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