cited by council
Also in this case, the entire block face on Hansberry is proposed to remain RSA 3, which
is consistent with the existing uses and forms of the single family twin homes on this block.
Since this is a use variance, the applicant's burden to demonstrate evidence of unique physical
circumstances or conditions of this property.
We don't feel that the applicant has done so.
we don't believe that any hardship stems from the previous uses on the property that were cited or
any adjacent non-conforming uses since the site has been cleared and as the applicant has testified
the planning commission therefore is going to recommend that the board deny this variance
thank you calendar number 1385-535 Hansberry Street my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no thank you thank you i'm gonna go back to um number four
calendar number three three one two two zero three six north grad street
hi you can hear me i can name an address please again and spell your last name my last name is
bamet b-a-h-m-e-d-1-6-2-3 colonel line havertown b-a-9-0-8-3 thank you and i don't know if i swore
you in before but i'll swear you and again you swear affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Okay, you may present your case.
So, can I share my screen?
Yes, you may.
okay okay can you let me know if you see my screen
yes we can see we can okay thanks a lot so i wanted just to show you this house how it is
for starting i will try to be very brave don't take too much of your time so it's
It's a very nice house with very good architecture in Grad Street.
It's located here in this area close to Temple University in Grad Street, North Philadelphia.
So I got authorization to do two units, but I think that if we can, if you will agree
to get three units, it will be very good and helpful.
So I will try to explain why.
I put some in my in my application for appeal I put some reasons. I think that
if we will do it only for two units it will be a little bit expensive and
not less affordable for the growing student population which are which are in that area who
are almost living in that area.
And for the question about if it will be anything
concerning any modification outside,
I will do no modification outside.
If this variance will endanger the public,
I don't think so, because our work will be only anterior.
I will show it later in my plans it will not affect the property's neighbour as I showed
it up it's in the corner lot and this I will try to rent these three units to temple students
which are 10 minutes walking from the university. So I don't think it will be a problem with
trafficking or anything because very often the students are taking bicycle or walking to the
university. Right, have you met with the RCO? No. So you've not met with the registered community
organization? No, I didn't do that. You don't know how they feel, the neighborhood feels about this?
It's only students living in that room. It doesn't matter who's living in there.
You're required to meet with the RCO. I didn't do that. Ms. Saleta, can I continue this case?
Yes, it will have to be continued.
Okay, calendar number three.
Actually, excuse me, Chair, since this has started, I guess technically it will be a
resumption hearing, though you don't need to give a specific date.
Perhaps the applicant can contact Ms. Sunkit, would it be you that he would contact
when he has had the RCO meeting?
Well, it's going to be a regular continuance.
Okay, thank you.
I'm good to hear you.
It will be scheduled as a regular continuance in August.
We have no available date sooner.
Calendar number 3312, 2036 North Grant Street.
This case is continued.
I'm sorry. Your information will be emailed out to you again. I would implore you to please read all the documentation so you'll be able to know what you need to do next.
Okay, so I cannot continue saying what I have to say.
No, you have to read all the information that is going to be mailed to you again and follow through with that and then come back to the board.
i'm going to the next case calendar number three three one seven five nine two four master street
mr levy is coming in now as the panelists
Mr. Levy, you can unmute yourself.
I believe I'm unmuted. Did that work?
I believe I'm unmuted.
Did that work?
Yes. Mr. Levy, are you an attorney?
Yes, Mr. Levy.
Okay. Hi. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Certainly. I typed it in, by the way, to log in, but it's B-A-R-T-L-E-V-Y.
The middle name is Elliott, E-L-L-I-O-T-T. My ID number is 204800.
My office is at 1500 Market Street, 12th floor, East Tower.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and plans five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
In all candor to this board, I was hired in the last 24 hours, though I know all that
data was sent and the RCO was met with, and we have a letter of approval.
I'm also going to need the actual applicant also to help me with the exhibits.
I just haven't learned how to upload them yet. So Mr. Nobrun, who is the manager of this project,
will also be joining me in this presentation.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. Madam Chair, I did speak with the applicant yesterday to let him know that he would need an attorney, and he had at that point already submitted all the required exhibits.
Okay, so we can move forward.
Can we have Mr. Noplin also join us, or is there some...
Yes, he may.
Yes, he would just need to raise his hand.
Look at that little hand thing underneath.
I don't know how you guys do it.
I really don't.
He's a valuable chair.
Mr. Nobram, I see that you're there.
Can you hear me?
Well, I mean, I don't see you.
I see something that resembles him being there.
Rodney Nobram?
Rodney, unmute yourself.
Mr. Levy, this is Tanya.
May I ask, are you going to present or will he present on the screen?
He will present on the screen.
With your permission.
Okay, we'll promote him to a panelist so he can share his screen.
Thank you.
hi mr nobrum can you put are you mr nobrum yes hi good morning my name is rodney nobrun
name and address for the record and spell your last name and then i'll swear you in
sure good morning my name is rodney nobrun last name is spelled n as in nancy o b as in brian
R-U-N-A-N-C-E. My address is 55 Bailey Drive, Burlington, New Jersey, 08016.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Okay. Now I know who you are, Mr. Levy, now that I see you.
Thank you.
I hope.
So someone proceed.
Okay. So I will proceed with sharing my screen.
Good morning. I'm here to present on 5924 Master Street. I am the owner. It's in my
company name, Nobel Legacy LLC. And today we'll be presenting all of the documents that
was forwarded over to the ZBA more than five days ago. It was sent over last week. It's the property
ownership, the refusal, the tax clearance, the RCO meeting notes, and the drawings. I'm also here
today to request the building is currently zoned as a single-family residence. I am here to request
the variance changed to a two-family residence. I also want to note to the board that initially
back in 2013, the previous owner prior to me was approved for a five-unit variance in 2013.
So they were approved in 2013 for five units. I guess they didn't do any work to it. So then
and it reverted back to the single family residency.
single-family residency. The next document shows proof of ownership. I purchased a property
The next document shows
last year in my company name in October of 2020. Next document is the refusal document.
Next document is my tax clearance.
and the next document is is um so we had two separate meetings with the rco and the in the
community the first meeting when i presented the five units they actually declined it due to
parking um in that area so we negotiated and we agreed at a second meeting um to limit it down to
two units in the building and i have full support from the community as you can see here
hmc squared community association yes correct
okay can we see the drawings yes absolutely that's next okay absolutely um i'm going to
get the drawings
okay so the first page is a rendering of the front and the back of the property
to the left here is the front and then to the right is the back of the property
no no significant changes i'm just going to um update the front it's kind of it's kind
of dilapidated now it's it's out of date it's it's not it's not um it's not very appealing to
the visual eye so i'm just going to change it up a little bit just to spruce up and make it look
nice to um in order to improve the improve the area the back to the right no changes to the
back really i'm just going to cut this tree um because some of the neighbors um complained about
this tree leaning over into their property so i'm just going to cut the tree the next rendering is
the is the actual drawings sorry there's some technical difficulties
please. Okay. Okay. So from left to right, to the left, we have the basement. No change
we do not see the drawings oh i'm sorry that's okay um excuse me sir do you have
what you would have to do is to unshare and then click on your drawing so that they're open and
ready then share again and they should present on the screen okay okay and then
did you see the front and the back renderings or no
No, you're currently not sharing your presentation.
You just have to click on share screen again
with your documents already open.
Let's go back up and show both, Mr. Coburn.
All right, I'll back up and show both.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
So I need to go back.
Are you sharing this, Tom?
No, I need to share another document.
I need to share this.
my apologies for the delay that's okay sir so we still not seeing the um actual pictures you
have to click on your pictures first um and then click the um share screen
okay am i sharing now yes awesome perfect and now can you rotate the screen yes
i know it's one thing after another yeah yeah another 180 okay all right perfect there you go
perfect
I gotta rotate
some more
my apologies
rotate
rotate
rotate
all right
all right
okay here we go here we go thank you so much for your patience thank you all right so this
everybody has a problem you're not alone thank you so much um so again this is the front of the
property no no major changes to the front um we're probably just going to remove this graffiti
paint the front keep it pretty much the same we're also going to build a beautiful front porch as
well um and that's that's the changes to the front of the property and then to the right over here we
have the back of the property no major changes to the back of the property either we're just going
to cut this tree because i received some complaints from the neighbor next door to me that some of
the branches are falling over into her property so i'm going to remove this tree in order to
protect my property as well as the neighbor's property as well.
So now I'm going to attempt to go to the drawings. I'm going to stop share
and then share screen.
all right so these are the drawings of the of the building can everybody see the drawings
yes okay all right excellent so from left to right to the left is the basement no changes to the
basement that's going to continue to be it'll just be my utility room that have all the electrical
panels and all that all the utility things in the basement the next drawing represents the first
floor so it's a three-story building the building's about 2 000 square feet my initial plans were to
be five units. Then I try to get three units in there, but then I got back, I got pushed back
from the community. So we agreed to two units. So in order to execute two units, we're going to do
one unit on the first floor. That's apartment number one. It'll occupy the entire first floor
to be a two-bedroom unit on the first floor. And then on the second and third floor, we'll occupy
a bi-level second unit apartment. The bi-level apartment on the second floor will have two
bedrooms, beautiful living area, open space, and a bathroom and a kitchen. And then on the third
floor, it will be another full bathroom with a shower and a tub and another bedroom, as well as
a study hall as well like a study room a den on the third floor so again my my my request today
is to um convert this single family residence into a two-unit multi-unit residence the first
floor having one unit one apartment with two bedrooms and the second and third floor will
occupy the second unit with three total bedrooms plus a den plus two full bathrooms
any questions from from the board we do have a letter of support from the hmc squared community
association does the board have any questions no no is there anyone in the virtual audience
who has questions
yes chair we have a tina marie russell okay so you can unmute yourself
tina can you hear me
miss russell you just have to unmute yourself
LaKeisha did she raise her hand um yes she just um still muted not sure what if you want to go on
Yeah, it must be a technical problem.
uh tanya what do you recommend that i do we can move on if you wish
Tanya, what do you recommend that I do?
okay next uh next step is planning commission
ian you have to unmute yourself
my apologies thank you madam chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
this property is within an area um where we have an in-process zoning map amendment
that would make a change from rsa3 to rm1 the zoning bill has been referred favorably out of
the rules committee but has not been reflected on the zoning map yet um the proposed use is
consistent with the um use and the dwelling unit density that would be allowed as a matter of right
under the proposed zoning district and so we recommend that the board grant this variance
okay um tina are you are you there yet
i do have a question where is the trash going to be stored that's a great question um if i can go
back to the front i can show you the picture i can stop share and then share
this is a special trash room correct correct so to the left in the front of the building
to the left of the building um there is a gated area or the trash will be in that gated area
we can't see the building yes i will bring it up right now i'm sorry
okay i apologize but the picture is not is not really clear but if you can follow the arrow of
the mouse um this left area here is a gated area it's an alleyway all the trash should be kept in
the alleyway i will advise all of my tenants to keep the trash in that alleyway and on trash day
to put the trash out and then of course once the trash is picked up to to put the trash cans back
in this area here in this alleyway here you'll be the manager of this building i am yes i'm the
manager of i actually manage all of my properties i um i'm very active um the the community can
attest to it when like during the snow storms i was there shoveling myself personally um i visit
the property at least at a minimum once a week to make sure everything is clean and and um i just
be a part of the community and i want to add value to that add value to that area thank you
i've been representing mr nobren in this capacity for the last 12 years
he's a hands-on manager visits his properties a couple times a month
and is very very responsive to city
that's great is tina
tina are you on
Tanya, I'm going to move forward and vote the case.
Does that sound reasonable?
Sharon?
Yes, actually, can I ask Mr. Haggerty one question?
You know any youth looking for work?
Oh, no, boys.
If you do...
I don't know who's speaking.
I think that was Tina Marie Russell.
If she's going to testify, that's fine.
Okay, Tina?
I'm sorry, that was a mistake.
Okay, are you going to testify?
For this particular case?
No, that was a mistake on my hand.
My fingers were on my phone.
I'm sorry about that.
Okay. Ms. Saletta, do you still have a question for Mr. Haggerty?
Yes. Can I ask one question? Given that this has been reported favorably out of committee,
would you agree that the applicant could go in and get a buy-write permit at this point?
I'm sorry. That's unfair to ask you.
um i uh i i can confirm that that's that's a legal decision
I can confirm that's a legal decision and I know it involves other factors so you don't have to
scratch that question sorry she didn't say that strike that I'm going to vote the case calendar
number 3317 5924 Master Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
Thank you. Welcome to the virtual world, Mr. Levy. Calendar number 3267-6900 Chester Avenue.
Mr. Tariq, you can unmute yourself.
Tariq, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
You have to unmute yourself.
Tariq, can you speak?
I don't see a speaker.
Can you put a thumbs up?
Tariq, can you hear us?
Yeah, don't see audio.
Yeah, maybe Mr. Wright needs to go out and come back in.
Or he might need to call in on the phone.
Right.
I see another device under his name.
can you guys hear me now
can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your name please and then I'll swear you in
can you hear me
uh it's technical you guys hear me now i'm sorry okay uh yeah now now i can clearly
sir do you have more than one device on in the same
yes may you uh turn one of the devices off okay
can i make a suggestion kari if you are you using a computer
if you're using a computer mute the computer and then put the volume on the device you need to use
to speak but you can't have both volumes on so if your computer doesn't have speakers mute that
or turn the volume all the way down then try to speak through whatever device you're using
to hit the audio let's try our audio test
nope it doesn't appear clear you guys hear me clearly now okay now that's better
Yeah, that's great.
Tariq, can you put your name and address on the phone?
It keeps coming on.
Ryan, we're still seeing you as two different connections.
I think we might have to continue this because of technology.
I think it is Sharon.
um excuse me this is sharon um i know that i i believe the applicant and the property owner and
his wife were planning to testify is it possible that she is in the same room with another
device on or somewhere in the house would that affect it
Yes, that could be.
Tariq, can you do a slow audio test?
Tariq, are you there?
yeah so that we don't prolong things madam chair it's your call
okay i think we have to can we perhaps move this back one case since the applicant's wife did
Can we perhaps move this back one case since the applicant's wife did call yesterday to ask about procedural questions?
I'll try giving her a call now.
There is one more case on the list.
There is one more case.
Calendar number 0386716 North Shedwick Street.
Meredith Verliger is the attorney.
I do not see Meredith at this time.
Do we give her a few seconds?
Can we just call the case again, Chair, to see if anyone is here?
Calendar number, sure.
Calendar number 0386-716 North Shedwick Street.
The attorney listed is Meredith Verliger.
Okay, now we have Darwin.
He's coming in as a panelist now.
darwin madam chair are you with seven eight it'll be 716 north shedwick street yes that's correct
that's okay can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
once again darwin beauvais that's b-e-a-u-v-a-i-s at dealworth paxton located at 1500 market street
suite 3500e um madam chair members you still are under oath but yes do you agree to wait the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos plans five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes we have all of those all of those items
madam chair hi mr brother yes thank you madam chair members of the board it's always good to
be in front of you um and i asked the administrator if we can also identify frank rennie renner and
omri again for this matter uh 716 north shedwood street is located between mantua
avenue and north 35th street um just it just let me share my screen if i may
we here are all of our exhibits as listed that we submitted to the board and i would want to start
with the zoning map, which is 31. So, Mantua Avenue and North 35th Street, this location here,
this is the essence of our hardship, if you will. We're in a split zone district.
RSA-5 is controlling, and had we filed this application before the zoning change in 2017, this project would have been as of right.
So what we're looking, this entire block consists of 21 parcels, 11 of which are currently vacant.
Our proposal is for a three-story structure with five dwelling units.
The units range from a little bit over 600 square feet one bedroom to over 900 square feet for two bedrooms.
If you look at our exhibit packet for Section 15, which is 49, here are a list of permits on the block showing that the property,
property, surrounding properties are for multifamily. That's, that is for 717, five dwelling
units, 657. It's for multifamily, three dwelling units.
It's for multifamily three-dwelling units, 659 three-dwelling units, 661 has had a history for a two-family dwelling, three-family dwelling units.
There's first floor, one family, third floor, two family, 665, five family dwelling units, and 711 North 35th Street, two family dwelling units.
And we continue 721, 3-family, 723, 2-family, 727, 2-family, 729, 3-family, and the list goes on and on and on.
I'm trying to be brief, but I just want the board to know that we are looking at a multifamily block, and despite it being vacant.
So here's an aerial view of what we're talking about.
So the front half along here is zone RSA 5.
However, our lot goes all the way across.
So, and this, here is RM1.
And the properties, the permits that I showed you show mostly multifamily dwellings.
So here's another view of the area.
So another view. Again, our lot goes across. Our lot goes across.
us now with with that said i i i want to point out that this property this application was actually
in front of the board back in january 22nd 2020 we had several properties in that area
And when we met with the community, we did get support, which is at number 74.
We did get support for this property.
If you see here, it's 716 North Sedgwick.
We met on January 21st at 630 at the Chosen 300 Ministries.
uh all the members that were there for 716 Sedgwick uh seven supported four opposed the
reason was for parking however we did they did support our zoning change for for family uh for
multi-family at the time um here are properties of the here's photograph of the lot itself
And this is from the other side, a picture of our posting, our most recent posting.
and one of the reasons why we're before you today or is because we were the package that we submitted
in january of last year was uh was supported however there was a nearby neighbor or someone
who purported to be a nearby neighbor suggested that we that they were in opposition there was
a question by the chair as to whether or not we should meet with this neighbor we did try we did
agree to continue this portion we went forward with everything else and since then uh we haven't
been able to find this neighbor we we've tried and we've we've reached out we've made we made
overtures but we can't find this person we don't even know who this person is and so we posted the
property again in hopes that we would get another phone call in hopes that somebody will will reach
out and we haven't gotten that yet so with that with that said when it comes to when it comes to
the actual hardship we're submitting that this is just a use variance we're not asking for any
physical dimensions or anything like that the property has been blighted for a long time
and although that it was it this was part of uh the rezoning was part of a broad
broad omnibus remapping in Mantua, this was contemplated and it is clear by the surrounding
omnibus remapping in mantua that this
properties that multifamily does work here and would be consistent here. So with that,
we can go over the floor plans. And at this time, I would ask that if Frank Brenner would be
identified and let me just while i pull up the floor plans mr renner yes name and address please
you've already been sworn in frank renner last name r-e-n-n-e-r my address is 829 north 29th street
philadelphia pennsylvania uh 19130 thank you so frank can you walk us through starting from the
basement uh yes or you know what how about we do this starting from the front door that will be
the first floor uh the first floor is on the in the middle of the plan set there um there are uh
As mentioned, three stories in each apartment is one apartment in the front, one apartment in the rear for each for each for each floor.
In the basement, we have our living areas and actual bedrooms would be on the first floor.
There is a shared rear yard, which would be where our trash would be located.
located and um this would be and this property would also be managed by a commercial garbage
company that would take the trash out twice a week as as the other property um and i believe
uh mr bouvet mentioned two bedrooms we are only proposing one bedroom for each apartment
um and uh so yeah um because there is no alley at this location we have proposed uh two-way egress
um on the first floor here as you can see on the right uh and you would you would enter the
the upstairs apartments from the the central the central stairway as you can see um and then the
Yeah, the upper floors are fairly similar to each other.
And, again, these are one-bedroom units.
And with commercial trash pickup, how often will that be?
It would be twice a week.
Omri, will it be the same company that you normally use?
I'm sorry.
Could we acknowledge?
i'm not sure knowledge i'm not sure that omri is here but oh okay all right
but yes he is yes i'm here he gives me some music so
hi sir i'm sorry can you hear me now yes yes can you put your name and address on the record
So my name is Omri Shitrit, it is O-M-R-Y, and my last name is S-H-I-T as in Tom, R-I-T.
Thank you. You're already sworn in.
I already sworn in.
Okay. So we're going to use waste management as usual.
As of all our multifamily properties, they're going to take the trash twice a week.
Okay. So, and with that said, I would submit to the board that this is the least amount of variance that we're looking at, right?
You know, our proposal requests densities that currently exist there.
It's in line with the surrounding uses.
We will, this project will remediate the blight.
It's been an empty lot for several years.
And with that, we don't see any congestion to the area.
The properties have ample access to public transportation.
There is on-street parking.
We don't see any impairment to light or air because we're matching the same heights of the surrounding properties.
And with that, we believe we comply with the code.
Again, we did meet with the community last year.
We have their letter of support.
This was part of a omnibus package that we submitted to the board back in
This was part of an omnibus package that we submitted to the board back in January of last year.
And since then, we agreed to a continuance to try to find this amorphous neighbor.
But to no avail, we have it, and we're asking that the board continue their support of our overall project.
Omri, are you still on the line?
Yes, I am.
So everything that you heard, would you adopt that as your testimony?
Is there anything else you would like to add?
Not at the moment.
All right.
So with that, we just ask the board if there's any questions.
The three of us are here to help.
Does the board have any questions?
is there anyone in the virtual is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions
yes madam chair we have a daniel jones mr jones you can um unmute yourself hi there can you hear
me yes can you please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name sure it's
Danielle. I'm a girl. Danielle Jones. No problem. Danielle Jones. D-A-N-Y-E-L Jones. J-O-N-E-S. 724 North Shedwick Street. I am one of the residents on this block.
Thank you. Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay, you may continue.
So I've been living on this block for about five years now. This is a very narrow block.
Our main opposition and there had been some other neighbors that had been on the line but had to
jump off because of work commitments, etc. It's extremely narrow and our opposition is to the
density that this particular unit would bring. Almost all of the homes on this block are single
family homes. There is no multifamily on this particular block. There is something on the
corner of Mantua, which obviously it's a larger street, bigger breadth, can handle a lot more
volume, but our street cannot handle that. You know, I can appreciate the fact that, you know,
that the developer owns the block or owns the lot on the opposing block. And, you know, if
that street is wider, it's bigger, it can handle volume, this narrow street cannot handle that. We
or five units, you know, you figure one or even two people living in each of those units,
that is a burden on this on this block. We have had other people try to bring multifamily,
you know, on other little sections of this street and the board has recently opposed
those. So we are hoping that they are continuing in our favor to not move forward with this
particular project. I was in attendance to that initial meeting and had, you know, provided
my contact details to the developer and the representative. So I'm not sure if I was this
person that someone couldn't find because I actively come to these meetings. I'm a part of
this. And keeping this particular block, single family, is very important to myself and other
neighbors that are there. We are not opposed to filling in the gaps that are on that street,
but we want to keep it in line with what is in the space. And that is single family homes.
thank you i i if i may you know it's it's clear i and i showed the permits for the surrounding
area it in with all due respect it there's there's a ton of multi-family here as well on this block
particularly if i may ask that question i i'm looking at 632 north sedgwick not my block
i'm looking at no no interrupting please sorry sorry sorry and and what i also see
is that there's a ton of vacancy on the on the block so i i although i appreciate
what she's saying, but there's a ton of vacancy on that blog.
Let me go back to the Arial Views, and I just want to compare, just
by site, the street seems to be an average-sized street, although we can look at the site plan,
which is 26. If we have, let me just get closer.
it's a 30 foot right away so it it and i don't have what 35th street looks like but this is
if if anything they could be parking on one side of the street uh if if if that's not already
in existence. So I understand the issue about parking and that has been a common issue with a
lot of projects requiring or allowing for density, but honestly that wasn't one of our refusals.
again here's an aerial
again if you see the vacancy and again this is our lot and it goes across to this entire
block if you will okay we do have a letter from the 24th democratic ward it's a letter of support
planning commission. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning
Commission. In 2017, the zoning map was amended from RM1, blocked to a split of RM1 and RSA5.
And this was done in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
with the support of the community. We agree there are adjacent non-conforming uses, but we don't
believe that the applicant's hardship claim is supported with evidence of any kind of unique
physical circumstances or conditions of the property. It is, after all, a regular lot,
flat lot. The provisions of the zoning code, as you know, do not constitute hardship in the
criteria for the board nor do nearby non-conformities and nor does the condition of vacancy that is
being cited by council here. The applicant had the option to legally subdivide into two lots which
would allow for buy right redevelopment of multi-family uses on the 35th street side of
the property. However this building is situated on the Shedwick street side which was intentionally
left RSA 5 for all the reasons cited by the earlier testifier Ms. Jones and particularly
this is not an average size street it is a narrow street it's a 30 foot wide right of
way with a 14 foot wide cartway. So given the lack of hardship and inconsistency with
the adopted zoning map amendment made in accord with the comprehensive plan the City Planning
Commission recommends that the board deny this variance. And if I can just response
because I think the Planning Commission just made my hardship argument.
Planning is suggesting that we subdivide, right?
That's not a requirement in order to seek an as-of-right permit.
In order for you to get an as-of-right permit, we should subdivide.
Our lot goes across the way, and we're in a catch-22.
We can comply with RSA 5 here, but then we'll be non-conforming here.
And what we're asking is that we comply with RM 1 and we can then still be able to not create as much conflict with what is already there in the neighborhood.
So I appreciate the Planning Commission suggesting that there isn't a hardship, but his own statement said we will have to, we could subdivide in order to create a compliant project.
So, and with respect to the street, he mentioned that the cartway is 14 feet.
uh street uh he mentioned that the cartway is 14 feet i believe our site plan suggests that
it's 16 feet if we can just go back to our zoning site plan um let's just go
So, if you can see here, it's a 30-foot right-of-way with a 7-foot sidewalk on one side, a 16-foot cartway, and a 7-foot walkway on the other side.
So, Anne, given the aerial that I just showed.
I think we got it.
I think we got it.
madam vice chair yes may i um we have uh um andrew goodman that would like to put something yes yes
mr goodman good afternoon hi name and address for the record please and spell your last name
andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n here representing the office of third district council member jamie
gaudier room 586 city hall okay thank you madam chair members of the board our office opposes the
variance requested and asks the board to deny the variance for the same reasons already identified
by near neighbors as well as the planning commission testimony um we also want to provide
i guess a little more clarification on missed on what miss jones was referencing since applicants
Council has been talking about nearby precedents and examples so we want to clarify. The Zoning
Board denied essentially the same use variance in March of 2021 on this block, the 700 block
of North Shedwick Street. I believe about essentially four weeks ago I believe the address
was 726. So five properties to the north I believe. We oppose that for the same reasons
as we oppose this. We do not see a demonstration of hardship, and I think calling a subdivision a
Catch-22 is not entirely accurate because it still allows the applicant the opportunity
to build, according to RM1, multifamily on the 35th Street side, and then RSA 5, which is a
viable use on the Shedwick Street side. This is a uniquely skinny block relative to other RSA 5
blocks in the neighborhood. And in fact, just earlier this year, city councils made citywide
changes to the zoning code that now creates an entirely new zoning category for this type of
skinny residential block for these types of, you know, characteristics and reasons and physical
challenges. But that hasn't taken effect yet and wasn't at the time of this application. So here
we are. So in the meantime, we oppose this and other variances like it. Thank you. And I appreciate
i appreciate your comments andrew right i i i admire your work but again you just made our
hardship argument uh again we will have to subdivide right this property is not the it's
not the others that were submitted um because this property it's lot it fronts on two streets
And because the fronts are on two streets, again, you just said that subdivision is not an issue. Anytime a property has to physically do something in order to comply, that creates a hardship in itself.
And to suggest that it's not a big deal in order for us to seek a subdivision, that in essence creates a hardship.
That's what it does.
Now, it's not that we're seeking to be an adversary with the community.
it's not that it's because we did sit for a whole year to try to to try to do the necessary outreach
um but and i understand about parking and and and if if and i i sense that the applicant is
being penalized because it was literally just just a few months late when he initially submitted his
application. Thank you. Does the board have any other questions? No. No. I have one. Where is the
trash going to be stored? Omri? Backyard. On the backyards. And you'll use city trash or will you
have commercial trash pickup? Commercial trash. We always use commercial trash in our multiple
Commercial trash. We always use commercial trash in our multi-family.
of multi-final
Okay. Calendar number 0386716 North Shedwick Street. My vote is yes with commercial trash pickup.
Yes for proviso. Yes for proviso. My vote is no.
I'm going to go back to 12 to see if Tariq is able to get on calendar number 3267-6900 Chester Avenue. Is Tariq here and able to speak?
Yes, I'm here. You guys can hear me.
Yes, I can. Yes, I can hear you.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. Tariq Ryan, 1242 South 20th Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Absolutely.
Okay. Present your case.
so i'm um i'm presenting the case for the subdivision at 6900 chester avenue
um i purchased this home back in 2012 um um what attracted me to the property in the beginning was
the two lots um but as the zone decoded was not subdivided nor it was just a single family home
sorry Mr. Ryan may I interrupt for a second are you going to present on the screen yes I can
screen share thank you are you guys able to see the screen
did you hit the screen share button at the bottom okay now that's coming up
okay perfect we have it now thanks
okay so this is the property at 6900 Chester Avenue
this is the actual um structure right here and here is the proposed lot and this is the aerial
view to my right is south 69th street and to my left where i'm following the mouse is chester avenue
this is my this is the home that i own right now and this is the proposed subdivision lot
you're proposing to put two residences there yes two guys two single family homes
Okay. Have you met with the RCO?
I have. I'm sorry. And I have met with the RCO. I've presented all of the documents that you guys
request for to be compliant with meeting before you guys. And it was more than five days before
my meeting with you guys. Okay. Do you know what the position of the RCO was?
they were all um they weren't in support they weren't in opposition they all abstained
excuse me this is Sharon um madam chair we received a letter at I think 4 30 this morning
or rather an email from the RCO saying their position was one of deferral I did forward that
email to the board members one of deferral okay uh you may continue Mr. Ryan yeah if I may the
the reason for the deferral, from my understanding, is I'm a restaurant owner in southwest
Philadelphia. I'm an owner of three restaurants in the city. I'm sorry, one in the city and a few
in Delaware County. I actually sit at a lot of seats, you know, trying to, you know, benefit the
southwest community. So, you know, my mom is a member of the southwest CDC, which is an RCO. So,
of course, she, you know, couldn't be in support of, you know, my project. So, it's a lot of,
So there's a lot of things like that that, you know, kind of played into the RCO abstaining or not supporting the project.
Okay, just continue with your presentation. I understand.
Sure. Okay, so here's the rendering from the architect, and here's the survey limit.
Again, this is the property at 6900, and here's the proposed subdivision.
The project summary I proposed in the sub-divide a lot from one deed of parcels into two deed
of parcels.
The Department of License and Inspection has refused the project due to zone code compliance.
the project due to zone code compliance. The minimum lot area RSA 5 is residential and it
the minimum lot area are
requires 1,440 square feet. The two lots proposed are 1,269 and 1,229 square feet.
Okay, we have all that to read, but go ahead. Can you show us the block?
all right so again here's uh here's photos of the block okay can you keep moving
are these all single family homes
can we get on to another
Can we get on to another picture, please?
Today's a tough day with technology.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
That's okay. It's not your fault.
Okay, so here's the zoning posting, part of you guys' requirements.
More photos.
This is another aerial photo.
Do you have any photographs of the inside architectural renderings of this proposal?
The inside?
We have an esteemed architect on our board and I'm sure he'll have questions.
Could you blow it up some?
Okay, thank you.
No problem.
So yeah, so as the rendering showed, he did a survey limit of my parcel and the proposed
parcel.
What does each unit consist of?
1229 square feet and 1269 square feet the average lot size on this side the average
lot size on this side of the street is approximately 1190 square feet so we do meet the
i'd like to know about the interior are they two bedrooms three bedroom homes i do have some i do
some photos of the interior it's not a it's not an architectural rendering but it is um
it is photos that we have for the inside of the property
yeah the application was just to subdivide the two lots
but you purchased this as a one family right single family correct okay
does the board have any questions no no um planning commission
thank you madam chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
uh 2019 the zoning map was amended from rm1 multi-family to rsa5 single family at this
location in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan. We believe that the proposed
lot dimension variances are minimal and that they're consistent with the adjoining lots on
this block face, and so we would therefore recommend that the zoning board grant this variance.
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the virtual audience who would like to speak?
If so, please raise your hand.
no hands at this time chair
thank you calendar number three two six seven sixty nine hundred chester avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
i think that completes the 9 30 hearings is that correct yep all done chair okay thank you see
yep all done chair okay thank you see everybody at two so i'm the chair of the zoning board of
everybody at two.
adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair miss carol
tenere our board secretary slash administrator confessor plaza and board members mr thomas
halliman and mr james snell board administrator mr kesha dandy and our board attorney ms sharon
letter are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual
hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat.
Sorry, Beth. Excuse me.
to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue i would also like to remind everyone please do not attempt
to testify in the chat any comments should be directed to our board administrator miss
with that i will read off the list of requests for continuance for this at the two o'clock
hearing today on the add-ons request for reconsideration mi 2020-002760 and mi 2020-003315
Edgley
and 2035
North 19th
my vote is no to reconsideration
and rehearing
my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing
no to reconsideration
and rehearing
no to reconsideration and rehearing
no to reconsideration
and rehearing
on the
first case which I
jumped over I apologize on the add-ons MI 2020-001289-2901 Grant Avenue the request for a
continuance has been asked by both Councilman O'Neill and Mr. Klein so that continuance is
granted. The following case on our regular list, number one, MI 2021-000579-1115 Unruh Street is
withdrawn. Number 10 on our list, MI 2021-000591, 817 Ellsworth Street. That case is also being
continued. If anyone disagrees with the cases that we just read in to be continued, please
raise your hand at this time. No hands, Chair. Thank you. Would anyone at this time like
to request a continuance or withdrawal? If so, please raise your hand. Chair, we have
Allen. Allen, you can unmute yourself. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the
board. Alan Nockamson of Nockamson PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Would you please spell your last name for the stenographer you saw on the O from earlier?
Yes, last name Nockamson, N as in Nancy, O-C-H-U-M as in Mary, S-O-N as in Nancy.
please proceed uh yes uh we are requesting a continuance of 3919 ridge avenue number nine
on our list mi 2021 that's 000632 3919 ridge avenue is continued thank you thank you
3919 Ridge Avenue is continued. Thank you. Thank you. Any other requests for continuances or
withdrawals? Raise your hand. Yes Chair, we have Mr. Ryan. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Please
identify yourself with the record, name and address, spell your name. Ryan Boland, that's B as in boy,
O-L-A-N-D, 1801 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yes, this is on 1718 Fairmount Avenue, which is MI 2021 620.
You're requesting a continuance?
Yes, we represent the RCO, who's the Spring Garden Civic Association.
We made this request and it was joined in by Council President Clark.
We sent a letter to the board on Monday, but if I could just briefly take the board through the reasons for our request of continuance.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. If we could first call the appellant's attorney.
Thank you.
As she's been promoted, Ms. Catherine, you can unmute yourself.
Thank you. Catherine Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400-19013.
You swear and affirm the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. There is a request by the RCO for this case to be continued. What is your position?
We oppose the request for continuance, Chair. As you know, we typically like to work with the
community and think there's value in community process. But in this case, it boils down to a
non-zoning issue that involves a rear exterior fire escape. We've received written context from
the RCO, and I'll quote, they will vigorously oppose the proposed project, including any
proposal that includes an exterior fire escape or the possibility of an exterior fire escape.
Again, it's a non-zoning issue. It's a building code safety issue. My clients went so far as to
offer to remove it to see if LNI's building examiner would require it to be installed.
They even offered to go through and seek a Board of Building Standards variance if that
would appease the neighbors, and they have reiterated their refusal to allow us to seek
that process.
So I'm not sure that a continuance really gets us anywhere here when they've already
come out and said they're going to oppose the project regardless of whether my clients
do any additional, you know, work or discussion. They're requesting 3D renderings, additional plans,
et cetera, but given their adamant opposition to a rear fire escape, which is, again, a building
code issue, a safety issue, we're happy to speak to, you know, the hardship caused by the existing
structure and the size of the lot, but if they're not willing to allow for that, I'm not sure what
additional time is going to do in this case. Thank you. Sharon, should we even be hearing this?
Certainly they've had the RCO meeting. No, there is a zoning refusal, but it doesn't relate to the
fire escape. Yes, there is a request for a height refusal, and we're happy to obviously speak to
the merits of that and present that today, but the RCO is telling us it's a non-starter to include
a fire escape to the rear which you know obviously we have no control over of and
we can't control whether that's required or not by the building code. I think we'll go
forward with the case at least to get some of this testimony. All right we'll go forward with
the case. Appreciate it thank you. Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
no more hands at this time chair thank you uh
cheryl we begin with number two okay sure calendar number 0554 1203 pine street
the owners are mark coleman and ronald emmerich there are also no exhibits and it's the first
listing. Did we get any exhibits? Is Mr. Coleman or Mr. Emrick available? No hands chair. I have
no record of having received exhibits. Okay. MI 2021-000554 1203 Pine Street is continued.
calendar number 0630 137 south 58th street the attorney is alan knockamson
The attorney is Alan Nockamson.
Stop it.
Ms. Clemente is coming in as a panelist now.
Hi, Ms. Clemente.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Of course.
Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair and members of the board.
My name is Clementa Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A.
Last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or
referral photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter yes and we have two letters of support thank you you may
proceed thank you may i share my screen sure you may we like screens well i hope you also like
this project. Okay. Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Perfect. So again, my name is Clemence
Amazon. Today I'll be presenting 137 South 58th Street, and this property is owned by
the consortium. They've owned this property for well over two decades now, and this is
a project that I am particularly proud of. So they are looking to create a satellite
office for their children's outpatient program. So the consortium has provided and pioneering
behavioral health services. And at this particular building, they are looking to
provide children behavioral services for children in between ages 5 to 18. The children receive
individual and group therapy at the level of care that's most appropriate to meet their needs.
Family therapy will also be provided. And there will be several other programs for enhanced
services for children between that age group. So during my presentation I will go through the deed,
tax clearance, the notice of refusal, our application for appeal, map of the area,
photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, as well as the letters of support
that we did receive from West Philadelphia Economic Development Council, as well as a
letter of non-opposition from Cobbs Creek Neighbors. So here we have the deed indicating that the
property is in fact owned by my client, the consortium, our tax clearance, and the refusal.
So the only refusal that we have here is for the use as a group practitioner. The property is
zoned as RM1. As I mentioned, they are looking to create a satellite office to provide children's
behavioral services. And they've owned this property for two decades. They've been in the
property for the duration of that time. Previously, they were leasing it to another facility, but
are looking to use the full structure to provide the children behavioral health services.
Here we have the application for appeal, the refusal, our project's information form,
the map of the area. So as you can see, we are on the corner of Walnut and South 58th Street.
Google map of the area and photographs of the property. Here is a view of the front of the
property. As you can see, we have an ADA ramp. There is also parking that you will see from
satellite view. Here's a view to the right from South 58th Street, a view of the front of the
property dating back to 2007, indicating that this use has been in the property for some time now.
A view to the right of the property, a view to the left of the property from South 58th Street,
view to the right from Walnut Street, view to the left from Walnut Street. The aerial view,
as you can see, we do have substantial parking here, and the children will be provided a band
service. So this isn't something that will be, excuse me, densely populated or a lot of in and
out because there will be a dance service for the children. And we have the plans and drawings.
Give me one moment. Sorry about that. So here we have the entrance. There will be several offices
as well as an open space and a stage area as well. And then there will be further open space
in the lower level for different activities for the children to engage in. And here we have the
upper level which will be used for staff offices. Most of the staff do work on site, so they will
not be typically in this particular area all that often. And we have our letters from Cobbs Creek
neighbors indicating that they do not oppose this project, as well as our letter from West
this project as well as our letter from west philadelphia economic development council
Philadelphia Economic Development Council.
indicating that they do support the project
here we have the notice that we sent out to the community regarding our april 5th community
meeting we included the zoom information as well as the meeting id and passcode
as well as the zba hearing information as well as the refusal 136 properties were notified
a list of the properties that were notified, and our certificate of mailing.
So with that, if I could have my client adopt my testimony, I believe it's John White.
We just need to raise his hand.
And sir, when you're acknowledged, just please, pardon me, identify yourself with the record,
spell your full name.
And I'll swear you in.
Mr. White, you can unmute yourself.
John White, President and CEO of the Consortium.
What's your last name?
W-H-I-T-E.
We're of a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Mr. White, did you hear my presentation today?
Yes, I did.
And was it true and accurate?
Yes, it was.
and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes i would thank you very much mr way any questions
from the board no no no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
yes chair
any hands up yes a Kyle Sampson
hello good afternoon sir please identify yourself with the record first and last name
spell your last name. Kyle Sampson, S-A-M-P-S-O-N. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. I'm president of the West Philadelphia Economic
Development Council, which is an RCO. We participated in the coordinating RCO's hearing.
We strongly support this. This project is a great project for the community. I live a half a block
from it and i hope that you will approve it thank you thank you for your testimony anyone else would
like to testify in this case yes chair we have uh mr goodman mr goodman you can unmute yourself
good afternoon mr goodman i don't know if you were on this morning but please identify yourself for
the record and i'll swear you in good afternoon andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n here representing
the office of council member jamie gaudier third district room 586 city hall
or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you sir thank you
mr chair members of the board council member gaudier also supports the variants being requested
at this address this afternoon very much anyone else no more hands here thank you planning
Commission. Good afternoon, David Fecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission.
You on this morning? No, sir, I was not. Okay, so do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Thank you, please proceed. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends this property
for residential multifamily use. The proposed group practitioner will serve the health needs
of a vulnerable population, we recommend that the board grant the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-000630. 137 South 58th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Calendar number is...
Excuse me, Madam Chair, if I could interrupt, we've had a request that the next case called be 2100 South 64th Street, because the applicant's attorney, Ms. Basilio, is going to lose two of her witnesses in 10 minutes.
I don't know whether there will be enough time in any case to get them on, but she is requesting.
Unless she puts her witnesses on first, because we have no idea how long it'll take.
Okay, let's go. We'll go to that case. Calendar number 1584, 2100 South 61st Street.
Jennifer.
Jennifer, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Hold on one second. Yes, Jennifer Bazidlo, B-A-Z-Y-D-L-O, 4500 Worth Street, Suite D202,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19124. I would also ask that attorney Mark Schaefer be promoted to
panelist as well. He's my co-counsel on this case and all of our witnesses are in his office right
now okay do you swear oh i'm sorry okay just go ahead sharon oh just before you begin this i just
wanted to point out that this is a remand from the court of common pleas according to the um order
the court's order it is quote being remanded for the specific purpose of allowing petitioners
witnesses to testify to establish a complete record that's it thank you jennifer do you swear
are a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth? Yes. Do you also agree to waive
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed an exhibit packet
with proof of ownership? No, I don't have to do that, right? Strike that.
Okay, is your other, is the other attorney on? He is in another office, Mark Schaefer. If he cannot,
he's a little bit older. If he cannot, Mark, if you can raise your hand or if someone can promote
him otherwise i'll run over and raise his hand for him jennifer is it under joseph katuzzi
no that's that's opposing counsel mark schaefer should also be s-h-a-f-f-e-r
um excuse me this is sharon if we could also promote mr katuzzi he's representing councilman
johnson um who is an opponent and who was a participant in the common police court action
Mr. Schaefer. Yes. Can you put your name and address on the record please and spell your last
name? Mark Schaefer, S-C-H-A-F-F-E-R, Suite 2000, 1500 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Thank you. Who's next, Jennifer?
Jennifer. So Sharon, I don't know if you had wanted to read the procedural history
into the record. I think you were saying that you were going to do that at the beginning
of this case. Jennifer, I'm not sure it's necessary. I did go through the entire procedural
record with the board this morning. They understand that this is the second remand, that it was
originally remanded for the board to consider the issue of whether the use was a nuisance.
the court the court agreed that it is a non-conforming use um so it was then another
hearing was held to determine if it was a nuisance it was appealed the court court the board rather
found that it was a nuisance it was um again remanded to the board in order for your witnesses
to testify on that issue great so um so i just have three witnesses that i would like to present
today. I'm going to call the first one who I know has to go pick up his kit in like 10 minutes.
So our first witness is Oren Cox. Mark, can you put Oren on the screen?
Yes, Oren. Yes. Take my seat.
Right here.
Hello, this is Oren Cox speaking. Move around so they can see you.
That's fine. He's good. Oren, can you spell your first and last name and then also give us your
address? It's O-R-I-N-C-O-X. My address is 2101 64th Street, Philadelphia, PA, zip code 19142.
Oren, do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am. Great. So, Oren, you have lived at this property for how long? When did you move
into your home 2004 okay and that's located directly across from the former auto um business
at 2100 south 61st street correct correct mom yeah great and you were there when the business
was operating correct yes mom okay um and would you categorize that business as a nuisance business
No, mom, it's just, you know, it was a successful business because you say I'll put everyone on the block, you understand, so I'm finding no problem with it.
And so you don't think it was detrimental to the community, right?
No, no, no, uh-uh.
And again, you lived right across the street, so you saw what was happening every day, correct?
And again, you lived right across the street, so you saw what was happening every day, correct?
Yeah, just basic, you know, basic, normal routine work and those things, you know.
Okay, and so you would support this business reopening, correct?
Yes, because I used to get more care done then, so it's like, you know.
All right, that's all I needed from you, Oren. Thank you so much.
All right, my thanks.
Hold on, Mike.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
We should ask Mr. Cattuzzi if he would like to cross-examine the witness.
One other thing, I should mention that the entire record from the prior hearings is incorporated.
Cattuzzi?
He has devices.
devices promote both both are on the screen now and Mr. Mr. Coutuzzi which device are you using
for audio you can unmute that one and keep can you hear me now yeah okay my apologies I
Hello, everyone. I hope everyone could see me. Joe Cattuzzi, on behalf of Councilman Kenyatta Johnson. It's a pleasure to be here with you today.
Mr. Cattuzzi, before you begin, please spell your last name for the record.
Yes, it is C-A-T, as in cat, U-Z as in zebra, Z as in zebra, I.
Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Oren, I'm sorry, can you just confirm your address again for the board?
My name is Oren Cox. It's O-R-N-C-O-X. My address is 21-01-64th Street, Philadelphia.
Is that 61st or 64th? 61st?
64th, right.
61, okay.
Zif Code, 19142.
Okay, and that's 61st Street?
Yes, sir.
okay and what year did you move into the property 2004 okay and how do you still
live there today yes sir okay um and all right i just wanted to confirm your address that's it
no other questions all right um i would like to call mr willie gardner i have a question how long
has this business not been operating? Since 2014, but this case started in 2015, believe it or not.
Again, this is Sharon Saleta. And just to again restate that this, the court determined that this
is a non-conforming use that would be permitted to continue unless it is a nuisance and that's
the issue that we're considering thank you mr gardner can you put your first and last name on
the record and then give us your current address yes my name is willie gardner i live at 2101 south
South 61st Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19142-2404.
And you've lived there since 2015, correct?
And prior to that, what was your address?
2101 South 61st Street.
You had told me that you lived at 6538 Raynard Street?
I thought you met both addresses together.
there. No, no, no, no, no. Because I know that you've lived at the current address for four
years, but prior to that, you lived a block away from 2008 to 2015, correct? Yes. And when you
lived at the other address, you were only approximately about a block away from the
operation of this automotive business, correct? Yes, it's a block away, a block over, yes. Okay,
great. And during the time you lived there, would you, you've observed this business, you would walk
by it you would pass by it it was in your community correct yes ma'am it was okay and would you
consider this this business to have been a nuisance to your community no no no it was a very
good helpful thing because i mean because like you had a vehicle you could always get your car fixed
so i don't see any problem with it great so you would support this business reopening correct
absolutely great that's all i have to ask mr katuzzi i have a question mr uh gardner are you
a tenant? Yes, sir. Okay. And at the other property you live, the block or so away, you were a tenant
there also? Yes, I was. Thank you. Mr. Katuzzi? Mr. Gardner, just a few brief questions. How did
Mr. Gardner, just a few brief questions. How did you find, how did you hear about today's hearing?
you find, how did you hear about today's...
Because I live across the street from him and his business is there. The guy who's got this
petition with the people that's saying his business is not referred to the community. And
he asked me would I represent him in some kind of, well, this dispute which is going on now. And I
I say, sure, because he's more of a help to me than any harm.
So I feel like I should be here to support him.
Okay. Is he a friend of yours?
Yeah, you can say that.
Did you ever observe vehicles being parked on the sidewalk?
No, not to my knowledge.
Did you ever see work being done outside on the streets or the sidewalk?
No. It was indoor business. I never saw it.
Did he ever talk to you about the fire in the building?
Unfortunately, I wasn't around then.
I might have been probably in the hospital then.
I wasn't around that much.
But the fire, when that did occur, I wasn't there.
Is that because you didn't live in the neighborhood at that point?
Yeah, I was in the neighborhood.
So do you remember the fire?
Do I remember it?
The exact day that it happened?
mm-hmm no i don't remember that because i wasn't exactly in that area on the next block i was but
i didn't know wasn't aware of it the fire until the next day then i knew okay um have you ever
seen trash or rubbage being stored throughout strewn or stored throughout the back of the
property no i've never seen that so you've never seen tires or used vehicle parts engine parts
strew in throughout the back of the property no okay all right no other questions sure
when did the fire occur march of 2014 thank you it's in the record so there was extensive
testimony about the fire in the previous hearings thank you i'm good i have one more
witness that i would like to call um mitchell can you come up
hi how are you guys doing today mitchell can you put your full name spelling both your first and
last name on the record as well as your current address uh my full name is mitchell too it's
spelled m-i-t-c-h-e-l-l last name is spelled t-u my current address is 2052 south 61st street
philadelphia pa19142 all right does mitchell need to be sworn in yes sir please i'm sorry
do you swear or if i'm going to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
Yes, sir.
And your address again?
It's 2052 South 61st Street.
You're a homeowner or a tenant?
I'm a tenant, sir.
Thank you.
And that you have lived, this is directly adjacent to the property in question, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Great.
And you lived there when the automotive, since 2014, but when the business was still in operation, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Great.
And when that business was in operation,
did you consider it a nuisance business?
No, ma'am.
Did you think it was detrimental to the community
or to yourself?
No, it was more helpful, I think.
It just brought kids and stuff around.
All right.
And so you would support the business reopening, correct?
Yes, I would.
All right.
That's honestly, that's my questions.
um again how do you know the owner of the property uh he was a uncle of mine okay um so
um have you known him you're are you close with your uncle not really it's just uh we talk here
and there okay and how did you find out about today's uh hearing uh saw um a zoning that was
happening and then me and him just happened to talk about it okay did he ask you to testify today
uh he just told me to come in and uh speak my opinion of what's happening that's all
okay um and were you offered any consideration like any type of money or anything any time
okay all right oh sorry didn't mean to cut you off no other questions um i just wanted to add
that i did um whether or not it was necessary i had posted the property with the hearing
information for today so um the neighbors would have saw it and if they did know the property
owners they they could have reached out to them so that's i just wanted to put that on the record
um uh the only other thing i would add is at our initial two hearings we had a police officer
testify um he is no longer available he as far as we know he had moved
he is no longer available. He, as far as we know, he had moved to Florida. We have tried to reach
out to him numerous times. He has not, he has not responded to our request, and we do not have the
power to subpoena someone in Florida. So I would just ask, this isn't our prior notes of testimony,
it's sworn testimony. I'm just going to, for the sake of not being argumentative, note we're in
notes of testimony his testimony was um which is um excuse me miss yeah this is noted in the
findings and conclusions is it not and the entire record from both prior hearings is incorporated
into the current records then i will not testify any further on this matter so those are my witnesses
i just wanted to have an opportunity as ordered by the court for our witnesses to testify about
the status of this property and whether they um considered it a nuisance since other neighbors
were allowed to testify that it was not it was a nuisance. And I believe that is all that is
necessary um if the board would like to discuss this case um perhaps an executive session next
week. Will do unless Mr. Cattuzzi has anything else to add. So so briefly um what I'd like to
do is I have just a few exhibits I'll run through them very quickly for the board uh just excuse me
are these exhibits that were submitted in either of the original hearing the last two hearings
um so they were um I would just show there there is just two documents two or three documents
there are aerial photographs I would just like to show the board that that would be new um
I think that goes beyond what the court order requires or permits
and i would object to any new evidence from opposing counsel as this was specifically
for my witnesses to testify sure all right so you have any witnesses mr katuzzi yes we do i do have
one witness uh miss marlene atkins who's on the line excuse me i believe did miss atkins not
testify in the original he did i believe she did i believe her testimony is noted in the findings
and conclusions and again the remand was the specific for the specific purpose of hearing
testimony from petitioners witnesses who have not yet testified exactly and those were the witnesses
that Ms. Basidlo presented I'm sorry Mr. Cattuzzi but we want to keep this understood understood so
I would just ask that the board just accept the legal argument that was submitted to it and in
this briefing on Monday and uh Councilman Johnson the submission of that brief as well because that
doesn't have part of the quarter order. We'll make it easy. This record is closed. The board
will be discussing a decision on this for next Wednesday's executive session. Thank you. Thank
you both. Thank you. Calendar number 0617 1610 South 12th Street.
I'm waiting for Mrs. O'Neill.
They're coming in now as a panelist.
Okay, thank you.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record?
Good morning.
my address is 1835 market street suite 1400 philadelphia pa 19103 can you spell your last
name o apostrophe n e i l l do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the
truth i do do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
see? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal
referral, photos, and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met
with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes, to all the above. Okay, you may proceed. Perfect. Thank
you. Members of the ward, I'm here today representing the owner of 1610 South 12th
Street. An outside picture of the property can be seen on my screen. This property is currently
zoned RSA 5. It is currently set up to be used as two separate spaces inside. You can see there's
you can see there's two entrances here um my clients can i interrupt you for a minute
two entrances here. My client's... Can I interrupt you for a minute?
is this a former dental office yes dr rain okay thank you sure um my clients purchased a property
in 2020 from a dentist as mr chair noted um he had been using that first floor for his dental
practice it is my clients want to change that first floor dental office and turn it into an
apartment for their own use. It's my understanding from speaking to my clients that this dental
practice was fairly busy, so we believe that our proposed use is going to be a decrease in the
density. My client's wife, Maida, is handicapped, and so they would like to have this first floor
home so that they won't have to, so that she won't have to use the stairs. And so our application
received a refusal because of the proposed two-family use. You can see it's got the two
separate utility meters. We did meet with the RCO, East Pass Yonk Crossing Civic Association,
on March 8th. We did receive their support both from the zoning committee and from the meeting
attendees. A copy of the letter of support was provided with our exhibit packet at page 13.
My client is available if the board has any specific questions for him,
but I would like to call him forward at this time.
Also, there's a letter of non-opposition
from Councilman Squilla.
Julian, if you could raise your hand.
Not seeing any hands raised at this time.
Ms. O'Neill will stipulate you being an officer of court
that your client would have adopted your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
any questions from the board no no no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand no hand sir thank you planning commission good afternoon david effecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends this
property for single family use we recommend the board approve the requested variants
thank you mi21 excuse me mi 2021 000 617 1610 south 12th street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you very much
Calendar number 0620
1718 Fairmount Avenue
The attorney is Catherine Missimer
and she's coming in now as a panamist okay thank you
good afternoon name and address please and spell your last name and then i'll swear you in
It's Catherine Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, although I have one note on the refusal.
We believe that there should have also been a refusal for open area.
we included that in our RCO notice and presented that to the neighbors as well.
Thank you. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal,
referral, photos, and plans five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter? Yes, to all the above. Okay, you may proceed. May I share my screen? Sure.
can you all see that very much so thank you thank you all i am here today on behalf of
zara and amed saeed they are the owners of mass general contracting llc which owns the property
at 1718 fairmount avenue uh before you see the neighborhood petition of support for their
proposal. They're proposing to preserve the beautiful historic facade here. When we get to
a photo of it, you will see that it actually has scroll work on the front of the face, including
the year of construction 1927. So it's a pretty unique feature that they're looking to preserve.
They are proposing three multifamily dwelling units, accessory parking, roof deck, and ground
accessory parking, roof deck, and ground floor commercial. The site is zoned CMX2.
floor commercial, the cytosine CMX.
It's been vacant for a little over 10 years at this point, so there's a lot of cleanup work
that needs to be done both internally and externally. This is another letter of support
from a neighbor. This is the zoning site plan of the proposal. This lighter brick area is the
existing facade. As you can see, this is the existing scroll work I referenced. It does have
Roman numeral 1927 etched in there, which is gorgeous. This is the proposed addition.
You can see that it's set back 10 feet from Fairmount Avenue. The idea there is to differentiate
clearly between that historic facade and the proposed addition that will be built above.
We are proposing what we think are period appropriate rounded windows, some other nice
features. And this is the rear of the proposed building. There are interior layouts. So these
are helpful to understand the current condition of the building. This is our zoning poster
on the front of the building. As you can see, this is the existing door to the vacant commercial space
and there's damage to both the facade and the windows that are currently in place.
This is the rear of the building. There's existing parking access to the rear.
And this is the building in question. This is the scroll work on the front.
We're adjacent to this recently rehab building. That building is at a height of 48 feet.
Our proposal would be at 45 feet. This is the rear of the building along Mellon Street.
I seem to have lost some of our photos here.
Okay. Let me just see if I can address this internally.
You said the proposed height will be 45 feet. What is the current height?
The current height and my architect David Whipple is on the line as well can confirm I believe we're just at 38.
No, that's not going to help us.
I apologize, I'm experiencing some technical difficulties here.
But what's important to understand that the proposal is the open area is currently zero.
So with the addition, we're actually improving that condition.
We're bringing in 15% open area at the roof deck area and the setback of the addition.
Again, we've got 10 feet between Fairmount Avenue frontage and the proposed addition
at the fourth floor.
And you won't be able to see there's a third floor deck that will be hidden completely
by this raised facade here.
So that will not be visible from Fairmount Avenue either.
One of the key features, and if you'll indulge me, I'll just stop to share so I can grab
the other documents, is that there's several projects in the area that have similar heights
that have previously been approved.
In particular, there are two that we think is appropriate to reference.
It's 1717, which is directly across the street, and 1801.
Both were similar projects that involved two-story additions in those cases to the existing structures
for use as both six and ten units respectively on those sites. So the density here is appropriate
with three units. My clients will be living in the third unit. And from a general use standpoint,
we comply with the CMX2 requirements. Again, it's an existing open area that we're actually
improving the condition on and the height is appropriate city planning commission has advised
that cmx 2.5 would even be appropriate here and that's a 55 foot height so again in our exhibit
packet we do have a list of surrounding heights that exceed the 38 feet um but those are the two
zoning issues we did obviously have a meeting with spring garden civic as referenced briefly
in the continuance discussion earlier um they do take issue with a non-zoning item which is
the rear egress stair. Given the confines of this property, you'll notice the other
properties on this block have been combined to increase the size. Here we are constrained to a
single lot. We don't have the benefit of an additional lot to spread out the units in.
And an interior stair to the rear of these units would make the commercial space and some of the
back of house difficult to operate within the existing structure. We feel like demolition of
this structure is wasteful and detrimental to the neighborhood. And our goal to preserve it
really is because my clients fell in love with the building and they want to make their home here.
really is because my clients fell in love with the building and they want to make their home here.
With that, I will ask that Zahra Said be promoted so that she can put her name and address on the
record. I see her. Zahra, could you please spell your name for the record and then your address,
please first and last name zara saeed z as in zebra a h r a last name is saeed s as in sam a e e d
as in david my current address is 877 perky omen street b as in paul e r k i o m e n street philadelphia
pa 19130 the whole truth and nothing but the truth i will yes thank you excuse me sorry have
heard my testimony today yes would you agree that it's true correct and accurate absolutely yes would
you adopt it as your own yes thank you and my architect david whipple is also available in the
event that there are questions with respect to the design and the conformity and restriction
of the existing building a couple questions um you showed a garage in the rear yes that's existing
Is that for the people who will be occupying the building?
Our proposal is to have two spaces.
They would be utilized by Zara and her husband as occupants of the building, yes.
And are these for rent or are they condos?
They would be rentals.
Obviously, Zara and her husband would own the building and the unit, but they would rent.
That's why I asked.
1717 and 1801, Fairmont, you referenced those.
Are there duplexes or triplexes?
So one has actually 10 units and the other has six units.
So similar overbilled to the existing structure, exactly what we're proposing here.
One is at 48 feet, I believe, and the other is at 55 feet.
And we submitted the zoning history for those sites with our exhibit package.
so the only issue and i guess we'll hear from the other side is the the fire fire escape the fire
stairs i think they've they've raised additional issues they'd like to see some renderings of the
view etc there are a couple other items in their letter but they've indicated that that stair is
a non-starter so we can't get past it if we jump through the additional hoops very good thank you
Thank you. Any questions for this, for Ms. Misser? No. No. Anyone else to testify? Mr. Bolin, I believe.
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I think you were already sworn in, so please proceed.
certainly um just to go back to one issue um with respect to our continuance request um part of the
reason that we did request a continuance is we we haven't seen any of these exhibits that were
submitted um i requested that miss missimer send them to me she never has so we haven't had the
opportunity to go back through but i can i can try to have my clients address this on the fly with
respect to 1717 and 1801 but that was just one of the issues and the the big picture issue here
with the rear zoning uh or with the rear fire escape is that ties in with all these zoning
issues because the only reason they need a rear fire escape the only reason they need that is
because they're they're trying to increase the density too much here so what they're trying to
do is they have a 30-foot tall, 35-foot tall, two-story building. It's non-conforming because
it occupies 100% of the lot. They're trying to cram a third floor within it, and we believe that
that should have generated a variance because they're increasing the gross square footage.
Then they're building a fourth floor on top of it. However, the zoning code requires that when you
build on top of a non-conforming structure, that that structure itself be fit within the
dimensional requirements of the code here in cmx2 with this being an intermediate property
they'd be required to have only occupy 75 percent of the lot here for no reason there's no hardship
it's not the least modification they want 85 percent and and the real problem with them
occupying so much of that fourth floor besides being a technical violation of the code is that
you have this 20-foot Mellon Street in the rear. When I say 20 feet, we have five-foot sidewalks
and about a 10-foot cartway. So we're going to have now a 45-foot tall structure just looming
over these houses to the south on Mellon Street. And there's no reason, there's no hardship here,
And there's no reason, there's no hardship here. There's no reason that they should need to build up to 45 feet. It's simply that the developer wants more. They want more. They could, and I will call a witness, Justina Navarro, who will testify with respect to existing buildings next door.
there's no reason that they should need.
there's two of them, that are laid out exactly the same, and they never came to the board for
the variance, but there's clearly no hardship here. But I would like to, I guess, first call,
Catherine, were you going to call your architect, or have you rested?
We can respond and then conclude if that's appropriate. I just want to address a couple
technical conversations. Mr. Boylan, did we not speak this morning on this project and there was
no request made for our exhibits? That's not typical in a zoning case. Additionally, I think
with all due respect to your experience, the code section you're referencing for non-conformities
applies in a by-right repair of a building. That's not what we're proposing here. Obviously we're
seeking a height variance to exceed. So I don't think that's applicable here, but I just wanted
to set that forth. And then obviously we're available, my architect's available to respond
to additional questions as they arise. I guess that I would like the opportunity
to cross-examine your client that you called Ms. Zara Saeed.
Before you begin, Mr. Boland, did I hear you say that there were adjacent properties
that, I forget what your term was,
but it seems to me that the adjacent property,
1718, I'm sorry, 1720, is 45 foot in height.
It's actually 48 feet.
It's rather large.
I'm sorry, it's a little bit, the print small, 48 feet.
Yes, it's properties on the other side
of the 48 foot bar Hoga there.
I mean, if, which I'll have Mr. Navarro testify about those, but those addresses are 1710 to 14, which is a vet, and 1714 to 1716, which I believe is physical therapy.
but they're they're in essence the exact same buildings and um no one has come to the board
claiming that there's some sort of hardship with operating um with having a viable use there i mean
we have 2 000 square feet um on the second floor that they could have their personal residence on
it's actually 2000 about 2050 square feet they could still have the commercial down below they
could still have the garage i get that i just i just was concerned questioning that it is it is
not out of character in terms of height that's all i was suggesting it it isn't out of character
as far as that the building next door was an existing building and again i i think it would
be more appropriate for mr my witness to testify that lives in the neighborhood about that um
rather than my experience rather than my personal experiences well it can but it is what it is
view of what's existing and it's several properties uh along the front along fairmount avenue
i mean a rough guess for me where it looks like it could be three or four properties that were
combined at one time which would mean mellon street before you know it is going to have
you know 48 foot buildings all the way across fairmount avenue i mean that that's not for the
zoning board i mean that that would be legislation that that would be an act of legislation they
should rezone the properties if they think that that's appropriate. These are CMX2. And what I
would like to question the owner about is that it's clear that they could have made these, that
they didn't try to develop within the existing property, that there's no hardship and that this
isn't the lease modification possible. I just, I believe the architect will testify that they
weren't asked to try and they didn't try. They wanted to make more money by cramming two more
floors in rather than build an as-of-right project which was viable. I'm just going to
object to that statement because my clients are homeowners. They're building their own
property. They're building within a historic structure that they want to preserve for the
benefit of the neighborhood. Their architect is available and he can speak to the limitations
caused by that existing building. As the chair referenced, next-door properties have been
combined. They're multiple lots. It's not a single lot like this present lot.
I wanted the opportunity to try and cross-examine the applicant or whoever it was that testified
the applicant or whoever it was that testified on behalf of the applicant.
on behalf of the applicant.
That's Ms. Saeed. Ms. Saeed. Yes, sure, go ahead. Good afternoon.
Can you explain to me how it's a hardship to keep the building at 35 feet?
Catherine, did you, you've already provided them with the plans?
Yes, I'm the attorney. It's my job to reiterate and understand the hardship of the property.
That's not the applicant's responsibility. And again, the 35 feet does not allow us to provide
a modern day usable commercial storefront on the first floor. Obviously, it's been vacant for over
10 years. Nobody has purchased this property with the hopes of utilizing that existing structure.
the interior is in poor shape as is the exterior and again in order to conform with the requirements
of the code and have ground floor commercial space that is usable and rentable we need to
increase the height of the building excuse me counselor excuse me counselor
what is what is the ceiling height of the first floor existing is david whipple promoted to speak
he can give you the existing ceiling heights. I believe there's a tin ceiling in there.
And I'd just like to assert for the record an objection that I'm trying to ask a question of
the applicant and her attorney is the one doing the testifying. It's fine. I'm happy to go through
the architect and ask a few questions, but I need someone other than Ms. Missimer that I can
ask questions about you make out with the architect and to tom's point uh in the on the plans what
are the ceiling heights of the upper floors uh so chair mr whipple is available for it to be sworn
mr whipple yes first and last name spell your name please sure uh my name is david
David Whipple, office name, D-A-V-I-D.
We lost you there for a minute.
You said David, and then we lost you.
Whipple, W-H-I-D-P, as in Paul, L-E.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Whipple, can you explain to me why you were unable to design a building in the existing 35-foot building envelope?
I'm not exactly sure that's a – so part of the problem was with the front elevation.
um we we couldn't adjust the floor and ceiling heights to the front elevation without
um uh changing what the existing windows were in that elevation um it simply wouldn't work for
uh bedroom egress levels out the second floor that didn't answer my question i'm trying to
figure out why did you have to add the fourth floor what was wrong with the 35 foot existing
building. We couldn't get the we couldn't get the number of floors and the desired program
within that while keeping the front elevation in half. Do you mean when you say
are you suggesting that you couldn't get the height ceiling heights on the floors that you
or in the new design?
So without adjusting the windows of the front elevation,
we couldn't adjust the existing floor and ceiling height enough
to fit them in the 38D.
We lost part of that, but I think, Tom, you had the question, Tom.
Yes, the ceiling height on the first floor, what is it?
Existing ceiling height is about 15 feet.
So you have enough height for commercial space on the first floor already?
Correct.
It's really the height of the floors above.
What's the height of the floor above the second floor and third floor?
Ceiling height.
Sure. We adjusted the ceiling heights by removing the roof down. So we're at about an eight foot six ceiling height at the second and third floor.
at the second and third floor.
I'm not understanding.
I'm not understanding.
You move the ceiling, you move the floors down?
So it's an existing two-story structure.
So the existing ceiling height of the second floor
is about 12 feet.
Existing.
So with Tom's question, could you not adjust
the ceiling height of the commercial space and then the other spaces from 12 to 10
without changing the windows on the front elevation now without the windows all right
right because like when you adjust those floors it's going to hit the windows and if we lower the
if we lower the second floor down we won't have the required egress um out the windows on the
front elevation like our um our um window sill height will be at like six or eight feet instead
of at like three feet um so like that's the main issue is this excuse me is this building
historically certified by the city it is not
now. The answer is no. It is not, no. And Mr. Whipple, again, I want to, I don't think you
answered my question. Why was it that you couldn't simply use the existing 35-foot structure and that
you had to build a fourth floor? Were you told to build it with a fourth floor or was the only way
make this viable to have a fourth floor? I think in order to fit the in order to fit the allowed
program of a three unit structure with a commercial space it required a fourth floor.
But if you decrease the number of units you certainly could have designed this without
adding a fourth floor. If we didn't follow what was allowed for us to take in the zoning of it,
sure, like it could be designed as a single commercial space with nothing else in there.
The problem here is really the restoration cost. The cost to convert this to a usable building,
which again it sat vacant for 10 years is so high that it necessitates the density that's
expected by the code. CMX2 permits three units here and a ground floor commercial. So it's exactly
in line with what the code is contemplating. The limitation is again the size of the lot we haven't
combined with neighboring lots. The height restriction which city planning has admitted
is more appropriate at 55 feet for this area and has been granted several times in this area.
to address some of the other costs associated with trying to preserve what is a unique structure in
the neighborhood. We don't think it makes sense to demo this beautiful structure that you can't
replace. It's from 1927. Ms. Summers, educate me. What triggers the necessity, the need for the
fire escape? So this is a building code issue, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not an expert
on the building code, but the egress that's generated by having multiple units at a certain
point requires a second means of egress. I don't know what that point is, and I also don't know
that it will be required with this building. And we're willing to go through the process to see if
it is, but the RCO has stated that that's not something they're willing to wait for.
um is that a reaction to not having a fire stairwell in the interior of the building
yes and that again is based on the limitation of the existing structure where in order to fit
what's contemplated by the code three units and ground floor commercial we don't have the depth
of the building to include the required stair depth and heights to allow to egress out that
the interior just yeah i was just curious what triggered the uh okay absolutely excuse me excuse
me counselor do you have floor plans yes and we can make these larger as well you make it larger
please yep so this is the ground floor commercial space with the meter room you'll see it's a pretty
large commercial space um and just storage to the rear and the stairs to access upstairs
this is the rear garage which again will be utilized by the owner unit
they will be living on site and this shows your residential entrance as well
um this would be unit one to the front of the building unit two to the rear
And then this would be unit three at the third floor.
and then this would be unit three at the third floor excuse me
Excuse me, those stairs, they're new, correct?
Though
Interior, yes.
Interior stairs are new, correct?
Mm-hmm.
You're going to definitely need two means of exit, and that's going to make it bad for the stairs to be in the center.
You need them at both ends.
And that's why we're showing this rear exit stair, and that's the problem for the neighbors.
what is that 800 square feet i'm looking at for unit one and unit two is that 800
680 actually for unit two it's for 680 okay because it's not clear and i
let me ask you another question counselors can you pull up so we can see the uh new stairs that
fire escape stairs. Yes. And in response to neighborhood comments, we did, these plans
are revised to show a smaller fire escape stair to the rear than initially proposed.
Previously it went all the way up. Now we shrunk it based on their comments to what
we think is minimally required. And that's still not.
You could bring that second means of egress inside.
It's just lose some floor space.
Well, it also decreases the value of those interior units,
which we need to support the renovation
and construction costs associated
with maintaining the existing structure.
And that's really the plus or minus here
because right now you're showing an 800 square foot
and a 680.
If we shrink those any smaller,
you're decreasing their rentability and frankly
tenant quality that the neighborhood I believe is looking for here
well you could enclose them inside the building because the building is 100%
at the ground floor so there's no open area
you're going to put new stairs in anyway so a second set
the stairs in the center is just a bad location because they supposed to be diagonally remote from each other.
David, can you speak to what drove the location of the stairs?
Sure. So if you go to the second floor plan.
So at the second floor, we were able to accommodate two stairs out.
um and our travel distance between the two you're not seeing it show up there um is is over
one third of the diagonal um the issue was trying to get that stair going up to the third floor as
well uh just in order to accomplish that uh that separation between the stair and the
and the size of the switch that going all the way up it just ate up a lot of the second and and
in first floor um so how we accomplished the two means of egress out of the third floor
was by adding the rear uh outside egress um and then just to follow up on the issue about whether
or not we need it um one of the uh one of the things that i'm that that that that um
I'm unsure about is like, if I'm on I reduce as an existing structure, we can just maintain
the one means of egress out out of the structure. If they determine that there's too much work
being done to the structure, and they review it as new construction, that's when they'll
kick in the second means of egress requirement out. I'm, I'm sure you're going to need two means
of egress because you're doing more than 50 60 percent of renovation work i mean like it it was
still qualified as a as a level three alteration and the existing building code um and within that
there is an an exception in there that says you can go up to a four-story structure uh with a
maximum of four units per floor and still have one means of egress out so so like that's really
the balance with an eye that we're going to try and strike.
Is that an elevator you're showing?
It is.
I think you might be squeezing too much in a small space.
The elevator is in reference to our clients who are older. They anticipate living here for a long
period. They want to be able to access their third floor unit in the event that they're
you know they're handicapped in the future or are unable to do the stairs so that that's the goal
handicapped in the future or are unable to see the stairs. So that's the goal.
there but again the code contemplates three units here over ground floor commercial so we're not
exceeding the allowable density but you're exceeding the height though correct which has been
density you need the height exception which has been common in this area um several several
neighboring properties have done the same. They've built up to accommodate the allowable density.
And one other point about the density is that the one additional refusal that the applicants
concede was missed is that there should be 25% open space on the fourth floor. And here,
for whatever reason, they only have 85%. There's no explanation. And I'll ask Mr. Whipple,
Well, Mr. Whipple, can you explain to me why it was that you didn't build the fourth floor with 25% open space?
It was simply in response to what the program needs were.
So could you have designed the fourth floor and complied with the open space requirements and had 25% open space on the fourth floor?
I mean sure like we could have designed a structure to fit within um whatever the zoning
requirements were but that doesn't necessarily mean it will meet the program needs of what's
going on the inside of it and just to be clear the fourth floor is set back and on top of that
it has to be usable, right? So there's no open area now. It's 100% coverage. So by providing
that open space, there's at least increasing or bettering that existing condition. We're providing
15% open area. 25 is required. And Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that the board understands,
here they have built up 45 feet on this little melon street. So had they had this 25% open space
and had it in the rear, they wouldn't be towering over these little homes on Mellon Street.
So that's why it's so important that they comply with the open space requirement.
They already admitted that basically there's no hardship and that this isn't the least modification needed.
I'll just object. We did not admit there's no hardship.
The building next door is 48 feet.
So if anybody's towering, it's the tallest building on the block.
All right, why don't we do this? Mr. Boland, do you have any witnesses? We need to move
I do. I'd like to call Mr. Justino Navarro.
Mr. Marriott.
Yeah, Mayor. Good evening. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Please identify yourselves by your first and last name.
Justino Navarro, J-U-S-T-I-N-O, N-A-V-A-R-R-O, member of the zoning committee of the Spring
Garden Civic Association and the Civic Association's representative to this hearing.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Bowen?
And Mr. Navarro, can you just briefly take me through what the basis were for Spring
Garden Civic Association opposing this project? Well, in a nutshell, we feel that they're trying
to get too much into a small building. I think they're excessive in their requests for height.
We have a problem with the height. We have a problem with the massing. We have a concern about
the open air requirement that was not mentioned in the refusal. I identified a refusal myself,
which is a setback of the deck that was on the Fairmont Avenue side which Council addressed
earlier and got rid of the refusal and also neighbors were objecting to the fact that
what we consider an element of blight was being installed in the rear 20-foot wide cartway of
a very quaint very lovely street that has developed over the years on zoning issues
presented to this board of the past for single-family homes that's only 20 feet wide so
we feel that too much is being asked of the community here it is inconsistent with the
development of the very similar properties just adjacent to the east here this seven this 1718
property is part of an assembly of Art Deco buildings on the 1700 block of Fairmont Avenue.
And while they are not on the Philadelphia Register, they are on the Fairmont Avenue
And while they are not on the Philadelphia Register, they are on the Fairmont Avenue Federal Historic Register.
And very successfully in the recent years, 1710 and 1714 Fairmont Avenue have been developed very, very successfully within the building envelope without causing a burden on the neighbors on Fairmont Avenue or the neighbors to the rear.
at 1710 you have a very very successful veterinary clinic at 1714 you have a very successful
rehab physical rehab facility and you also have on the upper floor a very successful cultural
use in terms of a dance studio all developed within the building envelope so we just don't
subscribe to the notion or to the belief that this property part of an assembly of historic
Art Deco buildings cannot be built or cannot be developed within an existing envelope and it
be a valuable addition to the Spring Garden community and the Fairmont Avenue Commercial
Corridor. And just to mention, Mr. Chair and members of the board, the 1801 Fairmont Avenue
structure that Council references and next door, 1720 Fairmont Avenue, those are two new construction
projects. They're not rehabbed. And now that you've mentioned 1801, I would like to remind
the board that 1801 was in fact a project that came before this board and its member and Mr.
Chair. And it was very successful. And we got the cooperation of the developer, where the developer
listened to the community. We negotiated some objections that we had, and it was very successful
and came to this board in unison because there was a meeting of the mind
and because there was flexibility on both ends.
We have not seen where the applicant has been flexible in this instance.
And Mr. Navarro, just before I forget, did you hear my testimony?
I did.
And was it true, correct, and accurate, and would you adopt it as your own?
Absolutely, it was, and absolutely, I will adopt it as my own.
Ms. Missimer.
Can we briefly speak to Mr. Maru, but I'll address your questions first.
My question is, it sounds to me like there's an offer here or an opportunity to maybe have further discussion.
But let's see what he has to say.
You have questions for him.
Absolutely.
Mr. Chair, that has been the hallmark of your chairmanship and of this board, and that is the spirit in which we as the Civic Association and the Zoning Committee approach developers and projects that come before us, the spirit of cooperation and compromise.
And we appreciate that, and we were looking for that in this case.
Reciprocity would be nice.
we received an ultimatum that if the project were to include or it to be determined possible
to include a rear regress, that it would be met with vigorous opposition was the quote.
So my clients are less inclined to go through additional studies and work on redrafts when
regardless of what they do in the event that a rear regress stair is required, you will oppose
the project. But with respect to your testimony, I just want to confirm, you mentioned an assemblage.
Well, the other two properties represent multiple lots, not a single lot like 1718, correct?
Mr. Navarro?
Yeah, I believe the actual address is 1718, I believe.
Right, so they're multiple sites rather than a single lot that we're dealing with.
in this case. There are wider sites, but this proposed 1718. And if we had the width here,
we can incorporate an interior stair. One at a time, one at a time. The 1718 property is wider
than your standard commercial space. So if you can, if you can ask your architect how wide that
property is, we believe that it is sufficient to make it a very effective and productive and
profitable commercial use on Fairham and Avenue. Our response to that would be that if that were
the case, it wouldn't have sat vacant for over 10 years. It has not been vacant for 10 years.
I've been in this community for 45 years and up until three years ago, actually less than three
years ago, it was a very successful operator who serviced pinball machines, casino gaming machines,
and they were very successful so it's not been for 10 years and i can i i live here i walk that
I live here. I walk that avenue two, three, four times a day, and that is inconsistent with the
avenue two three four times a day and that is
facts council. Can you speak to your understanding of the prior occupancy? That is not what we know,
and that's not what we were told. We were told by the owner who we bought it from that it was
vacant for 10 years. It's been sitting there. I think that's important, but maybe not as
a dire consideration with this pandemic. There could be lots of other problems that may come
become vacant or will remain vacant. So again, not to belabor the point, I mean, we got a lot
of testimony here. It sounds to me that Mr. Navarro and I've dealt with, we've dealt this
board has dealt with Spring Garden Civic in the past. There might be an opportunity, there is an
opportunity to have further conversation what the end result of that will be i have no clue
so i'm going to put the offer out there that we could do a resumption hearing
if that works if not the board will have to make a decision on this case today
can i refer to my clients on that because they're the ones that are carrying the construction
mortgage and the construction costs um with that non-starter out there over something we can't
control that's not a zoning issue i don't know that you don't know it may not be a non-starter
i don't know sometimes things are said in the heat of the argument or they that may may come to
was that something spring garden is willing to consider at this point
of course we're going to negotiate it now we'll be here for a week understood i just want to make
sure that that's a possibility i mean we were told emphatically that that was a non-starter
multiple times. So if that's the case, we don't think it makes sense to continue.
But a new design may not require that.
I don't know that the clients are able to coordinate a new interior design at this point.
Also, if I may just please say something as the owner. I know that everybody keeps on,
I know the RCO people, everybody keeps on saying that we could get rid of the back stairs. And
And I know somebody said that, that we did not try to tell our architects to work on that.
We have been late presenting this because we were trying to do everything in our power not to put those exterior stairs.
There is still a high possibility that we might not need to.
But either way, I think what's important to understand here is that we love the actual old history of the building that we're trying to preserve.
If we can demo this and build a new construction, we would not even be having any arguments at all.
I think the idea, it's either we preserve the beauty of the building that we fell in love with,
or we go ahead and just say, oh, okay, let's just build another new building, which we really don't want to.
So the idea was to preserve this, and that's why we have restrictions on what we can do.
And again, like Catherine said, we want to live here for a long time, so we want it to be comfortable.
So if our kids and our grandkids want to come visit us, there's enough room that we can all be here.
So I think that's where that disconnect is.
It's not that we're trying to be difficult.
We genuinely want to save the architecture because we fell in love with that.
Understood.
I think everybody respects that.
Again, I think sometimes when the dust settles and people have an opportunity to have further conversation,
It is our experience that the majority of the time they reach a compromise that works for both sides.
I don't know if it will happen in this case, so they offer one more time a resumption hearing or the board will take a vote on it today.
We would rather that because from our understanding, the RCO has been very transparent and very clear that they do not want to move forward with anything to do with it.
All right.
we cannot afford to to pay the mortgage every month if we're not moving forward so unfortunately
that is all right understood all right anyone else yes chair we have mary jones
jones please identify yourself and i'll swear you in um yes good afternoon uh mary jones
council president daryl clark's office city hall room 494 oh and i was sworn in earlier today okay
thank you thanks continue um yes the the council president stands in support of the uh spring garden
civic association um and opposition uh the rco initially saw a continuance to further the
conversation around the issues that were covered today. However, since they haven't been, we were
not able to have those conversations. The council president supports the community's opposition
as the variance not granted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify?
thank you very thank you very much anyone else to testify
yes chair we have a jeffrey springer bringer please identify yourself with the record first
and last name yeah hi can you hear me can you hear me hello yes yes please identify yourself
Jeffrey Springer, J-E-F-F-R-E-Y, last name Springer, S-P-R-I-N-G-E-R.
I live at 1714 Mellon Street, directly across from the property.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
So we're in support of the Spring Garden position,
rejecting the whole project wholesale, there's a few things that I would like to point out. So
first of all, the fire escape is necessary because of the buildup of the addition.
And this street is our front street. This is not a back alley. Mellon is our front door.
And I stand in unison with about 10 other neighbors on our street who all feel the same way
that adding a fire escape to this would add blight.
In addition, Ms. Mesmer points out
that the two additional properties next to them are wider.
I just looked out my front door
at those two other properties that were rehabbed
that are exactly the same footprint.
They look exactly the same to me.
They have a unit in the basement
or on the first floor, a commercial unit,
and then another unit upstairs.
I believe that the new owners are needing to build up because they overpaid for this unit.
You heard them say they have a mortgage.
I talked to some other investors in the area, and they said that they paid too much, which is not our problem.
That's hearsay. You have to speak on it.
It is, but if money is going to come into it, then it's important to believe.
We did meet with them.
We were more than happy to compromise with them, but they didn't come back with any suggestions
around it. The issues that we highlighted to them, we feel like they completely ignored. They
came back with no counter proposals, no alternatives to these. We heard nothing from them
until this hearing. It's been over a week ago. And so at this point, it doesn't feel like they
want to compromise at all they want to bring this project down our our throats and have our front
door be blighted by uh their idea that this is a back alley melon street is small um the new
construction that happened at hygge that they were talking about was an empty lot before they built
it up uh and the ones next to them are exactly the same height um so i feel that uh this would
be a hardship to me, and I can't speak on behalf of all my neighbors, but I know they've expressed
that same opinion, that it would impinge our lives as the front door of our street is Mellon Avenue.
Thank you. Thank you. I'll just respond to Mr. Springer's statement that we were unresponsive.
He may not have been attributed all of the correspondence that we had directly with the RCO.
Noted. Thank you. Anyone else?
Yes, Chair. We have a John Cave.
Good afternoon, Mr. Cave. Please spell your first and last name and provide us with your address.
And please, if you're testifying, well, let's swear you're in first. Name and address.
J-O-N-C-A-V-E, 1720 Mellon Street, 19130.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
And with all due respect, Mr. Cave, if you can provide us with something new and different that would be helpful in the interest of time?
Yep, understood.
It will be short.
So we've been here about four years.
We moved to this area because we like the community.
we also like the street that we live on and we feel like the value in the neighborhood and that
and the home is in part based on its location and the street and there's been discussions about
you know the need to change the interior of the building for the value that's required to support
what they want to put inside I'm also concerned about the value of my property and what putting
a an exit stairway on the back of a building that's actually my front street would do the
the value of my property and the interest of people to continue to move into the in the
neighborhood and want to live in this area. So I oppose this as well and agree that we're willing
So I oppose this as well and agree that we're willing to to talk about compromise if the new owner is willing to discuss it.
Appreciate your testimony. Anyone else? And if so, please, new and different.
we'll wait to see i'll just reiterate that the new owners are willing to proceed through a bbs
process if available if required to see if there's a variance available for a rear regress
and that seems to be everybody's sticking point counselor counselor i don't think you
going to get the fire stairs waived l and i is going to require it but they're going to require
you to protect those stairs from the weather and by the time you do that you could have put them
inside thank you understood thank you planning commission
good afternoon mr chairman david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the
board. The comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial mixed use.
Proposed height matches the character of the block. We recommend that the board grant the
requested variance. Thank you. MI 2021-000620. 1718 Fairmont Avenue. My vote is no.
My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
my vote is no
thank you
thank you
we're moving to number 7
calendar number 1830
North Reese Street
the attorney
is Zen Jin
this morning
I don't think so
so hard to remember
anymore. No, he wasn't on it.
We see that so...
Did you identify yourself in the record?
Zhenjin, Z-H-E-N,
J-I-N, 1617
John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Suite 1838, Philadelphia
PA 19103, here on behalf
of the applicant.
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you also agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do.
Do you strike that? Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Before you begin, Mr. Jinn, there is a letter of support from Zulu Nation, the RCO.
So you could give us what you basically need for the record and summarize.
That would be helpful.
I will do that.
Thank you.
I'm going to go ahead and share the information with the board, and I'll cut right to the chase.
This is a property that is currently vacant.
We are proposing to erect a new structure, which is actually combining more than one
lots together.
That is why we're proposing a triplex rather than a single-family house.
This is a double-width lot having a much larger structure.
By doing this setup, however, we are able to provide a passageway in the design into the rear for trash management for all units.
And Zulu Nation was aware of this.
They saw the design.
They see that all trash can be stored in the rear.
There's an access hallway, and it is easily managed.
The area also has other development that is multifamily in nature.
It can be seen more easily in the photograph here, and that is, again, part of the reason why this development is not inconsistent with what's in the area.
Based on those factors and overall size of the building and bedroom counts does not exceed what would be two-by-right single-family houses, we received support overall from the neighborhood.
So we would ask the board's favorable review of this application and a grant of this variance based on the support from the community and the design which meets the general needs of the community as far as trash, safety, and other requirements.
Do you have a client available?
Yes, I believe he is here with us.
It is Simon here.
I don't know what his name would be
based on the
it should be Simon
I don't know if that's registered.
I don't know if that's registered
can you raise your hand please
Can you raise your hand, please, if you are here with us?
Why don't we do this, make life easier?
You being an officer of court will stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony.
I will do that. Thank you. Yes.
So is there anyone who would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
Mr. Sloan, folks.
Mr. Folks.
My name is Sloan Fuchs, S-L-O-A-N-E, F-S-A-F-I-R-O-L-K-S, Office of Counseling Maria Quinonez Sanchez from 508C.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Our office received a letter of support from the coordinating RCO North Square
Civic Alliance. Given that letter of support, the Councilwoman has no opposition to this
day. Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case? Thank you. Planning Commission.
good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential multi-family use
other homes on the block are two-unit homes we believe that a three-unit home on this
lot is an overuse we recommend that the board deny the request of fairness
thank you 20-001-830-2041 North Reese Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you calendar number 0603 213-15 New Street the attorney is
And Mr. Chair, we also have a letter of support from the RCO and Councilman Scuola is in non-opposition.
All right. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board.
Leo Mulvihill, M-U-L-V-I-H-I-L-L, address 1441 East Oxford Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19125.
Here on behalf of the applicant.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, plans, and photos five days in advance of this meeting?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
All right, members of the board, this is a simple request.
we're looking to put a single family dwelling in a cmx3 district for purposes of the record here's
my packet refusal appeal project information for on page one zoning maps at seven deed at eight
tax clearance 18 starting notification 19 rco letter of support 19 or pardon 22 photos of
property at 23 plans at 43 very simply this is an existing structure warehouse structure one story
located in New Street. There was a lot of consolidation that was done, and my clients
who are present on the line, Michael and Brandon Tomasetti, want to put their house here. There
are other homes in the area that are in the CMX3 district, and this was mentioned to us
at the zoning hearing with Franklin Virginia University Association. Showing, just for
purpose of the record, page 7, all this area is on CMX3. There are multifamily and single-family
comes throughout, we're indicated here on this blue dot.
Incorporating all of this in the record, moving now to page, pardon me, 23.
This is the existing structure.
We're not going to do much to the outside other than put nice new windows in it, have
some parking.
We're just going to do the quick 360 so members of the board see what's going on.
At page 23, right now, this is looking eastbound on the new.
this is directly across the street multifamily
this is looking westbound on node again multifamily also in cmx3 this is directly
west of the structure it's an empty parking lot this is the rear of the structure uh that fence
is along the property line the building is 100 lot coverage and this is another shot looking
westbound on the street. This is the interior photograph of the property as it exists today.
More interior photos. More interior photos proceeding through to page 43. This is the
description of the proposed lot consolidation at page 43. This is the proposed consolidation
This is the proposed consolidation plan, which I believe has gone through at page 44.
plan, which I believe has gone through at page 24.
Showing now at page 45, this is the proposed renovations that we seek to do to the building,
including where that block is right now, the installation of new windows, assuming my computer agrees.
Here we go. Nice new windows, new garage door, facelifts at the facade, but nothing terribly crazy.
So our refusal was essentially, you can't put a single-family dwelling here.
We have full support from the neighbors.
My clients are excited to move into the property as soon as we get this board's refusal.
Otherwise, other than cosmetic improvements, that's all we're seeking to do.
The hardship is thus.
It is a large structure.
My clients wish to have one family dwelling there and move in there themselves.
If this were to be CMX3, there would have to be some sort of additional either raising of the structure or new construction done
in order to make this viable for a multifamily living property and considering the residential
character of the block and a similar project that was done just around the corner only a few years
ago we think this is this is within the character of the block and we have the full support of
Franklin Bridge Samuels. Happy to take any questions at this time and Michael or Brandon if you're on
the line still would one of you raise your hand just so you can adopt my testimony as your own
case. Hello, Brennan here. Hey, Brennan. They're going to swear you in. Please state your name,
spell your last name, and give your mailing address for the record. Brennan Tomasetti,
T-O-M-A-S-E-T-T-I, mailing address, 5-1 North 3rd Street, Unit 154, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106.
They should be sworn in, Chair.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Mulvihill?
Thank you.
Brennan, you've heard my testimony today?
And in fact, you and Michael are the principals of the company, correct?
We are.
And your business is actually right around the corner, right?
Correct.
And that's the address that you just gave on the record for mailing?
It is not.
I'm sorry.
My apologies.
Close.
In any case, you've heard in the entirety of my testimony today.
Is there anything you'd like to add at this point?
Thank you.
All right.
It was true and accurate to the rest of your knowledge, information, and belief.
Yes, it is.
Great.
Thank you.
Members of the board, we're happy to take any questions.
any questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand is at this time chair you planning commission good afternoon david fecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends this lot
for commercial misuse during neighborhood zoning remapping sometimes small lots on narrow back
streets end up in zoning districts that are not appropriate for those lots this appears to be one
of those one of those instances we recommend that the board grant the requested variance
thank you MI 2021-000603 213-15 new street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes all right thank you members of the board have a nice afternoon
you have a good day you too calendar number 0619 900-58 north 9th street
the attorney is Catherine Missimer
and again we have a letter of support from the 14th democratic board Mr. Chair
Thank you.
Good afternoon again.
Mr. Wanda Rose?
Catherine Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103.
do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the rco and do you have a letter yes thank you good afternoon katherine missimer on behalf of
the Poplar Ground Tenant LLC, the tenant at 958 North 9th Street. I want to keep this as
958 North 9th Street. I want to keep this as simple and short as possible. I know we
used a lot of your time earlier. This is an application for a simple flat wall sign. It's
a single sign. You will see in front of you the letter of support from the 14th Ward Democratic
Executive Committee as well as the report from the meeting of a unanimous support. This
is the site plan of where the sign would be located. As you can see, it's statically illuminated
on the 9th Street side of the existing building. Here it is in an elevation view. You'll note that
it is above the second story, and that's why it does require a zoning refusal. This is how it
would look in a rendered view. This is the L that runs directly over 9th Street, and this is the
crux of the refusal and the hardship here. If we were required to put the signage at
the second floor, you would never see it because the L would block it. This again is an image
of the signage. To orient everyone, this is the Poplar building on 9th Street between
Poplar and Girard. The signage would be here alongside the L on 9th. And this is how it
look rendered. The building is blue, so it is softly illuminated in a whitish lighting,
and this is how it would be installed on the building. And just some posting photos.
While we flip through, I will ask Ms. Rebecca Frisch to be promoted as owner's representative.
and rebecca when you're promoted can you put your name and address on the record please
she would just need to raise her hand rebecca can you raise your hand
and she's available chair thank you
Thank you, ma'am. Please identify yourself with the record first and last name. Spell your name.
Rebecca Frisch, R-E-B-E-C-C-A, F-R-I-S-C-H.
Where we're from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Rebecca, would you confirm that you've please heard my testimony today?
Is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
would you adopt it as your own yes thank you unless the board has questions we have nothing
further thank you any questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand no hands chair thank you planning commission good afternoon david fecto
City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. The comprehensive plan recommends
this property for industrial and residential mixed use. The current zoning allows a building
identification sign, but not at the top of the building. Because the proposed sign is so high
up on the building, we do not believe that the light from the sign will negatively impact
nearby residents. We recommend that the board approve the requested variance.
MI 2021-000-619-900-58 North 9th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Greenwood Street.
is it okay calendar number sure calendar number zero five nine two nine hundred greenwich street
the attorney is steve bertill
it's a letter of opposition from passion square civic mr chairman
vice chair
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Good afternoon.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Yes, Steve Bertil, Claire Harrison, I'm sorry, Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, Claire Harrison, Harvey
in Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street, 14th floor, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral, plans and or photos five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance?
Yes, except that we are, there is a letter, but we are disputing the accuracy of the letter.
We'll get into that in our substantive presentation.
so the answer the answer is yes you have everything yes we have everything okay thank
you you may proceed thank you very much sure here my screen here before i get started
okay uh good afternoon uh as i stated my name is steve bertill i'm here representing
the applicant, Mr. Fred Vicario and his family regarding 900 Greenwich Street. We're here
requesting a variance approval for the erection of a two-story addition on the existing structure
and an adaptive reuse of the ground floor commercial use of the structure for use as
multi-family of eight residential apartments for the total of eight beds. As I stated,
I am here representing Mr. Vacario and his family who have been longtime productive members of the
Passions Square community. This is a property that has been in their families for some time
and they want to bring to more productive use, a use that we believe will be an asset to the
community. So just to orient the board, this photo that you're seeing here, or I'm assuming,
can everyone see my screen? Yes. Okay. The photo that you're seeing here is an aerial shot of the
property in question, 900 Greenwood Street. As I stated, it's currently a property that's being
utilized as a commercial auto body car repair shop. It fronts on Greenwich Street between
South 10th Street to the west and South 9th Street to the east. The property is zoned as CMX2,
as you can see here from the zoning area map. And just to give you a little bit more context,
I just want to go through quickly some photos of the property so you get a sense. So this is
frontage um photo again fronting on green street as you can see the front of the property
as you can see from the aerial the property that doesn't actually go all the way across the other
side um a bus of property that rears the front on the opposite street um but this is the frontage
here this is an angle just so you can see the adjacent properties um of the property um as you
can see on the corner there's a large multi-family structure and on the opposite side of the property
three-story buildings and homes along the block base. As you can see on our side of the street,
the media adjacent properties are all three stories and substantially taller than the
existing structure that we have. Now, what are we asking to do here? We're asking
for the board. Apologies, let me zoom out here. There you go. What we're trying to do here
is to propose an adaptive reuse of the existing ground floor auto body shops for use as two
one-bedroom apartments and a two-story addition above the existing structure
for the rest of the units. So, two one-bedroom apartments and one studio
on each floor for a total of eight beds across eight units. So, part of this
project would include, obviously, removing the existing uses, the auto body
garage, removing the existing double-wide curb cut that exists. I don't know if you saw that
with the front edge, but as you can see from this photo here, there's a double-wide curb cut,
removing that, adding two parking spots back on the street, and doing this within the proposed
by right height of 38 feet as you can see with this elevation here. The refusals that
we have for this property is two refusals that are related. One is the, is it in there?
One is just the CMX, the lot limitations on the amount of unit count for CMX2's owning
district as this property is. The lot area restrictions for the unit count within CMX2
contemplates the ground floor being reserved for commercial use. So commercial plus the
allowable residential on top. We're proposing an adaptive reuse of the ground floor, thus
an additional ground floor area of residential space. With the building as it is, in the
two additions, we'll be looking at about 5,862 square feet of GSA ground floor area, which
more than accommodates the proposed unit count in this building.
Now, the second refusal is just, again, tied to the CMX2 use is, as we know, generally
requiring the commercial space on the ground floor.
As you can see from the aerial in the photos, you can see that this is a residential block.
You can see that generally this garage outside of the church on the other side, it's all
residential homes or multi-family. And we believe that the commercial use at this location is actually
out of character, although it predates probably much of what was done in the area. And as such,
we want to make this residential. We think it's more appropriate. Most of the commercial uses in
the area are the corner lots. As you can see from the zoning area, most of them, most of the CMX uses
are on the corner, and thus we believe that the residential use is actually a more fitting use
for this lot area. Now, in terms of what can be done by right, for this project to work for the
vicarios under the buy-write restrictions of the Unicamp, we would have to keep the
auto body shop in operation and add three large apartments ranging from six to nine
beds across them above it within the two-floor addition. So we're looking at about, under
the buy-write plan, we're looking at keeping the auto body use and then adding the additions
up to the buy-write height with the units of about six to nine beds. As our variance proposal,
we're looking at eight beds across eight units as opposed to nine beds across three units plus
maintaining the auto body use. As we know, more beds equals more bodies equals more cars.
So under the buy-write use, we could actually have more beds even though it's less
units and still have the auto body use in operation. In addition to that, if we have
to keep the auto body use there, we have to maintain the double wide curb cut that exists
in the area, thus not being able to basically place two more parking spots back on the street.
And so essentially what we would be doing with the buy right plan that we would have to go with
is just adding to the existing impact of an active auto body shop instead of replacing it.
We believe, and many of the community members agree with us, which you'll see in a second,
that our proposal will have actually a far less impact on the community than the buy-write plan.
We believe that there will be less impact on traffic, parking, and noise, frankly,
that comes along with the operation of an auto body shop.
So, we did meet with the Registered Community Organization, which is Passy Young Square Civic Association, on March 9th.
To be frank, it was clear from the beginning of the meeting that there were some members of the leadership that were against this project in the onset.
And my belief is that I don't believe the project necessarily got in fair shape.
Also, and more importantly, I think, at the beginning of the meeting, we informed or I informed the RCO that there were many community members who were calling in and asked how their participation would be captured in the vote count.
And we did not get a clear answer at that time.
Ultimately, my concern was warranted because after the meeting, we were informed by many neighbors that they either could not gain access.
was informed by many neighbors that they either could not gain access to the meeting via telephone
or they did access the meeting via telephone and was not given the ability to vote.
So I did inform the RCO about this issue and how I believe how our position is that the letter that
they sent in is actually not accurate reflection of the community's position on the project.
Because we did not believe we had an accurate representation of what the community thought about our project, the vicarios took it upon themselves to go door to door and engage directly with the neighbors to make sure, one, that those that did attend and couldn't vote, actually, you know, their voices was heard, and two, making sure that everyone was informed about what they were trying to do.
As you can see from this petition here, we've actually received over 75 signatures in support of the project.
All of the signatures are not only within the catchment area stated within the Civic Association's website, but they're within a three-block radius of the property.
So just so you get a visual sense, what I did was I took all the addresses that were of the people who signed me, signed the petition and sort of plotted them along this map so you could get a sense of how close in proximity all the individuals that voted in support or that signed a petition to support this project were into the property.
This is, I had to go through a couple pages because, unfortunately, my skills as a graphic designer is not the greatest.
I couldn't get fit them all on one page.
But this is just a few pages, again, just to give you a sense.
The blue is the, these are the farthest away.
They're still within three blocks, and these are the closest.
But, again, we received over 75 signatures of support of people that essentially are believed,
Our position is that having eight beds of one-bedroom and studio apartments is a far less impact on traffic, noise, parking, et cetera,
versus having six to nine beds between three units above an active auto body garage.
So, given that the proposal of our project will actually have that lesser impact in the
buy-write proposal and the overwhelming support by neighbors, we're respectfully requesting
that this board approve our variance.
I do have Mr. Vicario here, Fred, if you could raise your hand so you could be recognized.
Mr. Frey, you can unmute yourself.
Fred, could you state and spell your name for the record, please?
Fred Vicario, V like Victor, I-C-A-R-I-O.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Fred, did you hear the testimony that I provided to the board?
Yes. Do you affirm and adopt the truth of my testimony as your own? Absolutely.
And was there anything that you would like to add?
Just that, you know, my family's been in this neighborhood for
probably 80 years. And my thought, my father had that shop for 60 years. So, you know,
we don't want to do something to harm the community we're trying to do something to
better the community um because at one time everybody always had a problem with like body
shopping in there so we wanted to change the use and frank can i just ask um i know that we
there were some uh board members that met um our proposal our by right plan on some skepticism
regarding the viability of actually being able to maintain auto body use there have
have you and your family received interest
from additional operators for the body shop use?
Yes, yes we have.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chair and the board,
we're obviously here to answer any questions,
but I think that concludes our presentation,
reserving the right to respond
to any sort of statements made.
I have Mr. Bertil I know you've said it a couple times but I just want to be clear
I have Mr. Bertil,
I know you've said it a couple of times,
but I just wanna be clear
would you lay out the buy right again yes so the buy right plan so we're able to do go two floors
up by right by right under the CMX2 designation we're allowed three units and so those would be
three very large units. So they would have to be at minimum two and three bedroom apartments.
And the reason you might think like, okay, this building is kind of double wide. Why is it only
three units? And essentially it's because the unit restriction under CMX2 is in conjunction
with the contemplation that the first floor is commercial. And so we do not want to keep
the commercial use under our variance proposal. But if we go with the buy-write plan, we have to
keep it to maintain, to make this work, to make the project work. We have to maintain that commercial
tenant. And as such, for commercial use, it might necessarily be a different operator. It might
still be the same operator. But either way, we have to maintain that commercial use under the
buy right plan all right so correct me if i'm wrong you would buy right gives you three units
it could be two or three bedrooms with the uh allowing for the garage or the body and fender
shop to remain correct that's correct your proposal is for how many bed nine nine single
nine single bedrooms uh no our proposal is for eight uh units um on the first floor it's two
one bedrooms um and then on the second and third floor two one bedrooms and two studios
so i guess in total it's six one bedrooms and two studios
so eight beds across all the apartments eight beds eight beds versus nine six to nine beds
likely nine yeah six to nine i get it and what is the square footage of the studios
I have the studios themselves I don't know if you can see the writing here let me zoom in
so the studio is 347 and a half square feet each of them are the same size uh yeah the second and
third floor should be identical. What's the square footage of the other units?
The one bedrooms on the second and third floor are, one is 418 square feet
and the ones that are more to the rear are 463 square feet. Now that's the second and third
floor because they're basically their floor plan is identical. The first floor
has two one-bedroom. That's a different layout. I'm trying to see if I can.
I think they have the total square footage of those.
And the, okay, obviously this was all made known to the RCO, right?
That's correct. This floor plan, these floor plans, excuse me, in the zoning plan was presented to the RCO. And I should just say this to Ms. Suzanne Tavani was my initial contact with the RCO.
So she did have to take some sort of leave of absence.
So there was a period of time where my concerns regarding the inaccurate reporting of the voting due to the votes were unanswered.
But I learned later on that it was due to her having to take leave of absence for personal reasons.
So I certainly understand that, but I still wanted to, you know, reflect for the record that we did inform the RCO when we became aware of the issue.
What was the count of the RCO meeting, support versus non-support?
I believe it was 17 in opposition and six in support, but there were over, and I know because I looked on, I thought the number was strange when I saw the letter.
I know there was over 40, 45 people on that call.
So that, one, I know everyone didn't vote, but then I was informed that the RCO sort of doesn't count votes of anyone that's not in there.
sort of doesn't count votes of anyone that's not in their catchment area for the RCO or that's
related to the project, which I certainly understand, except when we went out and got
the signatures, well, their catchment area on their own website is described as from Broad Street
to 6th Street and from Washington to Taster Street. And then every signature on our petition
is certainly within that um but not only that they're all within three blocks of the except
for maybe one is like right on the edge one or two right on the edge of three blocks but every
other one is within three blocks the majority is with it's either on the same block or within a
block of the property yeah i'm familiar because i live not far from there i'm very familiar with
that all right um questions from the board no no no what else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand. Chair, we have a Jeff Brown.
Mr. Brown, please identify yourself. Yes, my name is Jeff Brown. I live at 910 Greenwich. I've been
here for 35 years. Mr. Brown, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Yes, I and many of the neighbors on the
900 block of Greenwich Street oppose this proposal on numerous basis. Number one, on density. They're
talking about putting in eight units, there are only about 20 single-family houses on Greenwich
Street, and this is now proposing to add eight more units. And eight units, and as we've just
said, some of the units are 400, a little bit more than 400 square feet. They're tiny units. This is
not manhattan this is south philly uh you know it's they're very tiny units um we also uh question
the um the the open space where is the open space uh in the in the lot um where is the egress for
the second third floor if there's a an emergency for them to uh to leave where is trash going to
be stored. Also, going up three stories in the rear is going to block light and air of the
backyards and the gardens of people that are on both Greenwich and Cross streets. And there's
always the issue of parking. Eight additional units, even if people are riding bikes and walking
and taking public transit, is going to bring a lot more traffic to an already very crowded street.
In addition to that, the person said that they went and they got petitions, and I saw some of the signatures of petitions, nobody came to my door asking to sign a petition or to many of my neighbors to go sign a petition.
So, I mean, it's good for them to get the signatures from people that live on Tasker Street and other streets further away.
This is Greenwich Street.
This is where we live.
and it's just too dense it's not appropriate for the uh for our block thank you mr brown
mr chair if i could just respond to i'll try to make it as quick as possible um first i just want
to highlight that in terms of the well first i should mention that the height um we can go up
to 38 feet rick whether we get a variance or not like our by right it's going to be the same height
whether we go with the buy-write plan or we go, or we're granted with the variance.
So to me, that's really not a non-issue.
In terms of the egress, one, that's, I mean, that's not a zoning matter, but even if it was,
we haven't received, as far as my understanding is, everything that we've done thus far
hasn't generated any dimensional variances or referrals, for that matter.
The only variances we have is for the use of residential versus commercial and then the density of the residential.
Not only that, as you can see, there's literally immediately attached to the building.
There's a large residential apartment building.
That was a factory at one time.
That's right.
And so in terms of the sort of community context and things of that nature, I don't think that's the residential multifamily use is something that doesn't exist here, obviously.
And so in terms of the...
And then again, when it comes to traffic, I already read it, read it, so I won't beat a dead horse.
But we believe and I think many of the people who signed this position believe that a commercial auto body garage is going to generate with apartments above is going to generate far more traffic and parking issues than our proposed use.
I mean, outside of just the cars that are coming there to be worked on, just prospective customers, people coming for quotes, things of that nature, that in and out of a business like that is continuous throughout the day.
and more of a burden on parking and traffic than what we're trying to do here.
And admittedly, we do not have a signature of support from the gentleman that just spoke,
obviously, or he wouldn't have said that, but that doesn't, just because the gentleman,
I'm sorry, I didn't remember his name, didn't sign the position on the spot.
Jeffrey Brown.
Yes, there are other people on Greenwich, on Cross, further up on Greenwich, on Dickinson, on 10th, that signed the petition as well.
As you can see, his parcel is not highlighted.
All right. Anyone else would like to testify? Please raise your hand. Something new and different.
yes chair we have a mary harris
miss harris you can unmute yourself yes i'm here miss harris please identify yourself
name and address my name is mary joe harris uh that's m-a-r-y-j-o-h-a-r-r-i-s
i live at 905 cross street do you swear and affirm to tell or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you ma'am please proceed okay i'll try to
be uh brief because i agree in principle with the objections that mr brown already raised but i'm
here very specifically to object to what I find totally offensive is the
raise in the elevation at the rear part of the building. I live in on again on
Cross Street which backs up to Greenwich Street and I'm in one of, if you can see on the picture,
one of those backyards with the trees very close to the proposed building.
From our back gardens, we now see a portion of the side of the existing garage. It's only
one story high, but it covers what I assume is the entire lot at 900 Greenwich. The proposal
is to bring to bring that elevation up to a height of three stories, which would literally
loom over our gardens, as you can imagine. It would, our view to the east is obliterated
by the large apartment building that you referred to as formerly a factory. However, that is an
additional uh whatever the width of 900 is it's an additional 20 feet uh distant allowing some air
and sunlight to penetrate those backyards uh allowing the feeling of uh of space and privacy
when you're in your backyard and this would be entirely out of scale and uh it would literally
just loom over back gardens on both the Cross Street and the Greenwich Street sides.
So my specific and strong opposition is to raising the elevation of the rear of that lot.
If anything, I'd like to see the open space restored by the removal of the one-story garage
in the back of the lot, but it's there. I can't do anything about that, but I do object to
raising of the elevation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Brettel, I have a question.
How long is the garage not in use currently, correct? The business of the garage is not
operating, correct? No, I believe the garage is, and I believe it is in operation. And Mr.
vicario can correct me if i'm wrong but i believe it is an operation now i don't know if the business
correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it is an operation now I don't know if the business that's
currently there is um as oh I'm sorry go ahead I just want to is the garage operating as a business
yes uh can I speak yes okay no it is not because we've been waiting my my father passed away at 17
and how long it's been it's been not in operation since 2017 no no we've had it in operation
up until like a year ago okay all right just need to know that thank you all right anyone else
I'm sorry sorry uh just to remind the board that the height um we again we can do that by right
but to sort of hopefully this addresses um the neighbor's issue um we actually we're we're not
covering the entire if you can see from this um sort of overview site plan we're not going to
cover the entire lot with the addition. The open space is actually going to be there above
the existing one story in the rear. So I apologize if there was miscommunication about
that we were filling this space with this entire second story, but the concerns that
she has are actually, that's actually not happening. There is open space above the first
floor um even though we could go up um probably more and cover more of that open space or not
there is some open space um so the rear of the building will not be going up two feet
i mean it would not be going up to three feet it's only important thank you thank you anyone
else to testify in this case yes chair we have a susan
miss susan yes i'm susan fisher and i live on cross street
miss fisher please spell your full name s-u-s-a-n-f-i-s-c-h-e-r
your address 840 cross street you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes my concern my concern um is mainly the amount of people and cars and trash that it's
going to add to the area i'm also concerned you know we keep referring to the building on ninth
street that got approval that used to be the warehouse currently nobody even picks up the
trash there or shovels the snow. I'm just not sure how this is going to be taken care of with
so many tenants in it and adding so many cars. My concerns are pretty similar to the other two
people testifying. Thank you. So Mr. Fisher, I would say that I can't speak for the owner in
the corner, but the vicarios have been longtime members of this community. I don't know who owns
that other, well, I think I do, but I'm not 100% sure who owns that corner building.
And I don't know if they're from this community. The vicarios are from this community and have
been part of this community for a very long time. And so they have no desire to be a negative
detriment or impact on this community. They want to maintain the community that they're proud to
be from. So in terms of the type of owner that you can have coming in to do a project like this,
I think one of the things I would care about
is someone who's from here
and someone that cares about the well-being
and that's who the vicarios are.
Anyone else?
Chair, I have a Brian King.
Go ahead, Mr. Fertil.
I apologize if I'm interrupting you.
No, no, no, I'm sorry.
Mr. Kean please spell your first and last name and provide us with your address
I'm Brian Kean
K-E-A-N
I currently live up on the
I currently live up on Percy Street up by south
however my wife and I are moving into a unit
down on Catherine Street
and I wanted to say that I'm very excited
that these new units are going to be coming
pretty close to our new home. I'm very glad that... Excuse me, sir. You said you're moving to
Catherine Street? Catherine and 7th, yes. A little ways north of this. It's quite a distance away.
It's not a little ways. It's quite a distance with all due respect. Yes, sir. My point being that
I'm very glad that these units are going to be built here and it's going to relieve the housing
pressure in the neighborhood where i live and where i'm moving into and so i'm very grateful
that this building is going up and i hope that more of them go up in more of the city
Uh, anyone else?
uh anyone else
Chair, I have a Mike G.
Please identify yourself with the record, sir.
Spell your first and last name.
This is Mike Gumbel, G-U-M-B-E-L.
And I apologize, I'm on my way to pick up my son, so it's a little bit windy.
Your address, your address, sir?
924 Greenwood Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
I want to start out by saying that I know several of the Vicario brothers have been on my property for 15 years.
They are great people.
However, I am extremely opposed to this project.
They have mentioned that they've been long-time members of the community,
But they never came around to actually talk to any of the people on the block or any of the members of the community to see what would work in this building and what would work for the people that have been on the block and live on the block.
Most of them live in New Jersey now, so they're not actively members of the current block in the community.
um also point out if you look at the map of the signatures there i believe are two signatures
on the 900 block of greenwich one of which is a rental property of theirs and the other one i'm
not sure which property it is and they also own several rental properties around our block in
that area and so i would assume that several of those signatures were from properties that
they have renters at. So I think some of those would be suspects. As far as the building on the
corner, there was significant opposition to that building. Let's just speak to this address if you
don't mind, sir. Yeah, but so the building on the corner has been a problem in that it is a
multifamily building and basically everyone in that building has a vehicle. And while I know
that parking is generally just an issue in general um everyone in that corner building has a vehicle
that parks on the street and the church has been very generous in allowing us to use overflow
parking but every single night the church parking lot is packed to the brim so when you add eight
units to the block i mean there's just there's not going to be any parking available for those
units. When it was a functional garage, it was, I mean, we really didn't have any problems with
the building garage. I don't necessarily want it to be an auto body garage, but I still would
rather that than eight units. Okay, appreciate your time. Thank you. I think we've gotten enough
testimony. Mr. Battil, you have anything to add before we have, is the board, does the board have
any questions oh i'm sorry um chair yes i could interrupt we do have um someone who
wishes to testify but we could not see her hand um but she's asking to testify suzanne
yes please thank you lakisha if you can try to find her in the list please oh yeah suzanne's
the rco yes but we need people to raise their hands and to recognize them and we couldn't find her
oh good afternoon miss tavani please identify yourself spell your full name for the record
you can give lakeisha minutes like a hundred or something people
uh while they're looking uh mr chair can i just respond to one thing that the last couple of uh
testimony said i just want to clarify what um hello oh okay miss tavani thank you very much
mr chairman suzanne tavani t-a-v-a-n-i i swear or for him to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do please proceed i chair the zoning committee for the passing square civic
association and i'm going to start backwards i i am going to take issue with mr bertiel's
comment that the leadership of the organization was predisposed to an outcome, that two, our
accounting of the votes were not correct and were misrepresented. None of that is true. Third,
at no time have I ever received any communication either on the contact at passion.org email,
email, the zoning at PassJunk.org email, or my own email, which 90% of the neighborhood
at this point has, that there was any trouble in getting their vote registered, participating
that there was any trouble in getting their vote registered, participating in the meeting.
in the meeting.
The only emails that I have received have been a number of emails from neighbors in opposition to this project.
And I won't go over the opposition because you've already heard it in detail.
So I'd just like to submit that no one will ever impinge on my character,
nor on the character of how this organization is run.
We've run fair and open meetings.
The issue, as he said, was that we did go through the record of the tally of the votes,
because we do the votes online now, because we're meeting virtually, and we did negate the votes
of some people who are not in the neighborhood. And I think you have already heard from at least
two other people who live in Greenwood Street that they have not been contacted to sign a
petition, but people five blocks away have been contacted to sign the petition. So having said
that, I just wanted to put that out there. But officially, the RCO is in opposition to this
project based upon the incredible density, the massing of the project, and the specific use
of that lot. And frankly, I take it as an affront and a threat that if we don't do this for them,
they want to go to a buy right which would allow them to maintain an auto body shop which has not
been in operation in a number of years with three units above i'm not going to take up any more of
your time with telling you about the density and the trash the parking you already heard it you
know those arguments but um that's our case thank you thank you miss tavani uh i just want to
clarify um i don't know maybe miss uh tavani didn't didn't hear me um when i was saying this
but i again i i made no statement about miss tavani specifically and i didn't mean to apply
that she did something uh wrong herself what i was stating was i you know the the members of the
um rco leadership not just miss tavani is public record it's on their website and i just
characterized that i from the beginning of the meeting i can tell that they were um based on
their statements um that's again recorded um that there were members that were already opposed to
this that was just that's just a fact but that aside um again i also stated that i did reach
out to miss tavani because she was my contact initially throughout and there was no responses
but and again she reached back out and explained to me why um it's you know not my business to go
into why she wasn't responsible i mean able to be responsive but um i that's not something that i
was holding as a slight against Mr. Vani. I was just putting the record on kind of what
procedurally would happen. But more importantly, I think, I just want to, we're talking about
eight units here in a vacuum as if it's not replacing something that's in existence or
something that can, will likely for sure be the alternative. And so again, when we remove this
auto body garage, we're not just putting eight units there and nothing else is happening. It's
not happening in the vacuum. What's happening is a double wide curb cut that's in existence now
that folks can't park at now will be removed, which is adding an additional two parking spaces
on the street. That's one net offset. In addition to that, again, this auto body shop has not been,
I'm not sure why folks are saying that, but it has not been inactive for years. It's at the very
remotes, it's been about a year or so. In fact, that was news to me. I was under understanding
that it was still active. And that business comes along with a certain amount of traffic
and a certain amount of parking that's going to be there if it's in existence. And so this
plan is for the adaptive reuse of that space. As you can see, we want to keep the, because
we believe it's a nice shaped building. So we want to keep the shape of the building
with the additions. But we believe that what we're proposing is actually less of an impact.
I know people are skeptical of that. And again, Mrs. Tavani stated that she had some skepticism
or she believed there was a threat of us going with the alternative plan. But that's just the
facts of the situation. To make this project work, we need to keep this auto body shop if we're only
going to be doing the three units. And we believe this is a nice reuse of the building, maintaining
the nice roof line, and just increasing the floors and having additional housing in this community.
Thank you. I understand the buy right. I know people would like for that not to be the case,
but it is. But I do think that this is an overbuilt. That's just my opinion.
But I do think that this is an overbuilt.
That's just my opinion.
So any comments from the board again?
We need to move on.
Planning Commission now.
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for single family use.
While we could support a residential ground floor,
we believe that eight units is an overuse of the property.
we recommend that the board deny the requested variances. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, Mr. Chair, but I just wanted to add that if
I was hoping to connect with the Planning Commission, but if the board would be receptive,
I do believe that the vicarials are open to exploring revised floor plans and revised density.
it just wouldn't be we just couldn't do the three units without keeping the garage um and so
you say you couldn't you actually could i mean you own they own the property they own the property
they could do a lot i'm sorry but i misspoke i didn't mean we couldn't as in they couldn't
actually do it what i'm saying is that we that that plan would be a project but there's a big
difference between the three units and the eight units as we all know and that's something um that
We've had discussions before this meeting about possibilities, and it would take us to release.
There may be opportunities here to utilize the garage along with some residential, which would increase the value of the apartments.
I'm not an architect, but I think that could be made possible.
If your client is willing to go back to the board with some revisions that get us a lot further away from where he is today, I'd certainly agree to resume this hearing at a later date.
And, Mr. Chairman, I think we would like to take the board up on that opportunity if available.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. Can I put one thing out?
if you are going to, as part of the revisions, add a commercial component. You're going to have
to start from the beginning anyway. You're going to have to reapply to L&I.
Well, would parking be considered commercial? No, not necessarily, but...
We'll look at all options. Our architect, and that's part of the reason why he couldn't be here
today um had to go in for surgery um between the time of the meeting and um our community meeting
and um this is owning hearing so i haven't had the opportunity to have much back and forth with
him because he was sort of out of commission due to that surgery um in fact still is which is why
he couldn't be here today um and so i would welcome that opportunity to be able to have
those additional conversations with them to see what else is possible.
Okay, all right.
Can I ask Mr. Bertil, if you do decide to revise your plans and attempt to submit those,
would you please send me the revised plans form first so I can advise you as to whether
you can, whether you'll be required to file an amended application?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
And in those revised plans, I think we didn't get into it, but you need to address trash
as well.
regardless of the number i'll make a note of that right thank you all right count count oh
calendar number zero seven six zero carol one yeah hold on i'm going to resume this so
mi 2021-000592 900 greenwood street this hearing will be resumed you have any dates for us tanya
June 2nd at 2 p.m.
June 2nd at 2 p.m., at which time the board will consider any feedback related to the RCO and Councilman Squilla's office.
Thanks, Frank. I resumed it in my head quickly.
Thank you.
Calendar number 0760, 145 North 7th Street.
The attorney is Rich DeMarco.
for the purpose of our court reporter
this is the last case
on our two o'clock list
we will take a break once this case
is heard and we respectfully
ask Mr. DeMarco
well let's see what the case
is are there any letters from the RCO
we don't have anything here
I don't have a letter
you have exhibits
we do have exhibits
Mr. DeMarco. I got weird. I got kicked out for a minute. It was odd. Okay. I'm here. Yes. Hello.
I got weird. I got kicked out for a minute. It was odd. Okay, I'm here. Yes. Hello.
Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, everybody. Richard DeMarco, 2005 Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
D-E-M-A-R-C-O. Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. I do. Thank you. Yeah, on the RCO issue, we had a meeting.
We had two meetings, actually.
The last one was in January.
We had a vote overwhelmingly in favor of our proposal today.
It was confirmed in an email from the RCO leader.
I have that email.
I'm going to use it as an exhibit because I've been asking for weeks now for a copy of their letter.
I haven't received it.
I'm not sure what the issue is.
I did call Victoria, who is the person I know to be involved with the RCO.
I called her today.
I didn't get a response.
I called the councilman's office, did not get a response.
And again, I have a confirmation email.
The vote was 20 to 6 in favor of-
What is the name of the RCO?
It's Association-
All right, let me try this now.
Associacion Vertor Roqueños en Marcha.
Very good.
APM RCO.
I'm sure the court reporter got all of that.
Yeah, yeah.
Associacion.
Okay, anyway.
My Spanish is really bad.
But anyway, I'll share my screen in a moment.
I'll show you the email that confirmed the vote in favor of the project.
I would imagine that should be enough for the board.
But, you know, there is a neighbor that is next door to the project that has had construction,
She's going to offer construction issues, I believe.
So there is at least one person in opposition.
I don't know if she's here.
I'm sure you'll...
Excuse me.
This is Sharon.
Mr. DeMarco, after the hearing, could you forward me a copy of that email so we'll have it for the record?
I will.
I will.
And Sharon, I did copy you on a follow-up, but I'm going to re-forward it to you anyway because I want to officially use it as an exhibit because I was expecting to get the letter prior to the hearing time today, and I did not get it.
I'll absolutely send that to you.
I did copy you on email today. Thank you. You have it in your inbox as well.
Chairman, this case is, and Liz Casey, I want to also mention that the client is Ophir Kamarian.
He had an accident, poor accident, unable to participate, but his office manager, Liz Casey,
is intimately familiar with all of this and will be verifying my testimony today.
And she knows all the knowledge about this project and will be testifying on behalf of the developer.
We are here solely for a variance for four units.
This board actually heard a similar case on this same property two years ago, granted a variance for three units.
This is a block that was recently rezoned from RM1 to RSA5.
And when I share my screen and go through some of the photos and some of the exhibits, you'll see that this particular block has been developed almost predominantly for multifamily, some densities of as high as six, seven, eight units.
And it is the only singles.
There's a handful of singles that are homeownership, but the other singles are PHA rentals.
So over 95% of this property are either rentals or multifamily.
We're not asking for any dimensional variances.
We're asking, instead of three units, to develop four units.
What I'll have Liz verify is that the prior developer, the prior owner,
who got the variance in 2019 from this board for three units,
could not develop the three units.
And my client was willing to attempt to obtain the relief today for the four units because it is the much more compatible project for this property.
Again, no dimension.
Let me share my screen.
I'll show you some of the exhibits.
So on your screen, you should see the email from the RCO.
where my courser is, it says the final tally was 20 yes and 6 no. All right, so I'll forward that
to Sharon. This is the refusal. See here, reference to your 2019 case where you granted three
variances. So what I want to say about that is that hardship has already been found by this
board with regard to this property and the RSA 5 zoning. I'll show you the photographs,
I'll show you the photographs and you'll see what I'm talking about, how the neighborhood,
and you'll see when talking about how
if you see here, these are multi-family.
This is a large multi-family structure. There's numerous units in here and some commercial uses.
multi-family here
my family here i'll jump to the permits i i took the liberty of downloading all of the permits on
the block what i found when i went through each property on this block there is a consistent this
is the next door property by the way mr chairman you see 1417 here four units next door um but
again, I do admit that the unit on the right of us is going to be someone who's been opposition.
She has one of the very few singles on the block. But if you're panning through all the permits,
you have duplexes, you have mixed use, you have triplexes, you have eight units in one building,
three units it's it's a multi-family block so the it's a classic valley view situation where
the current zoning classification of single family row homes is is frankly a joke it is a multi-family
block significant density and i think that's frankly reflected in the rco vote which was
overwhelmingly in favor of the project because people don't mind the density they want the
density. The decision for you today is whether to grant four as opposed to three. These are
the rest of the permits. I'll show you my plans so you can see. We do have trash storage in the
rear, accessible to all tenants. There is one basement bedroom. These are our floor plans,
Mr. Chairman. There's a walkout basement and a ladder going up. You can see here this shaded
area is a walkway from the front door all the way to the back where there'll be trash storage for
all the units. Let me promote Liz Casey, the panelist. I'll have her adopt some of my testimony.
Okay, Tanya.
four stories this is the fourth and third plan
hello hi liz hi liz have you heard my uh you are the office manager for the owner of the property
correct ma'am ma'am you need to identify yourself sorry okay my name is elizabeth casey
Do you want me to spell it?
Please spell your last name.
C-A-S-E-Y.
And your interest in this application?
I work for the applicant.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. DeMarco.
So the other thing I do want Liz to speak about is we don't have the official tax clearance, but your account should show taxes paid.
Let me show you, Liz, why don't you explain to the board briefly what happened, why you couldn't initially get a tax clearance, and what you did up until today to straighten that out.
Okay. I was emailing with the tax clearance unit for several weeks. It takes a while to get a reply. And they initially told me that this particular property was not registered properly with the city.
so i made an appointment and i went down to the msb and i got that corrected and i i have an email
from the tax clearance saying that that was the only issue um and then i have still been unable
to pull it so i went back down uh to the msb yesterday when they had walk-in hours um
excuse me excuse me this is sharon saletta i just looked it up on the revenue site you're fine
okay thank you for that i appreciate i thought that would be the case
all right thank you okay uh liz did you hear all of my factual testimony and yes okay and is it true
and accurate yes and is it is it true that the seller in this case made statements to the effect
that he was unable to develop the three units that were granted by the sport in 2019.
Yes. And if I can add, that hardship has only been made more difficult with the astronomical increase in construction costs in the last nine months.
And if I can add that hardship has only been made
And if the, thank you, if the developer were to develop the three units granted by this board in 2019, what would happen with regard to the size of the units?
Are we getting somebody speaking in the background?
Sorry.
Somebody walked into my office.
I didn't have the door locked.
Sorry.
We're all out.
Liz, to back up a little bit, as far as if you were to be wedded to the three units and have to develop three units,
why would that be difficult for this particular developer to be able to develop and market the three units as opposed to the four that you're requesting today?
Sorry, that was a little awkward.
Do you understand my question?
Still with us, Liz.
If you're muted, you just have to unmute yourself.
Why is it necessary to build four as opposed to three?
Oh, okay.
Sorry, I was muted.
The going rate of apartments in this neighborhood would not offset the cost of the development.
And the size of the apartments, the square footage of them,
it would be too big for what we can market in this neighborhood and you uh manage as office
manager for this particular developer you own scores of apartment units in this not only in
this community but on this very block isn't that right correct and so you have intimate knowledge
of the rentals uh that you have and that are marketable and what demand there is and there
is not agreed agreed i manage all of our rentals all right so if you were to do three units here
and again, we're not requesting any dimensional variances, Mr. Chairman, a member of the board,
the units would be too large, right? Correct. And unrentable. Is that correct? Yes. All right.
So to anticipate the potential opposition in this case, we had a letter of opposition from
the near neighbor regarding some of the issues that she has had. Can you tell the board,
have you had any problems with L&I? First of all, the property that, the structure that was there
has been demolished, correct? Correct. I'm going to try to pull up a picture of the old structure,
Mr. Chairman, so you can see it. Has L&I issued any violations for your demolition? No.
and uh has ellen i is ellen i satisfied with the protection that you have given
to the home on the side where we have the opposition letter yes and you've you've patched
it all up and there's but but that particular owner has demanded that you stucco her wall
correct correct and if you had done that you would have to then demolish it because you would
have to construct this structure so you can't stucco for a wall it would make no sense is that
right correct chairman i would move everything into evidence i believe that's it um happen to
answer any questions our architect should also be on the call and we plato marinakis uh he's
available for questions as well he should i did not ask to promote him to panelists but he is
available to discuss the plans and respond to questions thank you any questions from the board
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to see some plans and pictures.
You should be able to see the site plan, Mr. Holloman.
This is the property.
I can rotate this.
Can you rotate it, please?
This is the old structure right here, this white building.
This is our site plan.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, I forgot to mention, if this were RM1, as we believe it should be, four units would be an as-of-right development here.
The property is 1496 square feet.
It's a pretty large property.
We would easily make the four units if it were RM1, and I would submit to the board that, based on the permits that I have into evidence, this is 90% either rentals or multifamily.
Mr. Holloman, here's the third and fourth floor plan, and this is the basement walkout
here, first floor and second floor.
What is the trash plan?
So if you see this shaded area is a straight walkway back to the rear yard, there will be rear yard trash storage for all tenants accessible to all tenants.
so if you see this shaded area is a straight walk walkway
There's a ladder here where the, and this is only one, this is a split unit, by the way, Mr. Holloman.
This bedroom in the basement, this is a bi-level as well.
So there's two means of egress for this unit anyway.
But there is another walkout.
What this developer does, he has a ladder leading up into the rear yard for a third way of egress.
And trash storage in the rear for all tenants.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
no anyone else anyone else would like to testify in this case
no hands um yeah go for the hands mr chair no yes we have mary jones um if we could
ms jones just identify yourself you're still on the roof yes good afternoon um board
my name is mary jones i represent council president daryl clark um city hall room 494
um um based upon the reports from the next door neighbor miss brooks who i believe she is on the
call but at any rate um and the the safety concerns associated with building next to her that
But as far as our office knows, we have not have not been properly addressed.
We are opposed to this granting of this variance and also there is not a hardship.
Thank you.
Well, obviously, I, you know, I have the utmost respect for Councilman, Council President
Clark.
I've worked with him for decades.
You know, luckily, RCO is in favor.
um we will absolutely comply with all codes um hell and i has not issued a violation we've
we've taken care as best we can of our neighbor's property uh let me let me enter richard let me
interrupt you if i could miss jones uh would you be i don't mean to put you on the spot but could
you be more specific as to what issues the next door neighbor has as it relates to issues not
being addressed well there was a point where she was um requesting to have her her her wall repaired
but again i was i was assuming i'm not sure where she is or where her attorney is perhaps he had to
go but they would be able to to put in more detail okay again because mr mr demarco pointed out
earlier uh there's a structure they can't do exterior walls because they're not exterior yet
that can only be addressed when the building is demolished if and when it's demolished all right
thank you uh i hear somebody saying we're here yes i would ask i would ask that no one unmute
and speak unless you give a direction here miss brooks is available now to unmute herself and
please. Thank you. Ms. Brooks, please identify yourself with a record first and last name
and we'll swear you in. My name is Clarice Brooks, C-L-A-R-I-C-E-B-R-O-O-K-S.
And your address? 1413 North 7th Street. You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
okay um doing the um first of all i oppose because if the developer before him couldn't do
three units then how can he do four units he has seven units when the black does four units
so why can he do three user units because it will sell he will be able to rent it that's that's
that's not true that no there is not enough single homes when the blacks the housing authority
houses are rent to own. We had a disturbance on our second meeting where all these people just
ganged up on me and was talking bad to me. And then when it came down to the vote, half of those
people couldn't vote. Jaime is not really sure about how many people really voted to oppose
four units. I'm not against three units. I just want my wall fixed because if he builds and leave
If my wall exposed and his buildings are known to leak, then the leakage is going to come into my house.
And his buildings are known to leak
Then the leakage is going to come
Into my house if I have no kind of
No kind of filler
No kind of bricks
Ms. Brooks
When you say your wall
Which wall are we speaking of?
The wall where they demoed
It's an exposed wall now
Yes, it's exposed
Because
Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. DeMarco
I thought the structure was still standing
am i wrong no the the structure has been demolished the picture i showed you that structure
i apologize you showed me a picture chairman ellen i miss brooks has called ellen i multiple
times has not got the results she wants from the department of ellen i and has basically told my
client that he she will oppose him and will not allow him to develop ellen i has seen what mr
what the developer has done to protect her wall and is fully satisfied they've been out multiple
lines. The wall is protected, it's patched, and there's no violations whatsoever. Ms. Brooks wants
something that is not required. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else?
We have Michael, Chair. Hi, thank you so much. This is Michael Froelich,
Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'm an attorney. Excuse me, excuse me. I guess maybe
when I say this, no one hears me. Please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
very good i apologize my name is michael frolic the last name is f-r-o-e-h-l-i-c-h
i'm an attorney with community legal services 1410 west erie avenue and do you swear or firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you thank you please
proceed so i know that we're getting late and we have another list in front of us so i'll try to be
as quick as brief as possible um i represent ms brooks uh who uh who just spoke briefly a moment
ago ms brooks has lived on the block for over 50 years she's the block captain and her row home is
immediately adjacent to the property uh being discussed today i did submit an email to the
board and a letter to the board yesterday um writing much more detail about ms brooks legal
grounds for opposing this variance and and uh there is a lot of uneasiness on this block because
it is a combination of older single-family homes with long-time residents in low density
and new multi-unit construction with higher density. And Ms. Brooks is very concerned that
this new property being built will tower over her home. I did want to correct one thing. Mr. DeMarco
a moment ago said that it is, quote, almost entirely multifamily. He also said that 95%
are rentals or multifamily. Ms. Brooks reports that it is 15 addresses that are single-family,
currently used as single-family, and 15 addresses that are multifamily. For the record,
the single-family homes are 1409, 1413, 1427, 1429, 1435, 1437, 1447, 1449, 1402, 1410, 1418,
1428, 1430, 1432, 1434. Ms. Brooks essentially has three quick arguments as to why she opposes
this variance. First, City Council in 2017 unanimously approved an ordinance rezoning this
block from RM1 to RSA5. Mr. DeMarco noted that if it was RM1, it would allow the applicant to
build four units as of right. That's correct, but City Council unanimously approved a zoning remap
to RSA5. And given this recent action by City Council, a variance would disrupt the clearly
expressed intent of city council. But number two, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship
here. At the RCO meeting in January, in fact, Ms. Casey expressly said that they had not done
pro forma budgeting on this, and she could not or would not respond to the question from Mr.
Ferrant, the RCO convener, who asked for a budget regarding what the expected price was for each
unit. So I think there's no evidence in the record to say that, in fact, four units at lower rents
might generate more income than three units at higher rates. And third and finally, any hardship
that might exist was on the applicant's own making. The applicant was aware of the zoning and the
other conditions of the property when it purchased the property in 2019. In fact, Mr. DeMarco said at
rco meeting quote the owner wants to develop four units the reasoning is as follows the prior owner
could not develop the property for three units to build a new the older property was not usable
to build three units was not feasible so the prior owner sold to my clients
to build three units was not feasible so the prior owner sold to my clients if mr if the applicant
knew that three units was not feasible then the applicant should not have purchased the property
at the price that he paid for it he was aware of this and as he testified or has um his uh council
testified or stated at the rco meeting uh he nevertheless decided to purchase at any rate
uh so for those reasons um ms brooks uh is uh opposes this request for for variance thank you
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Chair, I have a brief response to that, because there was a misquotation of the law on zoning.
The attorney just mentioned that because my client knew of the issue with the property, that defeats hardship.
That's a complete misquotation of the law on zoning.
Knowledge has nothing to do with it.
The property suffers from hardship, and my client's motivation for buying it is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, hardship has already been established by this board. The court already granted a variance.
The only issue before the board is whether to allow a fourth unit. And this, and you know,
Mr. Froelich mentioned some property addresses that are actually completely not only incorrect
when you look at the zoning archive. There's variances for, I couldn't go through each one
as he said them, but 1432 is three units and he mentioned it as single family. That's completely
inaccurate. This is predominantly a multi-family block, so the RSA 5 zoning is completely
incompatible. Thank you. Here we have Denise Whitaker.
Ms. Whitaker. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Denise Whitaker. I'm speaking on the capacity
of Council President Darrell Clark. I work as a constituent service representative
specializing in construction miss whitaker could you spell your full name please sure
it's like denise for the v v e n i s e last name whitaker w h i t a k e r and do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed okay so i just
want to add a few points of what was stated in there again i am the point person for council
president daryl clark's fifth district office when it comes to construction concerns so um just to
kind of add some points this demolition of that structure happened in march 2020 march 2020 is
when the pandemic first arrived the demolition was completed right around the time of the stay
at home was put into place. Ellen and I did not inspect the demolition after it had happened.
Going into Eclipse, it was, Eclipse says it was waived and passed because, again, we were during
a stay-at-home order. So I had submitted a 311 request back then, a year ago, and it's still
pending so in addition when you pull up the demolition codes and requirements uh so
the um where's that where's that code at so section a 305 demolitions should protect adjacent
properties. In addition, the wall right now that is exposed is sand and bricks. That is not an
exterior wall. It is not fire protected. It is required 30 days of any demolition to stucco a
wall. We're beyond 30 days. Ms. Brooks' house has been exposed for over a year of the elements.
So in addition, again, there's nothing to my 311 that Ellen and I has been out there to
inspect it. Also, when it comes to situations as this one, that the violations would fall
on the lot and potentially on this Brooks house. So, you know, that's another concerning reason
right now. So again, I just wanted to end when a demolition happens, if their structure is not
built next to it, there has to be a foundation supporting the house. So we're a year away and
no foundation was put in and there's no bracing
on this Brooks wall.
So again, we're past that 30 days time period
that her entire wall should have been stuck out
or have some kind of bracing support.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single-family use.
This is a 1,490 square foot lot.
We do not see any unique circumstances that would prevent this property from being used by right.
We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
A couple of points to make, Mr. Chairman, on that.
Hello?
We've already found that the RSA 5 zoning is inappropriate for this property.
Not even two years ago, granted a variance for the three units.
So the hardship has already been established to the property.
The only issue is whether we can develop four as opposed to three.
I can call this Casey about how many times L&I has been out to this property.
This is one opposition party.
And I'm surprised the councilman's office is going against their RCO.
This is the process that we have. I mean, why do I not have a letter from the RCO when we won this vote overwhelmingly? Why do I have the council office opposed to this? This is the process that the code has laid out. They are required by the code to present you with a letter regarding their position and the vote.
The vote was overwhelmingly in favor. So I don't understand why construction issues by one party, which have been vetted by L&I, L&I has been out multiple times and is completely satisfied as to what the developer has done.
This is someone that has tried to leverage my client with a construction issue, the issue with zoning, not because you're disappointed that violations haven't been issued and you come to oppose based on that alone.
The opposition is clearly regarding something that is non-zoning related.
Excuse me, Councillor.
Excuse me, Councillor.
Who demolished the building?
I believe, you know what, Liz, I'm going to need Liz Casey for that.
Liz, did we demolish or was it the prior developer?
We hired Pedro Palmer, who also does all of the demolition for the city of, well, not all of,
But he is a registered contractor for the city of Philadelphia that does demolition paid by the city of Philadelphia.
Thank you.
It was us, Mr. Holloman.
I'll repeat again.
We've had no violations.
L&I has been out multiple times.
They're totally satisfied with what has been done.
But the owner of the home isn't.
I think there's a real safety issue.
There isn't.
Her property has been fully stuccoed.
So she wants a lot more than she's telling you today, and she's been leveraging this zoning case, and she has told my client she will never let him build there.
Her motivation is because she's not getting everything she wants from him.
He redid her sidewalk.
Liz Casey, am I giving accurate testimony here?
Yes, we redid the sidewalk in front and to the side of her house.
She was upset that you didn't stucco her entire wall, correct?
uh yeah that's the main issue that i have heard excuse me counselor did they follow the
specification for demolition of a building absolutely there's no violations mr holliman
none no violations thank you i'm sure if i could um mention to you as the conversation continues
the hands continue to grow. I do like to have Mary Jones from Council President's Office. Would it
be okay to allow her to speak? Yes, please. Thank you. Mary, you can go ahead and unmute to speak.
Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to respond to the comments made about the RCO vote.
At this point, you know, the RCO has not been in touch with us to give us a final word on this project.
And while the vote is what it was, there were some concerns about the meeting itself with intimidation tactics
and trying to stop certain conversations
when safety of a building is indeed a zoning concern
if you're trying to get a variance
that's gonna involve building with an adjacent property.
So at this, just to clarify the record,
for the record, we're not going against the RCO.
They haven't given their final word
and the vote itself
is suspect
we're not
going to continue
this argument could go on for a week
we're not going to
We're not going to leave.
I think testimony
I think testimony is it.
okay are you done
Okay, are you done?
I'm sorry, are you done?
Tell me.
It appears to be Andrew Miller.
I'm not sure if that's typically the attorney that comes before us,
but if you allow him to speak, I will promote him.
Please do.
Mr. Miller, please identify yourself with the record,
and I'll swear you in.
I think he put his hand in.
Thank you.
so you can go forward, Chair, no more hands.
Wait, I'm sorry, Ms. Osan, could he put his hand back up?
Mr. Miller?
May I make one statement, Mr. Chairman?
I just, you know, the RCO is supposed to,
you can't just say you don't agree with the result
and then bag out of your responsibility, all right?
If there were concerns, they should have been offered.
The vote was with people who were from the neighborhood.
i don't know any i don't know any concerns of a problem with the vote the problem is that they
don't agree with the vote but you're supposed to hold these meetings if you can't do it responsibly
and you disagree with the result you can't run away from sending your letter and supporting
what your neighbors decide otherwise get them out of there and get a real rco in place
i'm sorry it's upsetting to me i agree all right mr miller yes hi my name is andrew miller
m-i-l-l-e-r i was i was present square or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes i yes i do please yeah i was present at both of the rco meetings and i just wanted to
speak to that because there seems to be some confusion uh at the initial rco meeting uh there
was this this case or whatever was continued because of the concern for mrs brooks's home
and the damage to her home uh and in at the second rco meeting nothing had been done between the two
rco meetings which was why that the drama level increased it seemed um and i just wanted to speak
to that because the the applicant had stated in the first rco meeting that they would address
address the issues that are present on the party wall. And to my knowledge, they were not addressed
as Ms. Brooks and her attorney testified. I just thought I should make that clear that that was
present at both RCO meetings. All right. And at this point, Mr. Chairman, I will make clear
that Mrs. Brooks' demands were inappropriate and improper. And that is why they were not addressed.
You don't get to extort people when you're a next-door neighbor because you want upgrades to your property.
And we tried to make that clear without embarrassing anyone at the second meeting.
But you can't request to have your property become a Taj Mahal at the cost of a developer.
When L&I has issued no violations, everything was done properly.
There's no damage.
you know the record has been really unscrupulously distorted and confused members of the board
by saying there's damage there is none mr brooks won't even let the developer into her property
to see it and that should tell you something excuse me counselor do you have a picture of the
party wall um i don't in the exhibits i'm happy to take a picture for you and and get it to you
asap within 24 hours happy to do that i don't have a i don't have a current photo of it i can get
that for you though no problem it's been it's been patched and um you know it hasn't been stuck
because that would be a waste uh but again mr holliman no violations lni's been out multiple
time. But I'll get you a current photo for sure. Rich, did the request continue? In your words,
extortion? Are they still continuing? Well, let's put it this way. Extortion is a strong word.
And I'm a passionate advocate. So sometimes it's not really extortion, but it's clearly a demand
that is improper and over the top. And it's conditioned on support or opposition to this
case. And it was very clear at the second meeting that that was what's happening. And I would submit
to you, Mr. Neri, that that's why the vote went so favorably for the developer, because it was
obvious what was going on. You don't get a new wall, new sidewalks, and, you know, upgrades to
the interior of a property because you're opposed to a zoning variance. So it leaves me with a bad
taste in my mouth. I can't get my RCO letter when the vote was overwhelming. Listen, don't be an RCO
Don't be an RCO if you're not going to respect the vote of the people who, as you know very well, these meetings are weighted against the developer because the people who are opposed show up and the people who are okay with it don't go.
If you're not going to respect the vote of the people who, these, these, as you know,
This is one of those instances where you had people that voted in favor.
I can't get a letter.
I have the councilman's office in opposition, and everybody's running for the hills.
You don't get to run away because the vote didn't go the way you want it.
So I'm upset with how this has happened. We had full support, overwhelming support from the people who attended.
They're all neighbors. They're all people who live in the community, who live on the block.
We will comply with the code and make sure that, listen, if Mrs. Brooks has a problem, my client's fully licensed, fully insured, and would pay any claims.
But the problem is there isn't any.
Her property has been fully protected.
L&I has been out.
Excuse me, Counselor.
Excuse me, Counselor.
If you have a picture so that I can see that your argument is correct, they fully repaired or whatever the case may be, did the wall based on the standard specification put out by the city of Philadelphia.
But I don't have a picture to see that.
Well, picture is not going to show you that.
I'm here if I could may I make a request I think I know what you're going to say but go ahead
I was going to ask I don't want to cause any problems but if it's okay with the board to
hold the vote for the pictures and review an executive session I'm just concerned about the
court reporter and my staff taking a quick break before we do the 3 30 session that's all I want
Can I add one comment though? This has nothing to do with the requirements for a variance. This is a building permit issue. If they are not complying, it should be reported to L&I. But the demo, the party wall, these don't impact whether they have met the requirements for grant of a variance.
So we can vote the case right now?
Yes, you can.
All right. Planning commission. Happy to do whatever the board wants. Planning commission. You already heard from them. I did? I don't remember. Oh, they said single family, correct? Yes. All right. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
All right. I'd like to close the record on this. MI 2020-000760-1415 North 7th Street.
The record will be closed. The board will make a decision at next Wednesday's executive session.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
That ends the two o'clock list. I know everybody needs a break. It is now 530.
Carol, 10 minutes, 15 minutes?
15 minutes 15 minute breaks everybody back at 5 45
everyone uh i think we're ready to go and to the court reporter in the future you need a break
raise your hand yell do something all right of course thank you we do try to accommodate but it
got a little out of hand today a little all right so don't feel shit don't be shy just just let us
know that goes that goes for anyone
okay tanya and or lakeisha are we ready
yes chair ready to go forward okay good evening everyone my name is Frank DiCicco I'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment I'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our vice chair Ms. Carol Tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board members Mr. Thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snell board administrator Lakeisha Dandy and our board attorney Ms. Sharon
letter or also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual
hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web
or otherwise. Third, for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand
by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to make an appearance statement,
call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
i will repeat that to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address, and the address of the property at issue. And I would also like to
remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat. Your comments should be directed to
our board administrator, Ms. Dandy. With that, I will read a list of cases that have been requested
to be continued. Number three on the 330 list, MI 2020-000735, 2100 Benson Street.
Number four on our list, request by attorney for continuance, is MI 2020-003381,
213 West Berks Street.
Number five on our list MI 2020-003 225 2241 North 15th Street.
I would also like to ask if anyone I'm sorry I'm sorry Chair but the the request on North
15th Street was made by the RCO. If we could call the applicant's attorney,
Alan Nockamson, to be sure that he agrees with it. Thank you. Is Mr. Nockamson available?
Hello, Mr. Chair. Hi, Alan. Just identify yourself by your name and you're already sworn
in from earlier today. You're still under oath. Yes, Alan Nockamson of Nockamson,
MPC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109,
Nockamson is spelled N-N-N-C-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Are you in agreement on the request for continuance?
No, actually I'm not.
We actually have two letters of support from the community groups that we met with.
Excuse me, can I interrupt one minute?
I think there's some confusion here.
This is listed both on the regular list, but I had it as an add-on listed as number one.
I think the add-on information is correct and that it is going forward.
I apologize, Mr. Knott.
We just discussed it.
I pissed over that.
My fault.
My fault.
No, my fault.
All right.
No worries.
Anyone here for calendar number MI2021?
That's 000128.
1737 Bergen, B-E-R-G-E-N Street.
Anyone here for Bergen Street?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, we have no exhibits.
This case will be continued.
Looking for the other one.
Oh, number nine on our list, MI-2020-003389.
446-52 North 12th Street.
Is there anyone here for this case?
446-52 North 12th Street.
Here, I have a Justin Kirk.
Justin, are you here for this case?
Mr. Kirk, please identify yourself with the records.
spell your first and last name yes justin crick k-r-i-k i am counsel for the applicant address
is 1500 jfk boulevard suite 63019102 uh we are requesting a continuance of this matter
uh to a date as uh soon thereafter of july 8th i'm sorry i'm june 8th we are meeting with the
RCO again, June 8. You'll have to work that out with Tanya. MI 2020-003389-446-52 North 12th Street
is continued. And I missed over one. Thank you. Number seven on our list, MI 2020-003383-358
358 Cantrell Street is continued.
Cantrell Street is continued.
Anyone disagree with any of the continuance
that have just been read into the record?
Here we have Xin Jin.
Mr. Jin, you can unmute yourself.
Yes, good afternoon.
I'm the attorney for case number seven
that was just continued.
We originally made the request
because we didn't meet with the RCO,
but they accommodated us with the meeting.
So we're ready to move forward on that case.
Did we get the exhibit?
Yes, we did send the exhibits in.
Everything was timely?
I believe the community letter was the only thing that was not timely,
but we just had the meeting with them on Monday.
They did issue a letter for us, you know, right after the meeting.
So, and it is in support.
And I believe we also have a letter from Councilman Squilla on this one.
All right.
So we will go forward with that case.
Thank you.
Thank you.
uh i'm carol sarah anybody did i miss anything
no you did all the three i i missed it and i apologize for my tardiness number three four
and seven are continued three four three four seven and nine and no seven's not continued
that was that was send in number nine is continued okay hold on please one number one
number three number four four number nine nine are have are continued as is the add-on i believe
uh or no resumption to be determined no that's not to do the add-on right you are doing the
add-on it's just that the add-on is listed twice both in the as number um oh it's a number five
and it's the add-on if you should just consider it as the add-on and ignore number five yes i'm
sorry this is tanya it was listed because if you recall there was a lot of people involved with
this case so i made it short that it was posted and listed so that all involved would know
okay i appreciate that thank you so then we begin with the add-on excuse me
thanking tanya and apologizing for making this more confusing no worries no worries
it's a long long day and god knows when we're going to finish but so we'll start with the add-on
Calendar number is 3225-2241 North 15th Street.
The attorney is Alan Nockamson.
This is a resumption hearing?
Only to determine if the applicant and RCO have reached a proviso agreement.
Mr. Nockamson, you're right.
Okay, you're on Allen Ockamson. I don't know. I don't remember your address. It's 123 South Broad
Street. Something like that. The Wells Fargo building, suite 1600. I'm going to make this
really simple. Let's just go. I'm going to share my screen. It's a resumption hearing.
We met with the community. I'm glad to say we have community support with provisos and we're
willing to agree to whatever the board feels is appropriate in terms of provisos.
Some of them are non-zoning related. So the Uptown Entertainment Development Corporation was to coordinate the RCO. They now support this project. It's a three-unit project. It's a three-unit on an RSA 5 property, but the whole history of this property is multifamily. It was up to four units at one time. Last use was three units. This is a family-owned property. Just trying to keep it really simple.
uh as you can see the the meeting summary is unanimously in support there were seven
individuals there one near neighbor and um these are the providers that alan yeah oh yeah sure
sure do you want me to go back to the letter the first letter i'm good i just i want to see what
the provisors are that's okay yeah we want yeah all right so here are the provisors maximum of
three apartments at this address. Well, the notice of refusal asks for three, so I don't think that's
necessary. No rooming house configuration. If we had it as a rooming house, that's a different
zoning classification. I'll leave it up to the board if they want to put that as proviso. I don't
think it's necessary. Not to be used as a boarding home, same thing. We're not using as a rooming
unit. That would be completely different zoning classification. Not to be utilized as a group
home same thing would be a different zoning classification we would have to get a separate
board approval not to have bedrooms utilized as separate residences which I think is the same thing
Not to have bedrooms utilized as separate residences, which I think it's the same thing as rooming.
Not to utilize bedrooms within a living space contract.
I don't know what that is.
So I think Ms. Russell is probably on, and she wrote the letter, so I don't want to misstate that.
All trash stored inside the property except on Trash Collection Day, we can agree to that.
trash stored in the basement no trash stored outdoors we can agree to that designated person
to handle trash I mean this is going to be self-managed it's actually going to be partially
owner occupied so I don't know if that's a zoning related owner and mother will be responsible for
managing property until management firm is employed again self-managed I don't know if
they're going to use a management company don't know it's only related and then there was stuff
about the building process rco and community are provided a weekly uh work schedule you know
mr hawkins is on he's the owner of the property now taking over from his deceased and he agreed
to that and i can have him state down the record so at least it's recorded so he's held accountable
to that rco and community are notified by flyer and email when deliveries will be
when deliveries will are made that will cause loss of parking street blockage
um not human related not so many related no construction starts before eight
so the ordinance you can't start before seven that's right exactly um all construction ends
at five again my client's willing to do these things but not so many related all construction
debris must be weighed and dump tickets emailed to rco i mean my client agreed to this i i never
seen that but like I I think he'll try his best that's all I can say some of these are a little
bit onerous but he's willing to work with the community the exterior of the house would be
kept OSHA clean throughout the renovation and construction process that's a building requirement
and you know he'll fulfill his obligations under the building code uh and that's it and that was
excuse me this is Sharon Saleta you can add trash stored inside everything else is either
unnecessary or unenforceable but also we also can limit it to three units it's already three units
so it is by virtue of the application limited to that all right very good okay all right okay um
alan do you have anybody yeah mr hawkins i mean he testified earlier it was a long hearing
last couple weeks we're fine i'll just ask the board if they have any questions no
no anyone else like to testify please raise your hand uh yes chair we have burn
brian anastasio you can unmute yourself
no mr anastasio please identify yourself for the record
chair um we have no i'm not quite sure if you can hear me uh but i have uh no interest in this case
i raised my hand i raised my hand for a continuance request that's all yeah we'll
talk to that yep okay uh all right and planning commission i have i'm sorry chair i have tina
Marie Russell? Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Russell? Good afternoon, everyone. I've already sworn
in. Do I need to sworn in again? No, just identify yourself for the record. Tina Marie
Russell, North Central Philadelphia, CDC, RCO. The reasons why we have certain provisos
are there because what we've noted in our communities um where we are
miss russell is muted
can you hear me now now we can okay sorry about that so we the reason um did you
don't you start from the beginning well i think you're going to explain to us why you have uh
Right, because we know that. Let me finish up if you don't mind. Understand that the only ones that are enforceable by the zoning board is the trash indoors. Everything else is an agreement between the RCO and the developer.
okay great so let me we can't enforce those let me just finish my if you don't mind so what we
know is that you may see a property that's been zoned for three apartments and they may have three
bells but when you go inside they actually put locks on the bedroom doors and they're treated
as if they're rooms like like an apartment so they'll pay 500 and they share a kitchen they
share a bath etc so they're treated like rooming houses or boarding homes but on the outside and
their variance was granted one way but their usage is another way and then excuse me this is
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. So if I could just explain, if that's happening, that would already be a violation of their zoning permit.
so if I could just explain if that's happening that would
Adding a proviso wouldn't give you any further protection.
You could, if that is happening, you can call L&I and ask them to enforce that it is not being used for the purpose it was approved for.
Yeah, I just want to finish up, if I may, before I get, you know, distracted.
So the other thing is that I just wanted to put on record, and I appreciate everyone's advice on this, but I wanted to put on record that the owner did say that he would comply with the other community concerns that we put on the proviso.
That's why I put it in that letter.
Yeah, so Ms. Russell, first of all, I want to commend Ms. Russell.
She's worked really hard on this project.
She's not even the coordinating RCO, and she's worked really hard to come and for us to work together with the community to come to this agreement.
So, Ms. Russell, offline, what I'll do is to rest assured that we're going to comply with this,
I will have my client sign your letter that he accepted the terms and conditions.
So, you have something of record that he physically agreed to these terms.
I appreciate that because we really feel strongly to support this applicant.
And we want to make sure that he has a good experience going to rebuild because he's new.
He's never done this before.
and if he has a good experience
then the community has a good experience
so we want to make sure that we are
working together with him and yourself as well
we appreciate that
so offline I'll have him digitally sign it
but the board obviously has other matters
I'm sure they want to get to
you made a statement on the record
and it's so noted
alright thank you any questions from the board
planning commission
this is Ron Bednar
city planning please spell your name and i'll swear you so r-o-n first name last name bednar
b-e-d-n-a-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed thank you okay this property is currently indicated for residential
multi-family in the city comprehensive plan was remapped to single-family housing in 2014.
Based on revised plans and given its history, we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. Are there revised plans submitted with us?
No, no, there is not.
Thank you.
So we would then correct that just to say based on the, you know, the changes to the application, we have no objection.
MI 2020-003225. 2241 North 15th Street. My vote is yes with the proviso. All trash to be for all units to be stored indoors.
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
thank you are we going to number two
Mr. Chair are we going to number two yes okay calendar number 3382 1915 West Lehigh
I just wanted to say that this afternoon we received a letter from Councilwoman Bass in
non-opposition. Thank you. Thank you. We have Bart Levy coming in as panelists now.
Mr. Levy, you can unmute yourself.
can you hear me yes mr levy can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name my name is bart b-a-r-e-v-l-e-v-y uh my office is 1500 market street uh east 12th floor
and um i'm sorry what else oh my id number is 204 800
And you're already under oath.
Do you read away the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
You don't.
I cannot hear you.
Can you hear me now?
Now I can.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property?
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the
five days in advance of this hearing.
RCO and do you have a letter? I was not the one to meet with the RCO or sent all of it but I
checked that it was all sent. We do. Okay so you you may proceed. I'm going to turn the technological
end over to this to the operator of the property. His name is Rodney Nobrun if he hasn't been
admitted to the panel yet.
Nobrun has been promoted to panelist.
Mr. Nobrun, can you put
your name and address on the record and spell
your last name, please?
please unmute yourself yes hello everyone i'm back again you are back again you're still on
your oath but we need your name and address and spell your last name no problem my name is rodney
nobrun last name is spelled n as in nancy o b as in brian r u n as in nancy and my address is 55
daily drive burlington new jersey 08016 okay and you may proceed okay all right great so i'm going
to screen share can everybody see my screen yes we can okay great so i am the owner for 1915
West Lehigh Avenue. The name of my company for this one is 1804 Properties LLC. I am here to
request a variance from a single-family residence to two units to a multifamily residence.
I have my property ownership documents. I have the refusal. I have the tax clearance
and the RCO meeting notes and the drawings as well.
Everything was sent last week
within the five-day prior to the meeting guidelines.
So you've met with the RCO?
Yes, I met with the RCO,
and I have approval from my RCO,
which is...
My RCO is Tioga United.
Tioga United.
And you also have approval from Councilwoman Bass,
uh mr chairman yes there's a i think sharon stated that she received a letter
of non-opposition from councilwoman bass yes that's right
okay that's great news should i continue right yes you can share with us some uh drawings yes
absolutely absolutely so um stop share and then
now go back go back and share
all right can everybody see my screen yes we can
What you guys are looking at now is the front and the back of the property.
To the left here is the front of the property.
The property has one door now.
Previously, it had two doors.
This is the second door right here.
The plan is to use this door for unit one to go to the first floor unit, the first floor apartment,
and this door here to go upstairs to unit two to go to the second floor unit.
we will also put a like there's there's like a concrete slab here now we're going to build a
nice enclosed porch area which which will also house the the trash cans out front as well
so that's what our trash cans will be when on trash day the the tenants will put the trash out
and retrieve the trash cans after the trash is collected every week
to the right is the back of the property no changes to the back of the property we're simply
going to clean up a little bit get rid of some of these bushes and trees in the back here these
branches and clean up real nice in the back and of course um put a brand new door as well
now i'm going to share the actual drawings with you
Thank you.
okay can everybody see the drawings yes okay from left to right the left is the basement
it'll it'll be my utility room no major changes to the basement at all um in the middle the middle
here shows the apartments. This door leads to apartment one. This door leads to apartment two.
This is the staircase up here. Both apartments will pretty much mimic each other.
Apartment one will have a nice open area, kitchen, living area, one bedroom,
one full bathroom, and like a little small den and office area.
the second floor unit is the furthest to the right the third drawing over here same design
same design um open floor unit open area here with a kitchen area um full bathroom
full bedroom and also a den and an office as well
so to recap i'm presenting to you guys a single family unit presentation
um requesting a variance to two family units um to turn it into two one-bedroom apartments with
offices in them as well any questions for me now any questions from the board no
no what else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
uh ron bednar city planning
property is indicate currently indicated for single family residential use on the city plan
our adopted district plan proposed remapping it to uh multi-family at this location therefore
or we recommend the requested ban is to be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2020-003382,
1915 West Lehigh Avenue, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Carol, what we want to do,
I'm going to make an announcement here.
There's been a request by the attorney, Mr. Anastasio, on behalf of the RCO regarding 230-36 Vine Street. Request for a continuance is being denied.
having said that just so everyone out there who's listening understands we're going to go to we're
going to skip over your case we have two other cases which shouldn't be too long uh and then
we'll come back to the vine street case uh because we expect that to be somewhat lengthy excuse me
chair but if you could just briefly allow mr anastasio to put his request request on the
record i believe he wanted to do that yeah mr anastasio i didn't mean to get ahead of you i
apologize. That's quite all right, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Thank you. I apologize
for not being able to see me. I'm not quite sure why that is, but that's okay. No, nothing lost
there for sure. So, but I respectfully understand why you've denied my request for continuance,
even though this is just the first listing. But I do have to now submit a motion to dismiss
this appeal. I've already submitted a legal brief on the motion to RCO ZBA and to Attorney
Saleta. There are four reasons to dismiss this appeal as a matter of right.
uh first and foremost um the the crux of this appeal is is concerning a mosaic that's attached
to an existing building and it does not qualify as a hardship as the uh appellant uh bases their
argument on the zoning board is collaterally stopped from making a determination as to whether
that mosaic constitutes a hardship under the zoning code as a result of the fact that
the historic commission made a 2018 determination mr anastasio i'm so sorry for interrupting you
should i save this and should i say this until if you could save this until the case
i'll be happy to do that yep thank you
you. Okay, Carol, so now we'll go to number seven. I think we go to number eight first.
I think we go to number eight first.
I'll be away.
Either way.
We just wanted to get eight because we were going to skip over.
Yes, now that Cantrell is not being continued, actually, as long as seven and eight are called before six.
Okay, so it doesn't matter if we go to seven.
Okay, calendar number 3383, 358 Cantrell Street.
The attorney is engine.
good afternoon good afternoon can you put your name and address on the record please
yes zhen zhen last name j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here
on behalf of the applicant.
Thank you.
You're still under oath.
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, referral, photos, and plans
five days in advance of the hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
We do have everything and it was submitted.
However, it was not quite five days
in advance of the hearing
due to the RCO meeting being on just this last Monday.
Okay, but we have everything else.
Correct.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the information leading to this case.
The refusal is up before the board.
This is a very straightforward refusal.
This is a single-family proposal.
We have three refusals, two of which are related.
One is a front setback of eight feet, whereas we're proposing four.
and then the rear yard being eight foot rather than nine foot deep which reduced the 171.5
square foot to 140 square feet. This is a supported application. The community
organization actually asked us to obtain a petition. It's part of Whitman Council's
normal procedures which we did and then subsequent to that we were able to obtain a letter that was
forwarded to Sharon from Whitman Council, the RCO, in support of this application. This is a new
construction. However, this lot is rather narrow. If you look at the site plan, the reason we're
asking for an eight-foot rear yard is because it would allow the building to essentially be lined
up with the buildings next door. The main reason my client also sought to reduce the front sitback
from eight foot to four feet in the front is because this is a 14 foot wide lot. It is not
extremely deep and reducing eight foot of that third floor with the stairwell in place would
essentially make the master bedroom and master bath not be able to be fitted as designed. So
we're asking for consideration here from the community and also from the board for that
frontal setback the community understood our request based on the plans and gave full support
as a result we would also ask the board board's favorable consideration in this request again this
is a single family house that is otherwise consistent to what is expected in that neighborhood
i'm happy to answer any questions from the board um if i can interrupt again this is sharon saletta
And we did, I just confirmed, we received a letter in non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
Thank you.
Mr. Jin, do you have your client with you?
Yes, Ms. Peggy Tang should be here with us.
If you could raise your hand.
Ms. Tang, please identify yourself, spell your first and last name.
uh sure my name is peihong tang spells p-e-i-h-o-n-g last name t-a-n-g
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do mr jen thank you uh peggy you heard my uh presentation to the zoning board can you verify
that what i've uh represented is true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own
yes i do thank you thank you thank you thank you any questions from the board no no anyone else
someone has a uh there's some background noise you can mute your phone hello thank you planning
commission this is uh ron bednar city planning this property is indicated for residential use
on the city plan. Given the documented site constraints, we recommend that the request
Given the documented site constraints, we recommend that the requested variance be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2020, that's 003383.
358 Cantrell Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you. Have a good evening.
You too.
calendar number 3391-4408
Lancaster Avenue
the attorney is Cheryl Gaston
for those who are here for Vine Street
this is the last case
before we get to Vine Street
I'm a calling user
I'm not seeing that
calling user
are you for this case
no we need attorney
Cheryl Gaston
if you can raise your hands, please.
Ms. Kirsten?
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
It's Cheryl, C-H-E-R-Y-L, Gaston, G as in George, A-S as in Sam, T-O-N.
I'm at 1622 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its actors?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, plans, and photos five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
I met with the RCO.
I do have a letter.
The packet was sent five days in advance except for the tax clearance materials, which were, their site was down.
So they were sent earlier today.
So we do have the tax?
Yes, you do.
Okay, thank you.
You may proceed.
Good afternoon.
If I could have my paralegal, Christine Schlosser, being given permission to share screen, please.
I'm sorry.
Christine Schlosser, thank you.
Good afternoon, members of the Board.
This property is 4408 through 4410 Lancaster Avenue.
We filed a request on behalf of the owner, who is Meharry 4432 Real Estate, LLC, to
construct a five-story building on this site. The first floor will be totally for commercial
use, even though this is a CMX2 area and we don't have to use the entire first floor.
We are going to do that, and then the remainder of the property will be occupied by nine multifamily units.
There will be three units on the second floor, three units on the third floor, and then there will be three units, bi-level units, between the fourth and the fifth floors.
Lancaster Avenue has lost 30 businesses in the last year between storefront damage sustained
during the 2020 protests and financial woes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. And this building will
provide density and a revitalization on a major commercial corridor. The commercial tenants
sought will be a fresh food grocer or a restaurant and we will have the ability to
subdivide the space if the community desires various units, various uses within that first
various uses within that first floor space.
floor space
At the community meeting, the community was very excited about the project and they were
particularly excited about the, that my client plans to have energy efficiencies within this
building. There'll be, it's going to be designed with some of the highest standards
and energy efficiency. My client is very much a proponent of solar and or other means of
providing energy and besides fossil fuels. So with that, the community was in favor
and I believe that the council person is in favor as well.
That's my understanding. Can we just show the site plan, Christine?
Thank you. This is the site plan for the property and then the floor plans are behind it.
So, you can see this is the first floor plan, second and third floor.
Next page is the fourth and fifth floors.
There will be a roof deck which will be accessible to and usable by all tenants of the building.
Trash will be stored in the property, but the units will have trash compactors to make sure that there is no problem with trash disposal.
And with that, is there anything else you need to know?
There is a public parking lot in the rear of the building, as well as ample street parking.
in the rear, which is Lex Street, and there will be a private dumpster and trash collection,
commercial trash collection. So, if there are any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. I checked and we did this afternoon receive an email from
um Andrew Goodman saying that Councilwoman Gauthier has no opposition thank you it's
I guess and do you have your client available yes uh my client is uh Meharry Bailey
Meharry are you evening sir when you get on please identify yourself with the record first
and last name spell your last name and I'll swear you in Meharry Bailey m-a-h-a-r-i last
name b-a-i-l-e-y we're from to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes
thank you miss gaston okay uh uh my harry uh will you um did you hear the testimony that i
just presented to the board yeah and i adopt your testimony as my own thank you thank you
questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand there's no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
yes i just wanted to ask um miss gaston i believe that the rco is requesting a proviso
stating that the entire ground floor will be occupied by a commercial use. Do you have any
objection to that proviso? No, that's what we told them. Okay. They didn't say anything like that to
me, but we have no objection to that. That's what we were planning to do, and as you can see from
the plan, can we go back, Christine, to the first floor plan? You can see the first floor plan is
to use that entire space for as a commercial use and that's part of the revitalization for that
part of the commercial corridor that we presented to the RCOs. Thank you. Thank you. Planning
Commission. Yes. This property is indicated for neighborhood commercial mixed use on the city plan
Again, we recommend that the requested variance be granted.
We recommend that the requested variance be granted provided that final plan include
all commercial use on the first floor. Thank you. MI 2020-003391-4408
Lancaster Avenue. My vote is yes with the proviso. The entire first the first floor
is to be occupied by for uh by commercial use only
thank you um calendar number 3380 i'm sorry did we get the vote we didn't get the votes
my vote is yes too my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso little delirious
today. Gosh. Okay, here we go. Calendar number 3380-230-36 Vine Street. The attorney is Michael
Matione. All right, before Michael begins, I just want to remind everyone, we suspect, I suspect
there's going to be a number of people who want to testify. We're not sure if we're going to finish
this case today depends on the amount of testimony and the number of people who want to be uh have
their voices heard we're going to accommodate everyone to the best of our ability i want to
understand that i i'm very familiar with this project i've received a number of emails over
the last two weeks which i did not respond to because i'm not permitted to so uh again we expect
a considerable amount of folks that want to testify we'll do our best to get this case heard
and voted on today if not we will have to continue it excuse me chair there's a procedural issue to
consider um mr anastasio is has submitted a motion to dismiss so the question is whether
you consider that first if we're going into the merits of the case or yes yes let's go with
Mr. Matiamy, do you have a position on that?
We obviously oppose the motion.
But as far as the sequence,
would you prefer to go forward?
I would rather hear the motion first
because if the board were to grant the motion,
then we don't have to have a hearing.
I mean, I think that that would be
an incorrect decision, obviously, but I think that-
Yeah, I think that's the right way to go.
And may I interrupt you?
Ms. Michael, can you put your name
and address on the record?
Sorry about that.
We forgot.
M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve Bank, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A, Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to await the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and plans five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
It's yes to everything, except we never got a letter from the RCO, but they're here with counsel, and I don't think that a letter is necessary.
And we did submit a revised plan form and two pages of revised plans as well.
Okay, great.
so this is Sharon again I believe we did receive a letter and that was emailed to the board
along with a letter from Councilman Squilla this is Tanya um chair um and Sharon I just want to
note that um Harry Cook attorney has his hands up I don't know if you want him promoted now
or do you want to wait um I believe that Mr. Cook actually attorney is second chair is working with
me on this case so i would ask respectfully request that he be uh uh promoted as well
respectfully and this is sharon again just so the board knows because i don't believe that um
mr matty has had an opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss you may hear that
hold it and go on with the merits if you would like to proceed that way
procedurally how would would you like me to to do the motion to dismiss first or
yes please okay well first are you going to be presenting this as mr cook weighing in because
why don't we get mr cook sworn in now okay mr attorney cook and i are are uh double teaming
on this case today. All right, Mr. Cook. Hello, Chairman. Please identify yourself. Sure. Harry
Cook, Anastasio Law, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006, Philadelphia PA, 19107. Cook, COOK,
Cook, C-O-O-K, attorney for Ben Franklin North Neighbors Association.
attorney for Ben Franklin North.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, sir.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Anastasio, please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll be brief.
First, I want to discuss my request for continuance because it's unusual for me for a request
for continuance to be denied without being proffered an opportunity to lay out the reasons
why. So I just want to do that briefly before I get into my motion. There are, I think,
three or maybe four reasons why I think this matter should be continued, and I'll be as
brief as I possibly can. First and foremost, my firm was just brought onto this effort
with the last few days. And we seek the courtesy of a continuance, basically on just
representation grounds so that we can adequately represent our clients in an efficient manner.
We literally received the appellant's package on Friday, just five days ago, after three o'clock in
the afternoon. So that kind of put us on our heels and sort of put us on a little bit of a
disadvantage. So I do want to ask for the continuance based on that. Number two, I'd
ask for the continuance based on just efficiency of time for this board. I think if we proceed
today, it may take hours and perhaps a resumption hearing. And that's a lot of time. I do believe
if we continue this case, and call me optimistic, but I think we might be able to reach an accord
so that we can return to you, and the hearing would be quick, expedited, and smooth sailing
for everyone. I want to make sure that I'm crystal clear. My clients want to work this out.
Now, third, this is the first listing of a relatively very large project, 70 plus units
on a relatively little residential street, which is 200 block of vine.
Projects half this size have taken more than one RCO meeting and even more than one zoning
board hearing.
In fact, just recently, our office has brought to you a matter of a three-family dwelling
on South Broad Street, we came down from a five-family, and after two RCO meetings
and presentation to this board, you had asked us, in your wisdom, to go back to the RCO again
to try and work something out, and we respectfully complied.
And Broad Street is easily the city's widest thoroughfare, smack dab between, you know,
subway station so and literally surrounded by other multi-family dwellings so for a project
of this size to proceed after just one single rco meeting without any follow-up and there was
absolutely no opportunity or effort on either side to try and come to an accord before we've
gotten involved really puts the whole process at a disadvantage. Finally, I have two clients on
Third Street that this project, the rear of the project abuts, and they received on Friday,
because I sent it to them, light and air and shadow studies that they have yet to be able
to get someone to actually review. And for all those reasons, I respectfully request
that continuance. I understand it's been denied. And the alternative, perhaps, I think we might
want to set up a special just so that we have the time to work this out amicably. But that's
all I have on that. I understand that you've already denied the request for the continuance.
i'm going to ask before i get into my vote before attorney cook gets into the motion to dismiss
uh if you would be willing to entertain a special on this because this could take some
a considerable amount of time sir i think we can all agree unless i'm misreading this
that we're going to have to resume this hearing at some point anyway uh but i have a couple
questions would you happen to know if your client did they have counsel before they retained you
It's my understanding that they thought they did, but they ultimately did not.
Explain that.
You know, I can't, I have not been given all the details on that.
They thought they may have had counsel, but I think counsel was conflicted out.
I can bring on the head of the RCO to speak to that further if you'd like.
I could bring on the head of the RCO to speak to that further if you'd like, but I don't think they had counsel to, at least to the level that I'm here.
Excuse me, Chair. We should probably allow Mr. Mattione to briefly reply to the continuance request.
Yeah, before you do that, I just want one other question. You suggested, Mr. Anastasio, that there might be some opportunity for some compromise.
Absolutely, 100%.
On behalf of your clients, have any of those issues or issue been made known to counsel for the applicant?
My clients tell me that they welcomed a negotiation at the one RCO meeting that was had. And based on my conversations with Mr. Mattione, who is an esteemed colleague, who I respect highly, and my clients, neither side seem to have gotten together over the past 90 days.
But that's only 90 days. I mean, I've got cases that have been going on for eight months, and we're still trying to work them out.
We're familiar with that. Okay. And I know you're familiar with that. Yes. Thank you. All right. Mr. Mattione.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we met with the RCO on January 7th.
We did follow up. I have followed up with some people involved with the RCO and some neighbors I know that live there.
Everybody told us that there was no compromise on the height of the building available.
The only compromise was that we had to reduce the height of the building.
and my client has been emphatic that he cannot reduce the height he already set back
the property at the top floor level so um with respect to compromise but with respect to
a continuance this matter you know my client's been carrying it for months now um three months
three and a half months waiting for this hearing the the rco had a great deal of time to retain
counsel and with all due respect to mr anastasio you know he was just retained but his client
sat on it and didn't do anything. Again, I respect Mr. Anastasio and appreciate where he is,
but it didn't stop him from finalizing two separate motions as well on this case.
We sent out the documents on Friday, which is the day that they're required to be sent out.
They're not required to be sent out any earlier. So we met with the time constraints for sending
out the documents to the Board, and I did send a copy to Mr. Anastasio the minute that I knew
he was involved in the case because I think that that's the proper thing to do even though the RCO
never sent us their letter. So it is a large project. We have been waiting a long time to get
to this board. We have reached out to various people in the community and nobody has ever said
that they were willing to do any kind of anything with us other than NUG. So, you know, when we got
that, we determined that we had to go forward and that's what we've done. I also do want to say one
thing, Mr. Anastasio, on one of his motions, I don't remember which one, the last document
he included was a letter from an architect, Ian Toner, who said that the shadow studies
were reviewed and that they found the shadow studies to be accurate that we had presented.
So that was in his documents and that's what he did submit to the board. It was on page 85 of his
materials. So I believe that holding this case today is the proper thing to do. My client has
been on the line for three hours like everybody else waiting for this case to be heard today.
we prepared for this long in advance we the rco had a long time to reach out to us they had a
long time to get counsel and my client would be prejudiced if this case were continued
because everybody knows about it and you know it's been here and we're ready to go
and i believe that there's no reason no justifiable reason to continue this case today
and i i guess if our calculations are correct it's going to be continued and that will give
put both parties an opportunity to talk
between today and whenever
the resumption hearing is
held. That's all we're looking
for. We're not going to continue.
I'm just saying you're going to have time.
This isn't going to be done in a half
hour. It's just not going to
happen that way. There will be
Both of you gentlemen have been
around long enough. You can figure out a way in which
you can all sit down and try to work things
i've communicated it back to my client and i believe uh you'll hear testimony at one point
or another where each and every one of them is willing to work something out okay all right
hopefully we can all right so the continuance request is denied though yes yes okay so then
i'm going to pass it on to attorney cook for his motion to dismiss based on the law
Hi, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, this motion is a threshold matter and is also
Again, this motion is a threshold matter and is also meant to preserve the record on these points of law.
In the instant case, applicant is attempting to establish that the Zagar mosaic is a hardship
and that its preservation requires the requested variance from the code.
You can see that in the applicant's memorandum of law at Exhibit 18.
Accordingly, the threshold matter before this board is whether or not the Zagar mosaic constitutes a hardship.
Logic dictates that in order to make that determination, the ZBA must make a finding of fact and conclusion of law that the Zagar mosaic must be preserved and is therefore a hardship under the code.
applicant as evident in its presentation packet will present evidence testimony and argument
that is identical to evidence that was presented before the philadelphia historical commission on
friday september 14th 2018 in an attempt to relitigate that the zagar mosaic must be preserved
this is an identical issue that's already been adjudicated by the historical commission why is
that important because under Pennsylvania law, agency decisions have preclusive effects
when they meet four conditions, and they are. The issue determined in a prior action is identical
to that presented in the subsequent action. Here, Zagar mosaic must be preserved. Here,
there, Zagar historic designation in the mural and the hated bride must be preserved.
Here, the Zagar mosaic must be preserved.
Therefore, we are required to have a variance
to preserve the Zagar mosaic.
The previous judgment is final on the merits,
that's element two.
The party against whom the defense is invoked
was a party or a party in privity
with that party in the first action.
In that instance, it would be applicant
in the Painted Bride Arts Center.
and finally the party that against estoppels being asserted against had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issue on the merits in its prior action. Excuse me Mr. Cook can I
interrupt one minute and ask a question are the cases that you're citing do they all involve
actions by a single agency in other words an agency that made the decision and now is considering it
again, is there any case law saying that a completely separate administrative agency
that addresses completely different concerns would be barred under these circumstances?
Ms. Oletta, they are different agencies that are at play here. And furthermore,
between administrative agencies under Johnson-Bowl v. Department of Public Welfare,
which is a 1995 case from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court,
they hold that it's of tantamount importance that collateral estoppel between administrative
agencies is appropriate when the goals are the same in both proceedings. In that proceeding,
the goal was to preserve the Zagar mosaic in this proceeding. The goal is to preserve the Zagar
mosaic so that, shoehorned, bootstrapped, the finding of hardship can be made. So I think that
under Pennsylvania law, it is very clear, and as we go through kind of the facts further down the
line to prove each element that estoppel factors are all present and that this board will be
estopped, not here, maybe not in common pleas court, maybe not in commonwealth court, but at
the supreme court level, ultimately this is an issue ripe for appeal. Does that address your
question, Ms. Saleta. Yes, thank you. Thank you. So as stated, you know, this, this issue was heard
fully fleshed out by the Historical Commission. And as evidence of applicants attempt to take a
second bite at the apple here, they're going to have Ms. Emily Smith of the Philadelphia Magic
Gardens who nominated the Painted Bride for historic designation testify here today and you
will likely hear the same testimony which is about Isaiah Zagar being an outsider artist being
interwoven with the Philadelphia community for 50 years that these sorts of buildings and and
pieces of art should outlive us and that they are essentially what makes Philly Philly and I'm not
disputing that. That's all true. The problem is the board on
That's all true. The problem is the board on that date heard all of this and made a determination that five to four vote, that it was not, that they chose not to designate it as historic and to preserve it.
And why is that important that the board did it? Because the, you know, the Historical Commission is charter designated as a matter of public policy. This is in Chapter 14-1000, Historic Preservation, Subsection 14-1001.
that as a matter of public policy to preserve and protect buildings, structures, sites, objects,
districts of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, educational, and aesthetic merit.
That's the charge in the portfolio of the Historical Commission, not the zoning board.
They've made their determination. They don't get to relitigate that here. There have been many
cases before this board where there have been murals on adjoining buildings, that this board
has said that's not a zoning matter. Why is this different? But back to the elements, what's
important is they had a decision. That decision was never appealed to any court of competent
jurisdiction. That's a final order. So the first element of collateral stopple is met.
it was determined in a prior action i mean excuse me the second element is met the previous judgment
is final on the merits third the party against whom we're invoking this defense has a contract
an agreement of sale with with the painted bride excuse me mr mr cook i'm so sorry to interrupt
you again but um our concern is that we may have to end this as soon as 7 30 there are so many
people who've been waiting here to um to testify given that we are going to have a second hearing
I'd recommend that you put the remainder of your argument that you submit your argument in writing
that Mr. Mattione being given an opportunity to do the same and that the board then voted at the
start of the resumption hearing and again I really apologize for interrupting midway. That's fine I
I sent it this morning early about 7.40 to RCO's EBA, to you, Ms. Saleta, and to Mr. Matteoni.
I would like to enter it into the record in full.
It has in it exhibits the minutes from the Historical Commission.
It has also an exhibit of a prior zoning approval, which will be relevant in Vern's testimony later and at the next hearing.
and it also has um plans of a prior project that was approved and i did receive all of that i
appreciate your sending it this morning i haven't had an opportunity to review it yet but certainly
will before the next hearing thank you and thank you so long as it's part of the record and we can
re-engage later i have no problem with that thank you thank you thank you and and so it is in fact
entered into evidence correct yes it is definitely thank you thank you attorney soletta and there
will be a separate vote on that but if we could go forward with mr matione's presentation at this
point i just before you begin uh michael i i just putting the mural aside for a moment i i understand
you know there are people who want to preserve it and there are those who probably would like
preserve it but because it is creating the issue of height that's something we have to take into
consideration but my point is if we didn't have the mural and the applicant the developer wanted
to do a project that was 85 feet we'd be here anyway correct all right so I mean I think that's
for me at least I don't know about the rest of the board members that that that is the crux of
the issue if the developer is entering into an agreement with the seller to preserve the mural
that's one thing but it doesn't stop him or her from coming before this board and seeking to get
a variance for a prop a building that would be exceeding the 65 foot limit which at some point
i will get into because i was the councilman at the time when that uh overlay was created and and
i can explain why it was created so i just want to make sure that that he can scrap the the mural
tonight and come back and say i still want to do an 85 foot building and the board would have to
deal with that issue make a decision whether to grant that variance or not is that is that accurate
If I may, Chairman, that is accurate.
If I may, Chairman, that is accurate.
However, in Mr. Maglioni's
However, in Mr. Maglioni's memorandum of law, it basically admits that there are no other bases for hardship.
They have a permit for eight duplexes right now that they can execute on immediately.
I understand.
There is no hardship.
That's prima facie evidence of a lack of hardship.
Could we, we're jumping ahead now.
Mr. Mattione, I apologize for raising that.
I'll step back.
Thanks.
Respectfully.
Mr. Chairman, I did want to briefly address the collateral stopple issue.
I did get the motion this morning.
I read it and didn't review it as poorly as I might like to, but I did read it and had some thoughts and obviously disagree with Mr. Cook and Mr. Anastasio.
Excuse me, Mr. Mattione, but again, given the number of people who have been waiting a very long time, you will have an opportunity to respond to this.
I will respond. Let me say two minutes in, Ms. Saleta.
Okay, thank you.
The issues that are decided by the Historical Commission are entirely and completely different than the issues that are decided by the Zoning Board.
What happened at the Historical Commission was a decision not to designate.
They don't have to designate even if a property meets all of the criteria for designation, because in 1004.1, it specifically says a property may be designated for reservation.
They don't have to designate it even if it meets all of the requirements, and occasionally they decide not to.
So that was really the crux of the issue, the first point on the legal argument.
It's just the issue is different, and the issues are different that were decided by the Historical Commission than would be decided by the Zoning Board.
So that's all I have to say about that for a brief presentation in opposition to their motion.
With that, if you wanted me to start with my presentation, Mr. Chairman.
Please.
I have two witnesses tonight, if we can get to them.
Again, I represent Groom Investments.
They're the equitable owners of the property in question.
And I have Max Bassman and Shimmy Zakin, who are principals at Groom, are here.
Shimmy is also the architect.
And we also have Emily Smith of Philadelphia's Magic Gardens here as well to testify about a whole bunch of things that are completely different than what you testified before the Historical Commission, because the issues here are different.
And with respect, I have to object to Emily Smith uttering any testimony.
She lacks standing in any of this.
Her organization will personally benefit from the appeal being granted, as will her organization and her personally.
uh and you know that i understand she's part of a non-profit but non-profit uh doesn't mean
no profit and she's got absolutely zero standing in this issue so i object i disagree isn't an
issue at this stage anyway so for the record yeah and what i'd like to do is uh share my screen
All right, again, Emily Smith, we expect to have her testify as well for presenting plans
for the proposed redevelopment of the Painted Bride Arts Center, incorporating the cigar
mosaic at the ground floor level of the building into the development, and I have submitted
the site plan, floor plans with open air and FAR calculations, a comparison of building
heights in the area, shadow study, elevations, support letters from Mural Arts Philadelphia,
the Association for Public Art, Philadelphia's Magic Gardens, and the Painted Bride, and
many others.
We also submitted a support petition signed by over 700 people.
And again, what I want to do is go down to the tax clearance.
Have you been given the opportunity to see those petitions?
I have. And in addition to objecting to the testimony of Ms. Smith, we object to the admissibility and reliance of the ZBA on any and all support letters, support petitions, support emails identified in this particular presentation package on the grounds of standing.
there is none upon review of nearly 700 petition signers at the very most seven seven of 700
reside within the general area and absolutely none attended the rco meeting where 92 percent
of near neighbors voted in in opposition of this project as presented uh and again as you know
Ultimately, my clients, the near neighbors, will have to live with this board's decision, not greater Philadelphia or people from halfway around the world.
So with that, I'm done.
with that i'm done also on on hearsay grounds understood yeah exactly pure hearsay i've received
We also oppose on hearsay grounds.
Understood.
more uh emails in support than that seven but that that's neither here nor here well you're
not presenting evidence is that mr no i understand but i am i am just stating for the record mr
chairman that these materials have been submitted um on behalf and in support of the project again
there are three refusals um which is what i really wanted to get down to when we start with
and the big one uh as you can tell is for the height where we're i'm sorry could we get a
really on the hearsay objection for the record i object to the hearsay excuse me you can excuse me
note it for the record that there is a standing hearsay objection however this is an administrative
of proceeding the formal rules of evidence do not apply understood thank you thank you anyway
uh again it's an 85 foot height that we're hoping to build to uh the occupied area it's 100 but
it's only 100 at the second floor level above that we meet the uh 75 uh lot coverage area
And we originally had a 578% FAR.
We reduced that to 565 in the revised plans that we submitted.
And the revised plan form shows what we did was the number of multifamily units has been reduced.
Originally, it was 70.
It's now down to 64 because we backed the property up at the top floor level, the seventh floor level.
And then that reduced the gross floor area to 77,645 square feet, which reduced the FAR to 565%.
So that's part of the revised plans that we submitted.
I just wanted to have that out there and make it clear.
The refusals, we believe, are created by this truly unique property.
The property has, as everybody knows, at the ground floor level, a mosaic by Isaiah Zagar,
who is a fairly well-recognized artist.
And while the mosaic is not on the Philadelphia Historic Register, it is an iconic work of
art, and there are many people who would like to see it preserved.
The mosaic is part of the culture that developed in Old City in the 1970s when art galleries,
studios, and performing artists came to Old City, and things such as First Friday were
very prominent and popular in the neighborhood. That helped lead to the vibrancy of Old City and
helped create the Old City that we have today. As Shimi and I will explain, the variances requested
are necessary to preserve the mosaic, and if the goal is to preserve the mosaic, the only way that
can be done is by grading the variance as requested. The sole reason for the variance
is for the redevelopment of the building while preserving the cigar mosaic on the ground floor
of the property. The proposal will be explained by Shimmy but involves building without underpinning
and building behind the existing ground floor walls in order to preserve the mosaic.
The cost and engineering challenges created by retaining the mosaic create the need for
additional height and massing of the proposal and the variances that are being requested.
The project, including the saving of the Zegar Mosaic, is not viable without the additional
height due to the additional cost that preserving the mosaic requires both in engineering, planning,
and post-construction. Again, we did make some changes and I discussed that. We will have
commercial ground floor space, a common yard on the second floor.
are these for rent or are they condos these are uh for rent and what is the 10 the 10 units for
visitors? That's short-term rentals. Short-term rentals, hotels, short-term rentals. Some people
use them as Airbnb, but they're short-term rentals. But this is the ground floor of the space. We have
a large commercial space fronting on New Street. We have parking access through the existing garage
off of Vine Street. We have an art gallery, um let me. How many parking spaces? I think
it's 12 parking spaces with car share parking. Um meet the requirements. I think we have 144,
44 bicycle spaces on an accessible route as well. Is the Painted Bride closed? The Painted Bride
Is the Painted Bride closed?
The Painted Bride is closed.
is closed.
It's not operating the theater there now, but you couldn't operate the theater there.
Did you say 144 parking spaces?
No, no. 12 car parking spaces and 44 bicycle spaces.
12 spaces?
12 spaces. And we have car share spaces, so we get the bonus for them.
so we do not get a variance
for parking spaces
we meet the required parking spaces
as I'm sure the chair knows
in the last few years
they've opened up underneath the Benjamin Franklin Bridge
so it has made parking
much more accessible
in this part of Old City
because there is a whole bunch more parking now
available to the neighbors
these are the
on the second floor
On the second floor are the visitor accommodation spaces, and they're, again, just basically
10 short-term rental units. They have balconies at the second floor level. Again, Nshimi can
explain them a little bit better.
Then you have the third through six floors. They each have 14 units, I can't remember, 10 or 12 units.
I can't remember exactly how many units. And then on the top floor, there's six less units.
I'll have Shimmy explain that to you as we go along.
The property is zoned CMX3, which the zoning code states is Community Commercial Mixed
Use Zoning District.
The CMX3 zoning class is, according to the zoning code, meant to accommodate active commercial
and mixed use development, including community and region serving retail and service uses.
This proposal meets these goals. It brings density to the community and provides a
reasonable commercial space to serve the community. It's a type of development that's specifically
provided for in the CMX3 zoning class. Now, with respect to the mosaic, Philadelphia's
Magic Gardens have been the caretaker of Isaiah's Garden Mosaics for the past 12 years.
They have the experience and expertise to maintain and make necessary repairs to this mosaic,
which has been a concern that was expressed at the RCO meeting.
There was concern about some other projects in the area that had problems
where they promised to preserve facades and stuff, and those promises did not happen.
We have contracted with the Magic Gardens in order.
They are the experts on this.
That's why we contracted with them.
They will maintain.
They will come in.
They've already done assessments.
They will do a further assessment of the experience and expertise to maintain and make the necessary repairs.
They have a staff of people, so they don't have to go out and hire people to do the repairs.
Magic Gardens conducted a condition assessment report of the Mosaic and prepared a repair plan in February 2020.
A copy of that plan is included in the materials at Exhibit 6.
The repair plan is included at Exhibit 7.
Room Investments has entered into an agreement with the Magic Gardens regarding the preservation
of the mosaic post-construction.
That's attached to Exhibit 13.
Room at Magic Gardens will perform an assessment of the mosaic prior to any construction,
and pre-construction repairs will be completed to preserve the mosaic.
Magic Gardens has agreed to an initial $50,000 in escrow to guarantee all repairs necessary
to stabilize the mosaic prior to construction.
Again, that was a concern raised at the RCO meeting that there wouldn't be any money here
to do the repairs. Magic Gardens also agrees to maintain a fund of at least $25,000 for ongoing
maintenance, repairs, and replacements once construction is completed. Emily Smith, the
Executive Director of the Magic Gardens, will speak about their experience and the agreement
to be entered into and how they have the staffing and a capability to maintain and update and upkeep
the mosaic. If the proposal is denied, there's a possible alternative of a 16-unit multifamily
development with 16 spaces and 16 units and 16 parking spaces. The alternative is permitted by
the zoning code, but certainly doesn't meet the spirit of the type of development that the code
calls for in the CMX3 zoning district, as this proposal is relatively low density and does not
contain any commercial space. One big concern from area residents that was expressed at the RCO
One big concern from area residents that was expressed at the RCO meeting is that if this
meeting is that if
variance is granted, it will set a precedent for open floodgates for other height variance
requests in this CMX3 zoning class.
There are two recent large-scale developments that show that this fear is unfounded.
244 to 58 North 2nd is the 13,400 square foot lot, approximately the same size as this
property.
There's a developer who just obtained an over-the-counter permit to put 11 townhouses in a by-right project.
This site was specifically mentioned at the RCO meeting as a site that, hey, somebody's going to come in.
If we get a height variance, if they're going to get a height variance and want one for that site at 244 to 58 north second.
That's not happened.
That's a very large site, same size as this, and the developer has decided that the highest and best use is an 11 townhouse project developed by right.
And that's despite our pending application.
The developer decided not to seek any variances.
The same happened at 214 Vine Street, where a recent permit was granted for a six-story structure with 29 units in compliance with height.
In fact, today you heard 213 to 15 New Street right down the street as well.
And again, there were no height variances requested there.
But two of the largest development sites close to the property are being developed in conformity with height requirements.
So the concern that we would open some floodgates somehow to a whole bunch of other people seeking height variance is just belied by what's happening in the community.
Here, though, we believe that this property did not have the iconic cigar mosaic.
It would be developed in conforming with the requirement for the zoning code, because it would.
But it has a special and unique circumstance to it.
It's got an unnecessary hardship.
it's got an iconic mosaic. The only way that this mosaic can be preserved is to grant the
requested variances. And that's the only way that this will happen. And you shouldn't have to tear
down something, as in demolish this, because, hey, you can build something there. They shouldn't have
to demolish the existing structure, because you arguably can, because you should be able to build
around what you have, and you accept the property with the hardships that it has, and this property
has the hardship and the benefit of this cigar mosaic. We believe we will show that the requirements
to be entitled to a variance will be met, that the denial of the variance would result in an
unnecessary hardship. The variance is the minimum necessary to permit the development of the
property. We've already reduced it in scope and number of units in response to concerns from the
community. The preserving the mosaic will cost in excess of a million dollars and will add
significant time to the development. The variances, if granted, would be in harmony
with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code, allowing a mixed-use, multi-family development,
and preserving the exterior mosaic at the ground floor level. The granting of the variances will
benefit public health by allowing the preserving of the mosaic on the exterior of the building,
a throwback to the beginning of residential development in old city the variances if granted
would not adversely affect and we're going to show will not adversely affect the surrounding
properties but will benefit them by adding residents and bringing on a nice new commercial
space in the area the granting of the variances will not cause congestion we have permitted number
of units and meet the parking requirements the granting of the variances will not adversely
affect their overburdened public facilities. The granting of the variances will not conflict with
the master plan of the area, which calls for mixed-use development. As will be shown, the
granting of the variances are due solely, again, to the unique physical conditions of this property,
the cigar mosaic, that make it impossible to develop the property and conform to the height
and other dimensional variances if the mosaic is to be preserved. Again, the cost of compliance
justifies granting of these variances.
With that background, if the board would let me,
I would like to call on Jimmy Zakin as my first witness.
I have a question.
I think you refer to it as the guest housing.
I asked the question, what was that?
And how many units is that?
There's 64 apartment units and 10 visitor accommodations or short-term rentals.
What are the ceiling heights in these units? Do you know?
You'd have to ask Mr. Zakin, my next witness.
Can you tell us? I'd like to know.
The ceiling heights of the residential units.
Does he have his hand up?
I ask that he be promoted.
I ask that he be promoted. Shimmy Zakin. Shimson Zakin. Atrium Design Group and White Beyonder.
Shimi Zakin?
Mr. Zakin has been promoted. Good evening, sir. Please identify yourself
with the record. Spell your first and last name and then I'll swear you in.
good evening everyone my name is shimmy zakin and i am um the principal of atrium design group
the architectural affairs please spell your first and last name sure um shimi s-h-i-m-i
zakin z-a-k-i-n do you swear we're firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes i do thank you i had a question i think mr manianos that you might be able to answer
the ceiling height of the residential component of the building
so it's uh just below nine feet and that's that's below nine feet that is correct
that's all the units would be roughly nine foot roughly and that's before we accounted for any
utilities that work so by the time you uh include those we're going to be a chai
i would say eight foot eight foot two all right excuse me excuse me excuse me are you saying eight
feet ceiling height and then a foot for construction what i'm saying is that
floor to ceiling plywood to joist we accounting for nine foot and that's before we accounting
for any ductwork and mechanicals that will require a drop ceilings and that in these
areas where drop ceilings occur there will be ceiling heights of eight foot
uh so so floor to floor height is what floor to floor height is depends on the height of
the we didn't do the engineering here but if the tji's which is the structural element will be uh
of uh 11 7 8 12 inches the ceiling high the floor to floor will be 10 foot if those will be uh 16
footers a 16 inch height the ceiling height will will reduce from nine foot to eight foot
eight but the floor to four floor will be uh still at uh ten foot ten six so
now you're not clear to me i'm not understanding how do you get to the 85 feet
so you gotta know what your ceiling heights are no no no i wish that that was the case
Well, we got that from solely the first floor and the second floor of the existing building.
The first floor of the existing building has a proposed commercial space, as you can see.
I don't know if you can see my pointer, but.
Yes, I can see your pointer.
You can see my pointer.
okay so this area right here is the commercial space and the other side the existing slab is
higher than uh buying street so we have um a ceiling height i can't the resolution is very
bad and i don't have my own screen because i'm looking at that screen so uh i can ask for my
associate to 14.5 at commercial height okay and that's before the steel beams okay so we have
we have a huge amount of steel beams and large beams in order to support the building i need to
create two platforms that are steel and concrete assembly in order to uh to build on top of them
a five-story stick framing addition.
We have beams that we, at that point,
calculated about 28, 24 inches height.
And therefore, they will take,
we are accommodating,
we are counting for 14-foot ceiling height
for the commercial space,
the lobby and the apartment lobby,
and 12-foot for the parking.
and that's before we drop the ceilings to hide those structural beams. We don't have all the
engineering done, but we definitely not trying to achieve ceiling heights that are not in line with
what you see in any other development of apartment building. We're not trying to achieve 10 foot or
11 foot ceilings in any way which i see nine foot two that is finished floor to ceiling
floor to ceiling no that's not finished that normally in the way for zoning we we we put
no that's not finished that normally in the way for zoning
plywood to bottom of joist um so obviously there will be sheetrock and how good floors
but most importantly and i forgot to mention that and now that i see the section in front of me more
clearly i can say you you you see the existing walls of the uh existing building these walls
has a very high and it's pretty high wall in order to allow for enough light and air to travel
into the second floor windows that are set back about eight foot from those walls. And in order
to achieve the floating, massing image that we are after, and I wish we can move to another
image where we can see the illustration, it will help a lot to understand the architectural concept
behind the proposed project. We basically set back the second floor in a way that we
recreating an illusion of a mass thing that is floating and not touching the painted bride,
the skin of the bride mural. And by that, we see it as respecting and give place for
that mural we're trying to preserve. At the same time, we're creating a very unique space
that is an outdoor space for those units on the second floor and by that allowing for light and
air to get into these units. I believe that we have a very unique resolution for this very
difficult condition of how to preserve a building that has a very different shape. It's not just a
clear rectangular uh warehouse we used to see um it has sections we have to move to another
further i'm sorry i don't have a i don't have a good i need to go to the one excuse me excuse me
excuse me sir go back to that wall section go back to the building section i understand
go back to the building section that you had i understand i would like to go to one of the
illustrations if you allow. Mr. Holloman has a question for you that's why he wants to go back.
There we go. All right now go to the floor lines and tell me the dimensions that are on the floor
lines. You see the floor lines? The floor lines? What do you mean? Floor levels. See the bubbles?
The bubbles that has the floor levels? These guys right here. Only over some more. Yeah now what's the
dimensions on those i i wish i could tell you from the uh from the skin if someone can see a better
resolution it just says roof second floor third floor it doesn't show numbers on it no no vertical
there's numbers on it that are vertical the vertical has numbers on it what is i i can ask
associate one second what is it ten foot six ten foot six is floor to floor
this number what's the first floor what's the first floor
first floor on vine street is different than on uh new street vine street is
16 six and then the second floor is second second floor is 16 16. okay fine okay fine thank you
okay now in order just to clarify the 16 of can you can you pan it back to where it was a second
ago exactly so if i were to reduce the 16 foot on the second floor to say 12 foot right this new
building at that point will touch the existing structure of the painted bright and there will
be no opportunity to create anything on the second floor anymore so there will be no light and no air
traveling into the second floor and again if i if i'm allowed if you michael if you can go to one of
the illustrations it will clearly show the intention behind the unique design here sure
it just depends on which illustration you want to go to. Any illustration, any like the renderings.
Down the road, no. No, the structure we were just in the back, in the structural.
There is your elevations, Jimmy.
There is your your elevations. No, that's not what
No, that's not what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for those photorealistic renderings,
like maybe on the first image.
One more.
By the way, this is a very good image
that we should all look into to see how the other one.
That one, the aerial view of the area. Just to show that the proposed building is absolutely, if I wouldn't tell you where the proposed building is, I bet that 90 out of 100 people would not be able to locate it.
because it is in line and absolutely appropriate in scale to this fabric of the area of Old City
that we are proposing the building to be located.
So the next door building right next to us is taller and bigger and larger than the proposed building.
And so the building along Vine Street.
And that's before we are talking about the bridge, the chimney and many other buildings around. This is not in any way a typical old city neighborhood.
It is almost act as an island. If you will go one step forward, one slide before that one, Michael.
no one after i'm sorry another one
another one where is the site this one perfect it will show how it's completely enclosed between the
bridge between the i-95 between Columbus Boulevard and look at the different heights
of the buildings abutting us.
And in this one, I would say two blocks radius
around the site, it's varies from open lots
to over a hundred feet in height buildings.
Those are all within a block away from the property.
that's something that i i thought it's going to be wise to see but if you can go to the first
image of the presentation even more yes i think this will explain very nicely the idea
behind the setback of the second floor and why i need to go 16 foot here you see the distance
between the top of the wall of the existing building and the floating building above it's
the minimum I need in order to get enough light to those units.
And again, you've been going through this.
Did you want to, you prepared these plans, correct, Shumi?
Of course.
And again, could you explain them to the board a little bit better,
exactly what your concept is and how you're doing it?
Sure, it would be my pleasure.
So as I mentioned before,
the concept was how to build a modern building in addition to an iconic element of the neighborhood.
And I've heard many people's opinions about whether I should remove this building or propose
to remove this building or preserve it. And my initial design was to remove the building as we
as we are holding in our hand a zoning for 16 duplex units.
And we thought that that would be the right way to go,
and it is an amazing opportunity as a development.
Listening to the neighbors, listening to the Magic Garden team,
meeting with the guard, meeting with the art community,
i came to learn that there is a value in this building that i should as an architect and remember
i'm i'm wearing two hats i'm wearing the hat of the developer as much as i'm wearing the hat of
the architect the architect in me wanted to give it a shot to do the best i can in order to preserve
the building and not because it's a historical commission preservation requirement not at all
because of that because i think that this is probably the best for the city i we came up with
an amazing out-of-the-box design to float a building above this uh the existing building
building the existing building, giving a contrast interpretation, a modern interpretation to an existing building, and at the same time, trying to make it financially works.
giving a contrast in the
At the end of the day, it is another development, and it has to be profitable.
um from doing from 20 years that i'm doing business in philadelphia as a developer as an
architect developer this is the tightest performer i ever came across and we are still willing to go
for it because we believe that we're doing the right thing and do you believe the project's
consistent with surrounding uses say it again do you believe the project's consistent with the
surrounding uses? Absolutely. You know what? I don't need to say it. You just need to read
the articles about this project coming from different people. It's the appropriate design
for the area. If it's not for the variance, for the height variance, everyone would probably
support this building and be proud of that coming up project. But unfortunately, we do
you have to have the height variance in order to make it work.
Otherwise, my hands will be tied,
and I will have to go back to removal of the building.
And you're absolutely right.
I heard the board saying that if the building were not there,
we were still looking at an 85-foot variance.
But it wasn't the case.
Because without the building there, I don't need a variance.
I can definitely make a profitable project that we're already holding a zoning permit for, and call it a day.
How tall is this wall, Jimmy, approximately?
That's about 24 feet tall.
And what does that do to the height requirements?
That's pushing the building up exactly 20 foot height above what I'm allowed by the overview.
And is this project proposal consistent with the CMX3 zoning class where it's located?
Absolutely. It's not even reaching the...
There is no limit on number of units, that's what I meant to say. So we could design, I guess,
100 units in here that will be a combination of many studios and the majority of one bedrooms,
But this is, again, not the case. We are trying to create a good project that has only one studio pair floor.
Half of the units are one bedroom and the rest are two bedrooms.
So we're also thinking about the value or the quality of the residential units that we are proposing.
So it's absolutely an appropriate proposal for the area.
I'm sorry, Chair. I hate to interrupt, but I'm going to ask to respectfully call time.
It's 736. Thank you, Chair.
All right. Mr. Marcioni, how many more questions do you have for Mr. Zackin?
I've got a fair number for her, Mr. Chair.
All right. I won't wrap up in five minutes.
Okay. Thank you.
Are we being cut off now, Mr. Chair?
No, no, you have five minutes.
Five minutes, okay. I will not finish within five minutes.
Yeah, I know, but this line of questioning, whatever it is, we'll get that in. Thank you.
How did you attempt to minimize the impact on the light and air to the nearby properties?
So if you can go to one more slide, one of the shadow study slides.
yes this one
so that shows a buy right
alternative
if the building is to be removed
right here
exactly
versus the proposed one
we designed the project
to be as we already know
floating above the
building so the second floor is actually
set back and eight
foot from
Borden
street property line and by that allowing for more air and light and air for this area.
Also an open courtyard is designed along the Bodden street and not on the opposite side.
So the courtyard is designed on the west side of the building again to allow more air and
light to come to those buildings along North 3rd Street. Even those buildings are actually
third street even those buildings are actually stretches from north third street all the way to
stretches from North 3rd Street.
the real uh property line they don't have any setback or rear yards um so we we also allowed
to go to bottom street with our building is the way i see it also one second before you go there
we sat back we sat back the seventh floor um furthermore another eight foot um in order to
create a better massing and to create a better scale to the building. We designed the pilot
house and the elevators to be completely on the other side and in the middle of the project so
they will not cast any additional shadows. And then you perform the shadow study? Yes. And what
is this first page show that shows that we the effect of the 85 feet versus 65 feet is
almost minimum minimal i would say almost not exist and this is shown in march this is march
we have it we've done it for four times a year in different hours at the end of the day
um a 65 foot building in this location um will will will cast pretty much the same shadow and
will give it the same effect to those buildings on north on on the stretches from north third
street to bottom street is the only time that you will put any shadow at all on the uh third
Street properties during the morning? Yes for an hour or two and that will happen again with a 65
foot tall building. And do you cast shadows on any other buildings either by right or with the
variance at any other time? No. And that's March and this is June and again just briefly explain
to the board what you show here. So again we have the proposed design versus the by right
and you can see the amount of shadow.
It's very clear to see that that's the difference
between a buy right and non-buy right.
I don't even reach to the other side of Vine Street.
And then you have for September?
Same thing?
That's correct, yeah.
I mean, at the end of the day,
we are getting to the same effect
almost on the buildings on the other side of Vine Street.
And of course, in December, we are all in shape, pretty much.
And that's all your shadow studies, so in your opinion, do you have any real significant,
any difference really between the 65 foot by right building and the 85 foot proposed
building on the shadows that you cast on any of the surrounding properties?
That is correct.
So, and that's what the shadow study says. So, will the project, will it have a negative impact
on light and air to the surrounding properties any more so than the permitted use? No. Okay.
In preparing plans for the project, what challenges were confronted by the mosaic,
Great deal of challenges. Keeping the mosaic will be an operation by itself. We will need to
set all the structural columns away from the envelope of the existing building and not to
disturb the foundations of the existing mural. We will need to build a structural frame within the
box and to connect the envelope to those structural steel elements to stabilize it.
And we will need to work with small equipment in order to be able to work within the existing
building. But we're willing to do that. We're actually excited to do that. The section can
show very clearly the the idea behind the structural concept of the proposed building.
Yeah, if you can pan it up a little bit and just and the next the next one the presentation
structural the next slide please. Yep, so you can see how those red columns are all designed to be
away from the envelope and we completely avoiding any underpinning work to not create
any kind of vibrations that will cause the damage to the mural.
it's a damage
to them you all
Mr. Mariani I hate to interrupt you
it's 743
this is probably a good spot to stop
if we're going to stop
if that works that works for all of us
we apologize to everyone
the applicant, the protestants
everyone is on the phone
but we're guided by certain rules
and regulations
these employees who are making this happen have been at this since at least eight o'clock this
morning so having said that uh we this case hold on one second
mr chairman i respectfully just want to chime in just briefly i'm assuming that uh we'll get
an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at a later date yes absolutely and we will hear from
we will hear from residents as well interested parties this is sharing also if i will contact
all the attorneys to try to come up with a briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss
thank you you're welcome thank you i believe mr mattione has at least two more witnesses however
is that right before we get to my my side i have shimmy and then i have um emily smith okay
sorry about that i dropped my page all right um so calendar number
mi 2020-003380 230-36 vine street is continued correct me from wrong tanya june 22nd at 10 o'clock
a.m. and gentlemen uh i understand and i know mr zacken you cringed on that one but it's the best
we can do there may be as mr anastasio and mr money only we spoke earlier there might be some
opportunity to have further conversation with the folks in the in the nearby community and maybe
come to some resolution so the time you have to wait may not be uh for naught it may it may actually
be helpful we welcome the opportunity to negotiate with the applicant okay thank you everyone thank
you our members of the board have a good night and thank you to staff everyone happy executive
day um if i could just mention um mr mattione although this will be a resumption hearing
if you reach out to us we'll give you posters um so that you can repost just to be sure that
everybody is aware of the new date all right thank you thank you thank you all kindly thank
you all good night and if i could just say thank you to the court reporter and all the zba staff
happy administrative professionals day and thank you for all the hard work you put in all the time
all the time thank you we appreciate it