condition never made any material alterations to the interior that increased the number of
living units case was first heard on april 30th and continuing to today because i believe the
board had some questions about the various entrances to the property and you guys requested
more detailed floor plans showing how the uh the units were oriented so i'd go straight to
those materials really quickly. So these are four plans we prepared to give you a little more
context for how the units were oriented. Like I mentioned earlier, I think the board wants more
details about the side entrance to understand how the tenants could reach the second and third level
floors without kind of crossing into the first floor studio i'm sorry the first floor unit
so this entrance here is marked in red these are the stairs kind of throughout the building
and then we have some photos here showing that side entrance that allows tents to access kind
of around the porch right here so if i understand correctly i think that was like the main um
issues that the board wanted to get a little more sense of from the last hearing.
So with that, I would like to bring on the property owner to adopt my testimony
and answer any questions you guys might have.
So just out of curiosity, right?
So this is for four units.
Correct.
And there's three mailboxes now, one, two, and three?
two and three i believe so i think the other one might be on the front but i can't see a picture
of that okay and then there's three air conditioning units in the back do i see that
i'm not sure
i think that mrs terry might be able to answer if there's three okay good why don't you bring
the client on. Great. Her name is Valisha Terry. She should be in the virtual audience.
She's been allowed to speak. Good morning. Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer? Hi, good morning. Valisha Terry
V-A-L-I-S-H-A
T-E-R-R-Y. Do you swear?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Please proceed, counsel. Alicia, have you heard my testimony
this morning? Yes, I have. And was it true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes. And
would you adopt it as if it were your own? Yes. Great. Any questions from the board? We'll be
happy to answer. Well, I guess the first question is there's three mailboxes, but you want four
units? Yes, sir. There's three mailboxes currently. And how many air conditioning units are there?
and how many air conditioning units are there three yes sir three so the the this is a change
Three? Yes, sir. Three.
the fourth unit is a change so so when i bought the property there was four units um
so i i didn't do any changes the fourth unit is actually um efficiency
okay all right questions from the board
I'm sorry, where's this fourth unit that we're talking about here on the floor, please?
There's a two-bedroom on the first floor.
There's a two-bedroom and a studio on the second.
And then the last two-bedroom unit on the third.
Can you go back to where the efficiency unit is, please?
Thank you.
And a studio.
about this okay thank you sure other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney
uh same as for the last one there's no parking at this property is that correct
No off-street parking?
All right.
So this one was also missing refusal for off-street parking.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the audience or the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning to the existing single-family residential RSA-3 zoning at this location.
the property has a history of legal three-family use as evidenced by a 1950 permit requesting the
property was already three-family and a 2019 zoning permit for three-family and a 2019 rental
license for the same number there is no evidence of the legality of the fourth unit nor are there
unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used
with less than four units the planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested
variance for four-family household dwelling. Thank you. MI 2025, 000415832 Wynwood Road. I vote
yes with proviso. Maximum three units. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes with proviso. Board Member Johns, we cannot hear you.
can you hear me now yes okay my vote is yes with proviso thank you thank you council thank you
we're going to go to number two mi 2024 007 539 5236 north broad street
counsel you've already been sworn
you've already been sworn just state your name for the record
alex goldberg a-l-e-x g-o-l-d b-e-r-g
Okay. So we're going to do an update from the RCO. We'll take public testimony, and then after public testimony, a response from you.
Sounds good.
Okay. Hillary, we do have a letter now from the RCO.
Yes, Mr. Chair. We have two letters. The coordinating RCO, Oakland Worcester, submitted a letter of opposition, and we also received a letter of opposition from a concerned community association.
Counsel, I believe you received copies of both of those.
I did.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the audience or questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Chair, again, Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
You've already been sworn, sir.
Yes, sir.
This meeting that took place had a good large number of individuals that did attend.
Unfortunately, we had set up an electronic voting apparatus that malfunctioned.
We had set up an electronic voting apparatus that malfunctioned, and unfortunately, only four people were able to vote.
I believe, if I was reading correctly from the RCO meeting summary, that there were about 17 people that were there.
Everyone was opposed.
And the councilwoman stands with the community with regard to that, that it's a bad location for what they're trying to do.
It doesn't seem to work.
Well, you know, they're trying to force it, shoehorn it into into that location.
And it really just does not work.
So therefore, the councilwoman is opposed and joins with the two RCOs and the community in opposing this change, change of use, the variance.
Thank you very much for your call.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
And planning commission, you've already taken a position.
Excuse me.
Sorry, Chair.
Excuse me, Chair.
A hand went up as you started to speak.
Shayna Brown Marshall.
Did she testify already?
Shayna Brown Marshall, you're unmuted.
You're free to speak.
Good morning.
Hi, my name is Shayna Brown Marshall.
Last name M-A-R-S-H-A-L-L.
um i am a resident here yes sir all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes you this this is your first time testifying yes okay please proceed
um i am a resident here at a five two three two north broad street um and um i've been attend
in attendance at the RCO meetings and the last zoning board hearing before its continuance.
The community has been concerned and have been submitting complaints and concerns to,
you know, our council person's office, along with other entities. We were concerned with the
mass non-permitted work that had occurred during a one-and-a-half, two-year period,
non-permitted work, which included the HVAC system. There are listings for the property
for selling that did show air conditioners in the windows, and now there is a complete
you haul over of the system. Also, there's walls that have already been removed within the foyer
area to connect the two properties that are in question. It also presents a concern when it comes
to the emergency exits for those who are proposed in this use for second and third floor. There's
also, uh, safety concerns for those who are connected, uh, to the, uh, property or adjacent
to the property. Uh, we're a residential community. Um, there's been no, uh, zoning change or, or
variance in decades. Um, and we already do have this type of use in our area. Um, and so therefore
we were in opposition to this. Thank you very much.
I will note too that we have a letter that you signed too. Oh, thank you.
All right. Any questions for the person or just
anyone else in the virtual audience?
Thank you, by the way. Chair, we have Joan
Tyree.
Please unmute.
hello yes chair i muted them so yeah i know i think she has two units
and she declined to be promoted to panelists all right anyone else in the audience
i see no hands
council could you start your presentation sure um so a few things i want to touch on mr chairman
um mr richardson's correct the the letter that was issued by the coordinating rco
referenced four votes in opposition that letter said there were 12 people in attendance
i think it was probably somewhere in between i'm not sure what the sentiment was of the rest of
i'm not sure what the sentiment was of the rest of that virtual audience um there were a few
that virtual audience.
people that were you know vocal in that meeting um so i really don't know what the position of
the other people there were we do have a petition with 20 letters of support from very nearby
neighbors um so i do think that this project is supported to some extent the other thing that i
want to make clear that um i don't think that either rco letter or the testimony you just heard
addresses is the fact that this is a request for a special exception. We're not seeking
a hardship here, although I think we do have one of those as well, because this is a building
with over 9,000 square feet of gross floor area and has a history of unity of use where
the wall, we didn't connect any buildings. This has been long connected and was a home
for foster children before a long period of vacancy. And now we're trying to do a similar
use, a different stage of life, but kind of similar. There's 16 bedrooms here with four
ways in and out of the property. I don't think that this property could be used by right under
the RSA 3 zoning classification. A special exception is even less of a modification than
if we were asking for a variance here for something, for example, multifamily living,
which we are not. But again, this is a special exception. So I believe at the previous hearing
and at the community meeting, we established our burden that the proposed use of a personal care
home was going to be no more detrimental than what could reasonably be expected for that type
of use. My client, who will adopt my testimony, her name is Rashida Robinson. She owns a business.
This is not someone's first time doing one of these. Her business is called Care Nest Homes.
She operates a facility in the Germantown area, which she's essentially going to move here.
it's a better facility um and she you know she's licensed she has trained staff she treats these
people like her family they will be very well taken care of they're fed they have activities
there is an existing unlined parking lot in the rear the people who will be living here they do
not drive but that can be used for her van or any deliveries that need to happen or any family that
are visiting. We're not congesting the public street. We're not overcrowding the land. We're
not making any changes to the existing building structure. Again, this is massive, very large
building, 16 bedrooms. We're not impairing the adequate supply of light and air. No changes are
being made to the building. We're not burdening any utilities. We're not impairing the use of
adjoining properties because, again, we're not making changes to the existing building structure.
These are seniors that are living here.
By nature, they're quiet.
They don't cause a large disturbance.
They don't drive.
The building is staffed 24 hours a day.
They're given transportation to activities and family and doctor's appointments and things like that.
And we don't feel that, as you know, that there is a burden on the community to establish that this is going to be detrimental more than what could reasonably be expected.
That has not been met.
it's a professional operation that you know is going to provide an important service for up to
20 senior individuals and I'll also note that in addition to the planning commission going on the
record at the last hearing that they are requesting that this special exception be granted there is
at 5224-26 which is five building structures down there is a unity of use personal care homes this
is not out of character um although that is not a you know a requirement when looking at a special
exception um but this makes sense here broad street is a major street obviously in the city
of philadelphia we're not you know doing a large personal care home in the middle of a quiet
residential street um with that i'd like to call my client what do you bring your client
on i have your testimony her name is rashida robinson
Rashida Robinson is coming back in as a
Panelist
Good morning, can you guys hear me?
Good morning, I can, could you please state your name
As spelled for the stenographer
Rashida Robinson, R-A-S-H-I-D-A-H
Last name Robinson, R-O-B-I-N-S-O-N
Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed counsel. Hi Rashida did you hear my testimony today? Yes I did. And was it true and correct? Yes it was. And you adopted as your own? Yes I do. And is there anything else that you'd like to share with the board regarding your business regarding why this location is a good fit for you or anything else in response to the comments that were made by the community member?
I mean, I'm passionate about Careness Homes, and I'm a reputable company. I can get recommendations from all the hospitals, all the universities, almost all of the nursing homes.
um i mean i'm passionate about care nice homes and