And we are live.
Madam Chair, if we could just take two to three minutes for people to come into our virtual room.
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay madam chair we have about 22 attendees we're ready to begin
okay good morning everyone my name is carol tenary and this morning i will be the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
board secretary confessor plaza and board members thomas holliman and james snell
board administrator fachina al and also tanya sumpet will be present as well as sharon saletta
our board attorney 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 on the web or 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. That's star nine, then star six to unmute yourself.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and address of the property at issue.
The number again is 267-270-5548.
Fourth, the Q&A box is not for testimony.
Any comments are to be directed to Ms. Patina L. or Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
Are there any continuances?
Yes, I gave you a list of continuances to be read into the record.
Right, I have those. I always do it in the reverse and then you always say that. Okay.
Okay. Calendar number 0400-1334 North 29th Street is continued. Calendar number 1840-2102 South 64th Street is continued. Calendar number 0461-2610 Edgemont Street is withdrawn.
calendar number 0426 3639 north 19th street is also continued are there any other requests for
continuances or does anyone object to the continuances i just read in
madam chair we have henry clinton okay mr clinton you've been unmuted please unmute yourself and
please wait for Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Clayton, can you hear me? Yes, Madam Chairman.
Hey, do you have a request for continuance? Yes, it's concerning 150204 Erie Avenue.
That's number four, calendar number 0458. There are no exhibits for this, and it's a first listing?
correct i think our exhibits are there but despite uh our exhibits and the package that
we've handed in we are going to seek a continuance uh and try to work with the community group to
see if we can have a resolution so i'd ask to be the moving party if that's okay okay is there anyone
so i'd ask to be the moving party if that's okay okay is there anyone here for that case
i'm sure there are two cases that's number um numbers five and six so okay
okay we have four and five are together i'm going to read five out as well calendar number
zero four five nine fifteen oh two west erie avenue that also we we have here no exhibits
and it's the first listing patina i think you were going to say something yes i see several
hands up what i'm doing right now is i'm uh lowering all hands and please just put your
hand up if you are uh want to speak to this case madam chair we have charles karn
okay sorry mr karn you please unmute yourself
mr karn can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
Charles Karn, C-A-R-N, 3853 North 19th Street, 13th Ward RCO Chairperson.
Okay, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay, you may proceed.
Ma'am, this is the first I hear.
I've heard communication about a continuance.
To be fair to everyone, we do have a lot of
directly affect the residents online.
However, we will consider a continuance.
And if you give us a date, right, we'll go from there.
Bettina, these two cases.
Sharon, I'm sorry, Carol, it's attorney moving party.
We don't have a date for that.
both of these cases calendar number 0458 1504 West Erie Avenue and calendar number 0459 1502
West Erie Avenue are both attorney moving parties. Madam Chairman if we were to get a hearing date
today what would that be if anyone knows? I do not know that. Okay all right fair enough thank
you very much. And Mr. Carr, I'm sorry about the late notice, but it was kind of a last
minute decision by the client. So I will reach out to you today.
He's muted, Henry. Okay.
Okay, sure. Anyone else out there in virtual land?
madam chair we have verne anastasio you've been unmuted please wait in front of the chair
mr anastasio can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
yes good morning madam chair verne anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o 1315 walnut suite 10-0-6
philadelphia 19107 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes i do okay you may proceed thank you madam chair i was i just wanted to weigh in on
2102 south 64th you've already called it as continued that's correct i was just respectfully
requesting that I be made attorney moving party on that. Calendar number 1840-2102 South 64th
Street, attorney moving party. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sure. Anyone else? I'm sorry. That's okay.
Okay. We have Brian Dressler. Mr. Dressler, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
hi mr dressler can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
sure brian dressler d-r-e s-s-l-e-r 1500 west erie avenue
okay do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
uh yes okay you may proceed i only hope that when they have the continuance
that well wait what case what case are you speaking about this is 1502 and 1504
west erie okay um i think maybe you should speak to uh fatima l
Okay, I think maybe you should speak to Fatima L. Would that be correct, Tanya? Or Tanya Sunkit?
Yes, if they have a question regarding the continuance, then they can email us.
I just want the party that gets the continuance to post the notice properly so that it can be read from the sidewalk, not the way it was posted for this meeting.
which was so far set back that nobody even could tell it was a zoning notice
and they couldn't read it. That'll be noted.
Thank you.
Anyone else? Thank you, Mr. Dressler.
Yes, Madam Chair, we have a calling user ending in 9599.
You please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, hi.
can you hear me yes i can what case are you calling about um i'm calling a reference to 15
uh was that 1502 and 1504 that's early avenue okay these cases um are attorney
attorney moving party they've already been handled
so at some point you will be given the date
If you have any questions, you can contact Fatina L. or Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
Okay, Madam Chair, next we have Ms. Shedrick.
Ms. Shedrick, please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Hi, Ms. Shedrick, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name, please?
Yes, last name Shedrick, S-H-E-D-R-I-C-K.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, if it's allowable, can we have her say her whole name and spell
her for me. Okay, I'm sorry. Kiana, Q-I-A-N-A, last name Shedrick, S-H-E-D-R-I-C-K.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Okay, and what case are you speaking about? 1502 to 1504 West Erie. I do understand that
there's going to be a continuance. I'm an affected RCO in the case, and since we had the owner or
attorney representative and the RCO on the line and all concerned parties, I was wondering if we
could not select a date on the call. The letter we sent in was specific about not receiving
notification, and I think there's been several issues of notification expressed here. I was
wondering if that was something we could do so that everyone could get notification of the
meeting and have an opportunity to voice their opinion and participate. Thank you. Okay. I don't
select the dates. Ms. Sunkett is someone you should call and you can have a nice conversation
with her. No, I was referring to once it is selected by you and the coordinating RCO is named
and they select the date. I was speaking about that date where the community has an opportunity
you need to participate.
Okay, I do not select the dates.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else, Fatina?
I see no more handshake.
Okay, we'll start the regular list.
Calendar number 0423, 1325 South 52nd Street.
Madam Chair, we have Cheryl Gaston, Ms. Gaston, I'm sorry.
Can I interject for a second?
If we could please promote the attorney to a panelist.
Yes, I just did Ms. Sunkett.
Thank you.
Hi, Ms. Gaston. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
It's Cheryl, C-H-E-R-Y-L, Gaston, G as in George, A-S as in Sam, T-O-N.
I'm with Spruce Law Group, which is at 1622 Spruce Street in Philadelphia, 19103.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
What I'll say about it is it is technically accurate, but there's a slight issue, which I'll explain when I do.
And you can explain that.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal and referral, or and or 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?
A few explanations.
Yes, there is a packet.
One of the tax certificates is, the tax compliance certificates is missing.
This is for 1325 and 1327, which are going to be consolidated, and there's, I think,
an issue with the name of the entity, so it's not being recognized by the tax system.
So we have to fix that.
With respect to the RCO, we did have one meeting.
We are to have a second meeting, but they can't have it until after the date of this
hearing.
So we are asking to, and we have the agreement of the RCO to put on our case, and we will have the second meeting and send you the letter from the community group after that hearing.
It's supposed to be on Monday, the 24th.
I'm not sure if that's...
So, why isn't this case being continued? If I'm incorrect, Tanya, please step in.
Excuse me, Mr. Sharon, it's because this is a case that will be, Ms. Gaston is agreeing,
it will be limited to reading the RCO letter into the records as label one.
Okay, great.
Okay. Yeah, we're going to put on the whole case. We're going to highlight for you the
issues that the RCO had, which were not about the actual development, it was some other issues
which they were concerned about and that's why the second hearing, the second meeting with them.
Okay. So long as it is understood by all parties that there will be no testimony
taken at the next hearing date before the board, it will simply be the reading of the letter into
the record? Yes, I have spoken with the head of the coordinating RCO and that is the understanding, yes.
Okay, you may proceed. Oh, okay, thank you. I have my paralegal on, Christine Schlosser,
if she could be given the permission to share the screen, please.
I'm promoting her now.
Thank you.
You're more than welcome.
that's christine schlosser yes okay miss schlosser
miss schlosser you have to unmute yourself
hi good morning can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
Christine Schlosser it's S-C-H-L-O-S-S-E-R and I'm with Spruce Law Group it's 1622 Spruce Street
and it's 19103. Thank you do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I should have also in here, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, my client, who is Mashi Mizels, and
And I believe that his partner Jay Gold is on the phone.
I believe that his partner, Jay Gold, is on.
So I will need to just have them confirm my presentation here.
We may also have on the line the architects for this who are Ken Johnson and I'm sorry, there's a second one, I'm sorry, I'm blanking on his name right now.
but we may end up having to promote them as well.
But just to get started here,
this is concerning properties at 1325 through 1327 South 52nd Street.
The entity name is Tishby Realty, which is T-I-S-H-B-I Realty, LLC.
But it's also spelled in the records as T-I-S-H-B-Y Realty, which may be part of the problem with the tax clearance issues.
The meeting ID number is 2020-000423.
The zoning request is to consolidate lots at 1325 through 1327 South 52nd Street
to create one parcel for zoning purposes and that'll be known as 1325 South 52nd Street.
Christine, if you could go to the site plan, please.
Thank you. And the proposal is to renovate or convert or adaptively reuse these two existing
three-story buildings or structures at 1325 South 52nd Street for multi-family use for a total of
12 single family dwelling units. There'll be six units per building on the consolidated lots and
it will work out to be next page please Christine. There'll be a total of four units per floor.
So there will be site improvements, landscaping, lighting, safety, security systems added.
The variances are required because LNI considers the existing four units at these properties
to be a non-conforming use and the expansion of the non-conforming use to 12 units to be
prohibited in what is an RTA-1 residential zoning district where these properties are located.
According to the Notice of Refusal, there is no zoning permit on file validating zoning
approval for six units at each building. However, the file for 1327 South 52nd Street, there is no
archive file for that property. But the file for 1325 South 52nd Street does include housing
approval for six units per building at 1325 and 1327 South 52nd Street. And such approval
would not be granted unless there was zoning approval. So these files are a little sparse,
but you would not have housing approval if you didn't have zoning approval. And also at the
RCO meeting that we did have, there was no objection voiced by anyone about the number of units.
And in fact, one of the nearest occupants did express approval for the 12 units. And
we, all units will be one bedroom units. They will have, you know, up-to-date amenities.
There was concern about a dumpster. We have a location for a dumpster, which we're going to
show you, which we did not have at the first RCO meeting, but which we will present to them.
Can you go to the pictures where we have the dumpster location?
Can you go to the pictures where we have?
So we do have a location for the dumpster.
We also have a, which we did get, and which we will present at this upcoming RCO meeting,
a contract with a private trash collection company.
we will have storage for trash inside the building.
And we also have a person that lives in the neighborhood
that we will have patrolling the property
and making sure that there's no issues
with trash or debris.
Okay, that was one of the things
that the community was concerned about
at the first meeting.
And this is on near public transportation, so there is a music.
Can you not hear me now?
I'm sorry.
This is on, there are several public transportation routes near this particular property and it's
on 52nd Street in West Philadelphia, which is a very wide street and there's parking
from on either side, although at the meeting that we did have, there was no concern expressed
about parking issues. So if my client is on the line, he can confirm what I've said. I'm not,
I can't see. So many people, I can't see whether they're on the line.
If he could virtually raise his hand, that way I can allow him to speak.
okay um and one is on the phone so i'm not sure how they uh can participate okay we have several
calling users. I can try to search them by name. What's the last name of your client again, please?
It should be C-H-A-I-M.
Okay, we have a Chang, but we don't have a Chan. Okay, and the other one would be Miesels, M-I-E-S-E-L-S.
so if they don't raise their hand then they're not available okay all right um i you know all
i can say is that we um i am as an attorney and an officer of the court and of course one who's
appeared before the board before i can um just say that what i have presented to you is what
is true and accurate according to what we have submitted and what I've discussed with the head
of the coordinating RCO in terms of the issues that came up during the first meeting that we
had with them. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
I had to unmute myself.
Does the board have any questions?
And again, we're just asking that you hold this.
We're supposed to, my understanding is the meeting is supposed to be on Monday, the 24th of May at 7 p.m.
and uh so and then we will submit um that the letter uh to you um okay that'll be great there'll
be no testimony that day just the letter plan do i get planning commission or do i wait hi ann
yes yes excuse me this is sharon if i can just put on the record that i checked and the property is
tax compliance so there's no need to submit anything else on that thank you okay great
planning commission good morning uh mr tenari ian hegarty with the philadelphia city planning
commission h-e-g-a-r-t-y you may oh no you may not proceed you have do you swear or from
you may oh no you may not proceed you have do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes ma'am i do thank you okay i either forget to call planning commission
or i forget to swear you in wherefore i know um members of the board comprehensive plan
recommends a zoning map change to rsa 5 at this location however the proposed use is consistent
with documented prior uses on the property and the interior partitions of the existing
property um so the city planning commission would recommend that the board grant the variance
okay thank you sorry madam chair may i interject sure you may being as though this is a resumption
to allow only the letter to be written to the record could you just check to make sure there's
no other parties who wish to speak regarding sure sure is there anyone else here in virtual
land who would like to speak and if so please raise your hand
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
I had asked Mr. Benjamin if he could maybe be on.
He's the head of the coordinating RCO, but I didn't hear from him that he would be able to participate.
Okay, then we will see you next week.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. Bye-bye.
calendar number 0654 1455 north 29th street the attorney is frank turner
and madam chair if we could just confirm for the next for the previous case that this will be
resumed next wednesday at 9 30 simply for reading the letter from the rco into the record and then
voted yes and you just did that thank you very much thank you okay
mr turner yes i'm here hi can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name please uh certainly my name is frank turner uh last name t-u-r-n-e-r can everyone hear me okay
i've had some issues with my uh yeah not well your your voice is very very low can you make
it louder or get closer to getting closer and um i should also be able to um start my video because
i do have uh some documents that i can share um now here we go start video there we go there i am
okay and so um okay so name and address sure my name is frank turner um my address is 30
south 15th street 15th floor philadelphia pa 19102 and okay do you swear a firm to tell the
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you you may wait do you also agree to wait the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of
ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos under plans of this property five days in advance
of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter um we do have a letter
we have met with the rco um i've provided the uh and uh miss suletta i may be able to um speak to
this uh i was in contact with her yesterday um i provided uh all the documents um uh yesterday
and uh and so you guys should have them now um yes and this is sharon i'll confirm there were some
technical problems with the exhibits but we do have everything that's required now okay great
mr turner you may proceed certainly and um so what we have here is a um a property that was a
small takeout um restaurant um and was approved for that zoning um back in 2006 and um it's uh
and now they have constructed a daycare. Nothing is, none of the structural elements have changed
in the building, and we actually do have the support of the registered RCO in this case,
and it's only a special exception that is required under these, under the circumstances.
can you share pictures and plans on the screen certainly bear with me one second while I pull
those up thank you
and so let me get the screen share
okay and so here
okay and so here um we have the um the plans i'm sorry um mr turner you're very low your voice
very thin right i i um i tried to uh log in also on my phone because i had this issue with my
computer before and i'll just uh speak up um so okay thank you uh certainly so what we have here
is the um are the plans and as i zoom in you should be able to see the first floor um plan
here uh that's sorry your voice is still very low okay i'll try to continue to speak up so what you
see here on the um as i zoom in is the um is the first floor plan um and uh you notice that there's
no, um, there's a kitchen area, um, the, you know, the space for the daycare, um, there's a,
there's daycare space on the second floor also, and the third floor, um, will just be used for
storage, um, and, uh, that's, so that, there are the plans, uh, that we have there, um, again,
and the plans note that, um, there's, there are no changes to the weight-bearing walls, so there's
not any um you know there's no structural uh change to the um to the property and um the uh
and it's a daycare um it's not going to increase the congestion in the area uh significantly more
than the restaurant would have um and again like i said we have the support of the uh of the rco
So, and I do have that letter here as well.
There's one minute, please.
This is the-
Does the board have any questions?
Letter of support.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience
who would like to testify?
Please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Okay, Planning Commission.
Good morning, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, this is a special exception and we feel the proposed special exception
will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be
expected for this use and so the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant
the special exception.
Thank you.
calendar number 06541455 north 29th street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you and good luck thank you madam chair thank you board
sure calendar number 3250 327 north 11th street the attorney is pasquale colavita
Madam Chair, he's been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Mr. Colavita, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Good morning, Madam Chair and the rest of the panel.
Pascual Colavita on behalf of David and Jimmy Chang the owners of 327 and 329 North 11th Street
my address is 1026 Winter Street Philadelphia PA 19107 also if you could the architect Chris
Hamill I'm sorry can we pause a second um if I could Madam Chair request that he puts his full
name um spelling on sure and spell your spell your full name sure pasquale pasquale colavita
c-o-l-a-v-i-t-a and you've already put your address on do you swear a firm to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do okay and continue about the architect we we have um
My clients, I don't know whether they've been permitted to come in, but I know that they are on.
It's Jimmy Chang and David Chang, as well as Chris Hamill, the architect.
So if they can be promoted so that they can participate.
I don't need them right this second, but I will.
So they're required to raise their hand and we will unmute them as you need them.
They can speak up.
Perfect. Thank you.
thank you hey mr colavita do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
Okay. Mr. Colavita, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
accuracy yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or
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 we have the answer to the first question yes we've uh
submitted all of the documents with the exception of uh older floor plans
which were then re were submitted this morning so everything was submitted to to the panel i had an
opportunity to speak with miss saletta yesterday originally we were going with a proviso for
amended plans but the a quick explanation would be is the amend the plans were only interior
amendments to the original plan submitted. We're going with the original plan submitted. The only
reason we did amendments is to appease the RCO, and those amendments did not affect the reasons
for the refusals. So as such, we're going back to the original floor plans, and we will make
whatever um adjustments after this meeting there are no adjustments in height width or depth uh the
the plans that are submitted are the the ones that uh they're again if the reasons for the refusal so
that that's my explanation as far as uh what has not been submitted within five days we did submit
additional plans this morning which I can which are the original plans. Sharon what would we be
voting on the original plans new plans unless you add proviso of a proviso approving revised plans
you're voting on the original plan. Okay thank you you may proceed. Good morning members of the panel
I have submitted a packet with a supplemental, it was originally A through M, and now it includes N, and I can share the table of content, and then what I will do is go through each of them.
let's see
bear with me I'm getting a little older
I need to
you know what i'm just going to go through without sharing the table contents
attached at exhibit a are the deeds showing ownership uh by david and jimmy chang for 327
and 329 these are similar projects this is a project in which and attached at exhibit b
are the tax clearance certificates for both properties attached at Exhibit C are their
application which occurred prior to my entry of my appearance wherein they requested the
variance or the use of an eight family dwelling. This is a 18 and a half by 97
at 329 for a total of 1794 and a half square feet property 327 which is a corner unit
is 18.75 wide by 97 long for a total of 18 1875 square feet excuse me council excuse me
excuse me will you be able to show any uh drawings diagrams or pictures absolutely absolutely i'm
just going through the table of contents so that way i can uh request that they be admitted into
the record and then i will uh go into the actual diagrams as well as uh photographs of uh the
property and surrounding neighborhood okay and something i want to do um is i didn't call in the
second case that you're handling calendar number 1432 329 north 11th street that's the companion
case to 327 north 11th street so if we can just incorporate my argument and testimony
uh as if it were originally called is there any way you can combine showing us the plans and
as if it were originally called is there any way you can combine
everything is combined no doubt everything is combined in the exhibits as well as the plans
the plans are going to look similar they're basically it's the request is this it's okay
can we can we see the plans at the same time you're speaking about them sure if i if i can
just finish my little uh uh initiation the reason for the refusal so if we go to exhibit d the reason
for the refusal was for two reasons one height and um because they requested a four-story property
in excess of 38 feet without a setback what we're asking for and i'll um is a height higher than 42
two and a half feet and eight units what what they're asking for are uh eight residential
units two per floor per property uh at exhibit e we filed our appeal and now we'll go to exhibit f
which are the the revised actually i'm going to go uh yeah can we see exhibit f yes instead okay
Are you able to see this? This is Exhibit F. Is it being shared?
Yes, it is.
So Exhibit F is a six-page document.
And 327 are the first three pages.
329 are the last three pages.
So what I'll do is the intent is to have the basement have storage units for each of the properties.
each of the the eight units there is a bike storage space and additional
storage and the entry would be through the first floor and there's also a side
entrance that in this particular plan these are the revised plans but what I
can do is I can show you the original plans but what I would like to do is go
down to page three which gives you the front view and it has an elevation of 42 and a half feet plus
the two and a half uh foot and this has not changed this is the initial uh document that was
provided to lni with the zoning use permit so it's going to continue to presently the property
is 50 feet high it's 38 feet at its and if you can see here and i will try to expand it
on so 327 has that we'll call a parapet or a dormer um and that peak is 50 feet high what
they're going to do is they propose to square it off to get to the 42 foot plus the it'll actually
be 45 feet high uh and one half inch if you can see right here at the um right below the number
three is a 42 and six feet and a half inch plus the additional uh spacing above the roof is two
and a half feet so if we scroll down in a similar situation is its next door and just for the uh
Boards understanding their intent is to make it a brick front as is shown with the floor plan.
I'm sorry, the street plan, the plot plan.
So at 329, this is its present condition.
and that property again will if you see it's 41 10 plus the two and a half feet will be
slightly uh lower in terms of actual height but they they will match at the top and the architect
can um address why the difference in height and it has to do with the the street level
because as you can see there's a
there's a there's a three step four steps to to get into the actual property
and and that's at 329 so the proposal and what i'll do is i'm going to stop sharing this one
i'm going to go to the original plans
and just want to confirm that you're able to
see these are the the original plans that were submitted so this one is for 329 which is
the interior property, not the corner property. So here, as you can see, there's going to be one
per floor. I'm sorry, two units per floor. You have four units in the front, four in the back.
They're two-bedroom properties. They're all self-contained units as far as mechanicals,
et cetera, are concerned. The hot water tanks, air conditioning, heating units will all be
within each of the eight units excuse me counselor yes are you submitting a revised
drawing sheet no no so what we're doing is we're we're going back to the original plans
because the only reason we had a second set of plan a second and we'll call it second and third
set of plans was to appease the rco the callow hill association they at our meeting with the rco
uh the original meeting we had the architect was available at the second meeting the architect
was unavailable so if you read their um and i don't know if you have a copy of their
meeting so the answer is we're going by the original plans correct we're going by the original
plans and the the floor plans i just showed you are the original plans and there's
the setback required by the code eight foot setback yes we're not we don't have that correct
No. And that's what's your hardship.
The hardship is it just doesn't comply with the the present situation.
The entire block is flat and down the street.
And I was going to get to that. There are four other properties at three.
11, 13, 15 and 17 that were approved about six years ago, seven years ago, four, 14 and 14.
for a four-story property without a setback.
There is no roof deck that we're requesting in this one.
The only access to the roof is for repairs
and none of the units will have any access to the roof.
They will have access to the basement for storage
and for trash disposal.
but as far as um the the only difference here is that it's going to maintain the same
um present uh footage square footage as far as where the building is concerned at 327 329 is
set back a little bit it has a little bit deeper of a yard what they're going to do is is keep it
in with the same distance as 327 as far as increase in length there will be no increase in
width obviously it's the 18 and a half feet for 329 it's not changing the the height again
presently it's 50 feet at its peak at the dormer and I can start and share some of the photographs
if you give me an opportunity.
I'm sorry.
Actually, this is just a,
this is exhibit I,
which is proof of posting.
Share screen.
but counselor what is your trash plan trash plan is that we we actually have it we have space in
in the basement and i'm trying to see if this is the right way so here i will
in the basement and i'm trying to see if this is the right way so here i will i i opened i shared
the wrong screen but here is uh the the trash plan they have storage and they're each of the units
have a uh waste disposal if you see the wd i'm sorry that's washer dryer my fault there
and if we can get the architect unmuted he can answer this question probably faster than I
I can and his name is Chris Hamill and if he's not available you can ask uh for David Chang
one more question any uh living space in the basement no thank you and if you can
and there's david chang he can reply to your question regarding the
mr chang can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name david chang
chang is c-h-a-n-g and 327 north 11th street
thank you do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay you may proceed so pertaining to the question about trash um in the
original drawings we didn't have um an area dedicated to trash but in the revised drawings
we had an area in the alleyway um that will have will service uh several trash containers where the
tenants can you know access and leave their trash and we have a service agreement with a
private company to you know take out the trash um and pertaining to the question regarding living
space in the basement there's no living space in the basement it's just meant for storage for
tenants and then for you know for landlord use for our use and by storage yeah i think that was
asked and answered are you satisfied with those answers tom uh yes thank you thank you so i'll
continue at exhibit m i want to bring you through the neighborhood to show you photographs of the
actual building itself again it's going to be as you can unfortunately in this one you can't see
the parapet as as clearly as you saw in the other one at its peak again if you can see the front of
this building it's already over 50 feet so um or i'm sorry it's 50 feet high and it what we're
asking for is to bring it down to i believe it was 44 and a half feet um so if you go down the
block it's not going to be any higher than what the trestle in is and on the corner
which is also a four-story property uh it looks like a three-story but i'll show you a better
photograph of it again this is this is a photograph of 327 and 329 facing north on
11th street and the smaller street what what they're going to do is remove the uh fire escapes
and construct okay so now this is the property 12th street i'm sorry 11th street facing south
just to the south of it is a six-story unit and if you can see a little bit further down and i'm
going to give you a better photograph on wood street are um four four-story uh properties that
are all squared off there's not one property that has a uh eight foot setback as as the earlier
question um so it's not a great picture but it what it shows is uh 327's entrance and again this
will be all new brick front instead of what is presently there again another photograph of 329
design all new brick front where they're going to attempt to match others in the neighborhood.
Okay and you've met with the RCO correct? You did meet with the RCO we did not get a letter
of approval and I'll address that as soon as I'm through with these additional photographs.
shifts um and this is wood street and right right down the block you have another project of four
uh story properties without setbacks and again this is the properties that i was uh referring
to earlier on the same exact block at 311, 13, 15, and 17, which are all four-story units right
down the block without any setbacks. As a matter of fact, these properties actually have a rooftop
deck, which is not a request of ours. So if we get to the community...
So if we get to the community group meeting, they provided a letter, and I can put it on.
Well, before I do that.
Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation has a letter of non-opposition.
Callahoe Neighbors Association is a letter of opposition, and Councilman Squilla has submitted a letter of opposition.
Correct. And what I want to point out is if you look at the meeting summary form by the Callow Hill Neighborhood Association, what you have are three people who voted and opposed.
And they're all the board members. At this meeting, there were well in excess of double digit individuals that were there.
There was no we were asked to leave the second meeting prior to their discussion of it.
no one voted from the community at that meeting as you can see there were people who who were
there i don't know whether they were given an opportunity to vote we were not permitted to
stay for the balance of it but if you actually look at their letter itself the reason for
their refusal has zero zero to do with the two i'm sorry their opposition zero to do with the
two refusals we're here for which are the height and the number and the change in use
As a matter of fact, one of the discussions that they had, and I think that the word that I stated to them is twice I said it.
I said that it's refreshing to hear from them the positive comments that they had regarding increase in volume and height.
There's no opposition here to the height.
There's no opposition here to the eight units.
This is Chinatown.
My office is right down the block from this. This is a growing neighborhood. You need to expand vertically. And that's what they're doing. They're cleaning up this neighborhood. They want to expand vertically. They want to maintain that clean, fresh look.
I don't know why the licenses have requested a change in that eight-foot setback.
It's a use that went in probably about 15 years ago.
It was used for a while.
And it just seems, I don't know, to me, it's not pleasing to the eye.
There's nothing symmetrical about it.
And that's what my clients have also indicated, another reason why they want to go flush and go straight up.
All they're doing at its present height is actually cutting the top of the dormer off on this one and straightening and going up about another three or four feet maximum from its present face on what the building looks like.
So in order to do what the code is, and this is where your hardship is, you actually have to cut into the building to lower it on that third, fourth floor in order to get that eight foot setback.
So there is a hardship there. The hardship with the number of units is the fact that this is presently, it's a non-conforming use right now.
the neighborhood itself has become significantly more residential to cut into what is presently
there in terms of that there are six residential units there what all we're asking for is that
top floor to be squared off and add the other two units and then there's going to be interior
changes on the floors, whether it's lowered or heightened in certain areas because of
the unleveled interior portion of the property. So it makes it a lot cleaner look. It beautifies
the neighborhood. It prevents them from having to cut into the front facade of this building,
which again is in excess of already in excess of the 38 feet we're not asking what we're asking for
for this panel to um grant the variance to go up to that 44 and a half foot height
to straighten it out to not require the eight foot setback to permit them to use to have eight
units it's it's such a deep property they are uh it's 97 foot deep so it's large enough to
hold two bedrooms per unit additionally and i will attempt to share this
i wanted and i don't know if you need for me to share it or if you have a copy of the
And I don't know if you need for me to share it or if you have a copy of the 14 associations and the 65 individuals who signed petitions in support of this project.
Do you want me to share it also to show you or are you already in possession of it?
Whatever you have, can you share it?
Please.
Absolutely.
madam chairman chairwoman this is the court reporter may i ask for just a 10 second pause
i have a low battery situation i just need to address oh sure one second please pardon the
interruption.
Thank you.
Thank you.
please pardon the interruption thank you thank you thank you welcome back sure okay as i stated um
at exhibit l there are
14 associations that have signed petitions on behalf of both projects
in support of both projects as well as 65 individuals the greater philadelphia chinese
restaurant association there are 24 pages here total so basically there are 12 for 327 and 12
for 329 i'm not going to repeat it but i'm going to go through it um again sign the greater
philadelphia fujian association uh is also in support um the philadelphia houyu chinese
american association at 1234 wood street right around the corner is in support of this project
and a similar association in the same building the American Hoyu Folk Cultural Center is also
in support of both projects now there are also and I'm going to scroll down to the the actual
again at pages 5 and 6 are the 10 associations that have also signed now you have pages 7 8
9 10 11 and 12 are 65 other individuals all within the affected area for example even if
you look at at 1018 winter street a few doors away from me uh someone uh harry long signed on behalf
all of these properties 1100 vine street right at the corner of the property at the uh project
all of these different individuals there's 65 different individuals that have signed on both
properties all within that area and what i'll do is i'll continue to just to scroll down to
show you those individuals those and now once you get through um those 12 pages you come across
the next property which is 327 so you have a copy in essence of
uh those signed both on behalf of 327 and 329 so you have 12 pages um 65 individuals 14 associations
65 individuals, 14 associations, all in support of this project.
all in support.
You have three individuals at the Callow Hill Associate who opposed it,
who didn't even allow the people in the audience on the Zoom call to vote on this.
And what was their letter?
it had nothing to do with the two refusals which are height and use the number of units
so what i'm asking is the councilman also has submitted a letter of opposition he did but
and i don't i don't understand all he did was uh and and he did more than just submit the letter he
also added the language that um the adjoining community group approved it so and as much as
this was the coordinating group the other community group is less than a block away
from this project or less than a block and a half away because i've had uh quite a few rco meetings
at um pcdc um and they're in they're actually a larger rco than this one this is a newer rco
the pcdc i don't know why they didn't get selected as the original group we have three people who
don't like this but you know what they don't like it they weren't selected pardon me they weren't
selected as i understand i understand but they but they there was a joint meeting they attended
the meeting they approved they support this they they went out of their way to write a letter in
support of this project what what i'm going to tell you my feeling here is that they knocked
our presentation because unfortunately our architect was ill that evening and was unable
to respond to a few questions and again the questions that they had were all interior non
it had zero to do with the refusal and the reasons for for this uh request for a variance
it had to do with with um excuse me the dual the dual uh whether one of the board members
is trying to speak i'm sorry is there any code violations on the building no thank you sure
So, again, I just ask that you vote in favor of the variants to permit them to clean up the present property, reconstruct it, square it off, make it clean with respect to the balance of that street.
because if you see the dormer on here again it's 50 feet high well in excess of what is presently
legal i mean that's it's legal the only reason that's legal because it preceded uh the code
when it was built um so oh again just asking to to be in compliance uh with the rest and balance
of the neighborhood the four-story properties right down the block the four-story unit of
the trestle in at the end of the block we're not going over their height
and just disregard the the three individuals who didn't like our presentation because our
architect was ill the evening of the second presentation couldn't answer there we don't
we don't know that that that's what happened well you can read the letter i mean the letter
indicates that they didn't like our uh that that's actually stated within their within their
letter that that we were unable to answer some of their questions but again none of their questions
relate to um the reasons for the refusal and i just asked that you go with the majority i mean
overwhelming majority here and what is is not an outlet i mean there are again there are hardships
here the hardship being that you're going to have to deconstruct this property cut into the third
floor set it back eight feet you're going to have to reconstruct the entire first floor to make it
into an industrial because again this is an uh an industrial residential mixed property what
industry is going to be able to be placed in that in that small location there's no industry
it's not even it's not listed as commercial mixed this is industrial so we're not going back to
this is industrial so we're not going back to woodmills we're not going back to to soap farms
wood mill.
or soap uh dispensaries or any of that sort what you're going to do is you're going to change
the complexion of this neighborhood by preventing them from completing what the rest of this
neighborhood looks like which is i mean you have art art studios etc but art studio is not an
industrial use. These properties are both listed as industrial residential mix. All I'm asking is
to come down in zoning to make it completely residential, go up four stories. Their request
for the height variance is not significant. It is a, I'm trying to remember the actual zoning
language. It's the minimal change in the variance that we're asking for. It's such a minor change
to go. As a matter of fact, they're coming down in height in order to get to that 44 and a half
foot total length, total height, I'm sorry. Well, let me ask this. Is there anyone here
who wishes to testify. Is there anyone here from the RCOs?
And if so, can you raise your hand?
Madam Chair, we have a calling user with the phone number ending in 0224. I can allow them
to speak. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
hello hello can you put your name and address on the record please and spell your last name
uh yes i actually tried doing unmuting unmuting before my name is chris hamill i'm the architect
uh i'm with i represent deborah deborah v anderson's office at 13 ohio trail
uh in medford new jersey
do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
uh yes ma'am you may proceed no i i was just when they had asked for uh me to step in previously
uh they had also uh david uh david or jim one of the two stepped in and i tried to like talk at
the time but they already had talked for me so i saw i was trying to get in earlier so if there's
any questions someone wants to ask i have no problem answering it for you he's our architect
we don't have any additional
questions
I mean I don't as far as the presentation
if the members of the
board have any additional
questions but I think that they were
adequately replied
to by Mr. Chang
is there anyone here from
the Callahoe Neighbors Association
I see no hands Madam Chair
May I perform one last task, which is to ask both of my clients if they were to testify, if they heard my lengthy presentation, if that would be their testimony?
Sure may.
And if we can unmute David Chang and Jimmy Chang, and I can ask that question.
Did you hear my question, Mr. Chang?
David?
Mr. Chang, you have to unmute yourself.
David, are you able to hear us?
I have Jimmy Chang in my office.
I don't know whether he's muted, but I can actually bring him behind me, if you would like, because it doesn't sound like, and it's Chen Tuan Chang is Jimmy Chang.
I'm sorry.
Mr. Calavita, in the interest of time, as an officer of the court, we could agree and stipulate that.
Thank you.
You would agree with testimony.
Thank you.
Thank you. With that, I would just move all of the documents presented as part of it and make it part of the record.
Thank you. Does the board have any other questions?
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Excuse my dog.
Excuse my dog. Madam Chair, members of the Board, in 2015 the zoning map was amended to IRMX here
Madam Chair, members of the board
in 2015
in accord with recommendations from a community remapping process. We feel that the configuration
of the existing buildings does present a hardship for strict adherence to the use requirements of
IRMX, specifically the requirement for non-residential use on the ground floor.
However, the dimensional requirements, we don't feel impose a financial burden on the applicant, which is the measure for dimensional variances.
The IRMX district requires an eight-foot setback of the fourth story on narrow streets, such as Carlton Street.
The example properties shown by the applicant are not on narrow streets,
and we just don't feel if applicants demonstrated a hardship that compels them to increase the
existing non-conformity of the setback from Carleton Street. The code does not require
the applicant to cut into the existing building which is a legal pre-code non-conformity
and so accordingly the Planning Commission would recommend that the board grant the use variances
for 327 and 329 North 11th Street but deny the dimensional variance for building height and
setback at 327 north 11th street just a single comment on that uh wood street with the three
um 11 13 15 and 17 is actually a a smaller street uh as well as the the other properties
on wood street that is it it's not not smaller than carlton street uh but it's definitely
a small street. It's not a thoroughfare where you're, it's not a two-way street. You don't
have parking on both sides of the street. It actually is a small street. So it's the only
disagreement with Mr. Haggerty's comments. Okay, calendar number 3250-327 North 11th Street
and calendar number 1432, 329 North 11th Street.
My vote is yes to the variances on both
and no to the dimensional variances.
My vote is yes with provisos on both.
My vote is yes with provisos on both.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you. May I be excused?
You sure may be.
Thank you.
Calendar number 0452-3645 Emerald Street.
Madam Chair, Mr. Furlong has been promoted to panelists. He may unmute himself and please wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Furlong. Can you put your name and address on the record and please spell your last name?
Hi, good morning. My name is Ryan Furlong, F-U-R-L-O-N-G. My partner, Joshua Horvitz, is also on the call.
He'll be presenting. I ask that he also be promoted.
Okay. Tanya?
He's been promoted, Madam Chair.
okay sir can you hear me yes ma'am can you put your name and address on the record please and
spell your last name yes my name is joshua horvitz of the law firm fineman krexstein and harris
the last name is spelled h-o-r-v as in victor i you granted the use for the multi-family but
not the dimensional variances? Basically, yes. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. You may proceed, Mr. Furlong, but wait one second. Do you
also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed
the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal or 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, ma'am. Okay, which one of you are,
Mr. Furlong, aren't you presenting? You're the attorney, correct? I, my name might have been on
the appeal, Madam Chair, but my partner, Joshua Horvitz, will be the one presenting.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chairwoman and what members of the board. We were actually here
um we were actually here two years ago for the same exact application as we are today
two years ago for the same exact application as we are today.
and due to an administrative error we're back um it's been a long road back two years to get back
here um we did board approve this exact application um but when my client went to pick up the permit
from lni the permit said a mistake uh on one building so building one here which is um 10
storage spaces it was listed as eight parking spaces on the permit not on the plans excuse me
can you share your screen sure so mr furlong is going to share his screen and i'll be happy to
show you um the documentation that i'm speaking about okay going back and forth thanks
Is that the controls on the bottom of the screen?
Can you see my screen now?
Yes, we can.
All right.
So, let me try to see his screen here.
So Ryan, if you can go to, we'll go to by page number, page number 80.
This was a grant of a variance.
So this was the grant of the variance, well, this one it looks like it's from 2009.
It looks like it was the wrong document. We'll go to page number 82. So page number 82 has a zoning permit that my – wow, this doesn't look like to be the right document either.
What are you looking to do? A three-family dwelling in an existing structure?
So there's three uses here. And my client's also online. There are three uses. It's a CMX2 property. And they've all been approved. There's a single family home. And then in the back, there's these other uses, similar to other properties along the same block.
and there's a warehouse use and then there's the storage uses and they're all within the same
legal address and we went to the RCO in 2019 so Ryan if you can go to page 60 there's the plans
that we initially submitted these were the mistake plans that caused this issue they have eight
parking spaces that were drawn submitted to LNI in 2019 and then if you go to page 62 we corrected
the plans and um these are the same plans we're presenting here today um the board granted the
variance calendar number 36788 for this exact thing we're asking today with this exact set of
plans um when we went back to pick up the zoning permit it's number 946399 i can pull it out from
my file here but it looks like we got the wrong one in the packet um that that zoning permit um
And it was issued, and it said the wrong thing.
It said the eight parking spaces instead of the 10 storage.
Okay, have you met with the RCO?
Yes, we did.
And they voted with proviso to support or not oppose the project.
And we also have a letter from Councilman Squilla.
It didn't make our packet on Friday, but we submitted it on Monday.
And he also not in opposition.
Nobody at the RCO, sorry.
We have that.
Is there anybody in the virtual audience
who would like to testify on this case?
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Does the board have any questions?
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In 2017, the zoning map was amended
from CMX 2 to RSA 5 at this location in accord with the recommendations from the comprehensive
plan. However, the applicant's property, as you can see, is unusually deep, and this is an expansion
of a legal non-conforming use, and it's similar to conforming and non-conforming uses on nearby
properties, and so the Planning Commission would recommend that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you. Calendar number 0452, 3645 Emerald Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
okay so that ends your long saga thank you so much through this process
okay so that ends your long saga
sure calendar number zero four five six six eighteen north 40th street the attorney is henry clinton
mr clinton has been promoted to panelists please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
Hi, Mr. Clinton. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos under 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. And I also see that we have a letter from Belmont Alliance Civic Association in support. You may proceed.
Correct, thank you. Can I share my screen?
Sure, we'd love to say it.
Start at the beginning.
This is my evidence binder. This is the table of contents. I'll walk through each of the documents
as necessary or as the board feels is warranted. The parent statement, this is a refusal. This
property which has been residential since the day it was built is in the cmx2 zoning designation
district i believe because the zoning was changed in that area even though this has been a residential
property for many many moons the rejections concern in the cmx2 district you need commercial
along the first 30 feet of the building on the first floor and then there's an issue with regard
to minimum lot size or open space.
So here's a letter you just referred to, Madam Chair,
indicating that there's support
of the Belmont Alliance Civic Association,
nine support, one oppose,
and then two are non-opposition.
So it's really a vote of 11 to one
in support of the proposal.
And the proposal is that this building,
and I'll show you an L&I certification,
it's really legally permissible to have eight units in this building and our proposal is for
four units. So this is Lancaster Avenue right here. This is Wallace Street and this is 40th
Street. And this is a standalone building with a spacing between the building next door. And
there's an institutional building across the street and some open area here. This is looking
toward Lancaster Avenue in the back. This is the side of the property, the front. It has a nice big
rear yard where there are trash storage containers which are then placed on the sidewalk
during trash day this is a shot of the rear of the property there's an entrance in the rear
as well as an entrance in the front that's a photograph of the front of the building
again just some interior interior shots to show you the condition of the property on the inside
so the plans are i have the floor plans for each and i'll run through these quickly the basement
they're just mechanicals there's no living space on the in the basement at all the first floor
we have two bedrooms and one bath the second floor we have a studio a studio and two bedrooms
and one bath and on the third floor we have two bedrooms so we're asking for four units
and I want to get to the history of the building, which will help you.
So this is the zoning map.
That whole block there is CMX2,
but there are other residential properties in that triangle.
I do have my final line, Amelia Carter,
who I'll ask to adopt my testimony after a minute.
This is her certificate of mailing.
And this is what I was talking about, Madam Chair,
that when Ms. Carter had the property,
she filed for a certification statement and it came back as eight family dwelling units. Now,
when she purchased the property, there was one family living in there, but using it as four
separate apartments. So she's not looking to go to eight. She's looking to keep the property the
way it was, which is four apartments with a common hallway to get into.
four apartments with a common hallway to get into the building this is our commercial license
again just showing you some of the permits that she's already gotten from the building
okay you know what i'd like to jump ahead and ask is there anyone
in the virtual audience who has questions
i see no hands madam chair okay is there anyone on the board that has questions no no no
planning commission thank you madam chair ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to cmx 2.5 at this location
So the proposed use and unit density are consistent with the proposed zoning.
Since the property is an existing non-residential building and it does not face Lancaster Avenue,
providing residential space at the ground floor would present an unnecessary hardship.
And so the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variance.
Thank you.
Calendar number 04.
I have my client adopted testimony just for the record.
Oh, you sure may.
I'm sorry.
Can Amelia Carter be unmuted, please?
Ms. Carter, you may unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Ms. Carter, are you unmuted?
Yes, I believe so.
Hi, Ms. Carter, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
my name is amelia carter uh the uh c-a-r-t-e-r and the address is 618 north 40th street
philadelphia pa 191 sorry okay go ahead go ahead i was interrupting you and i apologize
um and that's that's it okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? Yes. Okay, Mr. Clinton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Carter, you were on the Zoom
call during my presentation, correct? Yes. If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt
my testimony as your own and as true and correct? Yes, I would. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Appreciate
it. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you. Calendar number 0456-618 North 40th Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you very much thank you that concludes
the madam chair no yes sharon um i was going to ask there um there was a case on the add-on list
for 5210 arch straight you were going to simply a vote with the rco letter read into the record
you were instead going to do that at two o'clock but we have now received the rco letter it's very
brief i could read it if you would like to vote this now okay that would be great i'm gonna let
me call the case calendar number 3413 5210 arch street you may proceed um dear chairman the 44th
ward rco held a zoom meeting on wednesday may 12th 21 2021 at 6 p.m to discuss the above mentioned
project the purpose for this meeting was to hear the owner's plans to change the property to a two
family household the applicant team was present and made a presentation after a full discussion
we voted to support the project and that is from the 44th ward democratic rco signed by
willie jordan the ward leader i apologize for this barking dog uh calendar number 3413
5210 Arch Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you. And thank you, Ms. Saleta. You're welcome. Chair, if we could also ask if anyone
is waiting for anything they believed was going to be called this morning. Okay. Is there anyone
in the audience waiting for a case they thought would be called this morning and has not been
called. Madam Chair, we have Vern. You've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
verne can you hear me yes can you hear me madam chair uh yes uh name and address please
avert anastasio 1315 walnut suite 1006 philadelphia uh this is just regarding 5210
arch i just wanted to thank the board and attorney soletta for uh for uh putting
that up for a vote we had just received
that up for a vote we had just received
thank you you're you're you're breaking up but we thank you for thanking us and for
especially thanking Ms. Saleta thank you have a nice day sure you too
Sharon does that now officially
i think that's it okay cool thanks so much see everybody at two
all right you got it thank you sure
bye ian
adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair miss carolton airy
our board secretary confessor plaza and board members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell
our board administrator Fatina L and our board attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta 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 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 nine
and then star six to unmute yourself. 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 enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue. I'll 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
i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat all comments
should be directed to our board administrator miss fatina l with that i believe uh we can begin
Carol, you'll do the first one. I was not here for the first add-on.
Okay. Calendar number 3326, 265 East Porter Street. The attorney is Matt Monroe.
Chair, I promoted Matt Monroe to panelists. He may unmute himself and please wait for the chair.
Hi, Matt. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. Matthew Monroe, M-O-N-R-O-E, 2030 Pemberton Street, Philadelphia, PA-19146.
You swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Am I waving also again, Frank? Frank's not.
Or is this just a... No.
Yes, he doesn't have to answer the questions. You can go forward.
Okay. Okay, you may proceed.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Tenere, Chairman DiCicco, members of the board.
I'm here today with my client, J.P. Donahue, and his business partner, Steve Marzell, I believe, are also online.
We're here today on a resumption hearing that started back in early April.
This was actually our second. The April meeting was our second meeting before the zoning board.
We were continued pre-COVID, and so here we are basically a year later.
Here's the, and if I can, I'll just go ahead and share my screen just to quickly kind of review where we are and how we wound up here today.
This is an application related to 265 East Quarter.
It's a massive property of paved, impervious land.
it's nearly 9,000 square feet. The property spans a wide distance between East Quarter Street going
back there toward East, it's Philadelphia, Atlanta Street, and then on the other side you see Crossin
Street and then it's by Chu Avenue. This area right here at the corner of Chu, this is an
auto mechanics and then there's single single family homes here along Chu and also single
family homes here on Crossin. Right here on this portion of the lot there is an old retaining wall
and we'll just go quickly down and here's a view that you can see from 265 East Hoarder the entryway.
And here's a few that you can see from 265 East Hoarder, the entryway.
Basically, my client has been meeting, has met with the RCO on a number of occasions, both informal and informal meetings.
Before our first hearing at the Zoning Board, I believe my client had two or three informal meetings with near neighbors and members of the RCO.
We had two presentations to the RCO before January, February 2020 hearing.
And at that hearing, Chairman DiCicco suggested that we go back, look at the plans to see if we can come back with fewer units.
This is, like I said, it's a 9,000 square foot lot.
My clients originally proposed to build six single-family homes along the lot.
And so the refusals that we received were related to the number of single-family homes on the property and the dedicated parking, which would be accessed by a drive aisle.
um basically the um uh it because of the large size of the lot um you could if this were
properly subdivided uh facing a street you could fit six single family homes on the lot and that's
why they had initially proposed six uh but um after some of the meetings of the neighborhood
the density came up as an issue uh they were concerned about the uh the narrowness of the
dry vial and a few other issues. At the meeting, there were a number of non-zoning related issues
that came up that frequently do. The lot had previously been, it's never been used. And I
think if you want to look for a hardship, look no further than the fact that the property has
never been developed. It was once last licensed for a bicycle shop on a temporary variance that
lasted one year. And forgive me, I don't remember the exact decade. It was sometime between the
50s and the 60s, I believe, but that was the last time that there was any license used. There was
a number of people who used it for parking. It wasn't regulated or maintained by the last owner.
My client acquired it and sought to just develop new construction, single-family homes in an area
of East Valley area that would be to the market and offer a new product online for people who
haven't seen a lot of new construction in the area for some time. At the last meeting, we brought
revised plans that have the number of units brought down to from six to four that also seeks
to widen the dry vial, which addressed one of the RCO's concerns about the project. And we moved
the footprint. It was because that these changes were made that the RCO wanted some additional time
to review the plans, and so my client agreed to review them. They did have a meeting in between.
I think that it wasn't an official RCO meeting, but the RCO convened a hearing, invited all the
near neighbors. I think two showed up. My clients, again, presented their plans, and some of the
questions that were raised at that meeting uh primarily were um there were two zoning related
issues and i think it was outlined in the letter that i received yesterday um i wasn't able to see
it uh until this morning because i was working as a judge with elections in my ward uh but the um
the uh the letter effectively uh requests uh two changes uh in the event that the board uh
elects to pass the the variance and those changes are one removal of the of the pilot house in the
roof decks my client will agree to do that and if the board passes that we would accept a proviso
from the board for no pilot house and roof decks the other request was to move the footprint of
the homes up three feet, which we consulted. JP Donahue is one of the members of the LLC
that owns the property and is going to be developing it. JP is also an architect and
looked at the ability to move the homes. It just doesn't work. There is a right-of-way
back here that provides, you know, a buffer between these homes and the homes along Chew
avenue uh but if he was going to move this up any more it would be encroaching on the dry vial and
one of two things would have to happen one uh in order to maintain the uh the width of the dry vial
so the cars could access it uh they would either um it would either be too narrow or they would
have to look at taking down this retaining wall and that was another issue that the um that the
taking down this retaining wall. And that was another issue that the neighbors at the RCO
I'll see you later.
meeting expressly said they did not want the wall taken down. So in order to make these homes fit
and make it work, they would need to keep the homes where they are. But they are willing to
remove those pilot houses and roof decks.
um and matt can i interrupt you for a minute i apologize i knew you were under oaths from before
but do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth um from here
on forward and from here backwards yes and uh it was my understanding i guess that the uh the
prior oath was was um uh was still standing because this was a resumption hearing but but
But yes, let there be no mistake that I swear I'm telling the truth.
Okay, thank you.
And so this is, so I guess just in summary, if this were, and here's the unique characteristics of a lot, it's just extremely narrow and extremely deep.
You saw that first picture at the beginning.
there's these, there's this existing curb cut that they're seeking to utilize. Sorry. Yeah,
there it is. This existing curb cut that they're seeking to utilize for the homes. The homes would
be over on this side. Over here is the retaining wall. And just to be clear, this is the other,
one of the issues that the RCO raised at the original meeting was concerns about there
being additional pervious surfaces well as you can see this is already an existing asphalt lot
aside from some cracks and breaking in the lot it's it's pretty much an impervious surface to
begin with this would actually be adding a lot of green space with the reduction especially from
the reduction of units from six to four and it would in it would enable them to get in a number
of homes. There is absolutely no material impact on the light or air of the adjacent
homes. There's absolutely no, that there wouldn't be otherwise from a buy right project. There
would be no increase in the, you know, I'm sorry, let me just gather my thoughts for
There would be no increase in burden on the public facilities or utilities because these are just, because there would be cars, each home would have a dedicated parking spot utilizing the existing curb cuts so you wouldn't have people competing for parking spaces.
And again, I think a lot of the issues that people were raising were non-zoning related issues related to the desire that the lot simply remain as it has remained, an undeveloped asphalt parking lot from the beginning.
So I guess with that, if there's any questions from the board, as I said, I'm hearing my clients here and we'll be happy to answer them.
But my clients have dedicated a lot of time to this, and they've dedicated a lot of time in an effort to make changes that were reasonable.
I think that a lot of my other clients probably would not have made.
They're not big-time developers or anything.
JP is an architect, and his partner, Steve Marcel, has worked in construction.
But this is just kind of two guys just trying to make this project work.
And the other thing is the number of units, they've looked at this and kind of crunched it, given the increased construction costs during the pandemic. In order for this to work out as a viable plan, they do need the number of units in order to make the economies of scale work without getting into an exhaustive discussion on that.
but that's that's what works in that um and that's what uh we think meets the uh for the reasons
stated before we that's what we believe means the hardship okay does anybody on the board have
questions no no is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify please raise your hand
madam chair may i ask one question oh sure um mr monroe yes it it sounds as though even aside from
the roof decks and pilot houses that if this were approved there are additional changes that are
reflected in a revised plan is that correct yes yes and we did send over a proviso sheet
and updated plans with the uh with the four units and that includes an increased uh width to the
dry vial which was something that the the rco had requested the reduced number of units as i noted
But the other change that is not in there is the is the pilot house and roof decks, which they were given that, despite what I said.
pilot house and roof decks which they would and given that um despite what i said earlier i think
that if there are going to be revised plans in any case that if the board is inclined to approve this
that they hold the vote for one week so that the revised plans be further revised to include removal
of the roof deck and pilot houses and i've spoken with my client they can do that thank you okay
are there any witnesses
Chair, we have Charles. He has been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Charles. Excuse me, sorry. Can anyone hear me?
Yes, sir. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name please?
Absolutely. My name is Charles Feig, F as in Frank, E-I-G, and I live at 6649 Croson Street, so I'm a near neighbor of the project at 265 Porter.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay. You may proceed.
Thank you. Members of the ZBA, my name is Charlie Feig. Like I said, I live at 6649 Croson Street. It's one of the houses that borders the proposed project on the retaining wall side.
I'm reading a statement here that I have that I co-prepared with my roommate, Isaac Gaines,
who was supposed to attend this meeting and was unfortunately unable to.
But we are just continuing to implore the board to reject the variance application for 265
for a number of reasons.
First of which is it's clearly stated in section 8.2.a of the zoning code, there must
be unique physical circumstances peculiar to the property causing unnecessary hardship.
In the case of this lot at 265 Hoarder, that's simply not the case.
the law is rectangular and while perhaps slightly narrower than average, it is hardly unique in its
narrowest. It would still be entirely within the realm of physical possibility for the applicant
to develop by right on the slot in strict conformity to the provisions of the zoning
code and without the need for a use variance. Second of all, a prerequisite for the approval
of a use variance is that the hardship cannot under any circumstances be cured by the grant
of a dimensional variance. Again, it is totally possible for 265 order to be developed in strict
conformity with the zoning code, and especially with the grant of a dimensional variance.
Lastly, the proposed development will absolutely be detrimental to public welfare. It'll encroach
on the privacy of the neighbors on both the Croson and Chusai's, and it will encroach on the light
and air of the neighbors on the Chusai. Finally, it'll substantially alter the essential character
of the neighborhood. Four brand new modern style modular units sandwiched between rows of early
20th century twins. The bottom line is that the applicant's proposals does not represent the
minimum possible variance that would afford relief, nor does it represent the least possible
modification of the regulation and issue. I remind you that under Section 8.2 of the zoning code,
all of the prerequisites listed must be met. Each of my aforementioned points alone should be enough
to disqualify their application, let alone in combination. I ask that you please consider the
negative impact the proposed development would have on the daily lives of all the near neighbors,
and particularly those on the CHU side, many of whom may not be here to voice their concerns
because they don't have the luxury of attending a Zoom meeting that has the potential to run
hours in the middle of a weekday. Thanks for your time. Thank you.
Is there anyone else? Yes, chair. We have Nina. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello? Yes. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
uh yes my name is nina curlett c-u-r-l-e-t-t i live at 236 east springer street um springer
is adjacent to crossin um my house is one second please do you swear or affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do yes okay you may proceed um i would like to um well good
afternoon. I'd like to thank my neighbor for testifying. I believe he covered many of the
points that I would like to cover. I am going to, I'd like to reiterate that there are definitely
no physical circumstances or conditions that exist at 265 East Warder to preclude the possibility
of this property being developed in conformity with the zoning code. I believe that I would
have to argue that authorization of a variance is not necessary to enable the
viable economic use of this property. I believe that one home could easily be built with a large
yard which is more highly sought after than ever due to COVID and because COVID has been brought
due to COVID, and because COVID has been brought up in this on more than one occasion over the course of the discussion about this property.
up in this on more than one occasion.
I do believe that additional green space is something that people are searching for, and that it would probably be of a benefit to the developers to consider that point alone if they indeed want to develop this lot.
I would also like to point out that another near neighbor on Chew Avenue at 6708 has a lot of 7,098 square feet.
So this lot is definitely certainly not out of character.
It might be larger than some, but definitely not larger than all.
And agreed, this lot could actually be developed as a subdivision, as had been mentioned.
I believe at some point, this lot has since been zoned as two lots, which has not been brought up
in any of this discussion. This happened last September. There is a zoning permit that had
been issued for subdivision, which I have no idea why that's not even an issue at this point.
I do know that a use variance does not seem as if it is in character with the neighborhood.
multifamily would not be in character with the neighborhood. And I'd like to say as well,
just as a last point, that everything we've been shown thus far, I would have to say is definitely
not the least possible modification that a use variance would be granting relief for, for sure.
It could be developed by Wright or with a small dimensional variance developed as well.
So, I do not believe that in this instance, a variance is, should be granted and it's
certainly not, I do not believe that a hardship has been proven.
In order for a variance to be granted, a hardship must exist and I would argue that
the hardship is on the neighbors and not on the developer.
Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify with something new and different?
Here we have Bonnie. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi. Hi, Bonnie. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yep, it's Bonnie Zuckerman. I am at 67082 Avenue and last name is spelled Z-U-C-K-E-R-M-A-N.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Okay, you may proceed. Great, thanks. So I live at the house
that Nina was just speaking of with a lot size close to 8,000. So I just want to say that I'm
here. And then also that there are so many other homes in our neighborhood. So, you know, three
blocks to the south, we have the 300 block of Cliveden. Those homes are also have deep, deep
backyards. The 300 block of Upsal also has deep, deep backyards and the 100 and 200 block of
of Gorgas. And as Nina was saying, this is very much a privilege and a commodity that people
seek out in our neighborhood. I'm not going to keep going because you've heard it already, but
one of the other concerns I have, which also hasn't been brought up, is that the yards that
are listed as rear yards are not actually rear yards in these designs. They're like awkward kind
of side yards, and I'm also kind of concerned about this one that is on Porter, right? So it
has this front setback that is not in line with any of the other buildings on that street, which
I think is a zoning violation, but maybe I'm wrong. But yeah, anyway, definitely do not want
this to be approved. I think that, you know, a set of twins with deep backyards
would be a great fit for this neighborhood.
Tons of families would love to have a place to throw a ball
or put up a trampoline, which is something that people
in the Upper Northwest or the Northeast or Overbrook
have the privilege of doing.
And I think that would make the most sense for this lot
and for our neighborhood.
So thanks.
Thank you.
is there anyone else who would like to testify yes chair we have charles richardson
mr richardson you've been unmuted please wait for the
Hi, Mr. Richardson. Can you hear me?
hi mr richardson can you hear me i can
I can hear you.
Thank you.
Hi. Name and address for the record, please, and spell your last name.
Okay. Charles Richardson from the office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you swear I'm firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay. You may proceed.
Okay. Madam Vice Chair, the Councilwoman is opposed to granting this variance.
The developer has not proven any type of hardship that they would be experiencing.
In fact, the hardship would be created for the near neighbors as this project encroaches on their properties for the most part.
It is an overly dense development that they're trying to shoehorn into a very small space.
Throughout the entire RCO process, the neighbors have consistently been decidedly against this project.
and they just don't want it, and the Councilwoman supports their position.
Thank you.
Chair, we have three more hands.
Next is Melanie.
You've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
Melanie?
Melanie, please unmute yourself.
I think I was mistakenly added to the list.
I don't need to testify.
Okay, is there anyone else?
We have Edward Jones who has been unmuted.
Mr. Jones, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Jones.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, and then I will swear you in.
Edward Jones, 6647 Croson Street, J-O-N-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Okay, as stated, my address is 6647 Croson.
actually adjacent, attached to Charlie and on the other side of the wall.
And basically my, the issue with this project is it does not, it's not, that that lot is
not designed to contain this type of development.
This lot, as the developer said, hasn't been developed since whenever, well, the lot previously
contained garages and that's why the lot is shaped like it's shaped and that's also why
it hasn't been developed because there's really nothing conducive that can go back there not
definitely not like this uh this project here um now so sir why are you opposed to it i'm i'm
getting to it okay okay um now he show actually showed a picture earlier of the lot from hoarder
Street, which already he had said that it wasn't a deprivation of light, but that's clearly wrong
because first of all, he just showed a picture where half of the lot was already shaded from
what's already existing. Now we're trying to propose building a three-story structure with
a basement all over top of the two street side, which would basically be blocked off,
but there's other issues as well. Can I share my screen? I have some pictures I'd like to
sure sure i promoted him to panelists and chair thank you
mac could you take down yours please okay sure
okay thank you
all right can you see my screen no okay wait a minute let me go back i'm sorry
all right
this is a picture of the uh the chew street properties as they exist right now with no
without the uh the plan but before the plan proposal now again what they're proposing is a
three-story a three-story structure well four three-story structures behind you or they they
they eliminate the the uh decks but they would still there it's out of character because it
doesn't fit is my main point there um there's nothing really
is my main point. There's nothing really anything like it in the neighborhood. The lot scale
the information
basically, I'm sorry, if you look at it a little closer, apparently this fence would be the back
of the property and then you're going to have also a driveway on this side of the wall
for access. I'm not sure how that's supposed to fit back there. Now, he said it's an expansive
lot. It's not really that expansive. On the other end of the lot, there's an auto repair shop,
which that lot is approximately half the size of that garage. Now, there's another issue as well
with this in that there is a verizon infrastructure in the back um where's the picture
all right if you look here here's a poll this is verizon wires i'm just going to object as
irrelevant but no it is relevant because um wait wait wait just wait excuse me there's no back and
forth your objection is noted there's uh there's verizon infrastructure already this this this
poll right here is at best 20 20 feet high now these wires that are coming from the back of my
house and all the houses on um on crossing street barely clear that wall the reason why they barely
clear the wall is because that like there was there was nothing else designed to be back there
but a garage they were actually these these wires actually if you can see them right here
every house on Croson Street has these wires going for their uh Verizon service coming to this pole
now I'm not understanding how you how you're going to do this when these when these wires are
lower than what's already there so they said they when we talked about this in this meeting
they said they would rewire it so now I'm assuming you're going to put there's four poles here down
this road down this uh alleyway in which i guess you're gonna we're gonna have a a tree uh a utility
pole farm as well but again like i said i told them at the time and i said this in january of
last year the project is it's lovely i love how it looks but it does not belong back there it's
out of character there's nothing like it in anywhere near here in any type of space like this
i'm sorry chair okay thank you for your testimony thank you so and it should be rejected i mean i'm
it just doesn't fit there it's not designed for the it's not designed for anything in this capacity
it's not thank you very much
is there anyone else who would like to speak we have one more hand and that's natalia
She's been unmuted. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the change.
Hello.
Hello. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. My name is Natalia. Last name is Sereko. S-E-R-E-J-K-O.
7301 Germantown Avenue. I'm the executive director of East Mount Airy Neighbors and I just wanted to
wait one second please do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes. Okay you may proceed. Thank you. So I just wanted to address the supplemental letter that
we sent in addition to our January 13th 2020 letter. So I just wanted to reiterate that
the neighbors are against this variance. In the original meeting, there was 28 individuals
who voted to oppose the variance with 18 being near neighbors. And one of the things that
we just wanted to bring up to the ZBA is that we were really disappointed that we weren't
able to have an official RCO meeting, because we never, with the change of the project,
we weren't really sure what the new variance request was.
Respectfully, the variance request did not change.
We reduced the number of units and changed the plans to address a number of the points
that were raised in the opposition at the first meeting back in January of 2020.
we did provide an opportunity.
My client did attend and made themselves available
to go to another meeting in addition to the meeting
that was with near neighbors.
Right, but we had, you know, January
right but we had uh you know january 13th was when we sent out the letter in 2020 and there's
been over a year that the applicant could have reached out to the rco and let us know about the
changes we didn't hear about the changes until the last cba hearing um on april 7th and then we had
to schedule something very quickly um and we didn't get anything official from l and i showing
what the new variances were. So I just wanted to make that clear that without having the actual
information about what the new variances would be based off of the changes in the project that
we were very disappointed that that wasn't something that was provided. Thank you for
your testimony. Is there anyone else? No more hands, Chair. Okay, Matt. Yeah, just a point
clarification on a few things. The plans that we brought to ZBA, they were a slightly changed
version of plans that were provided to the RCO back in February or March before the originally
rescheduled meeting, which we sought a continuance on. The plans that we sent to the RCO in advance
of that meeting included the four, the reduction of the four units, the change in the widening
of the dry vial. And I believe there was just a slight shift of the footprint of the homes
between the original plans that were provided in March to the plans that were provided about a week
in advance of the last ZBA meeting in April.
My client's been nothing but transparent
and willing to work with the community.
Again, this has been a lot that has been undeveloped
with pervious surfaces.
The new yards would add, I'm sorry,
with impervious surfaces,
the new yards would add pervious surfaces,
green to an area that's just been asphalt.
There have been a number of issues raised that were non-zoning related with respect to the real estate market related issues, I guess we call them that have been raised, that there's other homes nearby with large yards.
Those are not new construction homes, and given the lot size and the economies of scale required to get new construction started, the number of four single-family home units do work, and respectfully, we just rest on our earlier presentation.
And just to point out, we did bring to the first zoning meeting, there were a few witnesses who came and testified in favor of the project who were near neighbors.
That was back in 2020, and that was in favor of the project that had six units, not four.
They're not here today, but I just wanted to point that out.
That is on the record.
And we request that the variance be granted.
Madam Chair?
Madam Chair?
of course the proposed project does it have a street frontage the the uh the the proposed
project has an existing uh it has an existing curb cut and then the uh the uh and i i can show you if
i could share my screen again um but there's uh the street um the uh side of one of the homes
there's a yard that abuts the street, a side yard that abuts the street.
So no street frontage?
That's correct.
Do you have access and egress from the driveways to a street?
Yes, yeah, it's a shared driveway utilizing existing.
But do you have two means of access and access?
One means, and that's what exists there.
All right, thank you.
uh does the board have any other questions no planning commission
good afternoon david vecto f e c t e a u with the city planning commission
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Tenari, maybe this was given in a previous hearing, and I just didn't hear it,
but I do have a note here to ask about trash collection and emergency vehicle access.
Yeah, I guess with respect to, I may want to get one of my clients to raise their hand.
Yeah, I guess with respect to, I may want to get one of my clients to raise it.
But what I can say is the width of the drive aisle does support access, you know, to emergency
vehicles.
It meets the streets department requirements.
And JP, if you can, I believe Joseph Donahue, JP Donahue has raised his hands and he can
address that issue.
Mr. Donahue has been unmuted. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
All right. Mr. Donahue, put your name and address on the record please and
then I will swear you in. Spell your last name as well. Joseph Donahue, D-O-N-O-H-U-E, 763
South 17th Street, 19146. Thank you. Do you swear to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do okay i wanted to i wanted to say something in addressing the
previous question about um frontage and egress we have two means of egress we have out the drive
aisle and to the right of way on the two side of the properties thank you get out of the property
okay so um and um in terms of um i'm sorry could you reframe this like restate those questions
Sure. Trash collection and emergency vehicle access.
Emergency vehicle access, we spoke with the streets department and with someone
in the planning commission, it's been two years now, who talked about the width of the
drive aisle being necessarily being 12 feet, but we expanded it to 15 feet to make room for that.
And then in terms of trash pickup, because it's a PUD, that would just be a part of the PUD
documentation that would require private trash collection for all of the houses on the property.
Great, thank you. And a PUD is planned unit development, correct?
Correct.
Okay, great. So I appreciate the answers. Vice Chair Tonari, members of the board,
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single-family use.
The lot is over 8,900 square feet. If this lot could be subdivided to the dimensions required
by the code, the applicant could build six row homes by right. Given the unusual shape of the
lot. We believe the applicant has demonstrated a clear hardship, and we recommend that the board
grant the requested variance. Madam Chair? Yes. Can I ask the attorney to go back to the site
plan? Can I take a look at the site plan? Yes, we can do that quickly. Just one moment, please.
thank you mr monroe all right
here we go
here we go mr holland this is the updated site plan with the the four units
i don't see two means
just just the site plan not the elevation
right there
it looks like a dead end is that am i incorrect
Jake, so I think maybe Mr. Donahue was answering the question, just egress from the home.
And your question, Mr. Holloman, I think I was answering what I thought you were asking,
which was related to the drive aisle. Is that correct?
Correct. Would a fire truck or an emergency wagon have to back out from the in-house?
In other words, can it go straight through?
No, no.
So it's dead end.
That's correct.
And again, I believe that they...
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can you finish what you were saying, Mr. Monroe?
Yes, I was going to say, I think that that was a question that was raised by Streets and the Planning Commission.
And that was a while back.
And they addressed that by widening the drive aisle.
But there is not a through drive to the street on the other side.
Are there any further questions?
calendar number three three two six two six five east hoarder street my vote is yes
are there revised plans with this yes and um yes
Yes. I'm sorry. We discussed at the start of the hearing, holding it for one week in order for the revised plans to be further revised to include the removal of the pilot house and roof decks.
okay so we're not voting it strike that and vote it um next wednesday may 26th at 2 p.m
following discussion and submission of the revised plans with the additional changes thank you
okay i'm sorry miss aletta could i just ask if the this is closed at this time yes the record
is a closed except for receipt of the revised plans which reflect changes that have already
been discussed on the record and if i could i'm not certain but i see a recurring hand
from attorney leo mulvihill i'm not sure if it's for this case but i will allow him to speak at
this time just to see okay he put his hand down it looks like okay and if the board wouldn't mind
i have several continuances just for expediency i'd like to read those in now and then we can
continue with the other cases calendar number 2336 number three on our number three on our
front street is being continued number five on your list calendar number 1262 321 east worcester
street is continued and number 20 and number six on our list calendar number 1577 3519 hamilton
street is continued now on hamilton street there's a specific continuing state that should
be announced it's going to be heard july 6th at 9 30. okay hamilton street 3519 hamilton street
will be continued to july 6th at 9 30. anyone who disagrees with the request for those
continuances. If so please raise your hand. Chair we have Leo Mulvihill he's been unmuted
please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair. Good afternoon Mr. Mulvihill please
identify yourself with record and I'll swear you in. Certainly good afternoon members of
the board Leo Mulvihill that's M as in Michael UL V as in Victor I H I L L 315 Green Street
first floor philadelphia 19123 you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do members of the board this specifically requests uh pardon me addresses the request for
continuance for 22 22 to 24 north front street that had previously been addressed as a continuance
request i respectfully submit this should be attorney moving party we are currently in the
process after speaking with NARS Square Civic Association with respect to our initial proposed
plans to obtain an amended refusal. So I would like that that just be changed so we can address
that accordingly once we are able to secure that in hand and secure our community meetings with
the neighbors. So noted. So MI 2020-0023362222-24 North Front Street, Attorney Moving Party.
Thank you. And I apologize for the hand waving earlier. I was jumping the gun there. Everybody
have a good day. No worries. Anyone who disagrees with the continuances that have just been
read into the record, please raise your hand. I see no handshare. Thank you. Would anyone
at this time like to request a continuance or withdrawal? If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Byron Harris. Please unmute yourself, Mr. Harris, and please wait for
the chair. Please identify yourself with the records by your first and last name, and I'll
swear you in. Brian Harris, B-R-Y-A-N-H-A-R-R-I-S. Do you swear or prefer to tell the truth, the
truth and nothing but the truth I do yes thank you please proceed as we're
related to 4204 Parkside Avenue ZP 2021-001-216 and ZP 2021-001-213
And ZP 2021-001213-4206 Parkside requesting a continuance because of technological difficulties.
We could not hold a vote on May 5th, May 12th, excuse me.
So you're requesting a continuance of 4204 and 4206 Parkside, correct?
That's correct, yes.
All right, thank you.
excuse me um chair before you read the continuance um he is i think this is a third
party request if you could call the applicant or their attorney and also we did receive a request
for continuance on the same cases from um councilwoman got the a is mr console available
yes he's been unmuted please unmute yourself mr console and wait for the chair i believe i'm
muted. Please identify yourself. Spell your last name. I'll swear you win. Good afternoon, board.
Joseph Consul. Last name is spelled C-O-N-S-O-L-E. Consul, Madison, LLP. You swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. There's a request been made for continuance
two cases you represent? Yes, sir. We did have the RCO meeting last week. I left before the vote,
as I was instructed to do. We had not heard from the RCO since then. We are not strictly opposed
to it, but the property is in bad shape and my client can't come back in September. We have what
thought was a productive meeting and we have um what we think is a compelling case today um
so uh we had a similar situation happen with this same rco uh and mr harris who um who also appeared
and we had the same discussion i believe it was last week when you were away on a different
property on parkside and um it ended up with us presenting the case but um holding the the uh
vote until a June meeting. Something like that would be acceptable to my client.
We're not trying to ram it through, but going to September is not an option he wants me to.
Is this time sensitive in terms of any financing issues? I might go with this property.
Yeah, my client wanted to speak on that. Chairman, is your hand up?
German has been unmuted please unmute yourself sir please identify yourself spell your
spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in German Yakubov German G-E-R-M-A-N last
names Yakubov Y-A-K-U-B as in boy O-B as in Victor you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth I do so swear please proceed um so these two properties
are in pretty bad shape they've been vacant for for over a decade um we've been uh we got an
interior demolition permit to try to uh clean it out and secure it as much as possible um we we
have financing pending on the property we're not doing any we're not changing the footprint of the
property so it's pretty much a use uh case variance on a property that zoned single family
that's on a block with hundreds of other multifamily properties.
So we're not opposed to a continuance to get the vote from the RCO,
but we did have the meeting, and waiting until September
would jeopardize the interest rate, which would make things much more expensive,
as well as lumber costs.
And this being a historic property, the cost and the manufacturing of windows,
which is expensive and time-consuming, would put us into a winner
if we had to wait until September to order them.
I keep hearing September.
Is that a date where we'd be looking at September
or is there anything sooner?
September or October for continuances.
All right.
Here, excuse me, this is Sharon.
Is this one that might be,
would the RCO be willing to have it held
only for the letter that they provide
to be read into the record? I don't know, but I was going to suggest, given the financial
circumstances that the developer will be facing, if the board were to approve it, I would suggest
we go forward with the case today and wait for a response from the RCO. Thank you. Thank you.
All right, so we'll go forward. Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
I see no more hands, Chair.
I see no more hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Carol, I think we then go to number two on the add-ons, right?
I was here for this one.
So MI 2020-000121, 4290 Penn Street.
We were waiting for a letter from the RCO.
I understand there's a letter of opposition.
The record was closed.
this is really just a vote for us, correct Sharon? And to read the record into the letter
into the record. I did email it to you. Great, thank you. All right, I will read the letter
into the record from the Frankford Neighbor Advisory Committee. The Frankford NAC Zoning
committee had a zoom meeting on thursday may the 6th 2021 the applicant was seeking a variance for
a daycare that would be operating on the first floor of a school building not affiliated with
the school ours our zoning board meaning the frankfurt advisory committee zoning board had
some concerns for the safety of the children having access to the third floor i thought we addressed
that last week but I'll ask that question shortly. We are denying the request because the zoning
doesn't allow for it. Both educational facility and daycare must be in separate facility and not
on the same lot. That's a little bit different than not in the same having anything on the third
floor. Correct me if I'm wrong someone I thought there was an agreement last week that the third
floor would be sealed off?
Is memory certain, is that correct?
There were questions about it.
I don't think the applicant ever agreed to that.
We could make that a provisional, correct, if we were at work to vote?
The third floor not used for the daycare purposes.
okay all right
any questions from the board no no no thank you mi 2020-000121 4290 north penn street my vote is
yes with proviso but no daycare activity on third floor. My good is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Thank you MI 2020. Excuse me chair I'm sorry to interrupt
again. Could you reverse the order of the next two cases if you wouldn't mind I have to pull
the letter. Do you want to do number four first? Yes, please. MI 2021-000789-1620
Chancellor Street. I believe we were waiting for a letter, but we did get a letter. It was
non-opposition. I'm sorry. Yes, on this one, it's just revised plans, one page, and no live or
amplified music outdoors got it okay so my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan one page
approved today and no live or amplified music on deck my vote is yes proviso yes with proviso yes
with proviso are we ready for number three uh sharon if you could i just emailed you the letter
that we were waiting for on that one if you've received it see if i got it
didn't come through yet oh there it is i got it now and i believe it's only the last paragraph
that you really need to read is that the one that begins with after further discussion
Actually, you know what?
I'm sorry.
You should probably start with the team from 2406 North.
I think that is supposed to be the letter with the rationale.
You see a letter with explanation of rationale for position.
And then it goes into the actual letter.
So I'll read the letter of explanation, correct?
The team from 2406.
is it yes all right the team from let me start over again uh mi 2020-003245
2406 north 2nd street letter with explanation of rationale for the position
2nd street letter with explanation of rationale for the position attached
the team from 2406 north 2nd street presented to the community in march the project is being
described as a multi-family dwelling development excuse multi-family development with six
residential units three one-bedroom and three two-bedroom units the project encompasses the
entire block from second to fill up concerns raised by the community were pricing of the units
construction timeline contractor and subcontractors of the past of the project i guess they want to
know who they are, parking and trash slash debris. After further discussions with the team from
2406 North 2nd Street, the community has decided to support the project. The development team
stated they would agree to the rentals in the $700 to $900 range for a one-bedroom
and a $900 to $1,000 range for two-bedroom units.
The development team is also discussing during the meeting
that they would be willing to inform the community of subcontractors they use
and hire local subcontractors as required by the community.
None of that is enforceable, correct?
that's correct and the final position was one of support yeah thank you mi 2020-003-245-2406
north 2nd street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
okay number five on our list uh number five six and seven uh these are only to be voted correct
yes yes correct they're pre-pandemic cases um on number five we did receive a letter from
councilwoman gauthier um supporting the proposal but asking that a proviso be added requiring it
to be owner occupied um i've discussed this with i contacted ellen i and they agreed that it's not
enforceable not enforceable correct thank you all right uh so the calendar number three seven
nine five eight two one five south melville my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you calendar number 37303 1952 Elkhart Street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes and calendar number three seven five
six four 908 East Schiller Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you uh
frank you're muted
a regular we go to our regular list number one on our list um yes i'm not sure if you ever read
in the um the general instructions at the start of this session miss denary were they read in um
yeah where they i'm sorry i apologize yeah okay thank you thank you uh did we get a letter from
the rco yet sharon i don't have a copy of it it it may have gone to the rco zba mailbox but um
Maybe Mr. Molloy will have a copy that he can present.
Okay, so MI 2021-000961, 101 East Springer Street.
Mr. Molloy.
Mr. Molloy has been promoted to panelists.
Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Malloy, please identify yourself with the records.
Spell your last hand and we'll swear you in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Can you hear me?
My name is Michael Malloy with Obermeyer, Redmond, Maxwell, Hipple.
I'm at 1500 Market Street, Suite 3400, Philadelphia.
Here on behalf of the applicant 101, I'm sorry, here on behalf of the applicant Springer 101 LP.
And your last name is spelled M-A-L-L-O-Y, correct?
And your last name is spelled M-A-L-L-O-Y, correct?
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir. Yes, M-A-L-L-Y for the record.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Thank you.
Please proceed.
So today we have a relatively straightforward application.
And if it's okay with you, I'm going to share my screen.
I'm trying to find the...
And while you're doing it, do you have a letter from the RCO?
We do. It came earlier this week and we supplemented the exhibit packet with that letter from the RCO.
It's marked in the revised exhibit packet as exhibit I to the presentation.
Mr. Malloy, if we could pause one second. Fatina, could you promote him to a panelist, please?
And then you'll be able to share your screen, sir.
thank you okay sorry about that I just promoted him oh no problem thank you very much let me turn
my camera on to there we go let me adjust this here so thank you very much and if it's okay
I'll share my screen and so can everybody see that we have a number of exhibits and if it's
okay i'll just run through because we're not we're not sure if we will have opposition to this
tonight so i'm just gonna uh to end this afternoon so i'm just gonna run through um exhibit a was
the refusal i'm sorry i hate to interrupt but maybe i missed it did we did you get sworn in
and the questions asked no i believe i swore them in yes and the questions were asked
uh no my mistake sorry about that carol
what i'm doing here um do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes we do have you emailed the exhibit packet proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
or 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 we do we have and we do thank you okay thank you you
may proceed excuse me this is sharon i just wanted to um correct myself we did receive
the supplemental um package um ms mariano did send us the the letter from the rco
thank you and for the board we got that to you as soon as we got it there was no no delay there
the RCO was a little late sending it. So if it's okay with you, I'm just going to run through the
exhibits in the packet to make sure they're marked and, you know, later admitted into the record.
Exhibit A is the refusal. Exhibit B is our posting site, I'm sorry, photographs of the site,
the posting, the surrounding area. Exhibit C will be a rendering of the proposed project.
Exhibit D is a zoning plan and elevations. Exhibit E is interior floor plans. Exhibit F is a zoning
map showing the property. Exhibit G is a letter from the East Mount Airy Neighbors Association.
Exhibit H is the tax clearance. Exhibit I is an RCO letter and certificate of mailing,
and I'm realizing that might be there twice I'll have to check. And Exhibit J is the appeal of
project information form. Exhibit K is a copy of the deed. So what we have before you is a property
located at 101 East Springer Street in the Mount Airy section of Philadelphia. And the property
is approximately 2,737 square feet. It's located in the RSA 5 residential single family attached
district. And it's situated at the corner of Ross Street, I'm sorry, and East Springer Street.
And as I scroll down, let me skip to what we see in the first photograph, we get a good look at the existing building and it's shown in the center.
It's a single story, relatively decrepit, older concrete block warehouse building with a roof falling in.
It's in terrible shape. It occupies the entire 2,737 square feet of the lot, so the lot is entirely impervious coverage.
That view is looking east down Springer Street, and then we see another view still east down Springer Street at the corner of Ross and Springer.
The third photo shows across the street. There's a junkyard of some kind across the street from Springer.
of some kind across the street from Springer. This is another east photo so you can see
some of the housing types. There are housing types of all different sizes and dimensions
in this neighborhood. And then we see some of the other photographs. This is looking west
down Springer Street toward, I'm sorry, west down Ross Street towards Philhalena Street,
and then we see St. Michael's Cemetery across Ross Street. This is a property in this last
photo are the townhouses basically to the northwest of the property. The property is
located east of these newer townhouses. So next we show the proposed development and what's proposed
are instead of the concrete block warehouse is our three new townhouses. The rendering shows
They were prepared for 101 East Springer Street, and they were prepared by KCA Design Associates.
And with me today, and we'll get him on, is Logan Dry from KCA.
And Logan will walk us through the design in a little more detail, but just so we can understand exactly what we're talking about here.
So the developers of these three units have worked closely with the neighborhood before.
And so before even attending the RCO meeting, they felt the need and they incorporated a lot of the elements that they learned from working in the neighborhood into the design.
And so what we see is what they feel is very, and what Logan will testify to, is very contextual, using real brick material, incorporating things like front vestibules to create an interface with the street and with the activity at the frontage.
These lots will front on Ross Street.
And as we see, some of the other features include some of the larger size windows.
They will include rear parking.
And it's important, each one will have a rear parking garage.
There are no new curb cuts proposed.
You see to the left, you see a small white vehicle leaving a driveway.
And Logan will go into more detail there.
but they each of these units will access from the rear and without the need for any additional curb
cuts. So the refusal, the zoning of refusal, the use is by right. The townhouses, attached
townhouses are acceptable in the RSA 5 and what we're here for are three variances on all three
lots. First was for the minimum lot size in RSA 5 is 1440, 1440 square feet. The lots are 912,
912 and 911 respectively. Two of the lots fail to meet the minimum open area requirement and we feel
this is the minimus at a 25 percent and two of the lots B and C fail to meet it there at 22.5
and 22.4 respectively. The lot size is appropriate with the neighborhood and when Logan gets up,
you'll hear that it would not be possible for the applicant to build a viable project by right
on this. The buy-ride project would result in lots that do not conform or cannot conform and
further create unusually sized lots where they're highly inappropriate for the neighborhood. So
these lots, this was not an attempt to jam additional density in here. This fits nicely
in this lot, and you'll hear from Logan too, the lot is more narrow and doesn't have the
same dimensions that other lots do in the area to give them the dimension that would
fit the ordinance by right.
So we just...
So we, let me just, give me one second.
Mr. Malloy, if you could summarize, and then we can see if there's anyone here to testify in opposition.
Yeah, sure. I mean, that is my summary. I mean, I can go into some of the RCO comments.
We met with the RCO, the executive committee first.
They pointed out a couple of things like a tree on Ross Street, add additional windows
on the Springer Street elevation, which we added to the design and is shown in the elevations
that we're showing as exhibits here.
The community had other opposition to things like the parking, which was frankly a mixed
reaction from the community.
So we think the parking is allowed and there are roof decks planned, the community objected
to those, but we felt that that was too far afield with respect to zoning comments. So
here we think that, you know, we're taking a blighted, you know, current use that's falling
down and we're creating, you know, what we think is a very reasonable and attractive three-unit
building. Okay, why don't we do this? Before you bring on any of your witnesses, I'm going to ask
if there's anyone here to testify in this case please raise your hand if there's anyone from
the council person's office please raise your hand as well chair we have jeffrey hayes please
unmute yourself mr hayes and wait for the chair good afternoon mr hayes please identify yourself
with the record spell your full name and i'll swear you in yeah this is jeffrey hayes j-e-f-f-e-r-y
h-a-y-e-s i'm the uh the chair of the land land use development and zoning committee for east
manair neighbors thank you you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes i do thank you please proceed yeah thank you uh for hearing my testimony today um
yes um we as um the attorney uh presented we um we we did have two meetings with the applicant
and uh the the first meeting was very constructive um and i i would agree that um yeah we have seen
this uh this development group in east man area before and that um some of the things that were
issues with this with previous project on pleasant street uh in terms of the the just the aesthetics
of the building um have been improved and we we actually like the aesthetics of the building uh
we did have um we did have suggestion we're very concerned about storm water um we have
overburdened storm sewers and and we thought this was opportunity to um create green space
rather than driveways in the back.
So we had proposed that.
We've also recognized that our neighbors,
for various reasons, are opposed to roof decks.
And we asked that those to be removed.
We also talked about windows,
which I do see in this rendering.
The windows have been added on spring receipts.
That's a nice detail.
But we were very disappointed when we met with them a second time at the RCO meeting that our changes were not integrated into the design.
And I think that was, in some part, reflected in the vote against the project.
What were the reasons? What was not incorporated?
the we'd ask that the um rear paved yard the rear paved yards that are essentially the driveway to
the garage that those be um made a pervious surface uh just a yard and there's there's plenty
of on street parking um in this area um we we'd proposed that um instead of having a paved driveway
that they could have a rear yard provided instead, a planted yard with grass and trees.
And the other suggestion that wasn't included worthy was that we wanted the roof decks to be
eliminated. All right, so correct me if I'm wrong, the position of the community was to eliminate
the garages. Correct. I have no disrespect to you. I think it's probably the first time I've heard that
In the four years or so I've been here.
in the four years or so I've been here.
We do things differently in that area.
Since you don't have any parking problems, I may want to move into that neighborhood.
All right.
Anything else?
Is there anyone else to testify?
Chair, we have Logan Dry.
Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
mr chairman logan is uh is the architect on the project okay yeah i don't think we need him yet
yeah we'll get to him in a minute i just want to know if there's anyone else to testify any
neighbors or anyone from the council person's office i see no other hands chair all right
is anyone on the board do we need to see any of the floor plans no
all right so the outstanding issue of what the community is the driveways I assume that's an
amenity for the project and Mr. Malloy is that correct the driveway is directly behind the
the parking and um we actually said in the community we would we would look we we're not
committed to porous paving but we would look to create some sort of pervious uh coverage back
there um you know by way of pavers or or something like that to to get the effect but frankly we
thought the community was mixed on the driveway we we got complaints about parking and then
complaints about the parking, the garages. So we think it's a big amenity for our buyer
and something they want. Understood. Thank you. Am I still unmuted? I'm sorry.
Who's speaking? That's Jeffrey. I muted you. You were done.
Okay. All right. Any questions from the board?
No. No.
Planning commission.
Good afternoon. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board,
the Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for residential single-family zoning.
There is no unique physical condition of the lot that would prevent meeting the minimum lot
size dimensions required by the code. We recommend that the Board deny the requested variances.
It's the Board's, it's the Planning Commission's position to have one house built there?
that we we would prefer that they meet the minimum dimensions required by the code yep that's correct
all right MI 2021-000961 101 East Springer Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes
calendar number excuse me this is sharon may i just one more time apologize mr malloy
um miss mariano not only supplemented the record with the letter as soon as you received it but
she sent an email today reminding us that she had supplemented it so please apologize to her for me
thank you very much i appreciate everything thank you thank you carol okay calendar number 0959
1640-48 North
Hancock Street. The attorney
is Hercules Griegos.
Just promoted
Mr. Griegos to panelists.
Hi, Mr. Grigos. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your first and last name?
Good afternoon. Hercules Grigos, H-E-R-C-U-L-E-S-G-R-I-G-O-S, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, representing Candace, LLC, owner and developer of the property located at 1640 Hancock Street.
Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
i do do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
uh i will waive the reading we did make um some changes which uh resulted in a reduction in one
of the variances and i will explain that in my uh testimony okay have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos under plans of the
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
property five days in advance of this hearing and have
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes yes okay thank you you may proceed
i'm going to share my screen sure we like screens
great um this i'm representing uh candace llc owner developer of the property located at 1640
Hancock. We're here today with an application for construction of a mixed-use multifamily building
with ground floor retail, accessory underground parking. I have today with me Kelly Fox
from the ownership and development team, as well as Rustin Ohler, the project architect.
Property is approximately 20,700 square feet, located at the corner of Turner Street.
Turner Street, Hancock, Cecil B. Moore, and Pallethorpe Street in the city's South Kensington neighborhood.
Site is zoned ICMX, however, it is surrounded by a mix of IRMX, other ICMX, and similar type projects.
um here you can see the site um currently um or formerly home to it's currently home to
uh stables or stables that service the carriage industry in philadelphia um and um the design
was essentially um designed to an irmx type standard which is consistent with um the
surrounding properties. When we, you know, looked at this property and looked at the surrounding
context, you'll note the two mill buildings on either side. And then to the south, this same
development team developed a similar large mixed-use multifamily project with townhomes.
So we really wanted to incorporate this use into the development.
On the northwest corner, there's also a project, similar, 89 units, ground floor retail.
So we really wanted to make sure that we had a couple important points.
Number one, we wanted to put the parking below grade.
And obviously, as you know, it comes at great cost, but it allows us to have a lot more flexibility with the ground floor.
At the ground floor, here's the site.
So we put the parking below grade, and then at the ground floor, we wanted to create a large retail space, over 14,000 square feet of retail.
And the hope is that we can have one large commercial tenant, but we'll have the ability to break it up.
And then another important, as we went up, another important aspect that we wanted to include was affordable housing. And as is consistent with this developers, other projects, they've reserved 10% of the units for affordable housing at 60% AMI, which they're not getting a bonus for as they would in other districts, but we wanted to make sure that that was included and that was important.
So that really drove those three aspects drove a lot of the design. Here's a section of the building. I'm just going to lay it out. This is Palthorpe Street. This is the building coming around. And one of the big issues that we had in really working with the community and trying to get consensus as we had the typical push and pull was how do we create public outdoor space?
and we really looked at how do we create public outdoor space yet maximize the underground
parking and the commercial space on the ground floor so as we work through the process we added
this open space here which would have typically been a private amenity deck and we public made
it public and we hope to incorporate that with some of our retail or the retail to the south
here's another shot at the corner of Palthorpe and I believe Turner Street
and here's sort of the area now the goal is here's the project to our south I think we have
a fresh grocer going in this adaptive reuse and retail and Palthorpe Street to the south is
completely uh a pedestrian street so the hope is that that this uh use flows with the project to
the south and that open space along with the open space that was created on the project of the south
all flows and is programmed together um project was really designed as i said in an irmx
Spirit, 110 units, 10% affordable, 44 underground parking spaces, 14,000 square feet of ground floor retail.
spirit 110 units 10 affordable 44 underground park
This slide really shows the existing project on the bottom right and then how it, the context and
how it interacts with the Project of the South. The Project of the South, this project, you can
see my mouse, is an existing building. It's an adaptive reuse that would be commercial. We
expect it to be a fresh fruit, fresh food grocer. This is retail space and
multifamily and townhomes. So you have open space here that was created as part
of that project and this whole pedestrian walkway we expect to continue
up and the hope is that people will also interact with this commercial space and
this open space.
this is just some of our
and then let's get to our refusal so the site is owned icmx as i mentioned
as a result multifamily is not permitted but as i showed you the zoning map
and the context multifamily exists to our south to our north and really it's pretty consistent in
this neighborhood you know icmx we don't think is is really a viable use at this site
the refusals in addition to those refusals there's a refusal for loading spaces
because it's ICMX and it's 100 to over 100,000 square feet of GFA would require
six loading spaces but that's really on a industrial one for 2000 if the site was CMX3
or IRMX it would require one loading space and that's what we provided that's what we think is
appropriate additionally the far um this is showing it as 517 we actually reduced the building
we're at 506 percent um it's a one percent um you know overall on the site um we think it's really
the minimus um increase of the far and and you know in in a cmx3 or irmx we would get a bonus
for our affordable housing um or in other districts we get a bonus for our underground
parking and we're not getting that um and then maximum height is 60 feet we're at 69
but i just call your attention back to the context here um these buildings are um i think at uh
close to 69 the building there's a building under construction caddy corner that was approved by
this board at 69 and i believe the building to the south is closer to 70 and irmx as you know allows
a maximum of 72 under certain conditions and we think that um you know the uh it's in context
and the massive amount of retail and underground parking and affordable really makes sense here
um the project went to civic design review um we had one meeting unanimous consent um
we tried to incorporate um we pulled the building back widened the sidewalks maximize our tree count
I think all of that was appreciated by the Civic Design Review Committee.
We met with the community on four occasions, two public meetings, plus the committee meetings.
And really, you know, the committee doesn't vote anymore because of COVID.
So it's really, they don't take a neighborhood vote.
The committee sort of makes a decision.
and really what it came down to and the issue that we sort of reached in pass off was
was really the the open space and how this open space and the request from the committee was that
we do more open space at grade and not just open space public open space and you know we looked at
it, but if you can see here, if we took this chunk out of the building at grade, it affects
our ramp down to the garage. It affects our retail space and our loading space, or I guess
it doesn't impact our loading, but it could, it impacted sort of the retail space below
and our ramp down to the garage. So we thought that the second level public open space could
be very successful well programmed and I think the Civic Design Review Committee agreed with that
so that was really where we had impasse. You know they mentioned in their letter that
we don't have you know the open space at grade however we're almost 20 percent from the second
floor up which is consistent with IRMX you know and really what drove the design is again
Again, the underground parking, the large amount of
the underground parking the um the large amount of retail and then the affordable housing so
we have spoken with the councilwoman's office and i think sloan is here um and our goal is to see if
we can work with the community or work with some other stakeholders in the neighborhood
to try to support additional public open space in the neighborhood this developer has a history
of supporting the TUI Rec Center and supporting events there and really being a partner of the
community and a partner of open space. And I think you can see from this, you know, in the last
project, they gave up two townhomes to make additional open space. And our goal was to
really have this all incorporated. So we're willing and we've agreed to continue to meet
and try to achieve that goal, but that seemed to be the crux of the opposition from the community
was really not having at-grade public space. And just a correction, I think we had three public
meetings. I will, here's our civic design review, and here's the letter from the community.
I will offer Kelly Fox my client she's able to be here to answer questions but I'll just ask Kelly
if you can promote her if she heard my testimony and she adopts it as her own
please raise your hand Ms. Fox and while we're waiting for Kelly to get on I'll just say that
um you know the project um you know will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
um large mixed-use projects is what is in this specific area will not impair appropriate use
for development or adequate light and air of adjacent property will not increase substantial
congestion substantially increased congestion um and um based on you know it's just unlikely that
you can get an industrial user on this site. And I'll just say that the changes that we made,
and we will ask when this is voted to approve our revised plans, we reconfigured the parking.
We actually added parking spaces. We reduced the number of car shares from four to two,
and we increased from 36 to 44 parking spaces. We reduced our FAR down to 506, as I said,
with some push and pulls in the building. And then we added the deck, and I think we
added a six-floor deck to
accommodate that.
So if Kelly's on, I'll ask her if she
heard my testimony.
I heard.
Yes, I'm here.
Please identify yourself
with a record.
This is Kelly Fox.
K-E-L-L-Y-F-O-X.
You swear or
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Nothing, Mr. Grigos.
Kelly, you heard my testimony.
do you adopt it as your own? I do. And with that, Rustin Ohler is also here if the board has
questions with regard to any of the plan or the design. Okay, before we get to that, is there
anyone else to testify in this case? Please raise your hand. Chair, we have Lisa who has been
unmuted. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please
identify yourself with a record. First and last name. Spell your name, please. I'll swear you win.
Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Maiello, L-I-S-A. Maiello, M as in Mary, A-I-E-L-L-O.
I'm here representing the RCO. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed.
um i would like mostly to read um the letter of opposition into the record and i can then
i don't know if there are other neighbors here but i'm happy to provide some um context
and some response to her presentation um dear chairman to chico april 28th 2021 the applicant
presented the following variants request for 1640 48 north hancock street to the community
of South Kansas Community Partners via virtual community meeting. I don't know that you need
me to read the here is where the description from the refusal is copied. Summary of position.
Community members and the SKCP planning and zoning committee hereafter the committee met
with the applicant over a series of meetings. Feedback consistently focused on a concern
that the project lacked open area and should not exceed the allowable FAR or maximum building
height. This project is the same development team and owner as the even larger project directly to
the south. There is an opportunity to provide substantial accessible open space for the community
there is an opportunity to provide substantial accessible open space for the community use between
use between
these two projects instead the applicant has provided a functionally semi-private deck space
that will not serve community interests as a result skcp does not support granting the variance
history of the review the applicant met with the planning and zoning committee and the full
community a number of times including once with the community for an information only session and
wants to reach a final resolution on the project at the final community meeting on april 28 2021
the applicant presented the final design of the project at that meeting neighbors expressed
serious concerns about the project the biggest concern was around the size and the density of
the project this part of the neighborhood has had many nearby projects approved with similar
residential density most recently 175 west oxford street which is directly to the south and developed
by the applicant's team this has the potential to create severe disruptions to the immediate
neighbors of these buildings where the cumulative effect of building residential multifamily
buildings to height and FAR standards established for industrial commercial uses will bring many
more new neighbors than buildings designed to residential standards single or multifamily
would under zoning classifications typical to the area. The commercial activity on the ground floor
provision of affordable units at 60 percent AMI and below grade parking are all elements that
neighbors believe belong in projects of this type. In addition, the project widens the sidewalks
surrounding it, includes publicly accessible open space deck. However, as currently designed,
neighbors in the committee do not believe the deck will be successful as a community amenity
and instead be functionally a private terrace for residents. The open space would be far more
successful if it were designed at grade and if it was either at a corner or bordered one of the
more public streets like Hancock, Turner, or Cecil B. Moore. As currently designed, the public space
is not sufficient to offset the detrimental effects of the increased height and residential
density and the loss of open space at the site. This feedback was consistently provided through
each iteration of the site design but was never addressed by the project team. In line with the
comments above, neighbors in the committee feel that the project should not cover nearly 100%
of the lot and exceed the allowable FAR for the site 500%. Again, this relates to the fact that
these lots are zoned for industrial commercial uses where 100% lot coverage is tolerated,
but it's not appropriate for residential uses in the old South Kensington neighborhood.
Nearly all projects that come before SKCP allow some open space on site,
including those that are building on lots zone for commercial industrial use.
This is important for light and air on neighborhood streets and lots.
Neighbors also express concerns about parking pressure added to the neighborhood by large influx of residents,
as well as the increase in commercial activity from the ground floor commercial space.
Overall, neighbors understand projects of this type have become the norm in this area of the neighborhood.
as the result of a legacy of industrial zoning and that a project of this type is likely to
ultimately be built here. However, the project could do much more to meet the needs of the
neighborhood given how much value it will extract by being as tall and as dense as it is. This
should include accurate public green space that satisfies the need for open lot areas and overall
building AFAR that does not exceed 500%. Skip's stance on the variance request was determined
through community resolution. Due to COVID, SKIP is holding virtual meetings and Zoom where community
members determine SKIP's position on each project through a collaborative conversation-based process
and outreach to neighbors by the committee. The community resolved at the final meeting to
oppose the project as presented at the April 28th, 21 meeting. As a result of the community meeting
resolution, SKCP does not support granting the variance. With respect, signed by Marco Burini,
the chair of the planning and zoning committee who is on vacation thank you
mr griegos do you have anything to add or discuss i mean i would i would say that um you know the the
the point of disagreement was whether there should be um public space that we are we giving up enough
of our land for public use and we feel that we gave up a significant amount of of space
by making that second deck public and i think there were members of the committee that felt
that that wasn't good enough and we appreciated that but in our our vision and our programming
and i think it was supported i was scrolling through there's um in the uh cdr comments um
A member of CDR committee noted that the space could be successful with the right programming and design modifications and the inviting stairs.
And I think that was added to the design that was created.
On top of that, and we really do, and I think South Kinsden, I have a relationship.
I've been doing work there for a lot of years.
And we really, you know, on the last project, there was some disagreement over this space here of additional public space.
We gave up additional homes to make that public space and all of this as public to program.
We gave up additional homes to make that public space and all of this as public to program it.
And I think that we've really thought through trying to maximize how these buildings will communicate
and how this space will be available and programmed to be successful.
On top of that, we have committed to the councilwoman that we will continue to meet with the community
and meet with stakeholders to see if there are other ways for my clients to support public open space
in the neighborhood because there are uh existing parks or spaces that have a need
for funding to be supported and we've committed to that and we're hoping to work on that in the
next two weeks um was the councilman's suggestion that we do uh that we do a resumption and we come
back but that she asked us to try to to work on that and we're committed to it and we're committed
to really making the space work and frankly if we could have done it at grade we would have done it
at the at the risk of strong ground floor retail the affordable and the underground parking and
when we look at all of the things that we did we thought this public space um well it may not have
met exactly what the neighbors wanted we think it's responsive and we think with the other benefits
of the project that certainly outweighs the concern in our eyes and that's why we stuck with this
design intent. Thank you. Sounds like you guys are somewhat on the same page about having more time.
Is there anyone else to testify and then I'm going to go back to the board because I don't
know if Tom or anyone wants to see the floor plans. Is there anyone else to testify in this case?
anyone from the councilwoman's office yes chair we have sloan folks mr folks you may unmute yourself
and please wait for the chair good afternoon mr folks i'm not sure if you were on this morning
if you were you're still on their oath if not i'll square you in good afternoon council chairman
did she go make that mistake everyone's no i was i was not on this morning uh my name is sloan folks
S-L-O-A-N-E-F as in fire
O-L-K-S
representing the office of Councilwoman
Maria Quinones Sanchez
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth
I do swear sir, thank you
Please proceed
Yes, the Councilwoman
the Councilwoman appreciates the developers
and the developer
and the developer teams
addressing parking
and affordability
during this project
as well as passing uh cbr uh the councilman also understands and knows the community concern for
access to uh as long john you're you kind of go drift in and out i don't know if you're moving
away from the mic okay i'm sorry i it's i have my i have my air conditioner on so let me keep going
can you hear me now is that good yes that's okay yep okay and the councilman also appreciates the
community's concern for access to open space and green space um in their community and especially
regarding this project in regards to public access um the councilwoman is not just uh is not just
the council person of the 70 councilman district this is her neighborhood so she has a really good
understanding of what's going on there um to that end um she would like um to see uh the residents
the community, and the developer come back together, as Mr. Gamico said, over the next
couple of weeks and possibly discuss some outside-the-box opportunities to address green space.
We would be involved in these discussions. To that end, we'd like to make a request that
the ZBA hold the decision for two weeks upon our office reporting back to the ZBA regarding
these discussions and the progress that we've made. Thank you. Thank you. Sharon and or Tanya,
I know we were changing some of the ways we're going to be handling these requests.
What is the recommendation as to if we allow for another two or three weeks?
If they're essentially asking for a resumption hearing, this really should have been worked out
before today um if they need additional time this is this isn't just going to be reading the
letter into the record so i thought that's what i thought that was our intent was that it would
just be um i thought that's what i explained well yeah there would just be a letter from
we would send a letter i mean i think with no testimony that's i don't i don't think we need
further testimony i mean i think if if the councilwoman skcp and us want to submit letters i
think i'd be okay with that um yeah i mean my hope is that we can we would have continued this had we
My hope is that we can
We would have continued this had we known
that we're going to be asking for a rehearing
Well, I mean
I'm trying to
We wanted to proceed
and the councilwoman
in her hope to
try to
it seems like to try to
get some consensus on this issue
suggested
that we
continue to meet
and talk about this issue. I mean, I feel that it's a strong project, and I think there's other
neighbors out there that supported the project, and it was really, you know, the placement of
this outdoor space was the sole issue, and I think we can mitigate that, and we can, you know,
resume this with just a letter. The concern is that if you are going to continue working toward
this toward reaching an agreement, isn't that likely to result in changes that will have to be
presented on the record? No, I don't think it's going to be changes to the plan. I think it's
going to be a question of what can we do off-site to support the community and support
to support other outdoor space to mitigate what the community is saying is not enough public
space on our private land and we whether we agree with that or disagree with that would that make
sense we're willing to i mean we're trying to we're trying to respond um and move forward um
and and you know we're committing to having that conversation um whether you voted today or you
hold it for two weeks and allow us to submit letters but my clients are committed to the
neighborhood mr chairman um i just have something to say the community is against this
the councilwoman supports it isn't there another development going around going up around the
corner she didn't necessarily say she supported it right i mean there are conditions no no we
didn't council was not support that councilman did not offer her support the councilman's
question that and and to uh mr letter's um point um we don't we the office does not anticipate
there being a resumption the office institute is being that are submitted to the zba uh regarding
the outcome of of this of these continued meetings and these meetings would be outside of the box
we don't expect there being changes uh to the to the project specifically but we are anticipating
more along the lines of um an agreement that the community can move forward with that that that
that would address some of their issues um with projects that are coming into security that this
developer is doing um that that that can alleviate some of these open space issues can't mention
hey frank could could i say something real quick yeah sure yeah so so counselor um maybe you can
clear up a couple things for me so just so i understand i mean parking parking's not a major
issue right you have underground parking correct correct okay all right and because normally that's
one of the as you know that's one of the major issues you know with with many of the organizations
um so so 44 for 110 plus car share okay um and as far as the public space clue me in on that
one more time you actually have public space but it's we do it's just it's not enough it's at the
second level it's this space here and the concern of the community was that having to walk up steps
to access that was not um was not good enough now typically on a design you would see those
types of roof decks as amenity to the building only but my clients have made this public they
believe that they can with um the programming of the project to the south the commercial that's
there the commercial here this would be a great place to grab your coffee sit up there i would
say read the paper but read your phone and um and and have it be a a well-lit space and try to and
and civic design review also said with with um the right programming this could be successful
thanks counselor thank you all right thanks jim uh it's karen and or tanya i know we we're kind
of get stuck on these things either a resumption hearing which could be almost a repeat of what
we're doing today if we're only waiting for letters yes if that is different as long as
everyone involved agrees everyone involved agrees that it will be simply the submission
and the reading into the record of letters right because otherwise the other way to do is that we
would close these hearings but that then we're not allowed to accept letters but i think that
but i think that i think that would be great i mean we don't want to be um we we don't want to
i think that would be great i mean we don't want to be um
be uh you know lose a month or two because we're trying to to resolve this and do something and
and as as the councilwoman's office is outside the box so we don't want to be penalized for that
and we think it's a good project and we think we can respond to them
Can you hear me?
Someone's speaking.
All right.
So, Sharon, is that work, Tanya?
I just want to mention that we still have quite a few hands up.
So, if we're going to just have letters only read, do you want to allow them to speak now?
Yeah, I think that would be great.
think there's some neighbors that wanted to um um um well the letters may address both sides
either opposition and or support right but in that case they would have to have an opportunity
to testify afterwards if we're not going to hear them today i i think it would be great if we could
just get the people that are that came to spare i think there's some people who came to speak and
support all right we still have several cases on the two o'clock list all right let's go we'll hear
New and different, please, whoever's going to testify, please do not repeat some of the testimony we've already taken in.
Okay, the first person, I'm sorry, I'm going to try to expedite this.
First person, Andre, can you wait to be sworn in?
Please identify yourself, sir, first and last name, spell your name.
My name is Andre, driver, first name A-N-D-R-E.
last name d-r-i-v-e-r your address 161 c so be more thank you swear from to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed sir okay board members uh good
afternoon um i'm really here to speak in regards to the building that's planned for development
at 1640 hancock i'm a neighbor um i personally feel the building will be a benefit to myself
as well as the community. I have a music production studio and I believe that this
building will be a plus for myself as well as the artists and creative people that I work with
and collaborate with. I think that this building is designed very well and in particular I like
the way the deck is designed since it is open to the community and the public in general.
I believe that this will be an asset to my music studio and the musicians as well as the art
creators that I interact with. So I'm not objecting to anything. I really will welcome
this building. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else?
Here we have Angat. You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
I'm unmuted. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name and give us your address,
please yeah my name is angit shah and i currently live in 1300 north second street
you spell your name please uh a-n-g-a-t
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed so i just wanted to piggyback on andre and you know i live in 1300 north and i
actually do support this project as well because one it provides opportunity for small business to
grow living in this I've seen with COVID small businesses have been you know they're struggling
and having a new building an opportunity for them to grow is very key for the neighborhood as well
as me and my wife go for a walk with their dog and safety to me is very important and having a
building like this provides that now with with what the what I heard there's plenty of space for
the public to walk around in and with that second deck I mean with Andre saying there's opportunity
for neighborhood events and having opportunities for people to come together and really help out
and based on what they said they're planning to give back a lot to the neighborhood so i really
don't see why this project should not be supported thank you for your testimony anyone else
last person ms shakumba ms shakumba you're gonna meet yourself shakumba you're a little bit out
of your neighborhood. Aren't you here?
Chacumba?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, are you here for Hancock Street?
No, no, no. I'm here for a while.
We'll get back to you.
All right. Anyone else?
No, you can proceed.
Thank you.
All right.
So we settle on
that we will resume this hearing
strictly for the purpose of reading any letters into the record.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
All right.
We have a date.
We have a date.
We can always do, do we know when the meeting's going to be held?
I mean, I think the councilman requested two weeks.
Okay, so two weeks from today at 2 p.m. worked for me.
Two weeks from today would be June.
Yes, I believe the first.
June 2nd.
June 2nd?
2 p.m.?
Thank you.
We'll provide a letter to you.
All right.
So MI 2021-000959-1640-48 North Hancock.
This hearing will be resumed on June 2nd at 2.30 p.m., at which time the board will consider any letters submitted to the board.
And did you want to hold the Planning Commission until then?
uh yeah i guess we should um well then it is going to be okay i think we should just have
respond to get on the record now okay let's planning commission
okay thank you uh good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of
the board this project went through the civic design review process the major issue that came
up was the accessibility of the proposed open space. In 2016 this block was rezoned from medium
industrial I2 to industrial and commercial mixed use ICMX. Both light industrial and commercial
businesses still exist in South Kensington and several have recently expanded. There is nothing
unique about this lot that would prevent it from being used for a light industrial or a commercial
business we recommended the board deny the requested variances okay thank you um okay so
you heard what i said this is continued to june the 2nd at 2 o'clock p.m great and if the board
is inclined to vote at that time we do have the revised plans which sharon has so okay i'm sorry
chair if i could if you don't mind just ask that um it be stated that this is a resumption
and two for the letter only not a continuance so everyone's clear thank you for the record thank
you all right um number four thank you have a great day thank you we've been going for a little
over two hours i don't know if the court reporter needs a break or not if the court reporter needs
a break please raise your hand let us know we have about five more cases chair i can continue
on if you prefer to okay as long as you're good we'll continue thank you thank you calendar number
zero nine eight two twenty six twenty eight webster street rachel pritzker is the attorney
and there's a letter of support from sasman that's correct i think i know why that
she was on the line yeah good afternoon chairman hi or good afternoon can you put your name and
address on the record and spell your last name rachel sure rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy uh no uh we have an issue with the second refusal that was issued which i'll explain
okay have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
refusal or 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?
Okay, you may proceed, thank you.
Yep, I'm going to share my screen.
I also, just for time,
I believe Scott Woodruff or Scott Murphy
should be on as well, they're the architect.
So if they could be promoted to panelists
to share their screen once I'm done,
that would help us speed things along.
Okay. This is 2628 Webster Street. It's a CMX2 property located on 26 and Webster. We're proposing
a lot line relocation to create one lot from three lots and looking to propose five multifamily
dwelling units with roof deck and roof deck access structures. And our variances that we are looking
for relief are for the commercial, the CMX2 requirement. The code requires that there be
commercial on the ground floor within the first 30 feet of the property line. And also, we have
And also, we have a sort of erroneous refusal here on the bottom with the roof deck front setback, four units, five units.
a sort of erroneous refusal here on the bottom.
Regardless, we are providing the correct setbacks for the roof decks, as the architects can attest to.
And so that was sort of the reason for not waiving and accepting the accuracy of this refusal.
Essentially, board, we are here because we are seeking relief from the commercial requirement,
as the board's probably familiar. This area is mostly residential. All surrounding streets are
residential, Webster, Stillman, Banbury. The only commercial property is actually an RSA 5 property
on the 2500 block of Christian Street, which is a Thai restaurant. The community was supportive
of our application. We met with Sazna, was heavily attended meeting, and they were supportive of
our waiver of the commercial space as once I get to the pictures you'll see it's all residential
multifamily and single family and then just a lot of industrial over sort of in this devil's
pocket area as the board is probably familiar so they agreed that the commercial didn't really
make sense here the lots certainly are not really large to be able to put any sort of loading or
commercial space and again given sort of it's all residential the community and our developer
believe that a multifamily, which is allowed in CMX2, just not on the ground floor was a good
use for it and they appreciated the design. With that said, as you can see, this is a lot.
This is sort of the industrial character on this side of it. And as you can see,
really doesn't make sense to try to put a commercial space in this area. This is all
residential to this side of the property and it's going to be a really nice addition to the corner.
I will have Scott, I'll show really quickly, you have the letter of support from SASNA.
I can bring it up as well, but here's the letter of non-opposition from SASNA.
We met with them. There was six in support, one in opposition, but that wasn't from the coordinating
RCO and they supported our application with the attached provisos which we agree to things
like trash removal um and things of that nature which we we signed um is Scott Murphy or Scott
Woodruff um here to just go through the plans briefly for the board here Scott yes I'm here
i can be sworn in just specifically call out the um oh sorry sorry chairman please identify
yourself spell your full name and i'll swear you in god woodruff w-o-o-d-r-u-f-f-4-0-1 main
street philadelphia pa-1-9-1-2-7 do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth i do okay before i go on uh carol i need to step away for a couple of minutes okay
scott uh while you go through this i just wanted you to um in particular call out the roof decks
and the setbacks just because i want to make sure that for the board it's clear that uh we did not
generate a refusal based on that correct so this is the you see the gray portion is the proposed
structure. We have South Taney Street over here, Webster Street on the north side here.
As you can see we have five foot setbacks for all of the roof decks and then we actually have
a little bit of a larger setback on this one of six foot seven. All the access structures
are also set back along with that. This one's actually under the 38 feet. These ones which
are over the 38 feet, are sloping away and set back for coding in compliance.
So as you can see the proposed rendering, we're proposing five units that will be delineated
as condos in this instance, all have first level access to each one of the units.
So we have a unit on this left side, a unit here on these two levels, a unit here on these
levels, a unit in the back, and then a unit over here.
It was important to try and provide as much kind of ownership characteristics to the project
as we were able to.
We were able to comply with the 80% coverage.
We have a rear access alley.
Trash will be located in the rear and closed area, which everyone has common access to
through this back alley as well as providing as much outdoor space as we could in this instance.
So you can see this kind of unique configuration. We kind of have the project split into three
different buildings almost. This section that's in blue is acting as one unit, basement through
This section that's in blue is acting as one unit, basement through three levels, and then
these other ones here are acting essentially as duplexes.
So that's kind of how the condos themselves are kind of working.
You can see the common entryways for all the units along grade coming in.
These two bottom units are two bedroom, two bath, and then the top units, as they come
up, become three-bedroom, three-bathroom units. Again, the single-family home is a 3-3 configuration
coming up. And then other characteristics, the project is providing ample amount of blazing and
trying to really give the facade something that gives a little bit of a traditional feel, but
also looking at the industrial nature of the surrounding context. Rachel, is there anything
else you want me to hit on um no are there any other witnesses who would like to testify
um i believe our the owner dirk merrill should be on if he's not i can uh the board will allow
me as a member of the court to have him uh agree to my testimony absolutely
Absolutely.
Okay, Rachel.
Is Dirk Merrill on?
I don't see him.
And who is she, Rachel?
Dirk is the owner of the property.
If she's not available,
he'll stipulate you being an officer to court
that she would be adopting your testimony.
Yep, right.
I think that's what we were just telling you.
Other than that, if the board has any questions,
we're, like we said, we have support from SAS
and we're just looking for relief from the commercial,
the CMX2 ground floor commercial requirement.
Understood, thank you.
Any questions from the board?
And you asked if anyone else would like to testify?
Chair, excuse me.
We have Madeline Shacamba.
She's been unmuted.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chance.
Am I unmuted now?
You sure are.
Okay, thank you very much.
Identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Madeline Shikumba.
It's spelled S-H-I-K-O-M like in Mary, be like in boy A.
I sent a letter of opposition.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Okay. I sent a letter last week on the 17th to the board concerning this property. However, I checked today and they did not receive it, so I had to re-send it again concerning this property.
Okay. No rec is opposed to it for the following reason. The line is known CFMX2, commercial district building, and they are not proposing any commercial at this time. No one disagrees with the statement that the property is not suitable for commercial use or development. The building of five duplexes is excessive. This is overuse of the property.
I just want to make a correction. It's five units total. It's not five duplexes.
plexus. I just don't know. Okay, still use of the property. None of the tenants have access to the
total trash to the trash area. Okay. In fact, none of the trash area site is not really directly
accessible to the tenants. All the tenants, including the one next to the fence, if you
look at the picture that they're just showing you, you see a little with a man is walking past
that area that is supposed to be the area for the trash and no one has direct access to this
i'd like to know who's going to be responsible for putting in putting putting the trash out on
the sidewalk and return the trash cycle to the sidewalk and keeping that area even clean i don't
see there's no hardship they have no hardship in terms of making uh as usual in south philadelphia
on this corner property some commercial access okay the permitted use for this property is only
CMX 2, which includes a community center, family daycare, business of professional use,
professional offices, medical, dental, food, beverages, groceries, artist, studio, etc.
And the applicant had made no attempt to even advertise this property for commercial use.
Canoa can pose the granting of the vans for the foreign reason.
One, the applicant has told no, they will not suffer any hardship if he's denied, and
they are unable to follow a part of this property for its permitted use. There's no unnecessary
hardship. The standards governing the grant of a variance are equally well settled. The reason
The reason for granting this variance must be substantial and compelling.
for granting this variance must be substantial and compelling. The party seeking the variance bears
The party seeking the variance bears a burden of proof that an unnecessary hardship will
result if the variance is denied and to proposed use will not be contrary to the public entrance.
The hardship must be shown to be unique or peculiar to the property as distinguished
from a hardship arising from impact of zoning regulations on an entire district.
Granting these variances will alter the central character of our neighborhood and granting
these variances is not necessary for the viable economic use of the property okay and therefore
me nice uh no respect request that the applicant be denied now getting back to the trash as i told
you before where that gentleman is walking past you can see for yourself that even the person on
the first next door to them or the two next door have no direct access to this here trash recycle
okay that is poorly designed and i don't think it's i think it's going to end up being a trash
heap because they have to come out to put their trash in there in order to enter that secluded
area and then they have to go back uh out that area to go back to the department i'm sorry this
is just not uh and i think also it's just too much for that small lot it's on a small street
called Webster Street, and it's just a little bit too much for that huge building that they
planning on building on such a small street. Okay, thank you. Anyone else to testify?
I see no more handshake. Thank you, MI 2021, Dazira, I'm sorry, Planning Commission. Sorry
about that. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends residential single-family zoner for these lots.
If the lots were not combined, that would result in six single-family homes. The applicant is
proposing to consolidate these lots and build one fewer unit than would be allowed if the lots
remain separate. We recommend that the board grant the proposed variances. Thank you. MI 2021-000
are zero nine eight two two six two eight webster street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes okay mi 2021 that's zero zero one zero zero zero four two oh four park side avenue
and MI 2021-000-999-4206 Parkside Avenue.
Mr. Consul, you've been sworn in.
You're still on the roof.
So please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Board.
Or, sorry, good afternoon, Board.
Joe Consul, Consul Madison.
It's C-O-N-S-O-L-E, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204.
of media pennsylvania 1-9-0-6-3 how you doing and you're still under oath yes yes if i was
sworn in then yes yes okay do you um also agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the RCO and do you have a letter? Everything but the letter which we discussed earlier at the
onset of this month. Thank you. You may proceed. All right. Is my screen up? Yes it is. All right.
Good afternoon everyone. Joe Consul here for 4204 and 4206 Parkside Avenue. These are two
buildings uh that are that are joined together on on one lot uh with me is uh jeremy yakubov he
spoke earlier he is the authorized representative for both 4204 parkside and 4206 parkside avenue
all right so 4204 and 4206 parkside avenue get this visual up here for everybody
is located on Parkside directly across from the Fairmount Park and the Police Touch Museum is
right there between those trees. Both of these properties have been approved as multi-family
buildings since at least the 1930s. The property was last licensed with a rental license over 17
years ago and as you'll see from these photographs that i'm putting on the screen right now the
i'm putting on the screen right now the property has fallen into significant disrepair
property has fallen.
but is on a block of a lot of beautiful historical uh buildings um in a moment
yes it's a really neat part of the city um okay in a moment my client will um
testify to the dereliction of the property and what's required to rehabilitate and beautify it
This is a historical property amongst a series of historical properties on the street.
We calculate there is between 50 and 60 of them.
As you know, it's currently, well, as I'm showing you now, it's currently zoned single family.
But as I noted above, it hasn't been a single family home in almost 100 years.
It's never been licensed as one as far as we can tell.
But between the date of the last rental license and its dereliction, it was rezoned and lost its zoning.
Click over here to this atlas map.
And I'm going to preface the next portion of my testimony with a discussion of the hardship.
The hardship is simple.
If this were an RM1 zoned property, we would not be here, as we have almost 5,800 square feet of property, just over 2,850 square foot per building, which would allow us to rehabilitate the properties and gain the uses and densities that we seek.
As I said, there's between 50 and 60 of these semi-identical, historically protected buildings on this street and are either zoned multifamily or have variances for multifamily for the same reason that we're here today, with one or two exceptions.
um this this is our hardship uh the property is simply not zoned correctly and as my client will
attest to his goal and um per the historical commission's requirements is to preserve this
beautiful property um and this beautiful street uh and and to do so uh requires the approval of
this property as as a multi-family building as it has been used um in off and on for the last 100
years again never as a single family multi-family and then since then it's been it's been derelict
and incidentally the revised plans that we presented this morning by email and Sharon
has them was approved by the historical commission at their April 27th meeting with a few
with a few caveats which we've added to the plans and that's what we're showing you guys here we
got unanimous support for the rehabilitation of of this property something on to the refusals
I'm not going to belabor this any longer than I have to we pull up the refusals here
we've got several several refusals uh first i'll start with rear yard and open area
uh these two variances are um easy to discuss we're not changing the footprint of the building
the two properties will sit as exactly as they've sat on these lots um since at least the 30s um
and also if they if this was owned rm1 we wouldn't be here for those refusals the open
air in the rear yard we're not changing the footprint those things are going to sit as they
are the height refusal i'm going to pull up one of the pages of our architecturals here
kind of give you an idea of what the top of the building looks like
get that up okay the height uh we're not proposing raising the living space at all
or adding a floor above the property, 38 feet to max.
We're not going any higher than that,
but for creating a roof deck with mechanicals.
And because of that, what we're doing triggers the variance
as it's a de facto fourth floor in the eyes of LNI.
And therefore, in addition to adding the height refusal,
it also requires us to provide a second means of egress.
As there already is a stair tower on the back of the building, which functioned as a second means of egress, the developer's plan is to raise that stair tower up to the roof and to connect it to the rooftop to provide the second means of egress.
On the actual main structure itself, all we're adding is the pilot house, which will be attached, as I said, to the extension.
All we're adding is the pilot house, which will be attached, as I said, to the extended stair tower by means of a walkway with guardrails.
Originally, we had proposed a covered walkway.
The Historical Commission said they wanted a walkway with raised guardrails between the back means of egress and the pilot house and the chemicals.
finally uh the discussion of density and the discussion
of parking use um ss this property has been multi uh family zoned for almost 100 years
and as far back as we can figure out actually um by means of the zoning archives the property
was zoned as i said sometime um in in the the last 15 or 20 years uh and because of the
properties dereliction, the zoning was lost. Again, my client will testify to the amount of work that
will go into rehabilitation in line with the historical requirements, the historical commissions
requirements. We have a refusal for parking. Again, if this was RM1, we would not generate
this refusal, which is an important but not as important point as we think that there are plenty
of parking spaces available and, in fact, the issue of parking has not come up as a
concern with anyone we've spoken to as of yet.
Next up, I'm going to bring up, again, the architectural plans just to give everyone
an idea of the floor plans and I'll, again, do this somewhat briefly.
we have units one through four occupying bi-level space between the first floor and the elevated
basement room and that's and what I'm saying is germane to both both buildings both 4204
and 4206 the the developer will be developing these simultaneously units five and six will
occupy the second level those are on the screen now uh unit five is a one bedroom and unit six
is a two bedroom units seven and eight will occupy the third level unit seven being a one bedroom
and unit eight being a two bedroom again the same for for both sides of uh 4204 and 4206
this morning we submitted revised plans to address those requirements of the historical commission
approvals namely the roof deck setbacks are are bigger um they wanted us to set the roof deck
back 15 feet from the building this was to allow both adequate space for the mechanicals but also
um something they're doing on parkside here they want to limit the view of the roof deck
from the street they know you got to put stuff on the roof but they don't want that visible from
street so we pushed the roof deck 15 feet to keep the visual historical continuity
and then we enclosed the walkway as i mentioned um and as they required uh finally uh the the
trash plan there's a very wide driveway in the rear it's a shared alley uh it's large enough
for a trash truck to drive down trash trucks do drive down it um there will be a dumpster there
for the residents, which will be picked up regularly. We anticipate a proviso for regular
commercial trash pickup. And finally, the RCO. We had the meeting on May 12th. We weren't sure if
there was a vote for my notes. However, I learned earlier today there was not a vote. There was
support and opposition both present at the meeting. We have a developer who wants to preserve
the history of the street and a property that is incorrectly zoned in order for us to rehabilitate
this and beautify it in the way that we're required to by the commission, we would like you
to take our variances into consideration today. And that's going to end my portion of the
presentation. I would like to call the developer, my client, Mr. German Yakubov, to speak for very
briefly on on this project good afternoon everyone am i still under oath i guess from earlier this
morning right yes but first german uh have you heard everything i said and do you agree with it
i do okay you know council just let him identify himself he's still under
to identify himself.
My name is German
I am the owner
of 4204 and 06 Parkside Avenue.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed.
You may proceed, German.
Oh, I'm sorry. German, have you heard it?
Did you hear everything I said earlier? And do you adopt this testimony
as your own?
I do. All right. What would you like to add?
I do. All right. What would you like to add?
Just that
Just that what we started talking about earlier, these two properties we purchased about four or five years ago, they had a lot of debt on them.
But, um,
They had back taxes. I don't think anybody's paid taxes on them since the late 80s.
So we got that caught up and we finally ironed out a lot of the water bills, the gas bill.
So we got the administrative aspects of it taken care of so we can now proceed with developing it.
As it happens, the cost of developing it now has significantly increased because of the increased cost in lumber.
We just finished rehabbing 4262 Parkside, which is very similar in size.
We put seven units in there by right because that's an RM1.
it was you know halfway up the block from this from this property um the the historical windows
in the front are tremendously expensive tremendously expensive um they're bowed
and each one of those bowed windows is about fifteen thousand dollars uh they're all custom
made and they take months to to order in so you know we we we're not doing anything to the outside
of the building other than restoring it to where it is uh the fire tower in the back we're adding
an additional story to be able to access the roof from it we're going to match the brick to
what is there before to kind of have it continue um with with the historic look of the project um
and uh after meeting with the historic commission we decided to uh make the catwalk um open as
opposed to having it enclosed and you know they approved that on their consent agenda last week
i believe so we're excited to bring some life back into this uh two properties that are one
of the few that are left that are still in this kind of condition after decades of of uh one
disrepair and two of other developers and organizations that have brought life back to
the the rest of the block thank you with that we rest what was that mr council all right so with
that we rest thank you questions from the board no no
frank did you mute yourself i don't know am i yeah can you hear me now we can sir
all right planning commission sorry about that
good afternoon david fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single family use
There is documented history of six units in the property dating back to 1939.
We recommend approval of six units, not eight.
I'm sorry, Chair.
Did we reach out to the community yet?
I'm going to do that.
I think earlier we had a Mr. Harris, if I'm not mistaken.
They were opposed to the continuance.
We said we would go forward.
and I believe we said we would do a resumption based on any community letters.
I think that's what I said earlier, but is Mr. Harris still there?
Yes, I'm still here. Thank you.
All right. So you're still under oath from earlier. Please proceed.
Thank you very much.
The community was asking for a continuance because the meeting ended abruptly
due to technological issues that were beyond my control.
actually within the developer's hands, he was the host at the time. The community at that time
was having a very good discussion. Nobody was in support of the project, as the attorney just
stated, and there were only two people that were not opposed. So there were some that were opposed,
some that were not opposed, because I've tried to survey them since. But we think that the
community needs a chance to really weigh in on this in a valuable way as the code dictates.
But even beyond that, this block, and I own two properties on this block, have one just like this property.
There are single-family homes on this block, and people are living in them.
I'm going to be moving back in my large one like this soon.
So it's not abnormal to have single families on this block.
Now, this developer, the one in question, has developed eight properties on this one block in the last few years.
Now, we're not against development.
Everybody likes development, but he's doubled the population, doubled the parking, doubled the problems, and then the trash and the transitional population that tends to come with apartment rentals is changing the quality of life that we have grown up to enjoy over the last 30 years.
Most of the residents are in their 70s, and life is quickly changing to one that we don't even recognize anymore.
Most of the residents are in their 70s, and life is quickly changing to one that we don't even remember.
So when we look at the density issue, when we look at the size, it's our hope that it could be held to six units, not eight.
But again, I like the community to weigh in on this, and so I think that's why a continuance is appropriate at this point.
How much time would you need for the community?
When do you think the early couple of weeks?
Yeah, a few weeks, June, whatever.
Tanya, could we do the June 2nd the same as we did the other case, resumption, strictly related to letters from the RCO?
Yes, no testimony, just a letter written to the record.
And yes, we can do it on June the 23rd.
June 23rd at 2 p.m.?
Correct.
Chair, can we revise that slightly to allow a letter from the Councilwoman as well, since she did request a continuance to?
Sure. Okay. All right. So on MI 2021-001-0004204 Parkside Avenue and MI 2021-000999-4206 Parkside Avenue,
There will be a resumption hearing on June the 23rd at 2 p.m.
That will be specific to letters from the RCO and the Councilwoman's office.
No further testimony.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Calendar number.
Excuse me.
Madam Chairwoman
this is the court reporter
may I have just a few minutes
yeah we have two cases
what time is it now
why don't we take a break
take 10 minutes we'll be back in 10 minutes
alright thank you sir
thank you
so we'll be back at
10.00 right
I'm ready to go
number 9 on our list
jeffrey young right mi 2021-000 984 433 west gerard avenue can i just do a quick check um
bill are we recording yes we are recording thank you very kindly thank you the attorneys jeffrey
young. Mr. young has been promoted to panelists. Thank you.
hi mr young good afternoon members of the board um can you can you put your name and address on
the record please and spell your last name yes jeffrey young y-o-u-n-g 3900 fort road suite b
philadelphia pa 19131 thank you do you swear from the tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
uh it is a referral but yes i'll waive the referral sure i'm sorry have you emailed the
exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos under
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco
and do you have a letter? Plans have been submitted. We have met with the RCO and unfortunately the
RCO gave us a draft letter. She has not submitted the complete letter but I do have a copy of that
draft. Okay thank you. The exhibits were a bit late. They were. Members of the board good afternoon
again. My name is Jeffrey Young. I'm here representing the owner of Marley Sweet
Toop LLC located at 433 Girard Avenue. In my exhibit pack, excuse me, fax clearance at page
3. The code section giving us referrals at page 4. Refusal at page 5. Application for special
exception on page six, project information sheet page seven, zoning map, floor plans, pictures
are page 12, 13, and 14. Historic zoning permits from this property are page 22. Restaurant menu
on page 29. Numerable vacation letters on page 31. Proof of a million on page 33. And I also
have a copy of the draft from the RCO draft letter. Again, here's our tax certificate.
uh from the rco draft letter um again here's our tax certificate um here is the overlay which our
property falls under um here's our refusal uh we are receiving our referral um our application is
for an ice cream parlor on the first floor of an existing single family residence uh the property
is zoned cmx2 uh which uh commercial uses are um um a lot um here's our application for uh zoning
a project information sheet uh forum rather um here's our zoning map as you can see the commercial
properties on cmx2 um in in the south kensington northern liberties uh neighborhood um here are is
a current floor plan of the property um this is the front here um uh it's by level first floor
and second floor um with the we'll have seating uh area here in the back um and also on in the
basement level, there will be room for a few seats, excuse me, as well as an area for private
events in the rear here. Here is a picture. We are actually behind this tree. In front of us,
this is Gerrard Avenue, which is, you know, one of the business commercial strips in the city.
There's a picture of a front door with the notices.
here is the interior of the property is the former artist's loft so it's very creatively
designed and we're going to utilize the space for again an ice cream restaurant here is pictures of
the of the rear of the first floor this is the basement use and again back here will be an area
for private seating for private kids ice cream parties and this is a different view from from
that angle. As you see here, there is, excuse me, as I keep going, there is egress to the front
from that basement. This door here leads to steps that take you directly to Gerard Avenue.
Here are just historical zoning permits for the property. It's always been used
as a commercial space. At one time, it was a bacon variety store. It was a law office.
again a store once again and as I go down it was a candy store at one time as well
so there's always some type of commercial use on this first store with residential use above
here's our menu you know we are going to have a different menu than a traditional ice cream store
and again we're going to be more of a restaurant catering to folks sitting in our establishment
and enjoying their treats.
Here's a copy of our RCO letter sent out to the neighbors.
We met with the Old Kensington Neighborhood Association.
Here's our proof of mailing.
And here's a draft letter from Okina.
Again, Ms. Moss has not sent out a official letter.
All I have is a draft, but it was supported at the community meeting.
Here's also another draft that was sent to me here, totaling what the votes were.
There were no opposition to our proposed use at the community meeting.
And also for the board's reference, here is the commercial lease for the space.
Okay, thank you. Do you have your client? Do you wish to bring your client on?
Can you hear me? Can anyone hear me?
I can.
I hear you.
All right.
Jeffrey, can you hear us? I think he's disconnected.
we'll give him a minute if not we'll move to the next case we have to mr young
still has his screen up
mr young can you hear us
it looks like he tried to go out to come back in cheer yeah give him a minute
Thank you.
all right maybe uh we'll move to the next case and come back
okay it's calendar number zero nine five four five hundred north 18th street the attorney is
joseph consul still under oath just identify yourself for the record please
good afternoon again joe console how you doing t-o-n-s-o-l-e console madison l-l-p
one west third street suite 204 media pennsylvania do you agree to weigh the reading of refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter i have and i do yes thank you you
may proceed hello everyone joe consul here again here on 500 north 18th street here with the uh
the tenant uh which is national avc llc doing business as thrive affordable vet care thrive
is represented by I'll have one of them speak just to verify my testimony although I don't
think much past that will be necessary. Just to read these into the record we've got our exhibits
our refusal our RCO letters our photos and plans and other required documents lease
as well as tax clearances and that sort of thing.
So who is Thrive?
Briefly, they have 111.
It's the Thrive Affordable Vet Care.
They have 111 locations over 15 states.
Typically, Senator Cleneau, 25% are standalone locations.
Joe, excuse it.
You faded out.
You said typically, and then we lost you.
Am I in now?
yes okay typically they're partnered with petco however about a quarter of their properties are
standalone properties such as this property on spring garden they are going to be a pet care
facility with a vet clinic operating from 8 a.m to 6 p.m with no overnight stays 99 of the animals
served are cats and dogs occasionally your more exotic pet your bird etc there's no additional
services offered here outside of medical treatment, surgery, and pharmacy sales at this location.
This is zoned RMX1 for animal services being prohibited in this district. So we're here
seeking a variance to use the property as a vet clinic. To give you an idea, we are replacing
the Golden Chopsticks restaurant with Thrive Affordable Vet Care. We met with the Spring
Garden Civic Association, received their full support and the support of individual neighbors.
As they wrote in their letter, we negotiated and everyone signed a community benefits agreement
that's Thrive, that's the RCO and the landlord, ensuring we'll be good neighbors. There was a
very useful dialogue talking about important points on both sides. Germain to this meeting
is the fact that we got their full support and we don't anticipate any opposition. And I believe
if they've made it this long, the RCO is also here to attest to that. And with that,
because it's five o'clock I will
open this up to
my client if they're available if they'd like
to testify
who's your client
see which one puts their hand up
if I have Brett or
Dr. Jessica
it'll be one of these names
on my screen
anyone raising their hands
what we'll do
since you've been an officer
of court we'll stipulate your client
would have adopted your testimony
any questions from the board
anyone else would like
to testify in case please raise your
we have justina navarro i'm going to allow her to speak thank you
We have Justina Navarro.
I'm going to allow her to speak.
Thank you.
Ms. Navarro, please identify yourself with a record, spell your full name, and we'll
swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
My name is Justino Navarro, J-U-S-T-I-N-O, N-A-V-A-R-R-O.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I am representing, I'm a member of the Zoning Committee of the Spring Garden Civic Association
and its authorized representative, and I would agree with the characterization of
council's meetings with the Civic Association Zoning Committee and the community.
We entered into a, we had two meetings. We had a very productive dialogue, and the first meeting
that we had resulted in a number of questions that members of the zoning committee and the
community had, and they were very responsive and willing to provide us the data in a timely fashion
so that by the second meeting, which was the official RCO meeting, all of the potential
contentious issues have been effectively dealt with and responded to. So I am pleased to report
that we are here before the board uh in unison with this request and are in support 100 of this
request and would ask the chairman and the board to approve this project accordingly thank you
thank you anyone else to testify
chair we have jessica taylor she's been unmuted please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Ms. Taylor, please identify yourself, spell your full name, and we'll swear you in.
This is Dr. Jessica Taylor.
Your first name?
Jessica.
Last name Taylor, T-A-Y-L-O-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed, Mr. Consul.
uh good evening uh dr taylor uh did you hear my testimony today yes do you adopt it yes and i
raised my hand in case there were any questions okay but i i agree as well with the reporting of
the the meeting but i'm happy to okay do you adopt testimony as your own that's my last question
i do okay thank you nothing thank you okay uh planning commission
Good evening. David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board.
The comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential mixed use.
There appear to be existing businesses in this mid-rise building. The addition of animal services
is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the block. We recommend that the Board approve the proposed
variance. Thank you. MI 2021-000954, 500 North 18th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you.
Did we get Jeffrey back? Mr. Young?
apparently you still have we can hold that and come back to him uh we're now going to start the
330 list uh we're ready to go i assume yes on the 330 list yes all right there's a continuance
well let me read the uh i guess i have to read the statement and good afternoon 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 Fatina L. and
our Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta 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. 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.
i'll repeat 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 enter an appeal
And then star six 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'll 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 also like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat any comments should
be directed to our board administrator miss fatina l appreciate your cooperation with that we'll go to
on the 330 list there was a request for continuance for number four on our list
mi 2021 that's 000374 3204 veer avenue request for continuance was made by the
applicant's attorney and that is the only one i see anyone disagree with that continuance please
raise your hand i see no handshare thank you at this time i will ask if anyone is required would
like to request a continuance or withdrawal so please raise your hand
If you'd like to request a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand at this time.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, let's start with MI 2021.
Excuse me, Chair, a hand just went up when I said that, I'm sorry.
Okay, no worries.
All right, I'm unmuting, last name ask you, please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself. First and last name. Spell your full name for us, please.
Hello?
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, please spell your first and last name.
Jaria Askew. First name is J-E-R-I-A-H. Last name is Askew, A-S as in Sam, K-E-W.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The nature of your request?
I am 433 West Gerrard Avenue with Jeffrey Young.
I have no idea what happened with him.
It's like he cut off right when you guys were saying that the client, that he wants to tell his client.
And I've been on here since like 2 o'clock, so I'm like sweating right now because I don't understand what's going on.
I just emailed Mr. Young.
I'm sorry.
i didn't mean to interrupt you um i just emailed mr young and said if he was having technical
problems to call on my cell phone and i would put him on speaker i know that he was requesting um
right before the hearing so his hearing started to go forward because he had an appointment but
i don't expect he meant to leave so if he calls can i interrupt to bring him on yes just miss
ask you to just hang in there. It'll be straightened out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
With that, we'll go to MI 2021-000377, 1405-09 Cotman Avenue. Understand there's a letter of
non-opposition from Councilman O'Neill. Did we get a letter yet from the Bromhall Civic Association?
burholm burholm and the attorney is sean ward there you are
mr ward would you put your name on the record spell your last name good afternoon mr chairman
members of the board sean ward s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d-3-3-1 east street road trevos pa
1-9-0-5-3. On behalf of the applicant, Arti Ismailangi, A-R-T-I-I-S-M-A-I-L-A-N-J-I.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do. 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,
a copy of the refusal or 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 everything except the
last part of the last question um with regard to the rco uh we did meet with the rco i want to
share my screen for home civic yes so we as you can see if you can see my
Yes. So we, as you can see, if you can see my screen, we sent out the notice of the meeting.
We'll be right back.
We did, in fact, meet with them on May 13th.
Alice Udovich from the Councilman's Office was present on that Zoom conference.
We have not heard back from Berholm, despite repeated requests.
Alice, I believe, is, I hope she's here, can verify that.
And in light of the tenor of the meeting, which was a very pleasant meeting, and I think it went very well, based upon that, the councilman submitted his letter of non-opposition.
Please proceed.
Oh, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I've put up my typical exhibit packet.
um a1 oh i'm sorry let's go to back to okay so again i represent artius malangi he is on the
zoom conference i instructed him to raise his hand when our case was called so the administrator
could find him uh if uh if and when needed uh the property is 14-05-09 cotman counter 0-0-0-3-7-7
A1 is the notice of refusal. This is a permit to add to the existing use, I'm sorry, granite cutting to an existing equipment and material storage and retail sale of kitchen and bath products.
Granite cutting, which is considered limited industrial, is not permitted in the district, and accordingly we seek a use variance for that.
A2 is the application of appeal. A3, project information form. A4, proof of ownership. A5,
proof of tax clearance. A6 is the site plan. A7 are photographs of the subject property.
A8 are photographs of the actual granite saw and the drainage catch basins that we have on the
property to resolve drainage issues. A9, if received, would have been the letter from Burholm
Civic. I would ask that Councilman that Neil Slider be marked as 810. I do have a copy of
that to share on my screen. With regard to the relevant zoning history, I was here before the
board in 2009 at which time we obtained a variance for retail sale of kitchen cabinets,
bathroom accessories with an accessory showroom. In 2013 a permit was issued by Wright for the
erection of a garage in the rear yard. In 2016, a variance was granted for the expansion of that
garage and a use permit for the storage of equipment and materials with regard to the
kitchen and bath business. In addition, there were two signs issued. Part of that variance process
and the RCO, we entered a restrictive covenant agreement, which was recorded with various
conditions of approval, which I submit we still comply with this day. And A13 is the zoning map,
A14 is the aerial photograph. So very quickly, I know it's getting late and you've been here all
day, we have the application of appeal. The notice of refusal, you'll see there is one refusal for
the granite cutting, which is limited industrial, not permitted in the district. The project
information form two pages my transmittal letter to tanya sunkett with regard to the appeal
confirmation that the appeal was filed the permit application detail
a copy of the deed you'll see uh arty and his wife marcella have owned this property since 2008
um proof of tax clearance revenue department printout showing taxes were paid through 2021.
With regard to the site plan, I am going to blow this up.
Fronting on Cotman Avenue, you'll see it's a two-story dwelling structure.
The first floor is used for parties, kitchens, and baths.
In the rear, there is a garage. The left-hand side, as I'm identifying now with my hand cursor, was the original garage that was built.
The portion, roughly one-third to the right, was an addition that was approved.
I would point out that the rear of the structure is solid masonry, as are both sides.
There are no openings or apertures to the rear or sides of that garage building.
So with regard to any noise, minimal noise generated by the saw, it would not emanate to the rear or sides properties.
With regard to the site plan, again, you'll see that we have the primary structure.
Again, you'll see that we have the primary structure towards the front of the property,
accessed by a driveway to the left, which takes you into the rear. Part of the prior
variance process, there were two shipping containers used for storage. Part of the
variance request and the proviso letter by Burholm was the removal of those shipping containers.
They are exed out on this plan because this was the plan from that application and they have since
been removed and have continuously been uh gone from the property uh the concrete cutting area
would be inside the left portion of the garage as indicated on the plan
given that we have the photographs again this is the subject property there were two signs approved
pursuant to that prior variance your exhibits are not moving along they're still stuck on the
list of exhibits. Oh really? Yeah. Let me, I apologize for that. I don't know why that happened.
I am going to reopen my PDF.
And I was just trucking along there.
i meant to stop you sooner i figured sooner or later it was going to turn on but
i i i don't know what happened there um okay so let's bring up the exhibit packet again
okay let me go back to screen share
okay are we seeing my exhibit packet now mr chair
list of exhibits now we're starting to move application okay all right very good so
let me go back uh most of it was the most of it was the administrative stuff i'll go right back to
the plan can everybody see the plan yes awesome okay a little bit longer that would be helpful
let me go back real quick now. So again, here's the front of the structure at the elevation of
the property. There was two signs approved by that previous grant of the variance. One was a
flat wall sign. Behind the property is this garage. The left-hand side, which is, you know,
I would say roughly two-thirds was the original garage that was built. This right side here
represents the addition, all of which was approved pursuant to a variance and permits issued.
Again, as I indicated, the rear wall of that garage is solid masonry. There are no apertures or openings. Same thing with each side. You'll see the, again, each side is solid masonry, so there's no openings or apertures on either side.
And again, the area to be used for the concrete cutting is in that rear garage located behind the home.
It's accessed by the side driveway coming up from Cotman Avenue.
There's a curb cut at Cotman, brings you into the property, and it cuts around behind the building.
This was the location of the two shipping containers that have since been removed pursuant to that prior permit.
uh this represents the front of the building you'll see there was the two signs this is the
one flat wall sign and then there was a small freestanding double face sign it was approved
pursuant to that the property is located at cotman and whitaker uh the far corner is a
sherman william paint store this uh near corner is a daycare center i think uh associated maybe
with the Holy Flock of Christ Church.
Got to watch how you say that very fast.
The 7-Eleven at the other end,
and it's located directly across the street
from Jardale Rec.
Again, this is the existing garage in the rear.
It's got a solid rolled down steel door.
This would be the area in which
the concrete cutting saw would exist.
Again, the rolled down door.
This is the driveway coming up from Cotman Avenue
entering the property.
this is the rear of the property in between the garage and the primary structure this was the
location towards this fence where the shipping containers were and again they are gone they've
been removed Cotman Avenue facing east Cotman Avenue facing west this is a picture of the saw
it's all fully computer automated I point out it's a wet saw water is fed through the saw
comes out a nozzle at the blade, which, number one, suppresses the sound, and it eliminates dust from the cutting of.
which, number one, suppresses the sound and it eliminates dust from the cutting of the granite.
Again, this is a detailed picture from the saw manufacturer.
At the front of the garage door, there is a line drain that runs the extent of the opening.
This would act as a catch basin for any sediment that would run down in the water. There is a
backup trough and drain located over here. So whatever, if there's any overflow, it would be
caught in the secondary drain, which has a custom-made steel trough that lays in there
to catch any sand or sediment from the cutting of the granite. Again, just another picture of the
soil would be located in here, and the water runoff would be caught by first this drain,
and then second, the drain over at the top of the photo.
Again, this is the secondary trough.
These are copies of the permits that we've previously had.
And basically, that is the sum and substance.
The prior application was the owner-occupied,
both the business and the dwelling would be occupied
by an owner or immediate family member i would point out that marcella's father resides on
premises in the dwelling and he acts as a custodian and you know a runner part-time employee of the
business um and and basically with that i would submit that um it represents just a small expansion
of the existing use that has been permitted by permit and variance so again the councilman's
office is cognizant of the results of the meeting, although despite repeated requests,
Berholm has not, and I understand they've been having difficulties with their meetings and
whatnot. So based upon that, I would ask that if Artie has raised his hand, that he be
brought in to verify and adopt.
If need be.
Yeah, I'm here.
Artie, you've heard my...
I'm sorry, you've got to be talking.
Please identify yourself, first and last name, please.
Sure, Artie Slumanji,
A-R-T-I-S,
I-S-M-A-I-L-N-J-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Artie, you've heard my representation,
to the zoning board? Yes I did. Are they true and correct? Yes sir. Do you adopt them as your own
testimony? Yes I do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Questions from the board? No. No. Anyone
else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand. I see no handshare. Thank you
Ron at the Planning Commission and please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
Ron, you're muted.
Can't hear you.
Still can't hear him.
Can't hear you.
Still can't hear you.
You're on mute.
Now, you're not muted now, but we can't hear you.
So I'm going to ask you a question.
Do you guys approve this?
If so, nod your head in the affirmative.
I think he has a backup available, Chair.
Is the backup there for Planning Commission?
Yeah, there's David Munson.
Hello, Dave Munson from the Planning Commission.
Dave, please spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
M-U-N-S-O-N.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Okay. While the property is currently indicated for single-family residential on the city plan, there appears to be an existing business as well as other commercial uses just to the west on Cotman Avenue. Therefore, we recommend that the requested variants be permitted.
Thank you. Sharon and or Tanya, do we run the risk, if anything, if we approve it without the letter?
nope that as long as everything was done as should you shouldn't have a problem but that's
the call of the zoning board attorney no it should not be a problem okay and uh and mr chair i did
submit uh earlier today a copy of my rca uh uh meeting notice with the address list and
i just want to make sure that we don't run into a problem all right okay very good
MI 2021-000377-1405-09 Cotman Avenue. 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 before we go any further
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
carol i think i saw jeffrey up there again mr young is he back with us yes chair he's back
and ready to go thank you tanya mr young
no he was just
in the interest of in the interest of time it seems like we're still having difficulties and
I don't want to hold miss ask you up could we just vote this or do we need any more testimony
from mr young um did you hear from the planning commission yet i don't like working now
yeah yeah okay we're not sure if we heard from the planning commission at least i don't remember
uh we want to go back to number nine on our list ron 433 west gerard but
i'll swear you in before you do that okay so it's not your name and i'll
identify yourself in our city plan
spell your last name please d-e-d-n-a-r you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you at 433 west gerard okay um i'm just gonna have to pull up
that hold on a second sure i'm sorry chair would you mind if we hold one second if i can get
jeffrey back on the phone at least he can hear um and be available for that would that be approved
yep yep okay
It wasn't Jeffrey.
I'm sorry.
I wasn't muted.
chair um we do have jeffrey young available to listen in the planning commission is getting
ready to give the recommendation jeffrey thank you okay thanks ron okay um comprehensive plan
recommends this property for commercial mixed juice we believe that the applicant
provided the proposed, proven the proposed eatery and drinking established will not
have any impacts, negative impacts on the neighborhood. Therefore, we
recommend that the requested special exception be ran. Thank you. MI 2021-000984433 West
gerard avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes this is good my vote is yes
okay okay mr young thank you i appreciate that i'm just having so many i don't know what's going
on okay no problem number two on our list okay have we already no one's called that out right
calendar number 0380 1420 North Oriana Street the attorney is Joseph Consul and we have a
letter of support from Old Kensington Neighborhood Association hi good afternoon and good evening
put your name and address on the record please and spell your last name Joe Consul how you guys
doing consul madison you all get uh console that's c-o-n-s-o-l-e one west third street
suite 204 media pennsylvania one nine zero six three thank you do you swear or affirm to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do 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 plans of the property and photos um five days in advance of the hearing and have
you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to everything thank you you may proceed
all right joe consul here for 1420 north oriana street the owner is uh henry michael holmza with
me is Mike and Katie Homza, the residents and couple that live in 1418 North Oriana,
but own 1420 North Oriana. For the record, we've got our exhibits, we have the refusal, the RCO
we've got our exhibits we have the refusal the rco uh letters photos and plans and the required
So letters.
uh documents including the tax clearance certificate proof of ownership um we are here
uh for a refusal on 1418 for country that is actually might have a better picture for you
down here. That is just this little lot here that this car is parked in. It's an approximate
400 square foot lot next to the residence of Mike and Katie Holmes. They live in this property here.
They own this little lot here that is being used as a parking area. We're here to legalize that
space as accessory off-street parking to their home. This block of North Oriana Street has
no on-street parking. It's got several variances approved, such as the one we're seeking,
and then a lot of what ends up being backyards of properties that are not on Oriana Street.
There's only a few lots that actually face Oriana Street, kind of down this side here.
So that's the deal. We have this tiny lot here that we're seeking to legalize as a parking space.
Here's a shot down the street, shot down the other side. Here's a plan showing the turning radius
uh as as being sufficient um that all made it through streets with no with no issues
and um we met with the rco and here's their letter uh we have support um and in addition to to that
we have a number of neighbors that signed on that was sort of a prerequisite for for the rco meeting
they wanted us just to talk to the neighbors and we got the um at least all the ones at front
Oriana on or around we got their support and uh we got the RCO support we met with them a couple
of times um that's really kind of the extent of of what I'm here for um I'll call my clients
Katie Holmes off she's available
any hands
mr council yes sir yeah you being officer court will uh she's been about to talk sir
oh okay thank you hi i'm here i'm identify yourself full names by your name please
sure katie holmza k-a-t-i-e-h-o-m-z-a you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you mr council
mrs holmza uh have you heard my testimony today regarding your request uh do you adopt it as your
own yes is there anything you'd like to add nope okay thank you i rest on that thank you
questions from the board no no no one else anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand
chair we have slone folks he's been unmuted good afternoon again mr folks you're still under oath
but please identify yourself with the record.
Afternoon, Chairman Chico and board.
Again, my name is Sloan Fuchs, S-L-O-A-N-E, F-S-N-F-I-R, O-L-K-S,
Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez, room 508 City Hall.
The applicant having met with the coordinating RCO
and having received a letter of support as well as support from the community,
the Councilwoman offers no opposition to this various requests.
Thank you.
Thank you.
anyone else to testify? I see no more handshare. Thank you. Planning Commission? City Planning
Ron Bednar. This property is indicated for residential use under city plan. The application
appears to match the existing character of the block therefore we recommend that the
request advance to be permitted.
Thank you. MI 2021-0003801420 North Oriana 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.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, Board.
Thank you Board.
Thank you.
MI 2021-000-454-2538 Christian Street.
Meredith Verlager is the attorney.
And we have a letter of support from SOSNA.
Hi, Meredith.
can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name of course good evening
everyone meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r 1500 market street suite 3500 e philadelphia pennsylvania
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i sure 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, or 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.
Before you proceed, Marith, I'd just like to break in.
I apologize.
I need to leave.
I'll be leaving.
I'm a little tongue-tied.
I apologize.
but i want to thank everyone for your work today especially those behind the scenes
i'll see you all next week stay safe thank you okay frank thank you
okay marlis you can continue thank you uh as you know the property before the board today is 2538
christian street we did receive a letter of support for the proposal from sasna
now as you can see in the aerial photos i have up on the screen at tab eight
This is a corner property located right at the corner of Christian Street and South 26th Street.
To the west is a utility power facility.
All other sides of the property are surrounded by residential uses.
The property itself is zoned RM1 and is adjacent to areas of industrial zoning,
multi-family zoning, single-family zoning, and some mixed CMX2 zoning a little farther up Christian
Street. Now if you'll refer to the photographs I've included at tab 14, you'll see that the
property currently exists with a one-story garage-like building. There is an existing
garage door along Christian Street similar to the condition of the two adjacent homes.
Currently, the structure houses storage for the owner's plumbing business. Now, the owners of this building and my clients here today are Thomas and Patricia Ull.
Now, as you can see, as I'll scroll through some of the interior photos, this is not a retail facility.
Tom, who runs his plumbing supply business, generally will visit the building once in the
morning to gather his supplies, and then he'll return later in the evening to return those
supplies back to the building. Otherwise, the building largely sits unused the vast majority
of the day. There is no parking in this building that is permitted or used. The curb cut that you
see in front of the building and the garage are used so that Tom can access his large air compressor
that he rolls out and loads into his trunk. Now you'll also notice in the photographs of the side
of this building what look like seven garage doors. In fact, these are actually white brick.
From the history that we've been able to gather, which is included in the exhibits at Tab 10,
this building was actually a garage for about seven cars back in the 30s.
It appears that the 26th Street garages were bricked over sometime in the 60s,
although it did continue to be used for parking from the 70s until Tom purchased the building in 1998.
Since 1998, it's been used for its current equipment and material storage for his plumbing business.
Now, turning to the request before the board, Tom is looking to erect a two-story addition on top of the building for two new apartments.
The plans are shown at tabs four through six.
Now, if you'll refer to the floor plans that I have up on the screen, each unit will have two bedrooms, two bathrooms.
The units are roughly 1,100 square feet each. There will be a common use roof deck.
Tom intends to have his daughter live in one of these units and will rent the other at market rate.
The first floor will also include two parking spaces.
The first floor will also include two parking spaces that are accessed from South 26th Street,
which you can see in the rear here. Garbage will be stored in this garage area.
Now, with respect to the application, we did receive three refusals that we can address
relatively quickly. First, although this is a long-standing non-conforming use,
the instant application did result in a refusal for the over 20-year use of the ground floor
as equipment materials and storage yards, which is prohibited in the RM1 zoning district.
Of course, it would be an extreme hardship to cease use of this ground floor of its current use.
TOM has operated here for decades and no change is proposed to this ground floor use.
Now, jumping ahead to the technical refusal that we received for the parking space.
Let me zoom in here so you can get a good understanding of this one.
The parking spaces would be required to be 18 feet long from one end to the other.
They are only 17 feet.
Now, let me show you why.
If you look at the zoning plan, you'll see that the lot itself is 18 feet wide.
Tom is proposing to maintain the full existing ground floor structure.
So you can see that the walls here are about a foot wide, are about an inch wide.
Sorry, the walls are about a foot wide.
So it would be impractical to comply with the code without demolishing the existing walls.
So it's just a de minimis one foot variance there.
Now, finally, we have a refusal because the parking itself would be prohibited unless accessed by a shared driveway or rear alley.
Now, in this case, the parking is proposed to be accessed from South 26th Street, not Christian Street.
So we submit that the intent of the code is met.
Furthermore, the property itself has a nearly 80-year history
of some form of parking being accessed from South 26th Street.
Now to the west, it's strictly an industrial use and no parking is allowed on South 26th Street.
Let me just show you what you have there as a result of that condition.
All right, I have a question. I'm wondering if there's anybody in the virtual audience who has
any questions because we do have or you do have a letter of support from SOSNA.
Sure, we would be happy to hear if there are any questions.
We did submit a memorandum of law that fully outlines our arguments here,
so I'll reserve the rest unless there are any additional questions or testimony.
Are there any questions in the virtual audience?
i see no hands madam chair does the board have any questions no no no no may i have my client
adopt my testimony real quick absolutely thank you uh tom and patricia if you're on here
if you would raise your hand so you can be unmuted
Thomas last name is okay I have him he's been unmuted please wait for the chair and you may
unmute yourselves all ready for you Carol okay sir can you um put your name and address on the
record please and then i'll swear you in uh my name is thomas yule my address is 3516 south 20th
street okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do meredith you can have your client adopt your testimony thank you i'm sorry
before you do that meredith if i could just ask your client to spell his last name for the court
reporter. I am so sorry, Tanya. UHL. Thank you, Merida. No problem. Tom, you've heard all my
testimony given before the board today. Yes. And would you agree that testimony was true and
accurate? Yes. And would you adopt that testimony as if it were your own? Yes, I would. Thank you.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
While this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan, given the documented
use history, we recommend that the question of variance be granted, provided no parking
granted, provided no parking permitted, off-street parking permitted.
permitted.
I'm sorry, I'm not clear.
Sharon, can you explain that?
No off-street parking?
That's correct.
That's one of our refusals that we're asking for a variance for.
And that's where we're saying no.
okay i understand that i i don't know if i can do that well no that's that's one of the variances
that we're requesting i understand that to permit that off street parking and and i'd be happy to
elaborate a little further on why we submit that that parking is not only no impact um
if you'd like i can continue where i was headed on my on my testimony on that point
I mean, if you see up on the screen, just real quickly, you'll see as a result of the fact
that there is no parking allowed on South 26th Street, the cars are actually parked up on the
curb. So there's a good number of multifamily uses around here. And because there is such
limited parking in this area, the cars park up on the curb here. So that is why Tom is proposing
to add these two parking spaces here given that they're not going to impact any on-street parking
since there's none permitted anyway and it will serve to alleviate the serious parking problems
that occur in South Philadelphia. The community was more than happy to see this parking especially
since it's going to be accessed from South 26th Street so you know across the street there's an
industrial use here it's it's not creating any impact for anybody um and the the community's
only request was that there was no parking from christian street which we're perfectly fine with
because you can't access this parking from christian street okay is the board ready to vote
i have a question uh i'm ready i'm ready i have a question matter chair chair okay
26th street
is there
existing curb cuts
is there an existing curb cut
on 26th street
correct
I don't believe
that there is any
remaining curb cut as I mentioned
there have been
about 80 years worth of
parking uses from 26th street
I suspect that
the curb cuts probably were filled in at some point um tom i don't know if you know
the answer to that question is there any curb cut currently on south 26th street
there is no curb cuts on 2060.
okay calendar number 0454 2538 christian street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes vote is yes thank you very much thank you calendar number 0381
3610 Haverford Avenue Joseph Consul he's our resident attorney now
all right okay name and address on the record please and spell your last name Joseph
Hello, everyone. Joseph Consul, again, 4 for 4, C-O-N-S-O-L-E, Consul-Madison, LLP, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204, Media, Pennsylvania, 19063.
You're still under oath. 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, or 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?
Caveat being the RCO letter came yesterday evening at approximately 5.30.
And that's from Mantua Civic?
That's correct.
Are you guys in receipt?
And they're in approval?
They are in approval, yes.
Yeah, here's their, the email that was sent to everyone. Oh, pardon me, it was 8-17 last night.
And then attached to that letter, the ZBA was copied on it, it looks like, at the RCO ZBA letter.
And then the letter was attached to that with 17 in support.
So briefly tell us, because I know that they overwhelmingly supported this.
Okay, hello everyone. Joseph Consul, 3610 Haverford Street.
Haverford Street. I'm here with Eugene Nadiovich, Haverford Avenue, pardon me,
I'm here with Eugene Nadiovich.
representative for the owner of Westgerard LLC. We are here to seek the approval to
change the first floor unit of a CMX2 property from an approved commercial space to a residential
space. This property was originally approved and began to be being built as a two unit with a
commercial space. We've had no luck renting that and it's a small space as the RCO indicates in
their letter. So my client requested that we come back before the board to seek to use that space
as a residential unit as you can see this side of Haverford Avenue there's a multi-family
building there's a multi-family building there's a multi-family building we are this is before this
property was constructed but ours would have been in this dirt lot here we still have this empty
space here this empty space this lot here there's a church and then more residential buildings
further down the block um so uh this isn't a block that has commercial spaces uh being used
on it um and so uh we met with the rco and it went super smoothly uh here's the email from mantua
vote overwhelmingly overwhelmingly voted to support it um because lack of first floor
commercial space lack of parking and potential street congestion from a commercial use
uh they the uh both the board uh their board and the residents voted to approve the project
so that's three family units that's yes here's the refusal it'd be a total of three family units
and you know while it's neither here nor there um it's a um 1440 and um because it's not an rm1
obviously we need more than what you would need for an rm1 but if it were you know we'd have the
space okay does the board have any questions no no is there anyone in the virtual audience
with questions please raise your hand i see no hands madam chair planning commission
uh ron bednar city planning property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan
We believe the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated unnecessary hardship regarding requirements of the code.
Application is not consistent with our adopted district plan.
Located in the core of the Haverford Area Commercial Corridor, as remapped to match the community vision,
it's an inappropriate, non-conforming use.
We recommend the request for variance not be granted.
Could I call on you?
Not necessary.
Sorry. Yeah, please. You need to have your client adopt your testimony. Thank you, Chair. Is Eugene
available? Yes, I'm here. Hello. Hi. Can you ask him to adopt your testimony? Yeah. Could you state
your name for the record? A little late. I understand. Swear yourself in, Eugene.
Eugene Nidovich, that's E-U-G-E-N-E, last name N-A-Y-D-O-V-I-C-H.
And sir, do you agree to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Good evening, Eugene.
Did you hear my testimony?
I did.
Do you adopt it as your own?
Is there anything you would care to add to my testimony?
Yeah, so one of the things is the building immediately to the left of it is a multifamily residential building.
It's a pretty narrow lot.
The lot is only 16 feet wide.
There's also no alley in the back or the front.
So having trash in the back for any commercial space would not be feasible.
So, you know, we met with the community.
We're not asking for any additional units beyond what would have been allowed on an RM1.
we're not asking for any additional units beyond that at all we just want to be able to convert
the commercial space which was virtually unusable for commercial purposes on a block that does not
have other commercial buildings into one residential unit. Thank you Eugene.
Okay calendar number of course I'm trying to find
calendar number 0381 3610 Haverford Avenue 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 board thank you calendar number 0378
905 west indiana avenue the owner is daniel sachensky there are no exhibits with this
and this is the first listing
Daniel's been promoted to panelists. Please unmute yourself, sir, and wait for the chair.
Daniel, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. My name is Daniel Sahansky, D-A-N-I-E-L, last name S-U-C-H-E-N-S-K-I, and this is in regards to 905
West Indiana Avenue. And your address is 905 West Indiana Avenue? My address is 903 West Indiana
Avenue. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, indeed.
do we have a showing that there are no exhibits
uh madam chair i'm sorry there appears to be an attorney that's representing him
is that correct daniel that is correct and i believe he has the uh
and if we could put promote him so that he could speak to the questions thanks tanya
certainly
okay cheers on you
so hello so brian yes oh so okay so you're related i got it you're the attorney yes i am
i was just checking the names can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name? Yes, I'm Brian Sahinski. That's S-U-C-H-E-N-S-K-I. My address is 1635 Market Street,
Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Yes. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do. And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership,
tax compliance a copy of the refusal or 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 in short it was less
than five days and that might be why there's a um excuse me I don't believe I have I don't believe
I've received them at all. Did you email? Did you copy it? I did send it to both the RCO ZBA list
and to you as well directly. When did you send them? So I sent them yesterday. What time yesterday?
This case will have to be continued.
Yeah, because somebody's speaking and nobody's lips are moving.
This case has to be continued.
We need exhibits.
So calendar number 0378, 905 West Indiana Avenue will be continued.
Sorry.
calendar number 0427 983 and a half north randolph street the owner is victor michael dotson
mr dotson has been promoted to panelists you may unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Mr. Dotson, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
My name is Victor Michael Dotson, D-O-T-S-O-N.
Your address?
983-1-Half-North Randolph Street, Philadelphia, PA-19123.
Do you agree to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am.
And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, ma'am.
Have you emailed your exhibit packet in with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing. And do you have
and do you have
a letter from the RCO who I assume you have met with? Yes, totally above me. And I'm actually
represented by an architect. His name is Bart Bida. So if you will, can we allow him to speak?
Excuse me, the architect cannot present. You will have to do it yourself.
Okay. You can be represented by an attorney, but you have to now begin to present your case.
The architects can present, if he wants to share his screen, to present plans.
Right, right.
So you may begin.
Okay, so essentially I'm applying for a variance in zoning.
I applied for two open air parking spots, and I received a refusal because where my house is, I am not zoned for that sort of usage.
Oh, there he is.
so is there anything further i need to state for the record do you have pictures of your house and
of the um area where you'd like to park cars all of that is in the packet um it appears my architect
is actually sharing photos can you see that yes we can okay so essentially this is the um front
of my property um i believe the people that i bought the property from were using it for a
similar purpose but they never actually went and got the property zoned so at this point now i'd
actually like to go ahead and attempt to do that so okay and you met with north uh northern liberties
neighbors association yes and there we have a letter of support yes is there anyone in the
virtual audience who would like to ask questions i see no hands madam chair thank you does the
board have any questions no no okay planning commission ron bednar city planning property
is indicated for single family residential use on the city plan we believe the applicant
It's not demonstrated a necessary hardship regarding requirements of the code standing policy of the city planning commission is not to support off street parking.
It's not accessed from a rear driveway. The application is inconsistent with the established standards. This illegally installed space is only 14 feet deep. We recommend the request for advantage is not.
with that. So you do have parking on the street in Northern Liberties don't you? Yes that's correct
however um we feel it would be beneficial not only for us but for the neighborhood as well because
the parking is quite congested in the area and this would serve to remove two cars off the street
of already crowded parking situation so yes while there is parking it is it getting quite tight
especially as of late and it's on the uh it's on the opposite side of the street from where there
is parking so we're not actually going to be eliminating any additional any uh existing parking
okay calendar number zero four two seven nine eighty three one and one half north randolph
street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you and good luck
thank you sure thank you i guess that concludes our marathon of hearings um if we could just ask
if anyone is here waiting for a case they expect it to be called i certainly will is there anyone
in the virtual audience waiting for a case they thought would be called today I see no hands madam
chair thank you you say that with such pleasure I know because that's always the last question you
ask me and I'm like why is she asking me that thank you court thank you everybody yeah court
reporter uh everyone the board good night event thank you so much patina dpt zoom person jason
i don't know who's here whoever's here thank you so much and thank you madam
thank you tanya take care all right good night i just wanted to say goodbye to my favorite
confessor have a good night okay i thought you were saying that to me and i'm like yeah yeah
I couldn't resist
I couldn't read this.
goodnight
Good night.
Good night.
Bye, Jim.