Thank you, guys.
All righty.
Calendar number MI-2021-000370-3409 Goodman Street.
Attorney is Zen Jin.
He's coming in now as a panelist.
All righty.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Please state your name and address for the record.
My name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838,
Philadelphia PA 19103 here on behalf of the applicants. Great. Mr. Jen, do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth, 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? I do. Also, have you emailed an
exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral and plans and photos five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Okay. And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, we have met with the RCO. The RCO voted in opposition. I will discuss that during my
presentation.
Okay. Yeah, we have that here. Yes. There is a letter of opposition from
the Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team.
That's correct.
Okay. Please proceed.
Thank you. If I may, I'm going to share with the board the information related to this case.
What I have up in front of the board right now, it's the refusal. We have submitted copies of
related documentation, including deed, proof of ownership, other things that are related to this
case. I want to point out my client is a tenant under lease at the property. The property is
owned RM1, and the application is for use at the food, beverages, and groceries with a takeout
restaurant because they're proposing to have hot food involved with the grocery store.
The refusal indicates that, of course, RM1 does not permit the use. I'm going to go ahead and
address the opposition from the RCO first. So the Goodman Street business was actually
purchased by my client, who was not aware that the zoning was not valid on the property. They
started the business, it's been around for a while, but they started doing their portion of
the business and found out that it is not allowed to be used because of the RM1 zoning.
When we met with the RCO, there was maybe five attendees, and someone indicated that
they're a neighbor and that there are illegal activities going on outside the property. However,
I'm not aware of any evidence of such illegal activities. This was just being said that
something was going on. Because we had the meeting and because of that feedback, I had my client
actually go out and reach out to his surrounding neighbors to clarify what's going on and also to
see if he can obtain a petition in support. Attached with the submission is an extensive
petition in support. As you can see, many of the neighbors on Goodman Street, 11th Street,
all the streets surrounding this particular store has signed in support of this application
of this application because the grocery store beverages itself, the use itself is not new at
because the grocery store beverages itself.
that location. And for the most part, most of the neighbors, as you can see, there are plenty on
Goodman Street here, are fine with the operation. I do also want to point out another point. I'm
going to share a different document with the board, and that is the history of this property.
The Goodman Street property, if the board can just bear with me for one second, this property has a use history, pretty extensive use history, going back quite a while, which I am going to pull up and share with the board at this point.
So this is not a new use. This property was actually zoned for restaurant grocery back in 96 by variance.
There's nothing in the record that tells me necessarily that it was abandoned. However, I do know that when the city reviews these applications, if there was no record on the permit for a while, the city automatically assumes that it was not used or was abandoned.
However, that's not necessarily the case here, as far as I know, the client purchased, my client purchased what he thought was an ongoing business.
So I'm going to go back now to the documentation relating to the case itself.
So, again, we have multi-page petition here that is attached with the application.
as you can see, quite a lot of the neighbors. The other point here is that there's an existing
hardship to the condition of the property in that this is not an RM1 structured property.
It certainly was not used since 96 in any way as a residential property. And structurally and
internally set up, the property is completely a commercial unit on the first floor. Even if
If the use wasn't permitted for this specific application, the owner would be forced to
come back to the board due to the fact that it would be extensive renovations needed to
make this into a residential property because it's been, since it was at one point a legal
non-conforming use, it's been a commercial-type property.
The case law has been pretty clear in the Commonwealth that where there is a pre-existing
non-conforming use, continued use, or even a reasonable expansion of such use, generally would
be permitted by the courts. The Gross v. City of Philadelphia is one such case where the courts
found that pre-existing non-conforming use of this nature, as long as it is not abandoned,
would be generally permitted. And in this case, even though the community has raised the argument,
perhaps there is some kind of nuisance activities, I do want to point out that nothing was ever
provided to me of such. And a quick search does not seem to show that there are nuisance type
violations shown for this property either. So as far as I'm concerned, there's no evidence of such
activities as far as actual evidence within the record. So based on all of the foregoing,
what we're really asking the board to do is to permit the continuation use of a use that was
at one point approved, was somehow lost within the years from the city records as having been
a good variance, and therefore we're trying to reinstate that use. The client, not knowing what
is going on with the zoning aspect. Actually, what I want to do is I want to provide the lease
to the board to review real quick. The client signed the lease for 10 years, which thinking
that, of course, this is an ongoing business concern and he's purchasing an ongoing business
concern. Therefore, he would be able to operate. I want to point out that he purchased the property
in July of 2020 and signed the lease starting in August. So not long after, he discovered the
issue and then filed an application. So this has not been a business that he's been doing for
years illegally. He just didn't realize that he's buying a business that no longer has a
use permit that is in the record. So based on all of the foregoing, and I understand the
community's position of taking a non-supported position, I would ask the board's favorable
consideration in this case. I'm happy to reshare any information the board wants to see and answer
I'm happy to re-share any information the board wants to see and answer any additional questions.
any additional questions.
Thank you.
Counselor, I saw you had quite a few names on the, I guess, those in support of a variance change.
Were they not at the RCO meeting?
They were not at the RCO meeting.
Part of the problem was the RCO meeting was lightly attended.
It was a Zoom meeting.
um we and because of the feedback from the rco meeting is why i asked my client to reach out to
the surrounding neighbors and actually get a petition because i felt that there there's
probably people that knows of the store but did not actually want to attend that particular meeting
um as you can see he did reach out and there are multiple residents within the area on the block
in fact, that is in support. This is Sharon. I just wanted to put on the record that we also
did receive a letter yesterday from Councilman Clark's office in opposition. Okay. All right.
I want to go ahead. I want to see if my client is present. I don't know if the board have any
direct questions for him. If he's present, bring him up. Okay. Mr. Alcedi, can you raise your hand
in Zoom if you're present so you can confirm my testimony?
me? No one hand is raised at this time. I'm sorry, if as an officer of the court, I would be
willing to stipulate that he would verify my testimony. Okay. All right. So is the,
has this place of business, has it been, has he been operating at all? I mean.
He has been. When he purchased it in July of last year, he was, he, he went in and started
operating. Once he realized that there's a problem with the permit, that is when an application was
made. So yes, he was operating. How long was he operating for? He acquired it in July. So about
six months. That's six months? Six months. How was business? Well, we would be here applying if
there was no business. Naturally, he feels that he can continue to do the business, which is why
he made the application. Now, I can't speak to the prior operator. It could have been the prior
operator did have some issues with the neighbors. I'm only here for my client, who's the new
operator. And as far as I know, he has not had issues with his immediate, I mean, not all
immediate neighbors, but some neighbors must have issues. Otherwise, we would not have the
letter in opposition that we received. Okay, give me one second here. I just had a little technical
issue here.
okay sorry about that i hit a hit a button and everything went dark all right you're
you're back on the screen uh okay well uh is there anyone else that would like to speak on
this case uh in the audience any hands raised no hands at this time okay
board have any questions yes mr chairman all right will there be will there be a exhaust
hood included in the plan uh let me mr holliman let me go ahead and go back to the plans
real quick i i believe there would be um a hood system it would but i just want to make sure
whether that was on the plants.
Because I didn't zoom in,
I know it's a little difficult to see the
actual plant at the time.
This is the electric.
I don't see a hood system
marked in the plants.
Okay, thank you. What is the trash plant?
The existing business has commercial trash pickup, and that will continue.
They also have access to the side and rear of the property.
They have a storage area, but there's a side area to the property where...
storage area, but there's a side area to the property where trash can be stored.
So the trash would be picked out by commercial service. It would be stored. All that has been
part of the operation of the business from before. And I do want to point out trash was not the issue
that was raised by the community because it has been handled by this business even in the past
without issues thank you thank you what was the nature of the issues if it wasn't trash what was
the nature of the community loitering they were claiming that there was loitering in front of the
property there that you know the illegal activities such as potentially drug sales were taking place
and that the business owner did not make active efforts to stop such activity
any color any kind of uh police uh log at all i i i don't again no one provided any evidence of
such issues um there was no lni has not certainly has not found the newest to my knowledge at this
location within the last year um and there's no we don't see anything from the police side and
again, this is why when he went for a petition, I think the other neighbors are more than happy to
sign because they're not aware of such activity. It's not the first time that neighbors have
pointed out activities that they thought were part of a particular business that might have
actually been a mistake from another business or across the street. In this case, what I do know
is that we have not seen any evidence of actual nuisance activities. Does your client have all of
his health uh licenses to operate business here i i don't know the answer to that because i don't
have that information in front of me i do understand that in order for him to even if he
gets zoning he would still have to get all the health department clearances in order to continue
to operate do you know if he had them when he was operating six months ago um i don't have again i
don't know the answer to that. I don't have the information. Sharon? Yes. Sharon, so if we were
to approve this, I mean, then the applicant then has to take the next step going to get his health
license? He would be required to have all necessary licenses, I believe, before getting
a certificate of occupancy okay okay thank you uh once again any any uh hands raised anyone
in the audience have any comments about this case
no hands at this time if i could just make a quick point and it's i just pulled it up on google
map so I can see the property. I didn't realize he had photos, so I apologize. But if he goes
back to the photos, Tom, there is a hood system. I'm not sure how interested you are in that,
but it seems to vent up above the second floor. It's visible on Google. I assume it's still
in the property and usable. It doesn't look like it's in bad condition.
thank you no problem thank you okay there's uh no other comments we're going to go to uh planning
commission this is ron bednar city planning while this property is currently indicated for
multifamily residential use in the city plan given its use history we recommend the request
sit there and speak for you. Okay. Calendar number MI-2021-000370-3409 Goodman Street.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right.
Board, I'm going to go back to number five.
Okay, I should have called number five.
So let's go to five.
Calendar number MI-2021-000333-3353 Emerald Street.
This is a second listing and there's no exhibits.
Is there anyone here on this case?
Any hands raised for this case?
No hands at this time.
Okay. All right, board. My vote is to dismiss. Dismiss. Before y'all do that, Ms. Sharon, didn't you get the email stating that they asked for a continuance?
All right, board.
My vote is to...
I am not sure that I did, but in any case, this is the second listing, no exhibits, and they really should have been here to request that.
Mr. Snell, I could check for emails now and forward them to you if you would like to review
those before deciding whether to dismiss. Okay, we can do that. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Okay, why don't we, let's move on and I'll wait until I get those emails and we'll go back to
that case. So let's go to number seven, calendar number MI-2021-000426-3639 North 19th Street.
Michael Lambert is the attorney.
there's no hands at this time also not seeing him in attendance
all right we'll uh we'll give the attorney a few minutes we'll come back to that
okay just now if i could i could read you the email on the last case sure please be advised
that I am respectfully requesting a continuance in this matter. The reason for this request is
that despite multiple messages left with the RCO Harrowgate Civic Association, I have yet to
receive a response regarding a meeting to discuss this zoning issue. So, of course, you're calling.
Oh, we can do a must-be-heard, you know. Okay, thank you. We'll do that. We'll do a must-be-heard.
All right, we'll give them a continuance.
So calendar number MI-2021-000333, 3353 Emerald Street, that case will be continued.
We'll slide down to number eight.
calendar number mi-2021-000376 3871 jasper street
is there anyone in the audience for 3871 jasper street yes melvin they're coming in now as a
panelists. All righty. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, sir. Please state your name and
address for the record. Yes, my name is Melvin Barbarena, and the address is 3871 Jasper Street,