Thank you.
Tanya, how do we look?
We're looking pretty good, sir.
We can begin whenever you wish.
OK, thank you. Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's ZBA hearings.
I'm going to go just a little bit out of the line.
With us today is Sharon Saleta, our attorney, who this will be her her last day working as the attorney for the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
someone who just
held this whole thing together for years.
What we would like is for Sharon
to say a couple words as we start this day.
Sharon, I don't have to swear you in either.
And Ms. Saleta,
you just need to unmute, please.
I'm at my most eloquent, though,
when muted, but
um but thank you it's just been my pleasure you've been wonderful to work with the regular
attorneys who appear before us um the community members i'm very grateful to have had this work
for so long so thank you also what this is our vice chair
go ahead carol tanari our vice chair
unmute
ishmael shaheed our board secretary here mr chair and thomas hallman our board member
present mr chairman and certainly we're going to miss you sharing
before we begin here's our virtual format be advised these proceedings are being recorded
by participating you acknowledge your green to be recorded the video will be available
by contacting our executive director tanya sunkett at school.gov for the benefit of our
court sonographer we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying three
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property and questions.
And lastly, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
Any questions, refer them to our Executive Director, Tanya Sump.
So let's look at our continuances for the day.
Number nine.
MI 2021-004828, 2514 North 17th Street.
Number 14, MI 2021-004829-5604-06 Utah Street, Attorney Moving Party.
And number 15, MI 2021-002621-6327 Lancaster Avenue, Attorney Moving Parties.
Anybody have any questions about any of those cases?
No, Mr. Chair.
Anybody in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Are there any other continuances?
Chair, we have Leo Mulvihill.
Mr. Mulvihill.
Mr. Mulvihill, state your name is spelled for the court reporter.
Certainly.
Name is Leo, L-E-O, last name Mulvihill, M as in Michael, U-L-V as in Victor, I-H-L.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What case are you interested in, sir?
I'm here for the three Watkins Street cases.
And that's going to be my request for a continuance in those matters.
All three cases are continued.
Must be tried the next time, Leo.
Great.
Thank you, Chair.
Any other questions for continuances?
We have Allison.
last name beginning with an n
i'm sorry i think the address i was concerned about hasn't come up yet
pardon me allison state your name and spell for the court reporter
oh my name's allison ing
a-l-l-i-s-o-n-n-g but i think i might have raised my hand too early i'm not sure that my
property that I was interested in has come up yet. It was on Wharton Street.
Do you want to continue that case?
I do want to talk about that case. Yes. But I'm just a resident. So like I said,
I think I'm too early. Wait till the case. Allison, wait till the case comes up.
Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Any other questions?
I see no hands, Chair. All right. We're going to go to our add-on cases.
7248 Rising Sun Avenue. Harry Cook,
Jared Klein, and possibly Leonard Reuter.
Progress.
What's going on? Good morning, Mr. Chair,
Madam Chair, members of the Board. Harry Cook on behalf of
the Borough Home Civic Association in Frank Ewan, regarding zoning permit number ZP 2021.
We have it.
You got it?
State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y, C-O-O-K, Anastasio Law.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Chair, if I can mention that it's Mr. Klein.
Jared Klein is here rather than Adam Laver.
He represents the current elder.
Mr. Klein, state your name, please, and I'll swear you in.
Certainly.
It's Jared Klein, K-L-E-I-N, from Black Rome, 130 North 18th Street in Philadelphia.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Is Mr. Reuter there?
No, Chair.
he's not in a virtual audience okay um mr cook why don't we start with you
sure uh thank you chair um has uh first uh in terms of brevity has the chair had an
opportunity and the board had an opportunity to review the uh petition in advance
that we filed yesterday sharon yes yes i have discussed it with the board i emailed it to them
everyone has the materials, Mr. Cook. Okay, so I'm just going to start by incorporating that
factual background section as my testimony in case I don't hit all the points, but I'll just
go through just a thumbnail of what the case is. My clients are seeking relief in two ways,
either as a non-protug to have their original appeal be refiled, or to have their original
appeal that was filed by email um scheduled for hearing with this board um on january 14 2022
about um four days prior to the expiration of the appeals period my law partner vernan anastasio
filed an appeal against lni regarding a zoning permit issued for 7248 rising sun avenue
In advance of that, it was a holiday weekend. We had several conversations with board counsel, as well as Hillary Emerson, Esquire, Councilwoman for Cheryl Parker's office.
And the takeaway that we all had from those conversations was that this strange sort of duck appeal, this by-right appeal, appeal of a by-right permit, was not contemplated to an extent in the code or the rules and regulations.
and that we could, one, file it by email so long as payment was sent by mail.
These appeals are not processed on Eclipse, and that was the takeaway.
That was the takeaway, and apparently that was a misunderstanding as to the instructions in the incident matter.
And apparently that was a misunderstanding.
Further, I do want to just state that the rules and regulations of this board do not prohibit email submission, nor does the Philadelphia Code.
There are instructions on the website that speak to filing paper applications, and this was not a paper application, it was a digital application in our understanding of it.
So being that there was, and again, those instructions on the website contemplate appeals of referrals and refusals, not necessarily the protocols for a by-right appeal against L&I.
So there were a lot of aspects that were unusual procedurally. Three attorneys took from the conversations we had from board counsel that the protocol for this was filed by email to all the 30-day appeal period.
and um excuse me mr cook i'm going to interrupt you here when i spoke with mr anastasio i
specifically referenced the postage date there was nothing i said that would suggest that it
right and no and i i and i and i agree in in in our in our pleading we are not challenging
the recollection of board counselor calling to question veracity we are just uh the the takeaway
way I had, the takeaway that Ms. Emerson had just was a bit of confusion over it. And there's case
law, in particular Carr v. Horsham, that speak to when there is some reasonable confusion and
there are conflicting procedure, that that can satisfy the second prong of a non-protong petition
where um the first uh essentially the breakdown in the administrative process again eclipse does
not take these appeals or a non-negligent conduct of the parties um that caused the delay and again
here in this instance it's almost a distinction without a difference uh mr chairman uh the board
did receive that appeal. They acknowledged receipt of the appeal prior to the deadline
in an email. I left a voicemail in response to that email asking if there were any additional
things that needed to happen and a subsequent email did not reference that. It was just that
the prior email was sent in error. It was supposed to be meant for staff. So, you know, we're not
asserting wrongful or negligent conduct by the board in any way. We're just focusing on the fact
that this was a holiday weekend. Multiple attorneys had misunderstood direction, and it was a reasonable
of misunderstanding and that our client should not be prejudiced as a result. There is case law
again relating to that. So that is our nonpartum argument. As it relates to the original appeal
being timely filed, under Pennsylvania law, the administrative agency has two ways formulating
policy that will have the force of law. One is through the rulemaking process. The other is
through promulgating substantive rules e.g. the rules and regulations I referenced before
as well as through adjudications that create binding precedents
anything else instructions on the website are merely viewed as statements of policy
they're neither rule making nor adjudications and they are not something that create
uh sort of a protocol that must be followed and when applying a policy statement rather than
a substantive rule or binding precedent you have to apply it to the case the instant case in such
a way that you have to defend it as being either one of those two and in this instance um again
And the rules and regulations do not prohibit email submission.
The board administration did receive and were in receipt of the appeal timely.
of the appeal timely. The Philadelphia code does not prohibit email submission. And this board,
The Philadelphia Code.
in addition, does accept many other pleadings by email. So there is there again, another
example of a confusing procedure that speaks to administrative breakdown.
um so can i interrupt again for one moment though as far as it having been timely filed
um you were also required to file a check for the amount of the um submit i had a confusing
email from mr uh anastasio saying he had dropped off the check miss sunkett perhaps you could
speak to this i don't believe we have any record of ever having received that sure so um yes
Yeah, this is Tanya Sunken. I'm not sure if the chair needs to swear me in or not sharing. But any time we receive applications, a complete application must have a check as well as the required documents submitted to our office.
anything related to an appeal against L&I is entered directly by the staff in a different
module so that's why it's not set up in Eclipse yet but a complete application must be submitted
to the office on paper if we do not receive it we do not consider it timely file we do over
give them a little more time to submit the check as necessary but that's pretty much
the procedure we never in my eight years here have taken a digital application thank you sharon
thank you thank you thank you sharon and tanya um i will speak to that on on january 18th um
mr anastasio mailed a check referencing the um referencing the appeal on february 18th he
followed up with the board asked because it had not been deposited and asked uh if he could if
he should drop off a replacement check he never received a response to that as to the procedures
of the board again those are not outlined in the rules of rules and regulations nor in the
philadelphia code and that is merely um you know again and admittedly these are are strange duck
appeals because they have to be processed manually and not through the Eclipse system,
which puts an appellant at a structural and procedural disadvantage compared to others,
that there are concerns at that level for someone who is trying to abide by rules and
regulations on a due process level and an equal protection level to be able to submit
one of these strange um appeals so um for that reason i think um you know if if that is the
procedure if if if an appeal against lni is such and all of the nomenclature on the website speaks
to appeals about referrals and refusals there should be either a special section for that or
the rules and regulations of this board should be updated through the rulemaking process and
promulgated so that folks know specifically that if there is an appeal against LNI, it must be
processed manually. It must be provided in paper and a check must be provided with it concurrently
or assume the reactor. Again, here, Mr. Anastasia is not available today for health reasons,
but um he averes in the motion that he did send a check there is email on the 18th of february
saying it was not deposited and he was willing to bring a check over to the office as replacement
and miss sunk had just testified that there is leeway with the acceptance of checks
Again, on the 18th, I did advise on the voicemail, if there was anything additional, that was at about 4 to 5 p.m., if at that time I had been advised, Mr. Cook, we cannot accept your, Vernon Anastasio's filed appeal by email, can you come and drop it off in person, we would have done so and still been timely.
and that's essentially the sum and substance i do have to say mr reuter is not here
but he is on record as being unopposed to the the non-protunk portion of the petition not the
um timeliness uh argument i i just made okay mr klein this this is sharon i'll confirm
argument i i just made okay mr klein this this is sharon i'll confirm that mr reuter is um has
no opposition to the pro-tunc argument mr klein thank you mr chair i will be brief um so on behalf
of the owner of the property we do object uh to the board granting relief here um i think that uh
You know, appeal rules are always treated differently in the law.
They're hard deadlines as opposed to more fungible deadlines.
And with all due respect to Mr. Cook, who I know is a diligent and thorough lawyer, I think counsel's confusion about how to process an appeal and waiting till the last moment on a holiday weekend to sort it out is not the sort of non-negligent happenstance that the nut pro-tunc rules had in mind.
And so I think that that counsel's inability to determine how best to proceed is not what the case law has in mind when they talk about this.
And there are dozens and dozens of appeals against LNI that are filed each year successfully.
So there is a process that people know how to engage in.
The other the other comment that I wanted to make is, you know, as you look at no pro tonk law, there is an element of this also that looks at the likelihood of success on the merits.
And I just want to point out to the board that this is an appeal of a by right permit.
This is not an appeal from a variance or a special exception.
This is something that LMI has already determined to be appropriate.
And so we, again, with all due respect to the appellants and the neighbors and their concerns, we don't think there's anything meritorious in this particular appeal against Illinois.
Thank you.
If I may respond, thank you, Jared, and I appreciate your comments about my diligence.
We were engaged for this matter about 12 hours, not even, before this was filed.
It was a time crunch at the last moment.
doing public service essentially for a RCO that has a statutory code interest in being able to
engage in the zoning process. All the case law that I've come across speaking to Non-Croton
does not take into account whether or not the fundamentals of any appeal will be meritorious.
The Philadelphia Code states anyone aggrieved by a decision of L&I has the right to appeal, period.
Our clients believe they are aggrieved by an overuse and an overburdening of sewage and infrastructure.
That's something that the board itself is going to have to make a determination on whether L&I exceeded its authority.
the Cook versus unemployment, Bass versus Commonwealth, Carr versus Horsham, none of them
take into account the likelihood of success of an appeal. And again, we were brought in at the 11th
hour to file this appeal on a holiday weekend and did so. And it is a distinction without a
difference. And the rules and regulations that are promulgated by this board do not prohibit
what we did. If the board wants to make it known that X, Y, and Z must occur or you will be barred
from your day in court to have procedural and substantive due process rules heard, that should
be in the rules and regulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Reuter is not here. Sharon?
i don't believe he is okay all right so 7248 rising sun avenue i vote yes that the email
appeal be recognized as timely no excuse me chair i believe that this was really only to go to the
um nunc pro tonk request that mr mr cook will be permitted to okay all right we'll be yes okay
I defer to Ms. Saleta on that. The second argument was essentially preserved for appeal.
I vote yes.
Other board members?
Solomon, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Can I make one recommendation also? So the vote then is to allow you to submit the appeal at this point. We have a request that you submit it within five days, mailed in or dropped off with the required fee. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Leda, and thank you for everything and your service. We all love and appreciate you.
love and appreciate you thank you mr well i will echo that sharon you will be deeply deeply missed
Thank you, Mr. Cook.
I will echo that, Sharon.
thank you for everything for sure thank you both guys i didn't realize i was muted
okay okay okay all right number two mi 2021 005027 2628 north broad street and 1412 to 22
WESLEY HIGH AVENUE, I VOTE YES FOR REQUEST AND RECONSIDERATION AND REHEARING.
MY VOTE IS YES TO RECONSIDERATION.
THOMAS HALLIMENT, MY VOTE IS YES TO RECONSIDERATION AND REHEARING.
ISMAEL SHAHEED, MY VOTE IS YES TO RECONSIDERATION AND REHEARING.
number three
I'm going to read a number of
cases MI 2021
003641 215
to 19 South 60th Street Parcel C
MI 2021 003642
215 to 19 South 6, Parcel D. MI 2021 003 643 215 to 19 South 60th Street, Parcel E. MI 2021 003 644
215-19 South 6th Street. Parcel F MI-2021-00345. 215-19 South 60th. Parcel G MI-2021-003-646-215-19 South 60th. Parcel H MI-2021-03647-215-19 South 60th.
Parcel I, MI 2021-003-648-215-19-South 60th, Parcel J, MI 2021-003-651-215-19-South 60th Street, Parcel K, MI 2021-003-652-215-South 19th Street, Parcel L,
and MI 2021-003654-221 South 60th Street, MI 2021-003656-227 South 60th Street,
and MI 2021-003655-225 South 60th Street, I vote no to rehearing and reconsideration on all cases.
Harold Tenere, my vote is no to all. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no to all.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no to all. MI number four MI 2021 003 754 1622 to 40 Point Breeze Avenue,
I vote no. Harold Tenere, my vote is no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
5. MI 2021-005-238-711-Germantown Avenue, I vote yes with proviso. Assembly and entertainment
use limited to performing arts theater.
Carol Tenere my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman my vote is yes with proviso. With proviso I'm sorry.
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes with proviso. Going to our regular list
MI 2021-002622-1210 Elbridge Street, Jacqueline Baez, RCO Community on the Rise, Letter of
Opposition.
Ms. Baez?
She doesn't appear to be in the audience and no hands are raised, Chair.
Okay, cases continued.
Mark must be tried.
MI 2021-004831-14 Lachlan Lane,
RCO Chesson Hill Conservatory and RCO Chesson Hill Community Association, both letters of support.
RCO Chesson Hill Conservatory,
and RCO...
Attorney Bill O'Brien.
Mr. O'Brien?
uh good morning mr chairman members of the board uh william o'brien on behalf of gregory and
susan thiel the owners of 14 lachlan lane uh may i share my screen mr o'brien just for the record
spell your name for the court reporter william w-i-l-l-i-a-m o'brien o-b-r-i-e-n do you swear
a firm that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And your clients,
the relationship to the property? They're the record owners and occupants. Thank you, Sarah.
Our vice chair has just a few questions. Hi, Mr. O'Brien. Do you agree to wave the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. It appears that you have submitted all the required
documents. Is that correct? It is. You may proceed. Thank you. And please share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The subject property is on the west side of Germantown Avenue on Lachlan Lane in the Chestnut Hill neighborhood of the city.
On page two is the refusal.
There is one refusal for...
Can you see my screen?
we can okay um here we go um there is uh one refusal and that's for encroachment into the
rear yard uh other than that there's nothing else before the board on this matter uh on pages three
and uh late submission pages 37 and 38 of the two letters of support from the two rcos the chester
Hill Civic or Chestnut Hill Conservancy because the property is considered a historic resource
in Chestnut Hill. And on pages 37, 38 is the letter of support from the Chestnut Hill Community
Association. Pages four through nine are letters of all the contiguous neighbors of 14 Lachlan
lane and the house across the street um i want to skip to uh page 10 of the materials
uh which is an aerial view um the mr o'brien could you mr o'brien could you move your screen
please we're still on the first page but let me stop sharing and bring up i think i've made a
the state okay there we go um so this is an aerial view uh it's a water department resource
parcel view plan uh 14 lachlan lane is here in red what happened
i don't know what happened i lost it we see it right we're seeing it okay there i found it again
okay um this is the rear property line the addition is an encroachment into the rear
yard uh space as is indicated the uh rear yard of 14 lachlan lane is not near any residence the
residences are distant. In fact, the two properties that abut the rear property line,
14 Lockwood Lane, there's nothing in that space, no residents. And again, both of these owners
have issued their written support for the plan. I can skip to some photographs.
This is the front of the house. This is the area where the addition is proposed.
these windows would be removed. An opening would be created for about 198 square foot addition,
which will be used as a dining room. The lot itself has about 998 square feet
of available space based on open space requirements. Unfortunately, because of the way
the house is configured on the lot, all the buildable space is in the front of the house,
distant from the kitchen. So it's a hardship for the family to put a dining room, if it's
on the other side, distant from the kitchen. So that's why it's located here. The only
other place to put it, this is the window for the kitchen, the only other place to put
the only other place to put the addition would have been on the side yard however that would
the addition would have been on the side yard. However, that would have still required a
have still required a variance for the side yard encroachment it would have been closer to the
neighbor's home and it would have jeopardized this heritage tree shown on the right side of
this photograph this is a rear this is looking from those windows where the addition will go
looking to the backyard the addition will be about 10 feet from this small tree and as i indicated
there's a little uh storage shed here in the back on the property on the neighbor's property but
there are no residences anywhere nearby. There is a proviso plan here, which I'm showing now.
The peak of the proposed addition was not exactly centered under a dormer on the second floor.
The neighborhood requested that it be adjusted. That adjustment is shown on the proviso plan
and described in verse on the proviso form,
which is page 17.
Excuse me, Mr. O'Brien, this is Sharon Salette.
I'll confirm that we did receive those in advance
and that the changes are fine to be made by revised plans.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Wendt.
Page 18 and 19 are the elevation plans.
I'll skip to 19, which is the proposed.
So this depicts the addition
and a standing seam metal roof,
which again was suggested by members
of the historic conservancy group.
And then the rear facing,
looking from the property line towards the house,
this is the revised elevation
showing that the peak of the proposed addition
is in line with the peak of the roof above it.
I don't know if there's much more I can offer.
I'd be happy to answer questions.
Is your client with you, Mr. O'Brien?
Yes, I'd ask Mr. Thiel to raise his hand.
He adopted a testimony.
Greg, would you raise your hand?
Mr. Thiel, please unmute yourself.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Gregory Thiel
last name T like Tom
H-I-E-L
Do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes I do. Proceed.
Mr. Thiel
were you on the hearing and did you hear
my testimony? Yes I did.
Is it accurate and true
the statements I made? Yes it
is all accurate and true. And do
you adopt it as your own? Yes, I do. And you are the record owner and you're occupant of 14 Lachlan
Lane? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience? Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson. State your name, please, for the court reporter.
good morning mr chair charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass
r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n room 312 city hall do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do please proceed councilwoman has no objection to granting the
variance thank you very much any other questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission morning chair bergman ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission that's h-e-g-a-r-t-y do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you thank you uh members of
the board comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsd1 single family zoning here at this
location. The configuration of the existing structure makes locating the addition elsewhere
impractical, and the addition is so configured to minimize the variance. So the City Planning
Commission recommends that the Board grant this variance. Thank you. MI 2021-004831-14
Lachlan Lane, I vote yes, with proviso. One page. Carol Tineri, my vote is yes, proviso.
thomas holliman my vote is yes we provide so ishmael shaheed my vote is yes we provide so
thank you mr o'brien thank you mr chairman thank you members of the board thank you chair
number three mi 2021 004826 1428 west venango street
letter of support from nicetown tayoga improvement district
jermaine harris yes yes good morning good morning uh could you state your name is bell
attorney yes yes good morning good morning uh could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter mr harris please sure jermaine harris uh j-e-r-m-a-i-n-e so you spell my first
name last name you spell it as h-a-r-r-i-s right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do uh could you identify your client and the relationship
to the property my client is young and seldom homes uh which is uh llc and they're both here
they're both present on the call um and they are the owners they are the record owners of the
subject property the vice chair has a follow a couple follow-ups hi good morning do you agree
to leave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do it appears that you've
submitted all the required documents. Is that correct? That is correct. You may proceed and
please share your screen. Thank you. Yes, that's what I was going to ask you is can I share the
screen. You bet you you can. Okay.
Okay. Can you, can my screen be seen right now? No. Okay.
now can i speak yeah we're now we're good okay all right i have here my uh exhibit packet but
essentially uh what the owners of this property is uh seeking to do is to get a variance for a
three-family uh triplex for this building now i will note that this building for many years
had been approved for a three-family. In fact, the history goes back to 1942 where this very
board granted a variance for this property for it to be used as a three-family, and that continued
for many years. Unfortunately, this property had a fire, and it had a fire in the early 2010s from
my understanding. And it remained vacant. And as a result of the building remaining vacant
for several years, before my clients purchased the property in 2018, it lost its three family
status, and it reverted back to its single-family status. But from 1942 until the early 2010s,
it was an actual legal triplex. Now, what I have here, I'll go to this.
Well, first we have, we did a presentation in front of the Coordinating RCO,
Nice Town, Tioga, improvement, and they overwhelmingly voted in favor of this.
There was a significant vote of 13 to 1 in favor of restoring the property back to its original state.
I have photos.
Well, before I get to the photos, I have plans of the particular property.
and what we're it's a three-story building and each floor will have its own apartment the basement
will be untouched it will be just used as storage but the first floor would be it would be two both
all floors will have two bedrooms and one bathroom the first floor will have uh a bedroom one and
both of them in the rear, which is pointed right here and pointed right here.
You go up the stairs, go up the stairs, and then you go into the second floor.
You have a bedroom in the front and then a bedroom in the rear, which is pointed,
which is pointed here. And you have the kitchen. You have the kitchen right here,
the living room, and then the bedroom, the bathroom right here.
Then you go up to the third floor, as I'm pointing to, and you also have the same, a very similar layout of the bedroom in a rear of the apartment and a bedroom in the front of the building with a bathroom towards the front with the living room and kitchen.
moving along we have a picture of the building right here it's where i'm pointing at right here
right here. It's where I'm pointing at right here. It is currently, as I stated, it's vacant.
It's a shell, but this is a block that is full of multi-units as well as commercial units.
But this is the particular building right here.
It's a closer up photo of the building.
And we also have a picture of the posting right here.
And my clients, if they were to testify, they were to testify that they posted this within 21 days of the requirement, the zoning requirement.
I also have here, right here, a, hold on.
This is a zoning breakdown of the block and half of the block it's RSA 5. The other half is mixed use and multifamily for this block.
The red is the multifamily. The red is the RSA 5. But this is all of the same block right here.
we have the deed right here indicating the ownership of the property
the refusal the refusal notes that previously there has been a lengthy history of this property
being granted a three-family household in 1942, which remained for many years until it
had to fire, became vacant. We have the tax clearance indicating that there is a tax that
the city recognized that there's a tax clearance for this record owner. So what we're asking to do
is just uh pretty much put back into place what was already for many years a property that was a
triplex it's not inconsistent with the nature of the buildings that are on the block and we would
ask that given that there's uh overwhelming support in the community for this that it be granted and
i would open up for any questions that any of the of the board members may have mr harris would you
want to have your testimony adopted by your client sure i can uh i can have i can call them
and ask them if they would uh are they on the line now are they on the line yes have them raise
their hand can you raise your hand to me i'm sorry
miss young you can unmute yourself hi good morning good morning could you state your name
is spelled for the court reporter sure tamika t-a-m-e-k-a young y-o-u-n-g do you swear or
firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed okay uh miss young did
uh you are a you are part of young and selden tayoga homes llc correct yes okay uh and
did you hear the testimony that i just testified to in front of the board yes i did and do you
adopt fully uh what i stated to the board what i testified to for the board yes is there anything
any additions or is there anything else that you would want to add or you would rest on what it is
that i stated to the board uh no that's it okay are questions from the board no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have one calling user phone number ending in 6578 please unmute yourself and wait
for the chair could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
good morning
calling user ending at 6578 you're unmuted you're free to speak
yeah i was an accident i apologize
accidental call yeah yeah i don't have any comments okay all right
Anyone else have any comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Mr. Richardson, just state your name. You've already been sworn.
Mr. Richardson, just state your name.
You've already been sworn.
Charles Richardson.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Bass from 312 City Hall.
Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Questions? I'm sorry, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment
limit from RSA 5 to RM 1 at this location. So this proposed use conforms not only to
documented prior use of the structure, but also to the recommended zoning district and
the comprehensive plan. We therefore recommend that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2021 004826 1428 West Venango. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes
Thank you, Mr. Harris
Thank you, may be excused
Thank you
MI 2021-004820-168 Gay Street
Manioc Neighborhood Council, letter of support
Mr. O'Brien
Mr. O'Brien
Yes, good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the board
Just state your name for the record, Mr. O'Brien
William O'Brien, W-I-L-L-I-A-M, O'Brien, O-B-R-I-E-N
And you've already been sworn
Could you identify for us your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is Neil Orczak, who is the owner of 168 K Street.
Thank you.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi again, Mr. O'Brien.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
It appears that you have submitted all the required documents.
Is that correct?
It is.
Thank you.
You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
um this is a bit of an unusual appeal um in 2015 mr warczak appeared before the zoning board
requesting a variance a use variance to use his home not only as a resident not only as his
residence but also as a bed and breakfast uh he was without counsel and the zoning board
despite the neighborhood support, denied the request for the variance.
Mr. Orczak engaged counsel who filed a timely appeal to the Court of Common Pleas
and coincidentally six years ago today on March 30th, 2016,
the Court of Common Pleas reversed the zoning board
and granted the requested relief from the zoning code.
um that order is on page 15 of the materials um so it should be over uh however there was a bit
of a hiccup and uh mr orzak's attorney failed to uh make an application or file the order with
the department of licenses inspections in order to get a zoning permit uh a few months ago mr
to file an application with the city for street cameras.
There's a program to support neighbors and street cameras.
And an eligibility review revealed that his use bed and breakfast was not currently legal
because no permit had been issued.
And the only remedy was to file a new application and pursue this appeal.
I want to show just a few photographs. The neighborhood civics supported unanimously. It's on page three of the materials. But let me just briefly go to the photographs because that's worth a thousand words.
This is an image of the front of 168 Gay Street.
This is the lounge area on the first floor.
This is one of the dining areas. That's one of the bedrooms, guest rooms, another guest room
and another guest room as indicated uh it's this has been in place for six years
uh again the neighborhood uh with that uh use existing for over six years in this residential
neighborhood the neighbors all still support it um and i would request the variance be granted so
and I would request the variance be granted
so that the use may continue
that the
and a permit will be pulled this time.
Is your client here?
No, he's not, Mr. Chairman.
He had connections.
I don't know that this testimony...
You're an officer of the court.
We'll take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commissioner.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA-5
single-family zoning at this location.
However, this legalization corresponds to the use that was previously affirmed by courts.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021-004820-168 Gay Street, I vote yes.
Harold Tannery, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Tannery, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
Members of the Ward, may I be excused?
Yes, you can.
MI 2021-004827, 2432 North 27th Street.
RCO, All in the Family CDC, Letter of Support.
Jermaine Harris.
Mr. Harris is coming back in as a panelist.
good morning again just state just state your name for the court reporter you don't have to
be sworn okay jermaine harris uh jermaine harris h-a-r-r-i-s right could you identify your client
and the relationship to the property my client is brian garris who is the record owner of the
subject property 2432 2434 north 27th street thank you our vice chair has a few questions
including the issue of tax clearance okay mr harris do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you submitted all the required documents
I see that there is a problem with not having a tax clearance.
Has that been resolved?
That has not been resolved as of yet.
Okay, so you've submitted everything except for the tax clearance?
Correct.
Correct.
Anything else, Mr. Chair?
Like, do I ask if there's any?
I think we're going to move forward with the case,
and we'll close it
and wait for the tax
clearance before we vote
okay great you may proceed and
please share your screen
hold on
I'm sorry, let me, I'm just trying to get the last presentation out from the screen.
My screen can be seen, correct?
Okay, all right.
Okay. So this is a request to expand the use of this building as a funeral home. This property was granted use. It's an RSA 5 section of the city.
However, it was granted, approved by this board for use as a funeral home in 1965.
There is an expansion of this request, this variance is seeking an expansion of the building for it entirely to be used for funeral use.
Now, first of all, we have the letter of support from the All in the Family.
We had the letter of support from the All-In-A-Family. We had two meetings with the All-In-A-Family CDC, who is the coordinating RCO in this particular area. There was overwhelming support for that.
Let me go to the plans.
But before I go to the plans, because that's another attachment, I'll show pictures of the building, of the front of the building, which is right here.
It's a three-story building.
This is a posting of the zoning notice within 21 days.
This is another picture of the building.
This is the interior of the building. Now, this building was previously used, as I stated, testified before, as a funeral home. It was called Powell Funeral Home.
and that funeral home uh was a pretty deeply rooted uh funeral home and had been in that
area for many many years i think uh for over 30 plus years
and when my client uh he got ownership of the property it was in bad shape so what what has
been done is it was just demolished to the studs and we're looking at what we're looking here is
one of the floors of that this is the first this is the I believe the third floor this is the second
floor and this is no I'm sorry this is the third floor right here this is the second floor
and I believe this is the first floor
and let me go to the actual plans of the building
Okay. So what we have here is, again, it's three floors. This is the first floor. This is the
The first floor, this would be essentially the funeral parlor chapel area.
This would be a viewing area.
It's two viewing areas on this floor.
Then we go up to the second floor.
The second floor is the conference room.
Then we have a casket room, which would be this back here, a casket room.
And then a part and also a part of it would also be office space as well.
So the third floor, which is right here, which I'm pointing to, is a storage area.
It's just general storage area for the needs of the particular funeral home.
Let me go back to the...
Is there an elevator?
There is no elevator.
There is all, it's all steps.
Hold on, let me go back to the.
Thank you.
Correct.
Steps right here.
This would be, this is walking from the,
this is walking from the first floor up to the second floor,
which drops you off into the conference room area.
And then from here, then you go up to the third floor.
right here, and then that's going to drop you off into the third floor,
which is the steps right here, which would just be storage right there.
thank you
uh this is the deed just indicating the ownership of the property
of the property by Mr. Garris. Also, as far as trash, trash will be in the rear of the building.
by Mr. Garris.
There's going to be private dumpster for this building. And also, there is going to be,
as far as parking, there is a coordination. There's going to be a coordination with North
pen baptist church which is right across the street where they're going to allow uh for
there to be parking for these services uh they're going to be working in tandem with each other and
my client can testify as to that as well um he expects to have 20 to 25 caskets within the
showroom of uh this funeral home and what again what we're seeking to do is we're seeking to
make the entire use of uh the building conducive to a funeral home it's well rooted within the
community when it was open for many decades and that's what we're asking for and we ask that
given the fact that there's been a great amount of community support for this that this uh variant
be granted
once upon
once receiving
the tax
upon once receiving the tax claims
Mr. Harris
is your client here?
Yes he is
Mr. Brian
Harris could you raise your hand please
We have one calling user with the phone
number ending in 6578
Please unmute yourself.
Would you please state your name and spell it?
Mr. Garris?
I don't know what happened to him.
I know I just...
Mr. Harris, you're an officer of the court.
We will take your testimony.
Thank you.
Yeah, I just spoke to him.
I just spoke to him by text.
questions from the board no mr chairman there
no questions or questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have odessa tate please okay uh i'm gonna have to promote her to panelists
thank you for her to speak okay
hello hi could you state your name and spell could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter please my name is steve harris a-e-i-t-h-h-a-r-r-i-s no relationship i'm
jermaine harris do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Proceed.
My name is Chief Harris. Again, I'm the ward leader in the area.
And this institution of power for the home has been a pillar in this community.
And ever since it had gotten defunct, the community time has been scrambling around to like, you know, because we've always been a close knit community.
Also, Mr. Garris is a part of our community.
Like, you know, he didn't grow up too far away from there.
Also, he has an interim or he has some relationship with the previous owner,
Ms. Isabel Powell, that owned the Powell funeral home.
So we were related to know that he had bought this funeral home
and he was going to reestablish it.
So he has full support of the whole community, all the families, other RCOs, the NAC, myself, I'm the ward leader, and we're hoping that you're gracious enough to approve his endeavor.
Thank you, Ms. Harris, for calling in. We appreciate that.
Any other questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, too.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hello?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Chair, she's coming back in as a panelist again. I'm sorry.
Okay, sure.
hello can you hear me i could yes could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes so that's the tate o-d-e-s-s-a-t-a-t-e
Yes, Odessa Tate, O-D-E-S-S-A-T-A-T-E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I just wanted to piggyback off of Mr. Harris. Yes, Powell Funeral Home was a staple in our community.
We are happy about the restoration of the property and looking forward to working with Mr. Garris.
there is a part of the proviso where he has to equip us with some additional information
post-construction but I just wanted to make clear as well for Mr. Harris to follow up with us with
with the tax clearance proponent but yes as was stated the community is in support of the funeral
home thank you thank you thank you for your call anyone else I see no more hands here planning
Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning
Commission. Members of the Board, in 2014, this zoning map was amended from RM1 to RSA5 in this
location. This applicant is proposing an expansion of a legal non-conforming use, and we believe the
proposed variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the needs of the business. So the
City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2021-004827-2430
north 27th street i vote yes carol excuse me chair this is sharon um we're i you have to
actually hold this one i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry thank you all right so we'll we'll hold
this until we receive your uh tax certificate very well we will very well we intend on getting that
to the board shortly all right thank you mr chair i think we are closing the record on it
We are.
And Mr. Harris, if I can say even it doesn't necessarily have to be a certificate, any proof of tax compliance or of your client entering into an agreement would be would suffice.
Yes, can you?
Hello.
Yeah, Mr. Harris, did you hear that?
I didn't hear that. I'm sorry.
Sharon.
Yes, just if it doesn't, it's just proof of tax compliance or that you have entered into a payment plan that we will receive.
Okay, I do have a payment plan. I do have a payment plan that Mr. Garris entered into for the subject property.
Okay, if you could email that to me, then it can be put on the next hearing list to be voted.
okay i'll email i'll email that to you uh i'll email that to you this morning
thank you thank you
mi 2021 004761 2600 wharton street no rco letter at this point henry clinton
this is Sharon we have since the summaries went out we've this morning received um letters in
support from the RCO on both this and the next property okay I'll talk to Henry about that when
he gets on thank you thank you good morning Mr. Chairman hi Mr. Clinton um state your name and
spell for the court reporter please sure Henry H-E-N-R-Y Clinton C-L-I-N-T-O-N do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i don't mr clinton 10 and 11 are
they related uh no it's two separate clients okay good we'll go with 10 mi 2021 004761 2600
wharton street could you identify who your client is for this and the relationship to the property
The client is OTE Realty LLC, and the principals are on the call, Edan and Tuval Shalom.
And they're the owners?
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Clinton.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
It appears that you've submitted all of the required documents timely.
Is that correct?
Thank you.
Except we just got the letter from Grace Faraday's support last night.
Okay. You may proceed and share your screen, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is that visible enough?
It sure is.
All right. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Henry Clinton for the owner of this property, OTE Realty.
And I'm showing you my presentation package, which contains table of contents AA to A11, which I'll ask to be admitted into evidence.
to A11, which I'll ask be admitted into evidence. It's my appearance statement, and this is the
It's my appearance statement.
refusal. So what we have here is one large lot, 28Y by 61 deep, and the proposal is to subdivide
that lot into two lots, each 14 by 61, which are basically the same size lots as most of the other
properties on this side of Wharton Street. And the request then is on each lot to build a two-family
dwelling. The refusals are three. One is because both lots are zoned RSA 5 and we're asking for
two-family that's expressly prohibited. And the other two refusals are concerning lot sizes. But
as I say, our lot size is basically mirroring the other lots on the block so everything is going to
be consistent on that block in terms of width and depth. We do have an RCO letter of support
from Grace Ferry Community Council. And these are photos, just to give you some perspective.
And my argument is we have some unique circumstances here that warrant the grant of a
two-family dwelling in this RSA 5 zone. The properties are right here on the corner and
then one in. Across the street is a church. It used to be the old King of Peace Parish. It's now
the Church of the Pentecost, and down the block is the former school of King of Peace. Then directly
across the street, and I'll show you some closer photographs, is a large apartment building,
five apartments with a daycare on the first floor.
This is just another perspective of the lot looking north. This is the apartment building.
three plus stories across the street.
And it used to be a restaurant on the first floor
or like a banquet facility.
Now there's a daycare there.
Another perspective, looking south,
this is the church, the old school,
and the two vacant lots.
And from my review of the zoning records,
it looks like these lots have been vacant
for 20, 25, or 30 years or even more.
And if there's other neighbors on the block
who have more knowledge of that than me,
They can speak up, but no one really knew
when we had the meeting with Grace Ferry
how long these lots were vacant.
And this is a ground view of the lots,
again, the corner lot.
It's now 28 wide, 61 deep.
This is the apartment complex across the street.
And these are two-story homes
going west on Wharton Street.
These are zoning posters.
And these are our plans.
to shrink them a little bit.
Basically, first and second floor, one unit,
second and third floor, another unit,
and then the rooftop deck.
So the open space for the second unit
on the second and third floor would be the rooftop deck.
And for the first floor,
they would have opening to the rear yard.
We have no issues with regard to open space,
rear yard, or height.
You can see it's mainly a brick structure, which is much suggested for what Grace Ferry Community Council would like to see in the neighborhood.
This is a plan of the corner lot right now as it exists, indicating the width and the length.
There's a rear yard access for the second lot at 2602, which will go west and then exit on Sears Street.
and this is what the subdivided lots would look like if the board looks kindly upon this
proposal. We have legal descriptions. The remaining documents are the pro forma documents
that are typically presented before the board, the tax certification, the deed indicating
ownership, and all the other pro forma documents. So basically, in a nutshell, we have a situation
where we believe it's unique, long, vacant lot,
that this proposal is not going to affect
the light and air of any adjoining properties.
It's in harmony with the code.
It's in harmony with what the community group supports.
And it's not detrimental to the public welfare.
And with that, I ask the board
to look kindly upon their request.
And I'm available, as is the client,
for any questions or comments.
why don't you have your testimony adopted by your client okay uh idan or tuval can you
unmute yourself that phone number may be 215-292-646-650 we have a calling user with their
hand up with a phone number ending in 7798 please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
could you state your name and spell it please hi this is idan shlomo
could you state your name and spell it please
could you could you spell it for the court reporter yep idan e-d-o-n shlomo s-h-l-o-m-o
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed mr shlomo uh good morning good morning were you on the call
when I presented the testimony
concerning 2600 Wharton Street?
I was.
And are you one of the principals
of the owner, the LLC?
And if you had the opportunity to testify,
would you testify as I did
and did you find my testimony true and correct
and would you adopt it?
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Shereen Brooks.
Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure, my name is Shereen, S-H-E-R-E-N-E.
Last name is Brooks, B-R-O-O-K-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Proceed.
I am not in support of this project. I live in the 2500 block of Wharton Street, closer to 26 in Wharton. Matter of fact, that's my car sitting right there with the picture, the Sonata, the Tan Sonata, sitting right there.
um if they want to put one family dwelling there I'm all in support of it but not two different
properties with four families living there and I believe it's going to be a rooftop deck
we don't get sunlight now because we're inundated with rooftop decks and in properties um no I'm not
in support of that my address is 2541 Wharton Street I'm the third one right there right yep
that's where I live at exactly exactly I'm not in support of this project like I said if they want
to put one family dwelling there I'm more than welcome to sign off on that and as far as being
Grace Ferry the RCO they don't represent our neighborhood they don't even live near us so
So, no, I'm not in support of that.
Thank you, ma'am, for calling in.
Are there anyone else, comments or statements?
Here we have Candace Anderson.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Good morning.
My name is Candace Anderson, C-A-N-D-I-C-E, Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Good morning. Again, my name is Candace Anderson. I live at 2608 Wharton Street. I am the fourth
generation in this home. My family has owned this home for over 80 years. My house will be
99 years now will be 100 years old next year, God willing. I, as one of the neighbors, was not
notified that this property was up for development. I did speak with a number of other neighbors this
morning and they were not notified of any community meeting to discuss the planning and development
of this property. We in the neighborhood, we are a community. We would not, I'll speak on behalf
of myself, I should say, I will not support something like this. Like Shireen said, I will
support a one family home because that is consistent with what is in this block. But I will not
support any multifamily dwellings. Also, Grace Ferry community does not represent us. They do
not live in this block. None of the members live in this block. And I think if you are going to
develop in this block you should have a voice you should be able to say what you would like to see
and something that is aligned with what is already in the block but i do not support this okay thank
you ma'am for thank you for calling in anyone else in the virtual audience chair we have allison
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Hi, my name is Allison Ng, spelled A-L-L-I-S-O-N.
Did I swear you in this morning?
I just had a question. I don't know. No, no, no. Wait a minute. I said I thought I swore you in this morning.
I just had a question.
I don't know if you did.
No, no, no.
Wait a minute.
I said I thought I swore you in this morning.
You might have. Yeah, I did ask earlier a question. OK, good. All right. What's your comments?
OK, so I looked on the Web site for Philly zoning and it said a variance may be issued if an applicant proves that the denial of the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship and that the unnecessary hardship was not is not created by the applicant.
The variance must be the minimum variance or the least modification possible that will afford relief and must be in harmony with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
The variance cannot substantially increase congestion in the streets slash transit, burden public facilities, endanger the public welfare, affect implementation of a neighborhood plan, injure the adjacent properties, including the supply of light and air, or create significant environmental damage.
I'd like to speak to these things regarding the plan.
Let me issue this.
Are you against the property, against the development?
I am against it.
I am the neighbor who lives right next door at 2604 Wharton Street.
And it would be extremely burdensome to me personally, but not only me, but to my community.
So first, it says it cannot increase congestion on the streets and transit.
So, so ma'am, let me, I think we understand, you don't have to go over the whole code, but we do understand where you stand, you're against this development, we understand it.
But can I provide a little bit more background as to why?
For example.
Go ahead.
You muted yourself.
Oh, sorry.
Right. For example, they compared it to Wharton Hall across the street, which does not have five, but four apartment buildings, apartments inside.
That building is three buildings wide. So it has one parking spot in front of it.
No, two parking spots in front of it on Wharton Street and three on 26th Street.
These two duplexes, if their entrances and the entrance to Wharton Hall is on 26th Street.
The entrance to these duplexes would be on Wharton Street, not 26th, like Wharton Hall is.
And there's one parking spot in front of it because there's also a stop sign on the corner.
On 26th Street, there might be parking spots, but there would only be two on that side.
And the entrances are on Wharton Street, not 26th.
Wharton Hall's entrances are on 26th Street.
So we're talking about adding four to eight cars to our street.
The next one is it can't burden public facilities. As you see currently, it is an undeveloped. It used to be green space before the developer purchased it, but it is an undeveloped space. So it currently has the capacity for stormwater retention.
If you develop it like this, it's going to increase wastewater produced.
If you have four units there versus two units versus none, there's a lot more wastewater produced.
Philadelphia has a problem with combined sewer overflow and heat island effect.
So reducing green space and doubling wastewater and reducing stormwater retention is a huge burden on public facilities that could be avoided by leaving this as a green space or at a minimum having it as single family dwellings.
okay um next injuring adjacent properties so my house as i said is next door it is less than five
feet deep inside my basement i checked when i went downstairs and i looked out my window i'm only
five and a half feet tall so um if there's going to be people living downstairs that is going to
be a deep basement and it will affect the structure of my building um it's probably going to destabilize
my wall i have two children under the age of five and their bedroom is on the left side of the house
I don't want their wall to fall down while they're sleeping in there it's not safe
so the other thing that I noticed was that the structure is supposed to be built straight back
so it's going to be over three floors tall and straight back so there's not going to be that
gap that most houses have if you look if you flip to the page that shows the overhead view of the
houses. You'll notice on our block, most of the houses are, they have basically like a living room
window and then it indents about three feet to the kitchen area. And so, and you can see on my
house, it has that, but the proposed building will go further back and it's going to go straight back.
So there's not going to be that opening between the two houses. So it will restrict light to my
kitchen bathroom the kids window my living room window um significantly not just because it's
three floors but because it's proposed to be built straight back rather than with that
um and those are the main points that i have and i just think it doesn't um comply with
those are the main points that i have and i just think it doesn't um comply with all right thank
you thank you for calling in and and staying on the phone too from your earlier call anyone else
i see no handshare planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia
city planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa5
single-family zoning at this location. With regard to the dimensional variances for lot
width and area, we find that the proposed dimensions are consistent with typical lot
sizes on this block and in the surrounding neighborhood. However, with regard to the
proposed two-family use, the applicant has not shown that there are any unique physical
conditions of these proposed lots that would compel two-family use. This is a purely economic
request, which does not constitute hardship in this case. So our recommendation is that the board
grant the variances for lot dimensions and that lot width and size, but to deny the variance for
two-family use on these lots. Mr. Chairman, can I address some of the comments just briefly?
Mr. Clinton, you can. All right, thank you. So in terms of notice, we sent out letters as per the
planning commission guidelines to all the surrounding homeowners within 250 feet. We had
a community-wide meeting with Grace Freire, and Grace Freire is a coordinating RCO with other
RCOs in that neighborhood. It was well attended. Ms. Allison, who was the last speaker, did get
an opportunity to present her position, and a vote was taken, and it was overwhelming support.
In addition to notice, we also, you can see the notices were posted within 21 days of the hearing
for anybody who maybe discarded the mailer or didn't read the letter so they had noticed.
In terms of the Planning Commission, I mean, this lot has been undeveloped for, as I said,
25 to 30 years or more, and it's been sitting there undeveloped. And this is going to bring
a new home on both lots. The corner property, back in the day, used to be three stories from
what I understand, as most corner properties were, and had multi-uses. And then in terms of
unique situation. I've argued that because of where it's located, a church across the street,
a school across the street, and a four, I thought it was five apartments, four apartments and a
daycare across the street, it kind of fits in with that corner. In terms of parking, which Miss
Allison brought up, you can see in this photograph, you're going to be able to get at least three and
possibly four cars on 26th Street. And the width of the houses are 28 feet. You should be able to
get at least one and a half, possibly two cars there. And so with that commentary, again, I ask
that the board look kindly upon this application, since it is in harmony with the community support
and in harmony with the code. And I thank you for the additional time you gave me.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton. MI 2021-004-761-2600 Wharton Street. I vote yes to the separation,
the size of the lots and and no to multi-family units harold tenary i vote yes to the size of the
lots and no to multiple family units thomas halliman my vote is yes to the separation of
the lot but no to multi-family use ishmael shaheed my vote is yes to the size of the lots but no to
the multi-use and chair if i could just clarify i will um the vote then is yes to the dimensional
variances yes no to the use thank you okay mi 2021 004 825 2647 reed street
no rco letter but we believe we have one from last night mr clinton again just state your name
Chair, he had got kicked out. He's coming back in as a parent.
Okay, sure.
Good afternoon or good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Henry Clinton for 2647 Reed Street.
Could you identify who your client is and the relationship they have with the property?
Certainly.
The owner is 2626 Oak Reed, LLC, and the principal Leigh Nezafort, L-E-Y-N-E-Z-I-F-O-R-T, is on the call with me.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Clinton.
Do you agree to wait through reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
It appears that you've emailed all of the required documents timely.
Is that correct?
Thank you.
You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Henry Clinton for 2626 Oak Reed, LLC.
I present my evidence binder, which contains table of contents AA through A11, which I ask be admitted into evidence.
This is my appearance statement, and this is the refusal.
This is a request for a two-family dwelling in what was a previously approved three-family dwelling.
So we're literally zoning down on this request from what was approved previously by the board.
The other refusal has to do with lot dimensions, which is a proposed 6% increase, which we find is the minimus, and I hope the board finds the same.
We do have an RCO letter of support from Grace Ferry Community Council, which we received yesterday as the chairman referenced.
This is a photograph area of the property.
It's four properties off the corner of 27th and Reed Street.
This is the property here.
Excuse me, it's three properties off the corner.
This property has been since demolished, and the property to the right, there's a new three-story home right there.
Picture of our zoning notice.
These are plans.
We're trying to match the height of the property next door, which, as I said, is completely built.
I think it's occupied now.
This is our proposed structure.
Zoning plan.
we have no issues with open space or rear yard or with height and here's the property i was
mentioning previously that's complete now and this is a once two-story house which has been demolished
and our property will hopefully go up next to it again some more aerial views cross-section floor
plan, tax certification, and the other pro forma documents that we usually submit for
the board.
And this is what's important here.
This is a prior zoning appeal where there's a request for a three-family dwelling, and
that's not our request today.
Our request is for a two-family dwelling.
And in fact, the zoning permit was issued for a multifamily, three-family use.
We just found that this owner just found that the three-family use was not going to be compatible with what he thought was the best use of this property.
So with that, I would rest.
I would ask the board if there's any questions and my client is available on the call to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Clinton, why don't you have your testimony adopted?
Mr. Nesiford, are you on the call?
please unmute yourself sorry yes i am all right could you state your name is spelled for the
court reporter please uh lay nesifort uh lay is spelled l-e-y nesifort is uh n-e-z-i-f-o-r-t
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do. Proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Neza 4th.
Were you on the call when I presented
the project for 2647
Reed Street?
Yes. And are you
the principal of the LLC 26,
one of the principals of the LLC 2626
Oak Reed LLC?
And if you had the opportunity to testify
today, would you adopt my testimony
as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you very much.
questions from the board no mr chair no mr j questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission all right thank you uh chair ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission um comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing rsa5 single family zoning at this location um with regard to the dimensional
variance for lot coverage we find this proposed condition to be consistent with typical lot
coverage on this block we have no objection to that however again with regard to the two-family
use the applicant has not shown that there are any unique physical conditions of the proposed lot
prior approval by the board of three-family use notwithstanding this is a vacant cleared lot so
there's not any unique conditions to an existing structure that would justify that granting of
use variants. So our recommendation is to grant the variants again for lot coverage,
to grant the variance again for lot coverage, but to deny the variance for use.
but to deny the variants for use.
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Clinton?
Yes. As I said, the history is there's a three-family use on this particular lot.
It's two off of the corner. The corner is a commercial property, and I frankly don't know
what this property is being used for. It has a commercial appearance, but I can't testify that
it is being used as commercial. It's really not an overuse of the property. It's a two-family
dwelling with three stories. It has the support of the Grace Ferry Community Council. It's
not going to affect light and air of any house on the block, and it's in harmony with the
code. MI 2021-004-825-2647 Reed Street, I vote yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clinton?
No, thank you very much.
May I be excused?
Thank you.
MI 2021-004-819-2900 Distance Street.
No RCO letter received.
Joe Consul.
Good morning, Board.
I'm leaving the street here.
Good morning, Mr. Consul.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
It's Joseph Consul.
It's C-O-N-S-O-L-A, Consul Madison, LLP, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204, Media, Pennsylvania,
19063.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property, please?
My client is Mr. Ming Ji Kui.
he is the owner of the property and he's uh on this call somewhere thank you um our vice chair
has a few questions for you mr holliman could you do the follow-up questions please
yes mr chairman do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do
according to our records you have submitted all the required documents except the rco letter
is that correct that is correct please proceed and share your screen
uh all right i'm going to share my screen but um i wanted to address the rco letter
uh at the outset um just to see uh if the board was going to suggest something different than me
presenting right now but uh we met with the rco last monday we presented we were there for an hour
in person uh they at the end of the meeting someone said that our um poster had been taken
down off the wall of the property and so they refused to vote uh at that time which uh seems
strange we all the letters went out we showed them proof we showed them photographs um of the
posters being up which are in the packet we put the posters right back up as soon as we learned
that they had been taken down off the property, but they still refused to vote.
So I don't want to prejudice my client by putting on a case without the RCO letter,
and I thought we had a good presentation for them.
So I guess before I run through all my exhibits, I'd like to just see what the board thinks about that.
Why don't you proceed with your case?
Chair, if I could speak for one moment, I would suggest that the board go forward with the case and the RCO be given one week to submit a letter, which would then be read into the record.
Thank you.
All right. Good morning, board. Joseph Consul here. The owner of 2900 Distance Street is Ming Ji Kui. He purchased the property approximately two years ago.
The property at that time had tenants in it, in a single-family home.
Those tenants have since vacated.
That was approximately six weeks ago.
The goal is for Mr. Mingji and his family to relocate to Philadelphia from New York City
to be closer to friends and family that have relocated down here.
And to that end, they're seeking to occupy the top portion of the property and to use the lower level as a personal services salon.
Mr. G's father is a fairly well-known hairstylist in New York and is seeking to open up a very small space in Philadelphia.
space in Philadelphia. And so I have some examples of other similar, if not congruent, RSA 5 variances that were granted by the board to allow for commercial space on the first floor of a unit.
Philadelphia.
And so.
these are all within two or three blocks of uh the property that 2900 distant this is wendy's
beauty salon on raw um there's caesar's house of hair styling which is on the same which is
a browse and brighton which is just a few blocks away from our property ours is a distant um distant
and brow there's valentina beauty beauty studio there's another hair studio 50 shades of gray
at 3201 mcgee and then there was a daycare which is not a hair salon but it's uh a similar ask so
i just thought i'd present it um there was more those are the ones that we were able to just drive
around and find uh quickly so the refusal is to use uh that space as a salon um like i said
last Friday, we met with the RCO and presented our case. Seemed to have gone well, but at the end,
no vote was taken. Here's a picture of our posters after they had been rehung. Here's our
picked timestamp photos of the original hanging of the posters from March 3rd. Again, these are
all included in the packet, but someone had taken them down prior to the RCO meeting.
And we put them right back up.
The property, like I said, had been vacated by the tenants.
The space is the exact same size as those other spaces that I had shown you.
It would be a two-chair salon in the outside of the lower level of this residential unit here.
That's pretty much it.
It'll be operating 9 to 5 Monday through Friday by appointment only on the weekends.
and Mr. Ming-Gi and his family will live above.
Past that, I'll call Mr. G to adopt my testimony.
Could you state your name and spell it, please,
for the court reporter?
Sir, please unmute yourself.
Hey, hello, this is Ming-Gi.
Q, so it's M-I-N-G-J-I-E, and last name is Q-I-U.
Pardon me, Ming-G-Q.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Good afternoon, or good morning, Mr. Q.
Did you hear my testimony right now regarding your property at 2900 Distance Street?
Do you adopt my testimony as if it were your own?
Is there anything you'd like to add today?
um no okay questions from questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chair questions or
comments from the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman
ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 5 single family zoning at this location
We feel the applicant's hardship claim is not supportive evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of this particular property.
So typically in cases where a corner property is seeking a ground floor unit, contrary to zoning,
we're looking for prior documented use or other evidence that the property has a unique physical condition of two separate units.
We don't see any evidence of that in this case, and so our recommendation is that the board deny the variance.
Thank you, Mr. Haggerty.
We're going to hold this case for a week, waiting to hear from the RCO.
Sharon, anything else to go into that?
Just that the record is otherwise closed except for the RCO letter, which will be read into the record.
Sharon, I sent you an email.
They submitted it this morning, 9 o'clock this morning.
Did not receive it.
I'm sorry, then, rather than continue this, can we hold on for one minute?
Tanya, is it possible, if you have it in front of you, is it possible for you to read it into the record?
Oh, okay.
Or to share your screen?
I could read what they provided.
Let's see.
and just for the record this is distant street right yes okay oh good morning stated along with
And just for the record, this is Distant Street, right?
all the other document um zoning regulations um they discussed about the signage problem
the members of the association and the entire board voted unanimously for continuance so that
the neighbors are properly notified and can then choose to support or oppose the project
after viewing the applicant's presentation. If the applicants do not wish to continue
the case, the Civic Association voted to subsequently oppose the project if the hearing
is held today. We look forward to the applicant and owners revisiting this project again before
the civic associates having just seen that we're we're fine to continue your vote and we're willing
to go back in front of them but we comply with all requirements and we had shown them the same
at the time um there was neighbors there they got our letters the signs were up we showed them proof
of that um so uh if they'd like us to meet with them again uh we're happy to do that oh it's that's
it sounds like they're asking for but i didn't get that letter okay so in that case um this
will be i'd recommend that it be scheduled for a resumption hearing um and mr console if you
could notify the board when that's ready to go forward okay thank you mr council
number 13 oh i'm sorry if i could ask a question sharon are you stating this needs to be scheduled
for resumption for the board to listen to testimony from the rco or are we saying just
to read a letter into record it would be more than that since mr consult has agreed to meet
with them again but it would be limited to feedback from the rco because we don't know
when they'll meet you can't give a specific date it would just have to be um it would have to be
announced and notice sent out um so do you say that your council will let us know yes thank you
because you're leaving me i just wanted to be clear and i'll confirm that in an email to him
and copy you Ms. Sunkett. Thank you very kindly. MI 2021 004-824-4981 Sheldon Street, Leo
Mulvihill. RCO letter in opposition, Wakefield 49ers.
good morning chairman members of the board
i believe i already swore you once today if i remember correctly mr mobile
okay could you just state your name for the record yes leo mobile health that's l-e-o-m-u-l
and could you identify your client and the relationship to the property
certainly my client's name is the principal of green bridge properties at llc and um
mr holliman has a few questions good morning counselor do you agree to waive the reading of
the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do according to our records you have submitted
all the required documents on time is that correct please proceed and share
your screen I'm sorry this is Tanya before we proceed Mr. Movahill we barely
can hear you for the recording and purposes of the attendees could you try
to move closer to your mic or turn up your volume all right I will try
now let's do a test okay i just turned up the input volume is that any better wonderful thank
you all right great glad i got this taken care of so members of the board i'm here today for
the property of 4981 sheldon street i have submitted to the board as part of my documents
Refusals, Appeals, and Project Information Form on page 1. Area zoning maps at 8. Proof of ownership
to HUD 1 at 9. Tax clearance at 39. Area zoning notification letter at 42. RCO letter at the time
of submission we did not have, but I know the board has since received it. Photos of the property,
it says 21, but that's not correct. And then plans at 44. So members of the board, what we're here
um and then plans at 44. so members of the board what we're here for today
for today.
is the erection of a new structure on a vacant lot this block of sheldon street is largely
if not entirely residential with the exception of a rec center that's directly across the street
from our subject property there are a number of vacant properties on this block as well
and i'll show you those as we continue to go through the presentation but our proposal here
to use a new construction three-story structure with five dwelling units and the purpose of this
five dwelling unit would be for veterans housing
moving on to page eight of my presentation packet we can see the subject property here
which is relatively large and deep uh fronts on sheldon street here rubicam street is behind us
Sheldon is zoned RSA 5, Rubicam is zoned RSA 3.
I'll note that while a significant portion of Sheldon Street is vacant, Rubicam Street tends to be pretty well populated.
There's a number of two and three family dwellings all along Rubicam Street, and I believe along Sheldon as well.
But I'm not sure whether those are considered to be legal properties for multifamily use or not.
This is the overhead shot again showing our vacant property as I zoom in.
You can see, again, much of Sheldon Street is currently vacant.
We do have the playground directly across the street, as I stated in my opening.
And then the blocks of Sheldon here towards the western side tends to be a little bit more developed.
My client's ownership for the HUD.
It's my client's commercial activity license.
The tax clearance certificate system was throwing me errors, so here's a printout showing everything except for 2022 is paid up and that's in the amount of $200.17.
It's our notification letter that went out indicating we had a community meeting that was scheduled on the 28th of March, 6.30 p.m.
and the reverse that notice I had included a copy of my refusal. This was a reply absentee voting
sheet that I included. This was originally a letter from my client. I'm not sure what happened
in the encoding here, but this was a letter that went out with everybody explaining specifically
what the use was to be for the property in terms of being veterans housing. In addition to the
letters being sent out i did hand deliver basically every house in the affected area as well as i
stated there were a number of vacant properties but everyone who was out in the street got one
and i put them in the doors of all the houses in the affected area
this is the proposed area of development you can see it's completely vacant
looking down sheldon street to the left of these photographs you can see the rec center across the
street this is directly across the street showing vacant properties one single family structure and
then that rec center and then we're kind of looking the other way down the street seeing
some single family homes a number of vacant properties as well this is our property with the
zoning signs posted this is looking um pretty westbound on sheldon street largely vacant
and number of other photos of the immediate area.
So what I'll do is I'll forward to our renderings.
I'm going to rotate this page so it looks a little bit.
So this is what we're proposing.
It'd be a three-story structure with the roof deck.
It would essentially look more or less like a single-family home,
very traditional in the style to the front,
to the side of the building would be a number of windows
and a number of windows in the rear of the property as well
to allow for amper light for all the units this is our proposed site plan that we submitted to
zoning you can see we have a significantly sized rear yard something like 50 feet deep the building
itself is about 90 feet deep the lot itself is 140 feet deep so it's a very large lot
there's a three-foot wide alley that runs next to it and an existing structure next door
All right, this is our proposed floor plan. I'm going to try to start off to the
right and go from there. So here's our proposed basement plan. In the basement, we would have
half-bath, sprinkler system utilities, closet space, living room, dining room, kitchen,
and one bedroom to the rear for the ground store unit, along with a set of egress stairs to get out.
that's the first unit the second unit would be here on the ground story come into the front door
hang on right have a nice closet space very similar layout living dining kitchen
closet and bathroom and then another bedroom to the rear there's a washer dryer in this unit and
closet and bathroom and then another bedroom to the rear there's a washer dryer in this
the basement unit as well all right going up to the second story proposals have a bedroom to the
front nice just nicely sized walk in the closet bathroom to the middle living room dining room
and kitchen to the rear and another bedroom in the rear of this unit this is a two bedroom
and then proposed third floor plan and bed into the front living room dining kitchen
and then bedroom to the rear as well there is a roof deck that's proposed
it's essentially open set back there's going to be roof exhaust to the front this is going to be
our pilot house and a significant size of your yard trash storage will be included within the
kitchen areas as well this is just another drawing showing the elevation of the property
again brick front the property itself is not going to be taller than 38 feet
and in fact it's going to be closer to 35 feet
and this just shows again the proposed side elevation number of windows reach
dean is to allow for lots of light to go in and that pilot house step back from the front and
from here. So members of the board, the reason that we're asking for the variance here is a
couple of different reasons. One, this lot is extremely large and it's zoned RSA 5. It's not
terribly wide, however. So what we're thinking to do, rather than have a new construction single
family home, we're trying to use up more of the lot. By using up more of that lot and having a
larger building, we're proposing to have those additional units to allow them to be a little
bit more affordable for new construction purposes in addition the plan is to have this be housing
for veterans uh whether older or younger returning from overseas or have been here for quite some
time um so with that particular idea of a target market in mind we wanted to have something that
would be more affordable for those members as well so ultimately because because of the size
of the lot because building a single family home in a lot that is steep is financially not that
practicable and because they're trying to serve for what would otherwise be an underserved
area namely veterans housing for this particular parcel those are the reasons that we're seeking
to obtain the variance here uh the neighbors at the community meeting uh generally has some
questions about the suitability of veterans as neighbors some people were simply against having
any multifamily whatsoever in this area. But as I've stated on this block and on the block behind
us, there is already significant multifamily use, whether two or three family dwellings,
sometimes more. That's essentially our presentation, members of the board. Mr. Peters, if you're on the
line, would you please raise your hand so you can be unmuted, and I'll ask you a couple questions.
mr peters you're free to speak i'm here all right could you state your state your name
please and spell for the court reporter owen peters o-w-e-n uh peters p-e-t-e-r-s right do
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed okay mr peters you've heard my testimony today with respect to this application
I did.
Is there anything you'd like to add?
I also have Pastor Lamont Pennell on the call.
We partnered up with his CDC to provide veteran housing.
If he's there, if you could raise your hand.
We'll get him in a second, Mr. Peters.
In addition to what's going to be testified to by the Reverend, is there anything else
you'd like to add at this time with respect to this application uh not at this time no okay would
you otherwise adopt my testimony as your own for purposes of this hearing yes okay mr melville i'll
try to get the minister on when i open it up to the audience yes under questions from the board
uh yes mr chairman uh counselor yes do you have a letter do you have a letter to support the
Veterans Administration use of this building?
I don't have such a letter, no.
Mr. Peters, if you have such a letter,
would you advise Chairman, pardon me, Member Holloman?
Mr. Peters, you have to unmute yourself.
Yeah, sorry about that.
Yes, Pastor Pinnell have a letter of support
from the Veterans Multiservice Center
to support this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Questions from the-
Chair, we have Pastor Lamont Purnell.
Pastor, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Pastor, please unmute yourself.
Yes, my name is Lamont Purnell. It's spelled L-A-M-O-N-T-P-U-R-N-E-L-L. I'm president of ITA and Hope Empowerment Education Service Center.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Proceed.
I just wanted to make it clear that this unit is going to be for an underserved population of veterans, women with children.
We, our organization, is working with Mr. Peters' organization to make sure that these families are vetted and that they are on the right track to not only move into this unit, but to be able to purchase and own their own homes.
The women will be single and they will have no more than two children.
That's why the property is laid out in the way that it is laid out.
We work directly with the Veterans Multiservice Center. We work with USEP, who also serves center, that's the Utility Emergency Fund.
We work with resources for human development to make sure that the women have enough financing to be able to pay for the units and to be able to do what they need to do to secure or make sure that they're making a livable wage to be able to support their families.
Reverend, did you hear the question earlier? I know you said you're working. Do you have a letter from the Veterans Association supporting this program?
Yes, we do. The letter is coming directly from the director of the Veterans Multiservice Center, who is our main source of reference in receiving these women with children.
And do you have the letter with you?
I believe they do. I've submitted it to Mr. Peters, but I do have a copy.
Thomas, any questions for the Reverend?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Rosalind McKelvey.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Good afternoon. My name is Rosalind McKelvey, R-O-S-A-L-I-N-D.
Last name McKelvey, M as in Mary, C-K-E-L-V as in Victor, E-Y.
Hi, and I'm the president of the Wakefield 49ers coordinating RCA.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed.
First, we do thank Ms. Sharon for all her dedicated work, and we will miss her.
As I go forward, we did have a neighborhood meeting, and in due respect to the veterans,
we did not have a lot of time to alert the neighborhood that this was coming or that the
meeting was happening. The email might have gone out, but there wasn't notification until
three days before the meeting. I would say that I did send along our report and the neighborhood
response, which was a resounding in this RSA area of no. In respect to our veterans and our
families, we want them to be welcomed. At this time, though, the neighborhood undoubtedly came
out with an extremely strong opposition due to the fact, one, that in one block away, they already
had at 417 East Worcester units put in, and they do not assist or help with the neighborhood.
On this same block around the corner, there is two mental institutions and three
apartment buildings, and one was just approved a few weeks ago for an additional one.
So the neighborhood is inundated, and when people have looked at the neighborhood and know there's
not a formal block captain on these blocks. They're almost like vultured and properties
put on them. We want those veterans to be safe with their families. We have shootings,
We have shootings, hangings.
hangings. There is so much, if you look on the news,
There is so much, if you look on the news in Germantown, if the neighborhood doesn't
welcome them, they are going to be a target.
And that's not what we want for our wonderful veterans.
So at this time, with the short notice, with the discussion we had, and these are young
people.
When young people come out to a meeting for a zoning meeting, for RCO meeting, I am shocked.
They came out, Christians, Muslims, young people, and they said they're not going to do it.
If they say, yeah, we got ways to stop it.
The mental capacity and outlook of the community is not welcoming to families.
They're not safe right now.
And we don't need to be on the news anymore.
The first shootings for Commissioner Outlaw was a block from here.
So we're just saying at the time, we said opposition, there needs to be more time for the use of the property. And he did say, very nice, it was one of our best presentations in a long time, that they can't find a $300, $300,000 buyer for the single family house they want to put there.
But trust me, it is not safe to put those families unwanted across from a place where there's congregating. The playground is across. They smoke, they sit out there, they hang out there. And when they come on an RCO meeting and says it's not going to happen, our veterans deserve better than that. And it's going to put them in a very awkward position.
So for that reason, not with any disrespect to our veterans, the RCO, also Faith LLC, CDC, said we declined and said we're opposed and go with the neighbors.
Thank you. Thank you for calling in and your comments. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Good morning again, Mr. Richardson. Just state your name, please.
Charles Richardson from the office of Councilwoman Cindy Bastron 312 City Hall. Very simply, the
Councilwoman stands with the community in opposing the granting of the variance.
Thank you very much. Any other comments from the audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5
single-family zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship claim rests on the depth
of the lot. However, we disagree that the lot depth is so significant a hardship as to deprive
the owner of reasonable use of the property under the existing zoning. We note that the financial
return of the development is not a hardship factor in use variances, and we further note that in
terms of zoning entitlement, the use cannot be restricted to supportive housing for veterans.
this appeal should be evaluated by the board as a typical five unit apartment building in a single
family zoning district. This proposal is also in direct conflict with a specific recommendation
from the comprehensive plan which was agreed to in response to the widespread and well-documented
concerns cited by Ms. McKelvey to limit group housing and program housing in East Germantown
where it is significantly overrepresented. The City Planning Commission recommends that the
board deny the variance. Thank you, Ann. MI-2021-004-824-4981 Sheldon Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you, Mr. Mulvihill.
Thank you, members of the board. Have a good afternoon.
Okay. Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called?
i see no hands chair okay thank you everyone two o'clock
honda before i start do you want to take care of that issue
oh yes chair i'm sorry i forgot to mention that we do have an add-on
This case is regarding Sharon Saleta. Address is 1515 Art Street. I wanted to put on record
the board, planning commission, law department, zoning attorneys, and RCOs voted to grant the
special exception. Sorry, I'm getting ready to start crying. I'm starting to cry the special
exception and all variances however Mr. Letta did submit a request for reconsideration
the vote was no you must not go forward with the reconsideration and rehearing
you are granted retirement they added a proviso stating Sharon you must
retirement. They added a proviso stating, Sharon, you must enjoy your retirement and so much your
four-legged staff. Chair, we do have members here who wish to testify regarding this case.
Please, please. Is Ms. Gaskin available? Raise your hand. Joe Beller, please raise your hand.
Oh, no. Sharon, you might need an extra box of tissues if you wish.
i think you blindsided her already staff do you see joe beller
yes miss gerald gaskin if you could promote them to panelists please sure
and they wish to testify regarding this case
and i don't even have to swear them in because i know they're going to be telling the truth
yes they will cheer
and we have first Ms. Gaskin are you available welcome Ms. Gaskin your testimony hi I'm here
good afternoon and greetings I am speaking for the zoning land use and code enforcement subcommittee
of the real property section of the Philadelphia Bar Association and for the zoning bar as a whole
uh the members that I call uh affectionately uh the usual suspects and uh I want to thank uh Paul
Bonney for um who came up with this idea to and made it happen that we're able to pay tribute to
you Sharon uh during this time first I want to congratulate you on your retirement and thank you
for your many years of dedicated work in your role as counsel for the Zoning Board.
It's not an easy task and it requires a lot of juggling of interest of the public, the bar,
the board, L&I, City Council, the law department, the bench, along with an ample dose of professionalism,
good humor, and grace under pressure. And I also want to commend you for your dedicated
public service. Sharon, for many years, was just one of us, as we say, the usual suspects.
And one of the best things about our bar has always been that while we all may be adversarial
in a case, we are not adversarial with each other. And we, and a testament to that is the many
different interests that people who are here to pay tribute to you today. On a personal note,
Sharon, you and I have been friends and colleagues for many, many, many, many years. I don't want to
miss and we all will miss being able to uh call and get your uh wise uh counsel and your perspectives
on uh different issues outside of uh just the regular bar association uh or case information
and finally we all wish you well as you move into this next phase of your life
find something to do that is something that makes you when you put your feet on that floor
in the morning get up and be happy to spend the day doing something that you love and are passionate
about. Good luck and good fortune in your future endeavors. Don't be a stranger. We love you.
Thank you, Ms. Gaston. So very nicely said. We do have another person, if I can ask him to unmute,
and that would be Mr. Joseph Beller himself, otherwise known as Mr. Zoney Law.
Ms. Beller, you have two minutes to discuss how wonderful Sharon is.
Unmute yourself Joe
Unmute
Am I just got it
Do you have it now
Listen
Sharon
This has to be a big day
Because
It's only the second time since COVID
That I've worn a jacket and a tie
I did it to impress you
I have to say. Joe, you always impress me. Thank you. I want to tell you something. I was laughing when I was thinking about this because they all want me to make funny, but it's hard to make funny when you've been so helpful over these years to not only me, but everybody.
Joe you always impress me
Thank you
The big thing is that you also, I guess this is the bittersweet part, you made us better lawyers.
So you should get credit, not only for what you did, but for CLE.
Because once you started working and doing this, we all had to be sure that our data was correct,
that we had all kinds of cases to support us.
But I want to say this because I think it was the most important thing.
Besides the fact that you were obviously helpful, you were the most even-handed person we've ever had to deal with.
I personally, and I know everybody else, Paul Bonney and I have been talking about this for days, you have really kept us in line.
you moved the things along because you knew what was extraneous before you started to help out
uh the zoning board and i go back to 1963 i think the first appearance 1960 maybe 61 and in those
days you could almost say anything you ever wanted to say but you kind of kept us in line
and i don't resent that i appreciate it and i want to tell you that i've talked to a number
of people in the last few days and the truth of the matter is that you will be sorely missed
and stay in touch and it's always good to see you and i do consider you a friend as well as a
colleague thank you joe that means so much to me thank you thank you mr beller we do have one
other. His testimony may be a little contentious based on the typical. Mr. Pollack, you have two
minutes to have a brief conversation with us about how wonderful Ms. Saleta is. That goes without
saying. I mean, that's stating the obvious. Sharon and I, I think like everybody else, back and I
keep saying, this is my phrase these days, back in the old days, back in the old days when we could
we could troll the concourse of msb uh and back in the old days when there wasn't an eclipse system
and we would file our own zoning applications i think that's the first time i met sharon way back
when but i tried to and again as cheryl and joe have highlighted uh one of the things that we've
always as a bar appreciated is the fact that the zoning board of adjustment in philadelphia
caught up to the rest of the zoning hearing boards
around the state that had their own solicitor
or at least the council that would advise them.
And we couldn't have picked a better first person
to have that role than Sharon Saleta.
When I tried to think of what word
capsulized Sharon to me, it's altruism.
And like anybody else,
we go to the great dictionary of Google these days
and altruism was the belief in the practice
of disinterested and self-concern for the well-being of others, to the extent that
they want to benefit somebody else at their own expense. That's Sharon Saleta. From her feeding
of the homeless to her well-recognized treatment of our four-legged friends, I look at Sharon as
like the Mother Teresa of Philadelphia. And the fact that she's a lawyer makes it even more
amazing. No, just kidding, Sharon. And she also found the time over the years to, as Joe has
aptly stated, add some balance and keep the bar herded up or herding our cats and the members of
the bar so we have some dignity and respect. And it's something that she's been able to balance
all that. She brought a whole new meaning to the words, findings of facts and conclusions of law.
i remember way back when and i i'm a kid because i only go back to my first case joe was in 1976
so you know i thought i was bad at 76 but i know you always you're you you go way back um and there
was a guy named harry kurtzman who was in tanya's seat and harry was a lawyer but harry would have
this ability to say to you hey you won they took an appeal you want to write the findings of facts
and conclusions of law that way that way if you screw up it's on you kid uh and you would you
Uh, and you would, you know, you would say, sure, sure. I'll do anything to do something like that. But Sharon brought new meaning to that. And when I also think about altruism, when I think about Sharon is if you talked about this at the very beginning of time, you know, the fact that she would get paid $500 per case, whether it was, whether it was a 10 minute case that got appealed or whether it was one of those, you know, contentious cases that Tanya has associated me with, where we go for three days worth of, of testimony.
know you would say sure sure i'll do anything to do something like that but
And she had to go through reams and reams of testimony. So for Mr. Snell, I'm sure that she
could have been unionized a long time ago, but we never did. So again, we're all jealous of
retirement. Look, Beller's still putting on a suit and tie at his age and is ready to argue at any
time. So I think like a judge, a retired judge, Sharon, you'll be around. We're not going to get
rid of you we're all going to bring you back and as i said uh for all of us paul bonnie uh who was
uh did a great job of you know putting this all together because it's a time-honored tradition of
our section to say goodbye to uh board members and especially those board members or members who
were members of the bar uh we really appreciate what you did uh i think this was the golden age
of zoning who knows what's coming up next with the new ballot referendum there tanya i'll be a
little contentious uh but uh we all hope everybody who's sitting on the board can stay if they want
to stay and uh but it's going to be a new world and it won't be the same without you sharon
thank you steve thank you so much all of you appreciate it it's a lot of people here sharon
it's over a hundred that's a testimony to what you have done and because we'll continue to do
when i call you for the board um i just wanted to mention your staff really wanted to be here
but they had a case before ccp today and they were unable to come forward because they were
completing the facts and findings for the judge so your staff loves you the four naked ones and
all of us at the zoning board administration office appreciates all you do others want to speak
but of course we do have sessions that we have to have, but we just wanted to say farewell to you
and the way that you deserve to be told goodbye. All of you are the best part about having this
practice for so many years. I have loved working with you. I especially, and something I didn't
mention this morning, Tanya and your staff, I have, I practiced law for 35 years. I have never felt
as much like I am part of a team as I have in these past two years so thank you all thank you
all this is so kind I wasn't expecting this I'm so moved oh we had to blindside you yes so thank
you all the participants and again Mr. Paul Bonney kudos to you for reminding us to remind
Sharon how awesome she is and with that we're going to go into our 2 p.m sessions thank you
okay thank you thank you everybody thank you love you sharon i love you too thank you
so good afternoon everyone after that great send off my name is bill bergman and i will
be chairing this afternoon's meeting um with me is carol tanari our vice chair
present ismail shaheed our board secretary
and thomas hollman our board member present mr chairman also our executive director and
our beloved lawyer sharon saletta before we start thank you let me just review
our virtual format be advised the proceedings are being recorded
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett, at tanyasunkettatphill.gov.
For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testify.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, please note the question and answer box on the screen is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Selkin.
So let's look at continuances for this afternoon.
I mean, number one, MI 2021-005-417-1400-38.
0-0-5-4-1-7, 1400 to 38 North Howard Street. Continuance is requested. Is there anyone
in the virtual audience has a comment about that continuance?
Chair, we have David Orphanides.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. David Orphanides from Orphanides and Toner.
Just real quickly, I don't have an issue with the continuance. My firm has been retained
by the Howard Street Neighbors Alliance, LLC, which has members of property owners located on
the 1400 block of North Howard Street. So we're an interested party right now, presently a
protestant in this case, but I just want to hear that we were present today. Thank you. I appreciate
it. Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else have a comment about the continuance? There's no other
hands, Chair. Are there any other continuances for this afternoon?
Chair, we have Alan Nockamson. Mr. Nockamson. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the
Board. Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. What case, sir? 5154 West Yard Avenue.
Number eight. Okay, number eight. Thank you, sir. That'll be continued. Thank you. Any other cases?
I see no handshare. Okay, so we're going to go to our add-ons.
And our first add-on case, MI 2021-003190, 150 or 59 West Jefferson Avenue.
Revised plans have been submitted.
I vote yes with revised plans, one page.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
number two mi 2021 004525 468 paoli avenue the rco letter was sent in the rco which is the
um hold on one minute the ridge park civic association the letter ends with our members
and guests voted unanimously to support this proposal. Therefore, we encourage the zoning
board to provide her with the variance that is requested, signed by Marlene Scheffler,
the president of the RCO. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Okay. Number two, MI 2022-00052, 1740 Wiley Street, RCO United, Francisville Civic Association,
letter of support. Alan Nackamson is the attorney.
Mr. Nackamson is coming back in as a panelist.
good day uh good afternoon again uh mr chair members of the board allen state your name
you've been sworn. Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N,
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109. Could you identify your client
and their relationship to the property? Yes, I represent James Insurer Hodges,
the owners of 1740 Wiley Street. Our vice chair has a few questions. Thank you.
Mr. Nockamson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I assume that you've sent in all the required documents timely?
Yes, I have.
Okay, you may proceed and you may share your screen.
Thank you.
You know I say that.
I know.
Well, we have to do the dance.
First, before I begin, I really do want to say that I just want to acknowledge the years of service that Sharon Saleta has given to the board.
When I started many years ago and she was counselor to the board, I didn't know much.
um many years ago and she was counselor to the board i didn't know much i probably still don't
know much but um i know a little bit more because of sharon and her kindness in terms of just
facilitating just the administration of this whole zoning variance process so i really do appreciate
her and she will be sorely missed um her knowledge and kindness is above all um going to be missed
so thank you thank you Sharon thank you thank you so hi um let's try not get too emotional here and
get some uh so we'll go through this uh this is a pretty straightforward project
uh 1740 Wiley Street it's in the Francisville section of Philadelphia um I'm going to go
through the notice of refusal or letter of support from the United Francisville Civic Association
the support which unanimous a permit showing that you know this has been two building structures
since the beginning of time the showing that this board has granted just multi-family projects on
the 1700 block of Wiley Street where is one building structure here we have two building
structures one each facing Wiley and then the corresponding street on Erdman a petition my
clients, Jim and Shira Hodges, do not live far from here. They have an expanding family,
newly expanded family. The reason why they purchased this property is to have a single
family home facing Wiley. And there's a carriage house there, which has to be demolished as part
of our refusals. And they're rebuilding a carriage house as an in-law suite. And I'm glad to say
that they have given birth just past day or so to a little baby girl, Penelope. So I'm not 100%
sure they're on the Zoom call because they're in the hospital right now. But they met with
their neighbors. They have a petition, nearby neighbors, letters to support by nearby neighbors.
We'll go through maps of the area, photographs of the properties around the area,
Our plans and drawings, if you wish, our meeting notice showing that we sent out a notice to the court to effective properties, as well as proof of mailing or application for appeal or deed to the property showing that Jim and Sherrard do own the property, 1740 Wiley Street, and our certificate of tax clearance as well.
So this is an RSA 5 property. There's a building structure currently facing Wiley Street, a single-family home, and there's a carriage house with a garage facing Erdman.
So what we're trying to do is renovate the single-family home and to demolish the carriage house because of its structural integrity issues, and then just completely rebuild it almost the same.
And we have three refusals, not more than one principal building is allowed per lot in RSA 5 or RSA 5.
What I would say to that is that we're not changing technically the physical conditions of the property.
And if we split this property in half, and you'll see there's other properties on this block,
we're not doing anything that's out of character or different than what's on that block, essentially.
The second refusal has to do with the fact that instead of subdividing a lot like every other lot that's between Wiley and Erdman, we're just keeping it as one lot, having a building structure facing Wiley, which is there as a single-family home, having a carriage house, single-family home, one bedroom, one bath with a garage for Jim and Jura's parents.
And so that refusal is explainable.
And then the third refusal is the fact that the rear yard shall be nine feet, whereas plan shows zero feet.
Again, if we kept the existing carriage house, we would not have that refusal.
But because of structural integrity issues, we have to demolish it and to rebuild it.
And that's why we have that refusal.
We have a letter of support from the United Francisville Civic Association.
No one was opposed to this project.
We had 14 people in support, one person in non-opposition.
And again, just showing from the L&I file for this property, this has always been essentially a two-family dwelling for all intents and purposes,
where you have a single family in the front on Wiley, and in the rear, you have an Erdman carriage house.
and then again not out of character for the zba to grant multifamily use different circumstances
where the multifamily use was in one building but 1722 wiley 1724 wiley 1734 wiley 1739 wiley
1745 wiley and 1746 wiley and then we did a petition so i want to give a map to show where we
And then we did a petition. So I want to give a map to show where we are and where we got the addresses. So the green is number one is our address. And you can see there's an outlier here. But out of the 21 signatures or the 20 signatures we have, most, if not all of them, are basically a one block radius.
and then just here are our signatures that's the basis of that map and then just letters
to support we have both next door neighbors in support of this project as well on Wiley Street
and then just showing you from a map perspective where we are here's Wiley Street
here's Erdman and here you can see faintly but every one of the properties other than the one
that's right next door to us is subdivided essentially in half. And ultimately, that's
what we're trying to do. And you'll see from the pictures that there's properties facing
Erdman as well. And it makes sense to have eyes on the street. And here's the front of our
property from Wiley. The rear of the property for Erdman, it's a really tight angle, but that's the
carriage house. It's in really bad condition, but it has an existing curb cut, which we're going to
use for the new carriage house, hopefully. Wiley Street to the right, Wiley Street to the left,
Erdman to the right, Erdman to the left, and then our plans and drawings.
And I'll quickly go through these, but it's a very handsome home. The Architects Noam Architecture,
which is well known in the Philadelphia area for taking, you know, that modern twist but keeping the traditional feel as well.
So we have the brick facade, no bay windows, nice light and air with the windows,
tall windows to give as much light and air as possible to the occupants.
There's Wiley from the south.
And then here's a view of Erdman from the north.
Again, we're using an existing curb cut.
We're keeping character in terms of scale and height and look to the neighboring properties.
And then here's just our survey.
And again, our site plan that we submitted to L&I.
And the elevations.
We have no dimensional variances.
And then it's just a single family plan.
You walk in, open floor plan.
lower level is just some more living space you go up a flight of steps there's there's two bedrooms
a little office area and then you go up a third flight of steps and it's the third floor it's a
master bedroom and then they have a nursery attached to the master bedroom as well
and then just the carriage house again simple you have a garage on the first floor you go up
to a flight of steps, there's an open floor plan,
and then the third floor is a one bedroom, one bath,
really an in-law suite.
And then just more elevations, contextual to photographs.
And then our meeting notice,
we met on March 9th, 2022 at 6.30 p.m.
We notified 150 addresses.
These are the addresses
that were within the affected area.
here's proof that we mailed that notice to those addresses in our application for appeal
um and uh you know we have the tax clearance certificate and everything else in the deed and
i'll leave it to the as to that um i don't know if jim or share on the line like i said they got
their hands busy uh they're one of the local hospitals who just gave birth to their daughter
um but if they're not on if they're on virtually raise your hand if you're not
on, I would ask as an officer to court, you accept my testimony is true and not correct.
We accept your testimony is fine. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have James Hodges. Oh, okay.
hi everyone uh mr mr hodges we're we we first of all congratulations yeah i don't know if you
heard the baby um oh yeah congratulations we've already moved forward mr knockerson's doing a
great job and we're getting to where we need to be but thanks for calling it yes thank you for
having us we're looking forward to this project uh we literally walked in the door uh about two
minutes ago and i was on the phone so i just dropped from the phone and rejoined via zoom so
if there are questions we are here and thank you for your consideration thank you anyone else in
the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family residential at this location.
The refusals on the application are related to having multiple buildings on one lot and the
demolition of the existing buildings results in the elimination of any existing hardships.
There is no unique physical condition to this 1827 square foot lot that would prevent it from
being used in conformance with the zoning code. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends
the board deny the variance thank you mi 2022 00052 1740 wiley street i vote yes harold
tennari my vote is yes thomas holloman my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you three mi
2022 00051 1914 north 22nd street no rco letter listed here mr knockamson
he's coming back in as a panelist here
Mr. Nockamson?
Sorry about that. I took my headphones off when I was demoted. I assume I wasn't the next one. And then I heard something, Mr. Nockamson. Sorry about that.
Just state your name. You've already been sworn.
Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, P-C-A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yeah, I actually minimized my screen for a second. So now I'm like at a loss here. Hold on. And my computer always is slow. Hold on one second. Well, my clients are Adam Kane and Kelly Koch. I don't have their presentation materials up because I actually minimized my screen. So I do apologize for that.
Let me.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Okay, great.
And then I'll guess.
Mr. Nockamson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And I assume you've sent in all of the required documents timely?
I have.
Okay, you may proceed.
And yes, you may share the screen.
Okay, great.
All right, well, I think we updated our materials, but I don't think I have that version of it.
So the only thing that's different than what we submitted, other than the letter of support from the council member's office, is I found online that there is a rental license that did expire for four units.
And that's what we're trying to do here.
So it's not out of character.
So let me just get my screen to get back up.
Let me just get the screen.
All right.
Let's do this.
I'm here to present 1914 North 22nd Street.
In my presentation materials, we'll go over the Notice of Refusal to Letter of Non-Opposition
from the 5th Council District, a permit showing that this most previous use of the property was
four units. And again, as an officer of the court, I would state that if you go on that list right
now, you would see that there's an expired rental license for four units as well. And that's why
we're essentially here is to revive that rental license and that zoning permit as a matter of
public record by way of variance. A zoning map of the area and other maps of the area. Photographs
of the property in the surrounding area. Then we'll show you plans and drawings. We have proof
that we met with the community as well as mailing the notice to the community of that community
meeting. Our applications for appeal and our deeds to the property as well as our certificate
a tax clearance. As I indicated, Mr. Cain and Ms. Koch are the owner's representatives,
and they're available to take any testimony. All right, so this is an RSA 5 property, significant
All right, so this is an RSA 5 property, significant a lot. It's over 2,400 square feet.
in a while.
It's over.
So it would be out of character for a lot of that size to only allow for single-family use.
And we're asking for four units. And again, it's not out of character because that's what
this property has been used in the past. So we did meet with the community. The coordinating RCO
ultimately became the council president, Daryl Clark, and his office issued a letter in non-opposition
given the comments from the community members that did attend the meeting. The only provisos
would be no roof deck, which I don't believe our plans have a roof deck, but I would not object to
such a proviso. I don't know if it's enforceable given that we don't have a roof deck as part of
plans and commercial trash pickup and we would have no objection to that as a proviso as well.
Again our permit to the property again showing that in 1964 this was licensed as a four-unit
dwelling and again as an officer to court if you go on to Atlas you will see our
expired rental license I think as late as 2010 for four units.
maps of the area
so you'll see that where we are in the area
I think that's a better map but you know shows where we're between Norris and Berks on north 22nd
street and we back up to Krosky photographs of the property the front of the property again this is a
pretty dilapidated property that is in desperate need of repair my clients want to do that and
they're well versed in renovating properties of this sort. So North 22nd Street to the right of
the property, North 20th Street to the left of the property, and then nearby multifamily. So 1906
North 22nd Street is also a five unit, similar size, and also RSA 5. 1942 North 22nd Street,
also RSA 5 property, multi-unit.
And then example interiors of their properties, they really try to put a lot of heart into
their properties.
And this is a sample of a renovation job they did of a bathroom.
And then again, just showing you marketing materials for one of their apartments where
you can see their kitchen and their living room, they really try to renovate them very
again you'll see further photographs hardwood floors throughout central air when possible
and then our plans and drawings a couple things to note uh there is no basement living everyone
has access to the basement so basement can be stored uh excuse me trash can be stored in the
basement there is and there's an ability for each of the units also to store trash inside
and we would also agree to a proviso for commercial pickup as well.
Our meeting notice we met with the community on February 24th 2022 at 5 30 p.m. We notified
114 addresses of this community meeting. These are the addresses and proof of mailing.
Our application appealed to the ZBA.
ALONG WITH OUR PROJECT INFORMATION FORM AND NOTICE OF REFUSAL AND OUR DEED TO THE PROPERTY
SHOWING THAT THEY ACTUALLY INDIVIDUALLY OWN THIS PROPERTY, MR. KANE AND MS.
COCH. So with that being said, and we have our also our tax clearance certificates showing
that we owe no funds. With that being said, I would ask that either Adam or Kelly virtually
raise their hand to adopt my testimony, and then we would be more than happy to answer
any questions from the board. Mr. King, you may unmute yourself.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hello, all. This is Adam Cain. Last name is spelled C-A-I-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed.
Proceed.
Yes, Mr. Cain, you heard everything I stated.
Yes, Mr. Cain, you heard everything I stated today.
That's correct, I did.
And is it true and correct?
Correct, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
All right, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Cain.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at
this location.
However, the applicant has demonstrated a hardship via longstanding use at this location.
The Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the use variance.
Thank you.
um sharon do we want to add those provisos
they're not requested a roof so the councilman president wanted a
no roof and also commercial trash you can add both of those share
there we go all right mi 2022 00051 1940 north 22nd street i vote yes proviso
So, no roof deck and commercial trash pickup.
Harold Teneri, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, Mr. McAllison.
Thank you. Have a great day, and good luck, Sharon.
Thank you, Alan.
MI 2021-005-421-1905, Catherine Street.
RCO, South of South Neighbors, Letter of Support with Proviso.
That one is still on.
Thank you.
I was muted.
Sorry.
David Orphanides.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly.
David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S is the spelling of my last name.
And I'm with Fortune.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My clients, and I don't know if I gave my address, but it's 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
And our clients are Rosemary and Ryan McCarthy, who are the owners of the property, 1905.
And they should be noted as such, Rosemary slash Ryan McCarthy, I believe.
Thank you.
You wanted to promote them.
And then the architect is Tim Kerner.
Right.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Mr. Orphanidis, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I waive the reading.
I don't stipulate to its accuracy, but we can address that as we go through.
They missed some refusals, but everything was presented appropriately to SOSNA, and they're all reflected in the revised zoning drawings.
Okay, and I assume you submitted all the required documents timely?
I did.
the only the only things that weren't submitted and timely was the um the the letter of support
from sasna so do you have that now yes and i i supplemented my materials to include that
um and then the drawings that were based upon uh the proviso requirements of that letter
okay thank you you may proceed and begin to share your screen certainly one minute show my screen
um and obviously uh i also joined real quickly um everybody else in um thanking sharon for
everything she's done um actually i have to i have to say thank you otherwise because i get
choked up here thank you david and just let me say now that i did we received the revised plans
it's one page and um i reviewed them they're fine thank you actually it's two pages there's a site
plan and elevate in a section so ah it's hard to tell from the okay two pages thank you thanks and
thanks for focusing back on a matter of hand because i might have lost it otherwise but thank
you for everything sharing um again my name is david orphanetes um with orphanetes and toner i'm
here on behalf of ryan and rosemary mccarthy um they are the owners of the subject property which
which is this building located in the center between two existing structures with the garage
in the center between two existing structures with the garage door. You have 1903 Catherine
You have 19.
to the right or to the east. Our property is located on the north side of the 1900 block
of Catherine Street and 1907 Catherine Street to the west of us. You can see at the present time
there's a above the third floor there's an existing roof deck that has a railing around
the front of it. There's a fourth floor that's set back with the roof deck on top of that.
You can see that the front facade of 1907, Catherine, is higher than the main portion of our front facade.
The 1903 has a lower facade at the front building line, but then extends higher short distance back.
To the right, you can see part of what we're looking to do here.
Essentially, you have a rooftop deck on top of the fourth floor, a roof deck at the front of the fourth floor,
which I've indicated with the railing around it, and then a deck at the back of the second floor.
And for each of those, we're proposing an integrated planter bench structure
to go either at the front or the rear of the structure.
In addition, you'll see that the ground floor does not extend.
It's set back from the rear of the property and the alley that runs across the rear of the property.
There's a deck on top of that one-story rear portion that extends past that, and we're looking to fill in the area underneath that, take it from just unusable dark space, outdoor space, that butts up to a fence and a deck of the property right behind us with an address of 759 Martin Street and enclose that and make that functional interior space.
But this is the change that the world is going to see from the street.
And again, what will happen is the back of the bench or the front of the bench and planter is going to be made to look,
it's been designed by the architect to resemble a mansard type style.
It'll be standing seam metal, and it'll bring up the front in line with 1907.
So there'll be a consistent cornice line that runs across from 1907 across the front of our planter structure.
We do have a letter of support from SASNA. As indicated, there was a proviso. We did have a
fully advertised community group meeting after meeting with their architectural review committee.
That was a Zoom meeting. There was a proviso that came out of that meeting,
which we were notified of the end of last week, that the deck at the front of the fourth floor,
which is this deck, you know, the one that you can see from the street, be set back a little further
than what we had originally shown on the drawings that were submitted to LNI, which generated one of
our refusals that they noted. And it still is not completely compliant with how LNI defines the five
foot front setback, but it's much more closer to being so. And you'll see that in the revised
drawings but as you can see we had a vote uh that was in support without having that proviso
expressly included at the time that was a vote from the meeting and then they took the position
to support our application and our appeal with that proviso um tab two we do have some letters
of support from the immediate budding neighbor behind us at 759 martin street you can see they've
seen the refusal saw our original plans which i'll go through in a minute and then also at 1907
Catherine Street which is the abutting property to the west of us our notice of refusal had two
refusals one involved that front uh deck at the top of the above the third story at the front of
the fourth floor um you'll see in the plans they took the position that that deck was not set back
five feet with that structure planter bench structure we were adding I disagree with that
also they had the rear yard depth with the addition under the second floor rear deck
at three feet as I indicated I couldn't stipulate to the accuracy because it's actually zero
there's a three-foot alley that runs across the rear of our property that counts as you know as
open area but any rear yard depth gets measured to the rear to the edge of that alley so while
there's technically three feet beyond our addition that's our property that does not count as rear
yard depth so that's where I couldn't stipulate to the accuracy but we did represent at the
SOSNA meeting. There was an extended discussion regarding existing conditions and dimensional
requirements and variances and whatnot of the zoning code. And we clearly indicated to them,
and our revised drawings clearly confirm that, of those conditions. And again, that was presented
to SOSNA. We do have the letter of support with the proviso, and we are presenting that today
to the zoning board, both with our statements, testimony, adopted statements, and with our
revised drawings so our revised drawings um you know again uh
So our revised drawings, you know, again, basically show in this area this further setback of the bench.
And essentially what SOSNA, like I said, wanted to see was this bench and planter set back a little further than it originally was.
It was about the edge of the planter was much closer to the front of the building,
and we've pushed that back in conformance with the requirements of or the request of SOSNA.
As you can see, here is what we're talking about. Originally, this was all much closer. This is now the front edge of the planter that is on the back of the bench is now three feet. The back edge of the planter is four foot six.
It was always our position that if anything, the deck actually began at the back of the
planter or at the front of the bench, and if the requirement's five feet, we're at four
foot six now.
So to the extent that there was a refusal, because here you can see in our original drawings,
you know, we were only at 310 there, all the way back to the bench.
Now we're at four six.
They said that somehow we were at zero, and we were never at zero, because this bottom
edge is one foot three inches away.
But again, the refusal wasn't correct in a number of ways, and we've worked our way through the process.
Here's the addition underneath.
Right now, this deck is partially on top of the one-story portion and then extends to the rear alley.
Right now, there's walls on either side and an opening in the rear.
I'll show you the photographs, and we're just looking to enclose this area.
It's not going to impact any air and light to a neighboring property because there's already a wall to either side.
And then to the back of us, you'll see there's a stockade fence bordering the alley or the driveway of the properties behind us at 759 Martin Street.
We've also documented some other existing conditions at the property, the skylights, some walls along the sides of the existing deck.
We're adding some screening above them and screening and a pergola up on the rooftop deck.
real quickly um here's our property 1905 1907 1903 to either side of us here's a close-up
as i mentioned here the martin street properties behind us their decks back right up to the alley
um just like our deck does right here and again we're just looking as far as the addition filling
in underneath the deck and nobody's going to be impacted by that the benches we're talking about
are right here uh right here right here and this one here at the front of the fourth floor is the
one that generated the the refusal for that we are located in rsa zoning district we intend it's
currently used as our single family and we my clients intend to continue to use the property
as single family and i could run through some existing photos most importantly i'm going to
quickly show you the back of the the backyard of the property and here you can see this is the
conditions how my clients bought the property so this is the underneath the deck this is what is
at the rear alley and this wall is what's to either side there's a wall to either side so
they're basically looking to enclose this opening um and use this turn this into a habitable space
here's the ground floor interior right now and here's that area underneath the deck and here's
wall on the west side the stockade fence that's our lattice fence that's on the martin street
property side of the alley but you can see it's a narrow alley behind us filling this in is not
going to have any impact an air light of any neighboring properties um and here are the
martin street properties right behind us and you can see their their buildings are set back and
it's just their driveway uh and their parking areas that's on the other side of the alley from us
And here's the area of the deck that's above it.
Prior zoning archives for both our property, 1903 and 1907, as well as Martin Street.
Again, here's the rendering at the front of what we're proposing.
Front elevation showing the consistent cornice line or front line here between 1907 and ours in our property.
1903 is clearly very different than all of ours.
and here's a partial floor plan showing the existing room with the rear patio and then the
enclosure of that area and turning it into like a media room original zoning drawings you have in
your file we've outlined the differences with clouding of the revised zoning drawings that are
provided with the revised proviso plan form our application project information form the deed
showing my clients Ryan and Roseberry McCarthy own the property, our tax clearance, the hearing
notice for today's hearing that was posted at the property in compliance with the zoning code
requirements, our 14303 notice. Well, first the email designating Sassen as the coordinating
Our 14.303 notice, well, first the email designating SOSNA as a coordinating RCO.
As indicated, we met both with our architectural review committee, then had a full remote or virtual community group meeting.
The list of addresses to which we mailed the notice, and I think we mailed to 207.
There were 207 mailings with our certificate of first-class mailing you can see right there.
SOS also requires that we post the property with the notice of the community group meeting, which we did at the property.
So going back, we feel that there is a consistent pattern of other three-story or other three- or four-story buildings of a similar height to what we're proposing.
We don't create a height refusal here.
It could be argued that we had not only the rear yard depth refusal, but in our open area refusal.
But underneath the deck, that was not cited as far as rear yard depth in the refusal accurately,
which, again, we've conveyed in terms of open area that was not cited, could have been,
but it's, again, been conveyed both at Sassana and here.
At the ground floor level, we will have open area, which is the rear alley.
You see the surrounding conditions to the rear of us, to both the left and the right of us.
And we feel that the improvements that we're looking to have approved here are consistent with the surrounding properties.
And to the extent that they are not conforming properties themselves, they lose some of the benefit of having the protection against the impact on air and light that these changes might have.
But then again, we don't feel that there will be any.
And so with that, I would ask my clients, I think they've been promoted to panelists, if I could have them just sworn in, and also the architect after that so they can adopt my statements.
I'd appreciate it.
So Ryan.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hey, Tim, are you on?
Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?
Yes, if you can state your name.
Can you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, this is Timothy Kerner, T-I-M-O-T-H-Y, Kerner, K-E-R-N-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Tim, you were the architect for the project?
That is correct.
And you prepared the zoning drawings that were originally filed with L&I,
the revised zoning drawings that had been provided to the zoning board
with the revised proviso plan form as long as as well as the rendering floor plan and the elevations
correct yes we did correct okay and um you heard the statements i made to the board today yes i did
and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes they are would you adopt them as
your own i would thank you and then um to the extent if ryan or rosemary mccarthy are identified
if they could raise their hand my clients i believe ryan is on
hello hi hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
yes sir it's ryan mccarthy r-y-a-n-m-c-c-a-r-t-h-y do you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed and i also my wife rosemary is also here
to the extent you want to have her sworn as well.
Okay. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. It's Rosemary McCarthy, R-O-S-E-M-A-R-Y, and then McCarthy is M-C-C-A-R-T-H-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
And the court reporter can only have one person speaking at the time, so one of you can answer
this question um rosemary and ryan you're the owners of 1905 catherine street correct yes that's
correct okay thank you and did you hear the statements that i made to the board today
yes we did and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes and would you adopt
them as your own yes thank you very much and with that i ask that our exhibits be moved into evidence
and to the record and I rest with the right to for any rebuttal if need questions from the board
no Mr. Chairman no Mr. Chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no handshare planning commission
good afternoon chair Peter Bernard for the planning commission
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family residential
zoning at this location.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship that would justify the dimensional variances.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship that would justify the dimensional
variances.
Properties are not allowed 100% lot coverage in this zoning district,
and meeting the setback on roof decks would not have an impact on its use.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the variances.
Excuse me, Chair, before the Board votes, Mr. Ruffinides,
can you confirm that the revised plans that you've submitted incorporate all the changes requested by the RCO?
they do yes specifically right up here and in the detail they've included with their letter
you can see the three foot set back to the front of the planner four six and again our position is
if five foot is required we're either at four six or very close because the deck wouldn't even begin
to start until decide that it could be habitated but real quickly here's the letter i really just
wanted to confirm that if the board adds revised plans it isn't necessary also to add the specific
proviso language requested by the RCO is that correct that's correct yes we incorporate and
I did forward them a copy of our of our materials for today's and um and then just real quickly in
terms of the other comment by the planning commission we are we don't have a hundred percent
occupied area because the alley does count as open area it doesn't count as rear yard depth
as I indicated so but uh it's similar to the conditions to either side of us
M.I. 2021-005421, 19 and 5, Cat Street. I vote yes with provisos. Revised plans, two pages.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes with provisos.
Mr. Orfiniti, please stay right there. I have another case with you here.
Oh, okay.
N.I. 2022-000034-2151-61 Albert Street.
And again, I'm...
I have...
Yep, I have...
Let's see here.
Councilman Squilla, letter of non-opposition.
East Kensington Neighbors Association, if yes, proviso, revised plans, three pages.
Correct.
Could you identify who your client is and the relationship they have with the property?
My client is Trenton Albert, LLC.
They're the owners of 2151 to 61 East Albert Street, which is also known as 2148 East Tucker Street, 2148 East Tucker Street, and 2149 East Albert Street, which are the three parcels that we're speaking about.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Certainly.
Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay. It appears that you've submitted all the required documents timely. Is that correct?
uh yes well the letter from ecna east kensington neighbors association i submitted everything else
except for ecna's letter um because they um they didn't give it they unfortunately we didn't get
the letter until i think yesterday or the day before yesterday but i forwarded that and supplement
our uh our exhibits with a submission i made yesterday excuse me this is sharon we do have
that letter um and they have it's a letter of support with two provisos they're requesting or
actually maybe one proviso no dumpster on street and applicant to provide all street trash storage
thank you and we've revised the floor plans accordingly to show that i do have revised
zoning drawings um it wasn't part of ecna's uh comments but um we wanted to reduce the pilot
houses and elevator pilot house on the rooftop to bring them in conformance with the 125 square
foot requirement of the zoning code that's the only requirement um the only change that we made
to the zoning drawings and we have those with us those are three pages okay you may proceed and you
may begin to share your screen thank you i already am sharing it so there we go um and real quickly
i think uh josh matthew um is here on behalf of uh trenton albert llc and logan dry um is the
architect uh for the project if i can have them promoted at some point so that they can either
chime in or adopt my statements. I would appreciate it. So real quickly, again, David Orphanides,
Orphanides & Toner, LLP, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
19102. You have up in front of you a photograph of the existing improvements at the subject
property. The structure you see right now, 2146 East Tucker and 2149 East Albert or vacant lots.
East Albert are vacant lots. Here you can see over to the left of the photograph where you see a little bit of grass between the warehouse or commercial structure and the residential structure. That's the vacant 2149 East Albert Street.
Here you can see over to the left of the photo.
2149 East Albert and 2146 East Tucker are zoned RSA 5. You'll see that in a couple minutes. And then a larger parcel, which is 2151 to 61 East Albert, where the structure exists, is zoned RM 1.
um it's this property the albert street 2151 to 61 has been used for non-residential commercial
light industrial uses as far back as the zoning archives go on 41 it was a garage it was a
waste paper warehouse in 55 and then since 62 right up to the present day it was used as an
electroplating facility. And it's, you know, you can see it's seen better days.
And that's the existing structure. And you can see over to the right, the vacant lot at 2146
East Tucker. Real quickly, and this is a rendering of what we're proposing to construct there.
As indicated, we have a letter of support from ECNA. There was a proviso regarding interior
trash storage, no trash storage outside. And you'll see in the revised floor plans where we've
accommodated that request. The notice of refusal, and I'm going to go through this in a minute,
because of the split zoning, we're looking to consolidate the three parcels. The larger of
the parcels by far is the 2151 to 61 East Albert, which is zoning RM1. That's almost 7,000 square
feet at 6903.2 square feet 2146 being 504.6 square feet and 2149 east albert being 492.2
square feet but because the east out 2146 east tucker and 2149 east albert uh together when
taken with the rm1 portion are more than i think the threshold of 10 percent the consolidated lot
gets treated as a whole as RSA 5. And here you can see at the top of the refusal plan reviewed
as RSA 5. And RSA 5, as you know, is intended for single family. We're proposing 26 residential
dwelling units along with seven off-street parking spaces, one of which will be an ADA van
accessible space. Because are the side streets, which would likely otherwise qualify as a rear
street under the definition of such on the zoning code even if it's not directly to the rear can be
to the side but because there's parking on our side our property side of albert and tucker and
you'll see we're bringing parking in from one side from tucker and then out the other side on albert
we get a refusal that you'll see there is an existing a large existing curb cut on the east
albert street side so we're actually not taking any parking away on that side but there will be
the curb cut on the Tucker Street side, but we have a refusal for that, and then a minor variance
for occupied area, and then we have a minor variance in terms of height going from 38 to
41.83. Here are the revised zoning drawings again, which I'll go through in a little bit,
which just changed the sizes, reduced the sizes of the two stair pilot houses and the elevator
Pilothouse. Here's our property right here. You have Trenton Avenue, which is a pretty large,
I think 80 feet wide roadway here. You have East Lehigh, Huntington to either side. And this large
complex is the Charles Jackwin Distillery. So it's been there forever. You'll see it's a very
large industrial complex that shadows over the properties on the other side of Trenton.
Down here at the end of Trenton and Huntington, you have a multifamily mixed-use business professional offices and, I think, 36 or 38 residential dwelling units.
You have a safe right across Tucker from us.
You have a shopping center with a large parking lot, a safe a lot.
So it's a real mixed block.
I mean, not often you get a large, huge distillery, distilling complex right across the street.
Again, supermarket.
Then you have residential behind us, directly next to us, more single-family uses, and then
that have been existing further down Albert and East Tucker and on East Harold Street,
and then the multifamily, larger multifamily mixed use down at the end of the block.
Closer up image of our property and surrounding.
And here's the three-dimensional view.
Here's the Save-A-Lot directly across East Tucker.
And here you have Jack Wentz directly across the street.
here's our property right here jack wins again and here you go the whole block takes up the
opposite side and you can see trenton's pretty pretty unusual you have a 90 degree
and you can see Trenton's pretty pretty unusual. You have a 90 degree parking here,
and then 90 degree parking right in front of our property, some curbside parallel parking down the
block. Here's the zoning difference, the larger parcel RM1 and the two smaller RSA5 parcels.
Again, if we were to just develop the RM1 portion between green roof bonuses and other bonuses,
we'd be able to develop in excess of what we're proposing here, which is 26 units,
along with two single families on each of these lots. We wouldn't probably be able to get the
amount of cars. RM1, as you know, does not require accessory off-street parking, but we've been able
with the consolidation and using the two RSA portions of the consolidated lot essentially
as a drive aisle, been able to get, as I said, seven accessory off-street parking spaces there.
um i think the aerials depict the surrounding area we do have additional exterior photos at tab
six interior photos at tab seven you can see it's been used for industrial light commercial use
as you would expect uh what the interior might look like after you know over after 80 years
60 years of that use uh going back to the sanborns um we go back to 1920 uh you can see that there's
always been a structure at 2151 to 61 East Albert since the 20s. 2146 East Tucker went vacant
sometime between 1920 and 1951, and 2149 East Albert went vacant sometime between 1982 and 1985.
We have the zoning archives for the property, which outlined the uses that I
indicated earlier. There's our lot consolidation survey plan, again, showing the three separate
lots consolidated into one and then our i'm going to refer back to the our revised zoning drawings
seeing the only change uh is to the pilot houses and again here's our cars parking underneath the
building the drive that comes in and um utilizes we have an existing curb cut on this side just
real quickly i'm just going to show you i can show you that in photos in a minute and then here's the
elevations of what we're proposing and then the
ground floor parking plan and
plan for the ground floor residential units.
Here's a rendering of what we're looking to propose. This is a view from Trenton
and East Tucker
and here's a view from further down East Tucker
showing the access to the parking underneath
and then the elevations that we've already described floor plans um you have bi-level
units at the ground floor there's five of those uh they range in size from there's only one at
650 the other ones are well over a thousand twelve hundred square feet and then on each of
the floors above it's a similar floor plate with seven units per floor um most of those ranging in
the upper 700s to upper 800 range. Copy of our appeal, the deed for the subject properties that
shows Trenton Albert LLC as the owners. Our tax clearance is included. For some of the properties,
there was an issue syncing up because of the recent transfer of the properties to Trenton
Albert LLC. They hadn't synced up the accounts yet, but there is no tax balance due on the
properties our zoning notice we and we actually did get a clearance for i think 2149 did come
through um but exhibit with our zoning notice the posting of all on all three sides well actually
both the frontage for 2149 the frontage for 2148 and the three sides of 2151 are shown in exhibit
19 and then our 14 303 notice that now to i believe 105 uh destinations addresses including
the planning commission here's providing the community group meeting that was held with ecna
and our zoning board hearing for today copy the notice of refusal and then here's a certificate
at 105 mailings. With that, I would ask that our exhibits be entered into the record, and I would
ask that I be allowed to have the architect and the owner adopt my statements. And again, either
Logan Dry or Josh Matthew, if they could identify themselves and just be promoted to panelists and
sworn in please state your name and spell for the court reporter
sure logan dry l-o-g-a-n-d-r-y kca design associates 6525 tulip street philadelphia pa
you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Logan, did you hear the statements I made to the board today?
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt them as your own?
And is there anything you'd like to add at this point regarding what we're proposing?
No, I think you covered most of it.
You've covered all aspects of our design, some of the hardships, and the overall context pretty well.
So nothing I'd like to add at this point.
Okay, you're available for questions.
So then if Mr. Matthew can be sworn in, please.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Josh Matthew, J-O-S-H-M-A-T-H-E-W.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Josh, did you hear the statements I made to the board today?
yes sir and are they true and correct for the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt them
as your own yes and is there anything you would like to add to the board no thank you questions
from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
Good afternoon Board, Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends RM1 multifamily and RSA5 single-family residential zoning
at this location.
While we have no objection to the proposed use, RM1 would only allow 16 units by right.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board approve the variance, but with a proviso for a reduction in the total number of units.
And again, you know, you have the industrial uses across the street.
You have more units than what we were proposing at the end of the lot.
It's a very mixed line.
Thank you.
MI-2022-00034-2151-61 East Albert Street.
i vote yes with revised plans of three pages carol tenary my vote is yes proviso
thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
thank you thank you that concludes my business may be excused yes thank you mi 2021 003661 3140
clifford street do not see a letter from the rco as of yet michael michelhanie um chair we actually
have since the summaries went out we did receive a letter from the rco it is in support but i
believe with the proviso requesting no um no decks or okay thank you thank you very much
Mr. McElhenney. Yes good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Hi Michael McElhenney. Yep state your name and
spell please for the court reporter. Michael M-I-C-H-A-E-L McElhenney. M-C-capital I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I'm here on behalf of the Black Real Estate Investors Network, LLC, and a member of that LLC, Mr. James Page, Jr., is here on behalf of the company.
They are the equitable owners of the property.
Mr. James Williams is the owner, and we're here under a letter of authority to seek the zoning as part of the acquisition.
Thank you.
So our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. McElhoney.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I can stipulate to the majority of the accuracy.
There's one scrivener's error.
There's a fence at the rear of the property, whereas the refusal references a fence at the front.
But otherwise, yes, the refusal is accurate.
And it appears that you've submitted all the required documents timely.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay, you may proceed and share your screen.
Good afternoon again, Mike McElhenney.
Good afternoon. Again, Mike McElhenney on behalf of the Equitable Owner at Black Real
Estate Investors Network for the property at 3140 Clifford Street, where we are seeking a
two-family use at the existing, at the property, a new construction structure.
As a preliminary matter, I'd just like to run through some of the prerequisites
that at Exhibit 11, a copy to the subject property is attached, the deed.
um exhibit 12 is the owner's authorization letter to allow us to file the appeal to the zba
exhibit 13 is that is the appeal form to the zba the property has been properly noticed as
indicated by exhibit 14 and the photographs attached there too i'm sorry yes may you
thank you enlarge the screen thank you kindly
there we go let's drag this over
okay at exhibit 15 are the rco 14303 notices we did meet with the strawberry mansion community
development corporation twice once on december 2nd 2021 and the community was in support of the
use variances and the dimensional variances but did have some stylistic design changes
to the project. And to take those comments into consideration, we did meet with them again on
February 24th and incorporated all the community's changes. Also, in advance of that second meeting,
my clients went out and met with all the near neighbors and provided a rendering addressing
all the changes that the community addressed at the first meeting so that people had advance
notice of that we've addressed all the concerns. The tax clearance for the property is at
exhibit 17 and i did zoom out trying to log in as a panelist but the strawberry mansion cdc
did send a letter they titled it a letter of non-opposition um but as you see from the letter
it's really a support letter it's 13 in favor one opposed three abstained and of the rcos
to support it to abstain one of which was the 28th ward rco which isn't technically within
the boundaries for the subject property. As was mentioned, the community did reference they did not
want roof decks at the subject property, and they asked that I send written confirmation that there
is no roof deck as part of this property, no roof deck access structure, no pilot house. Although
not a part of my exhibit package, I did send a follow-up letter on February 24th to Net-A-Gram
just explaining and making it clear and we're okay with the proviso if it made the the board
comfortable in the community that there is no proposal for a roof deck no roof deck access
structure no pilot house and i think a lot of that was there was a meeting before ours that
was very contentious regarding a pilot house and roof decks but that is not a part of our
application exhibit two is the refusal for the subject property and as i previously stated it's
an application to erect a new construction structure at the property, which is currently
a vacant lot, and for use as a two-family dwelling with a one-place surface parking
space at the rear. The proposed development creates six refusals. Two are use. The property
is known to RSA 5, so multifamily, the two units, creates a use refusal, and off-street
parking in the rear yard is a use recusal as well. The uses that we're requesting here are in keeping
with the conditions of this block of Clifford Street in the neighboring area, as you'll see
from the photographs. The other restrictions use, or I should say zoning recusals, the building
height. Our proposal is for a 37-foot high building. Strawberry Mansion recently enacted a overlay
limiting height to 35 feet. In some cases, that makes sense. On blocks such as this, where there's
existing structures were matching the existing structure at 37 feet, and the community understood
that and was in support of our proposal. We do have small dimensional variances from the porches.
Our porch is a few inches in discrepancy from the neighboring porch, whereas they're supposed
to match exactly. It's a difference of about three inches, and there's reasons for that in
terms of avoiding underpinning at the subject property so it's a small dimensional change that
we're requesting and at the rear of the property as you'll see on the zoning plan there are decks
off the rear of the property and those decks the support posts are within the 18 inch buffer between
the property line and my client's property the posts are within the prop my client's property
they're not on the property line but they do create a little bit of an encroachment into that
buffer area to allow for full parking at the rear stairs exit.
to allow for full parking at the rear stairs exiting the rear and the um we did speak with
the neighbor next door and they had no concerns and again this was the discrepancy the fourth
dimensional refusal um referenced the fence at the front of the yard it's there's actually
a fence at the rear around the parking that is a five foot fence whereas a four foot is only permitted
by code. Exhibit 3 is a zoning map for the subject property. I'll zoom in. As you can
see, the property is on the south side of Clifford Street with 32nd Street to the west,
31st Street to the east, and West Hollingsworth Street to the south.
And two blocks to the west is also Fairmount Park, 33rd Street, Fairmount Park.
looking at the a map view of the the same exhibit exhibit three you'll see the subject property is
the the blue dot on the screen this block the 30 30 100 block of clifford street is marked by
a lot of vacant land there's approximately 22 vacant parcels as you can see on the screen
on both the north and south side of the property of the block of these properties on the block that
occupied many are existing multi-family two and three unit dwellings and there's also a decent
amount of abandoned properties on the block so this is a block that is in need of rehabilitation
as referenced in the strawberry mansion letter they are encouraged to see redevelopment efforts
coming to this block clifford street exhibit four to orient the board to the existing conditions of
the property is an aerial map and as you can see the block consists mainly of three-story structures
and with a lot of vacant land in between most of the houses.
This is the south view, and you can see West Hollingsworth Street behind.
Most of the properties on Hollingsworth Street, as you see, have all-street rear access parking,
which, of course, creates a refusal in this zoning category,
but Hollingsworth Street itself does not have parking on it,
which is why the majority, if not all, of the properties have all-street parking at the rear.
looking at the second photo on the same exhibit four is just the rear of the subject property
which is a vacant lot and as you can see each property on either side of my client's property
is used for the off-street rear off-street parking as are properties further down the block
and on west hollingsworth street which face cecil be more av
so the current the property at issue on exhibit four exhibit five shows rather the uh the subject
property which is the vacant lot in the middle of the screen as you can see there's three properties
to the right side which is the west side of the block and two properties to the east side
the property to the east is an existing three-story 37 foot high building for single
family use, the property it is attached to is an abandoned structure, missing doors, lacking
functional doors and windows. The properties to the west are single-family and multifamily structures.
And turning to page two is a close-up of the corner properties at the intersection of 32nd
and Clifford Street. The red brick building, the second in from the corner, is a three-unit dwelling
and the corner property is an existing two unit dwelling as evidenced by the multiple meters at
the rear of the property. Going down the block on the towards the east on the south side of
Clifford you'll see that there are five vacant lots and then three residential dwellings.
After those three dwellings we then have two vacant lots, one dwelling, then another vacant lot
and then one residential dwelling and then when you get to the other end of the block 3106 and
08 Clifford you'll see two new construction buildings which are both duplexes new construction
duplexes that were approved a year or so ago and they are coming towards completion at this time
this is similar to what my client is requesting a two-family use at the property with all street
parking the same as these new construction structures and continuing out the block it's
another vacant lot, a single-family structure, and then another vacant lot. On the north side
of the block, again, we have a lot of vacant land on the corner, two vacant lots, then we have two
residential dwellings, and then three vacant lots, and then there's this blue building that was
renovated recently and that is used as a two-family dwelling. Then there's another vacant lot, and then
we have two new structures that are both lacking functional doors and windows. So again, it's
another evidence of the blatant abandonment on the subject block.
and at page six is just a close-up of the multi-family blue building that I just referenced.
And at page six is just a close-up of the multifamily.
Continuing to the west on the north side of the block, we have four vacant lots,
then we have two residential single-family dwellings, and then we have another vacant lot,
and then abandoned buildings. This is the middle of winter. Windows are wide open on the first
building the second building has been boarded up uh with metal barriers by a bank and then there's
another abandoned building next to that and going towards the corner are two residential structures
and the corner property again is another multi-family property as evidenced by the
the multiple four meters at the end of the at the side of property on 32nd street i did include at
exhibit 10 the zoning archives for the other properties in the block that i just went through
that are multifamily in nature.
I don't need to run through these again,
but as you can see, 3102, 06, 08 are all multifamily.
And then when you go to the other end of the block,
closer to the property, my client's property,
we have 3122, 3133, all multifamily,
and then 3144, 45, 46, 47, all multifamily.
So given the abandonment on the block,
the blight on the block and the other multifamily uses, we are going to request that the board
does grant the multifamily use variance for the property.
The Exhibit 6 was the original zoning plan that we submitted as part of our application.
And the original zoning plan called for two entryways in the front of the property.
um one this is a two-family dwelling so the first unit would be the basement and the first floor
and unit two would be the second floor and third floor as you can see we are matching the cornice
line of the property next door to us to the east and doing traditional red brick building to match
the properties on the block the neighborhood at the first meeting had objections to two entryways
they wanted one entryway where both units come through the front of the property they wanted an
egress well not stairs going to the lower level they requested that the porch match the porch
overseeing the the landing at the first floor go across the front of the building to continue that
line similar to the property to the west and we did make those changes the community also asked
for and i'll show on the zoning plan a second means of egress on the back for the upper floor
unit, which we originally did not have. I'll note on the screen right now, actually I'll go to the
revised plan. Exhibit 7 is the revised plan addressing the community's comments.
So as you can see, we did run the, zoomed out, we ran the porch across the front of the property
to the full length to cover the egress well in the front
and the full landing on the stairs.
At the rear, after the last community meeting,
the community asked it would be better
if there was a means of egress at the rear
for the second floor unit,
mainly to put trash at the rear yard
because trash is picked up
from West Hollywood Street at the rear,
not at the front.
So by doing a spiral stairs,
we were able to incorporate stairs
coming from the second floor back.
The zoning overview is on the screen currently and I'll draw you the board's attention to the
front porch for the subject property and then this is small so I'll zoom in a little more.
The neighboring porch is seven feet one inch. Our porch is six feet ten and three quarters inch so
So there's that slight two, three inch variance from the neighboring porch.
And as you can see, we have an extra set of two stairs.
And that's because our porch height is also a few inches higher.
And that allows my client to avoid underpinning the existing property to the west and the east.
If there's a way to avoid that, it's always recommended, especially as we see buildings being damaged from underpinning and collapsing.
And I know the neighbor who lives to the property to the east was appreciative of that.
He lives there.
It's a nice renovated property.
And it creates that small dimensional variance, which creates the refusals that we have for those issues.
At the rear of the property, we do have a full rear yard, dimensionally compliant rear yard.
But we do have that request for all street rear yard parking.
the and we did add a revised plan to have the zoning um the spiral staircase accessing from
the rear upper floor decks at the rear of the property also at the request of the community
Also at the request of the community, they asked us to install an egress well at the rear for the basement unit and to have a space for mechanicals that could be put either in the rear yard or in the egress well as needed.
they asked us to install an egress well at the rear for the
And the fence at the rear is proposed for a five-foot height, and one of the refusals was for a fence that was above the four-foot height limit, and that is what that refusal is for.
And if I could jump back to the back of the property, which I jumped past on West Hollingsworth Street.
This is the rear of the property.
As you can see, there's no parking at the rear.
The neighboring properties are using the properties for off-street parking.
the new construction property at the other end of the block on the east is also approved for
the off-street parking and the neighbors seem to be appreciative of that there's no parking
on the street at the rear so we're not losing spaces and it takes cars off the front front of
the street which is in keeping the properties across the street on hollingsburg street going
to the south also have fences these are closer to the four foot high my client's requesting
a five foot high fence as part of this application which
is in keeping with there's other fences on the clippard street side that are
five or six feet high as you go down down the block similar to the property towards the corner
When we met with the RCO, we did do a simple summary sheet to explain that we're addressing
all the changes, making the front only have one unit rather than two, eliminating the
adding the porch. As you can see, we did include the porch across the front. We removed the steps
down and we have the steps going up into the main unit uh this is pressure treated wood that's the
deck or the porch cover that is just as a minimum standard my client plans for doing treks or some
higher quality product um and at the rear as you can see um we'd have the rear off street parking
i did not have a chance to add the rendering with the spiral staircase um i did have that sent over
to me and i'll pop this on the screen just so the board can see that the spiral staircase would just
go from the second floor down to the ground level not no other changes would be needed
um the last bit that i would like to add is just to present to the board the floor plans as shown
in Exhibit 7. There are two units that are proposed at the property. The ground floor unit is a two
bedroom two and a half bath unit. Again the main entrance there's only one entrance on the front
now pursuant to the community request and that will enter into the first floor unit and the
basement unit. You have two bedrooms at the lower level with full baths. We have a den at the first
floor level, full kitchen, full living room, dining room, and access to the rear property
where the parking and trash would be stored and taken out.
The upper floors mirror the first floors in terms of two bedrooms at the third floor level
with a den, two and a half baths, full living room, kitchen, and off the second floor is
a full deck and off the third floor the master bedroom is a smaller not as deep deck to provide
outdoor space to the upper units since the rear yard is mainly for parking and
this will provide outdoor space to the upper units and again as i mentioned at the beginning
there's no roof deck proposed here no roof deck access structure no pilot house
but this will allow the upper unit to have that outdoor space that otherwise they would lack
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do have James Page on the call with me today.
Mr. Page, if you could raise your hand so that you can be promoted to speak.
Mr. Page, could you state your name is spelled for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is James Page, J-A-M-E-S-P-A-I-G-E.
J-A-M-E-S-P-A-I-G-E.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Mr. Page, are you a member of the Black Real Estate Investors Network, LLC?
Yes, I am.
And did you hear the presentation that I presented to the board today?
Yes, I did.
And were those statements true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
They were, yes.
and would you adopt those statements as your own yes i would
thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman
no mr jeremy questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location
there is no unique physical condition of this 1437 square foot lot that would prevent it from being
used in conformance with the zoning code and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship
that would justify the multifamily use the city planning commission recommends that the board
deny the use variants thank you MI 2021-003-661-3140 Clifford Street I vote yes with revised plans of
one page Harold Tenere my vote is yes with proviso Thomas Holloman my vote is yes with provisos
Ishmael Shaheed, yes, we're provisos.
Thank you.
Tanya, I'm going to take a five minute break for the court reporter and all.
We have a few more cases left here and then we'll move right into the late afternoon.
So take five minutes.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
hi chair this is tanya if you don't mind may i ask mr reuter if you are available could you
raise your hand please
i'm what's that again tanya i asked mr reuter to raise his hand he has raised his hand because
he had to leave for something he is now here and i just wanted to let you know we're available to
restart whenever you are all right but we're we're so we're still going to handle the cases we have
right yes chair okay and you will get the root what rooters is when at the end yes chair okay
thank you i just wanted to make sure he was back in a rotation that's all i'm great i'm here ready
to go. As you wish, sir. Let's start. We are ready, sir. You can go on ahead. Okay. MI-2021-005-412-4768-R-72
to Silverwood Street. RCO letter in opposition, Ridge Park Civic Association.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mattione, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
Do you swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and their relationship to this property?
Certainly.
It's Northeast Renovations, LLC, and they are the owner and the principal, Mayor Badoosh, and Roy Shemes are also online today.
All right.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Thomas, are you online?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Could you do it, please, Thomas?
No problem.
Good afternoon, Councillor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
According to our records, you have submitted all the required documents on time.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
Thank you. And before I begin, I do have to say to Sharon Saleta, you know, I will
definitely miss you and thank you for all the help you've given me over the years.
and thank you for all the help you've given me over the years.
You're always available.
You're always available, yeah.
You answered questions, and you're just very, very helpful and insightful,
and just, again, thank you very much, and I wish you nothing but the best.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, again, I represent Mayor Badouche and Roy Shamish.
They're the owners of Northeast Renovations,
and we've handed in, as you can see on the screen, the tax clearance, the refusal, RCO
information, letter was sent in by the RCO, survey showing the subdivision of the property,
revised plans form, revised site plan, it's one page, floor plans, renderings, the erosion
and sediment control plan and an email from matt wysong of the city planning commission confirming
that we are street slope compliant surrounding permits for neighboring properties with garages
photographs the site and surrounding property properties affidavit of service
This for the RCO meeting, I believe we sent out 116 letters.
And again, the developers are, and the developers are the owners of the property at 4768 to 72 rear Silverwood Street.
They're seeking to subdivide the property.
Right now, it's one rectangular parcel, as shown on the left of my screen.
And they are going to subdivide it into two properties, an L-shaped property and a rectangular property.
Both of the properties that they would subdivide it to are code compliant.
So they meet the requirements of 1,440 square feet or greater.
They're at least 16 feet of street frontage.
So they meet the requirement of the zoning code to be separate lots.
We did provide a modified site plan because originally we had a part of the properties
in the steep slope area and that's prohibited.
We modified it and moved it out of the steep slope area so we were doing no work in the
steep slope area.
And the home is cantilevered.
The home on this lot, lot A, the L-shaped lot, is cantilevered at the rear so as we
avoid the steep slope area.
And again, that's what Matt Lysong signed off on at the Planning Commission.
So parcel A is about 1,449 square feet.
It's the L-shaped parcel.
It's closer to Silverwood Street.
Parcel B is 1,452 square feet.
Both of them have 16 feet of frontage on Gate Street.
They must have been part of Silverwood Street at one time.
That was long before my client purchased the property.
So, parcel A, slightly smaller, again, 16 feet, and it goes back, well, let me move down to the site plan first, just to show, this is the area that we're talking about.
We originally had this coming down straight into this steep slope area.
We no longer have that.
That's the only change that we made on the revised plans to eliminate going into the steep slope area.
And with that, we got the email from Matt Wysong saying that was acceptable.
With respect to the floor plans, we have a lower basement level.
This is on the smaller of the two houses.
The house is 16 by 29 dimensions.
This is the larger of the two houses.
The basement is just extra storage space or extra room for the single-family homes.
On the first floor, we have a garage on the smaller property and a garage on the larger property.
The garages are two of the refusals that we received because they're front-loaded garages in the RSA 5.
Zoning district, again, you have a living area and an office in the smaller house.
Then you go upstairs, you have the main living area and the main living area.
The second refusal is for this deck.
This deck is in technically the rear yard of this property.
You're not allowed to have a deck in the rear yard, but it makes the living area of the house that much nicer.
And that's the second refusal.
If you go upstairs, you have on the third floor, on the smaller house, two bedrooms and a bathroom.
On the larger house, you have two bedrooms and two bathrooms.
The fourth floor, you have large bedrooms on both houses, and then you have rooftop decks.
The renderings just show you have a garage and a garage.
This is the larger house.
This is the smaller house.
Some additional renderings just showing.
Some additional renderings just showing how they're located with all the houses on cross
street, all 12 houses on cross street have front loaded garages just like these homes
are proposed to have.
I want to go back to the refusal.
Again, the refusal is for having the deck, like I said, off of the first floor of the
one home and for having front-loaded garages. Now, with respect to the front-loaded garages,
when I bring you down and show you the photographs, this is the site, this vacant lot.
This is Cross Street. On Cross Street, there are 12 homes. All 12 of the homes have front-loaded
garages. We are seeking to do exactly what is on Cross Street, that is have a front-loaded garage.
Now, if you notice, the way the front of this house is, you cannot park here.
So we are not taking away any on-street parking by having the front-loaded garages.
We're just building what's in conformity with the homes on Cross Street.
And again, here's another photo showing the property, an additional photo showing the property, and again, the property.
and here are photographs of cross street so you can see the context cross street has 12 homes on
it they all have front loaded garages as you can see that's cross sleep looking towards the other
end again the property itself and the neighboring properties on silverwood street so
So, what we're talking about doing is, again, just building houses that have the same front-loaded garages as the other home.
When looking at this, we believe that the failure to grant the requested variances would result in an unnecessary hardship.
The location of the properties, they're on the same street where all of the other homes have front-loaded garages.
And the layout of the lots with steep slopes to the rear of the properties does create a hardship for the land.
These physical circumstances make it impossible to utilize the property in strict conformity with the code because everybody else has, again, front-loaded garages.
The variances won't alter the character of the neighborhood.
They will permit us to use the property in conformity with the surrounding properties.
The variances, if granted, will benefit the public health and they'll remove a vacant property from the community.
they will complete permit completion of the row of homes with front-loaded garages that presently
exist they'll decrease the likelihood of congestion because you won't have anybody trying to park
illegally in front of these houses they'll be able to park legally in their garages you cannot
legally park on gate street in front of the homes the front loaded garages will conform with the
front loaded garages on the surrounding homes and the variances are the minimum required we're just
seeking one garage per home in conformity with what surrounds the homes.
I also would like to address the information from the RCO.
The RCO submitted a petition in opposition, and I would like to object to that on the record as being hearsay.
Again, there's no way to verify who signed the petition.
On the petition itself, there's no explanation of the variances sought
and no indication that plans were presented when the petition was presented.
In addition, much of the opposition is to density and proximity to other homes.
The homes are proposed on lots that are larger than the minimum required lot size.
The homes are in the RSA 5 zoning district.
They meet the dimensional requirements for the RSA 5 zoning district.
The zoning district contemplates homes in close proximity to each other.
One of the objections was we're going to build too close to another house.
It's the RSA 5, Single Family Attached Zoning District.
So, you know, we're building what's permitted in the zoning district.
And what's most interesting is the people who claim to have signed the petition in opposition are all residents of Cross Street.
Every house that's signed has a front-loaded garage.
They're opposing exactly that which they already have in their community.
And I didn't see anybody who lives on Cross Street that says, you know what, we don't like front-loaded garages.
we're going to eliminate our front loaded garage they all have front loaded garages
but they don't want to the houses on the end of cross street to have front loaded garages
again we're just seeking to build that one is already in the community in conformity with the
community and in conformity with the rsa5 zoning class again we're over 1440 square feet we have
the required frontage required width we meet the requirements for the zoning class but for
the front loaded garages and the rear deck on the one property so um with that i would like to uh
call on uh mayor badoosh
Mayer Badouche.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hi, my name is Mayer Badouche.
M-E-I-R-B-A-D-U-S-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Thank you.
Mr. Matione.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayer, did you hear my statements?
Yes, I did.
and are my statements true and correct
yes they are absolutely
yes and do you
adopt them as your testimony
I am I do I just want
I'd just like to add
one thing I
you know we went to the RCO
we met with the RCO
with the neighbors
and I truly believe
that they don't have
an issue with their actual
garages but they just don't
want us to build over there altogether and they feel that if we uh if we if you want to get the
garages then we won't build the homes but we will build the home the homes regardless i we just
believe it's going to be beneficial at the end of the day for anybody that lives on the street
that to have less cars parked on the street um and the street the street doesn't have parking
in any way.
So it's just going to be more beneficial
for the homes and for the neighborhood
to have garages to those two homes.
And it's conforming with every single house
on that block,
every single one of them as garages.
Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Mattione, just to make this clear, you're only submitting to us for parking and a deck in the back.
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Here we have Abraham Weisbrot.
Hi, how are you doing this afternoon?
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter abraham
yes abraham weisbrod first name abraham a-b-r-a-h-a-m last name weisbrod w-e-i-s-s
b as in boy r o d as in dog um and i'm the neighbor at 4768 silverwood all right you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i affirm
proceed i'm the neighbor at 47 4768 silverwood and um i just want to state on the record that uh
And I think that this project would be a great enhancement to the neighborhood.
And I think the garages are an important component to the project as well, so we could have, so we could, you know, so this doesn't clog up the congestion on the street.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for taking your time to call in.
Any other questions or suggestions from the comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 single-family zoning at this location.
We feel the variances are self-created by the subdivision of the property and that the property could have been developed as a single-family property by right in conformance with the zoning code.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variances.
MI 2021-005-412-4768, rear to 72 Silverwood Street.
I vote yes with revised plans of one page.
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
thank you Mr. Chairman
good luck
thank you and good luck Sharon
MI 2022
614 South 6th Street
Rachel Pritzker
Rachel Pritzker, and Mr. Reuters, right here.
and Mr.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Let me swear you in while we're waiting for Mr. Reuter.
State your name and spell it for the court reporter.
It's Brandon Saverin, B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N of Pritzker Law Group.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Reuter?
Thank you. May it please the board. Leonard F. Reuter, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter just there?
Sure. First name is L-E-O-N-A-R-D, last name R-E-U-T-E-R.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. Mr. Shabram, we'll start with you.
Sure. Thank you. I'm here bringing an appeal against L&I, asking the board to grant the appeal
and thus recognize the existing use of the property as legally non-conforming.
I'll thank the board in advance for its time on this.
These cases can be a bit dry compared to variance appeals,
so I'll do my best to get through our legal argument quickly.
We submitted a packet of photographs and other documents,
including past leases on the property.
I will not go through them, at least in large part, unless requested in the interest of time.
I will share my screen, though, just so I can share the couple things I'd like to highlight.
Okay, give me one moment just to straighten this out here.
So thank you again for your time, and thanks to Leonard for coming on today.
Our request is that you grant the appeal of a refusal issued by L&I.
And as I'll explain, we believe that the use of the subject building as three dwelling units began at a time when it was legal under the zoning code or at a time that predates the zoning code's adoption in 1933.
My clients are William Manganielli and Martin Wendell.
They bought this building in 1984.
It was a three-unit apartment at that time.
It has been ever since.
It's been continuously occupied and operated as such.
So what happened here is that last summer, prior to retaining me, Bill and Martin entered
into an agreement of sale to sell this triplex that they've owned for 38 years. They've each
lived in it for a time, that was a while ago, and since then have owned it as an investment property.
Their agreement of sale stated, as many do, that it was their obligation to obtain a property
certificate, or as the realtor community calls it, a city cert, affirming that there are no
open L&I violations on the property, and that it has an appropriate zoning permit.
So my clients ordered their city cert, and this is how it came back. What it says is that right
here, there is no record on file with the department. So I've seen this in my practice
this over the years. And my experience has been that this is an indication in a case like this,
where there's a building that's been in existence for a long time, that the department,
the department being LNI, may have lost the file on the property when the paper zoning archive
files were scanned and converted to digital in the 2000s. So luckily, my client had obtained
a cert when they bought the property back in 1984. And you're looking at it here,
they still have the original. This was taken yesterday on Bill's countertop. And this
certification statement, I'll walk you through real quickly. It gives the address of the property,
614 South 6th. It provides that the use of the property at that time was a three-family dwelling.
It was issued to Max Shermer, who was their realtor. It says that all three units
It was issued to Max Schirmer, who was their realtor.
It says that all three units have their own kitchens right there.
It says that the property is located at that time in a C2 commercial district, that the use of the property was legal, most critically.
And right here, that there were no violations of any kind on the property at that moment.
so um at this point having sort of received this strange city cert uh in 2021 i was retained and
um bill went to meet with ellen i at msb brought um uh i believe brought that cert and asked what
he should do. Would they consider issuing a different cert in light of his older certificate?
The answer was no, and that we should apply for a new zoning permit. So I assisted with that.
We submitted this certificate. We submitted an affidavit by Bill as the general partner of the
owner partnership that the building had been continuously occupied. And ultimately,
our zoning permit application was refused, which is what brought us here today. So what I did at
that point while I was waiting for this hearing was I wanted to look into what the legal import
of this document was when it was issued. So I went down the Jenkins Law Library, pulled the code as
it existed in 1984, because they have historical editions of the Philadelphia Code. This is what
the code said about these documents at the time. It said that upon application, the Department of
Licenses and Inspections shall certify to the district classification of any property and the
current status of said property as shown by the maps and records of the department.
So what that means is that at that time, this statement had legal meaning. And because of that,
I believe that a court would find that it still does have legal meaning. And we believe that the
certificate is accurate. So there's an interesting fellow who maintains as a hobby this map of the
ages of buildings in Philadelphia. And what this is showing you is that all the properties in orange
are 19th century buildings occurring in this gentleman's research. Our property is right
here so it's not shaded i can show you the block in a moment but he has the you know the buildings
next to us as all dating from the 19th century and just looking at ours here's ours here's the
rest of the block we have no particular reason to think that ours isn't as well um so uh in in any
event um we um we believe what the certification statement says which is that despite the fact
that in 1984, dwelling use was not permitted by Wright in the C2 District. The use was legal,
and we believe that it says that because it was, even at that time, a legal non-conforming use,
that prior to even then, the building had come into service as a three-unit building at a time
when that was permitted in this location.
There is a 1987 Commonwealth Court case that I want to quickly address.
That case is called Ernst Berger, and what that essentially says,
in a very similar situation, is that it doesn't really matter
whether anybody can necessarily verify the accuracy of the certification statement
if the city issued it, never disavowed it, and then allowed the owner of the building to operate
according to it undisturbed for decades after. That's what happened here. So in Ernst Berger,
the buyer of a property received a zoning certification, much like Bill and Martin did.
That certification said that that building in that case was a three-unit legal non-conforming
building. So, so far, exactly the same as our case. Now, in that case, the city of Pittsburgh
turned around and said quickly, unlike here where it happened 40 years later almost, that that
certification statement was issued by mistake. And the court in that case held that, unfortunately
for Pittsburgh, that was too bad. The fact that they claimed issuance by mistake, that it was a
certification rather than a permit, none of that mattered, that the city had created a right
for the buyers to operate the building as a three-unit dwelling, and that concept is called
vested right. So we believe that in addition to having established this as a legal non-conforming
use, that the document creates a vested right for us to continue that use. So
that the document creates a vested right for us to continue that use so the reasons and i promise
I don't know.
you i'm almost finished the reasons that the philadelphia code now provides that l and i can
say that an existing non-conforming use can be forced to stop are abandonment or discontinuance
and these are terms that are defined in the code at section 14 3055 it's l and i's burden
to notify an applicant that it has found discontinuance to have occurred and to give
the applicant a chance to respond. That didn't occur here. L&I didn't notify us as such. It just
rejected our zoning program application without explanation. And the reality on the ground is that
this building, its use was not abandoned or discontinued. And I will in lightning speed
just flip through some of the leases we have in our exhibit packet to demonstrate that. So
for all of these reasons, we believe that Bill and Martin enjoy the protection of the legal
nonconformity doctrine, which is to say that the three-family use as certified in that 1984
for a statement you're looking at has to be allowed to continue because it has never stopped
and if our if my clients wish to order a new certification statement or a new permit
it has to be issued um so i as i mentioned um do have an extensive exhibit packet
it has photographs of all three units um here is one of them um when between tenants it does
have a tenant now. Here is the second one. Here is the third. And then I will just fly down to
our lease. We tried to do a yeoman's job here of assembling the first page of every lease
that they've ever had on this building. And as a result, we have, I think, 50 some first pages of
different leases on those three units so we took this evidence and we had bill execute
a sworn affidavit saying that under penalty of perjury this thing has been in continuous
operation since 1984 as a three unit building so we would ask that you accept our exhibit binder
into the record and grant this appeal recognizing the three unit use as a legally non-conforming use
so that we can avoid the displacement of the three tenants that live there.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter?
Yes, I mean, we've reviewed the documents that have been provided,
as well as the affidavit,
and at least I'm satisfied that they certainly got documentation and evidence
that does appear to indicate that this has been a non-conforming use
since at least 1984 as mr saverin points out even in 84 residential use wasn't permitted but they
did issue the certification which doesn't at least imply that lni at the time uh accepted that it was
a lawful non-conformity what did happen over the several years um is as as everybody's probably
aware the hard copy zoning files were have all been scanned into the zoning archives which are
now attached to the atlas website sometimes those documents went missing on the way to get scanned
sometimes they got scanned under different addresses or stuck with different records
so it's very possible that you know the zoning files may still exist but might be in the wrong
But at this point, the city's not opposing the appeal.
We just needed to make sure that the evidence that Mr. Saverin has presented was put into the record and becomes part of the record.
So we are okay with the board granting this appeal.
And then what would happen is that Ellen and I would issue essentially a zoning permit documenting the existing use as a three family.
I think what happened initially when the application was first submitted, it was not submitted specifically for the purpose to document the existing use, and it appeared to be just an application for a new use, but that's neither here nor there.
So we're fine with this, so we're okay with the board granting this appeal.
Thank you very much.
I vote, appeal is granted, three-family dwelling is a legal non-conforming use.
Thomas Holloman, appeal granted with proviso.
Fishman Shaheed, appeal granted with proviso.
thank you thank you thank you thank you i also want to say goodbye thank you goodbye to uh sharon
it's been a pleasure working with you uh for many years you're she's a good friend uh a colleague
and a mentor and i know i'm going to be in close contact with her over the next couple months
anyway um but uh but yeah thank you leonard thank you so much one of my favorite people
Bye-bye. Thank you. Is there anyone in the virtual audience who's still waiting for a
case from the two o'clock list? I see no hands, Chair. Thank you. So we're going to go to the
330 list. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this meeting. With me is Ishmael Shahid,
our board secretary here mr chair and thomas holman our board member present mr chairman
also our executive director tanya sunkett and sharon saletta our board attorney before we begin
here's our virtual format be advised these proceedings are being recorded by participating
acknowledge agreement to be recorded a video will be available by contacting our executive director
tanyasunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying. If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, the question and answer box is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments have to be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our executive director.
Does anyone have any continguities on the 330 list?
Chair, we have Felix Rodriguez.
Okay. Mr. Rodriguez, state your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Mr. Rodriguez?
He's unmuted, Chair, and he's not responding.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
I'm sorry, are you talking to me?
I'm sorry.
My name is Joseph Vaccaro, not Felix Rodriguez.
Well, your thing is coming up.
Your phone is coming up as Felix Rodriguez.
I'm sorry.
Well, my name is Joseph Vaccaro, number seven on your list, 2436 West Allegheny Avenue.
And this is a request for a continuance.
I'm the attorney for the applicant.
Okay, hold on a minute.
Number seven?
24-36 West.
I don't know.
I don't.
I don't.
I see number three.
24-36 West Allegheny?
24-36 West Allegheny.
Yes, sir.
That's number three on our list.
Oh, I have it on number seven.
I'm sorry.
So you're the attorney of record, right?
Right. I'm the attorney of record for 2436 West Allegheny, and this is our request for a continuance. Yes.
That will be continued, and it's going to be marked must be tried.
Much appreciated. Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
And take care, Sharon. All the best.
Any other questions for continuance?
I see no handshare.
Here we go.
Number one, MI 2021-004-742-27 East Auburn Street.
Letter of support from the Somerset Neighbors for Better Living.
Councilman Squilla in non-opposition.
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
his name is mark henriquez is m-a-r-c-h-e-n-r-i-q-u-e-z
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay mr ha uh good afternoon he has a few questions
Mr. Han, he has a few questions.
Call it, Thomas, you do it.
Good afternoon.
Did you email all of the exhibits as required,
such as proof of ownership, tax clearance,
copy of a refusal, pictures or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing,
and did you meet with the RCO?
Do you have a letter?
Thank you.
Proceed.
did you put it put your information up on the screen yeah i'm putting in there right now okay
can you see okay yep it's up yeah so this is my name is mark enriquez it's the application of
appeal um i'm the owner of this project of this property it's a vacant lot in the property i was
trying to build a two-family um household living and the properties uh refused because
there's two family in the rsa5 neighborhood so they said you can't you can't have that
So, these are my, okay, this is the application of appeal right here, this is the project
information, and this is the RCO for the Somerset's neighbors.
first. This is a tax clearance that I own the property. This is the deed. And this is
the property right here. And this is the pictures of where the property is going to be located.
is a vacant lot right now.
And the whole neighborhood is like,
they're building new construction.
So the whole neighborhood is basically vacant lots
that they're digging and they're building new construction.
And these are my receipts that I mailed out
the postal letters.
And this is the receipts right here.
And these are my plans right here.
these are my plans right here okay i see it okay so i i lived here for 25 years i lived here all
my life on this block my mom is the um she's got she's actually the block captain of the block she
lived here for about 40 years so we want to i want to um build a two-family house these are
these are the plans for this because i'm i want my mother and my father to live underneath me
I actually have a daughter myself, a five-month-year-old daughter that just came.
So I want to be able to still take care of my family and still help my mom and dad because I'm the youngest of the family.
So I want to still be able to help take care of them.
So these are my plans right here.
I'm sorry.
Can you see it good?
We're okay.
All right.
So these are the two apartments.
As right here the first floor, this is the first floor right here. You go into the first floor and this is the kitchen right here.
This is the backyard. Once you go downstairs in the first floor, you end up in the basement.
When you go to the basement, you have your two bedrooms. You have your utility room, you have your bathroom, and then you have your laundry room.
That's the first apartment. Then when you go back upstairs, you'll go upstairs again and you'll have your master bedroom that will be on the second floor.
so the second apartment you're going through your door right here on your second and you'll end up
in your kitchen you'll go up the steps again and then you'll end up in the living room with the
with the bedrooms then you go up the steps one more time and you'll end up on the fourth floor
with the two bedrooms the utility room the laundry room and the bedroom
and if you go up the steps one more time you'll end up on a rooftop
you'll be on a roof deck right here
are you done with your presentation yeah i'm sorry i went it came off my screen i'm looking
for it. Is there a basement? Yes, there is a basement. And no one's going to live in
and no one's going to live in the basement right the basement is two is two rooms in basement
the basement, right? The basement is two rooms and basement.
okay split into just two apartments the multi-family so the basement has two rooms
and the first floor has no room then the second floor has one room for the master bedroom
on the other side of that floor will be the kitchen of the second apartment
i'm sorry
you went to the rco yes
and they're in favor of you right yes can you see the players now yeah we see it we see it's
better. Okay. So yeah, the RCO is up here. I showed it already. I'm looking for it.
What was the vote of the RCO?
The RCO vote was like seven to four.
Or the whole and total?
You talking about the total vote or just the RCO members?
The RCO vote.
The RCO vote was four to...
I remember it was four to...
Chair, while he looks for that, this is Sharon.
Can I also mention that we have a letter in non-opposition from Councilman Scuola?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
um you've already been sworn peter what i said you've already been sworn yes i have yeah
um so the planning commission recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning
at this location there is no unique physical condition to this 885 square foot lot that would
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code additionally we are concerned
about having sleeping spaces in the basement the city planning commission recommends the board
deny the use variants. MI 2021-004-742-2071 East Auburn Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Pardon me. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
Thank you.
MI 2021-004-837-2334 North 29th Street.
We do have a letter from the RCO.
Darlene Treat is the attorney.
Chair, if I can just bring to your attention that the original refusal that was included in the exhibits was not correct,
that I did send you the actual refusal I emailed it to you today.
Right.
Ms. Treat?
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Darling Treat on behalf of the applicant, legacy leaders.
Okay. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Darlene Threatt, D-A-R-L-E-N-E, Threatt, T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-T-T as in Thomas.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is Legacy Leavers. I have the principal of Legacy Leavers with me today here, Mr. Reginald Barian.
Mr. Reginald Barian, Mr. Barian, can you please state your name and address for the record, please?
Mr. Barian, can you please state your name and address for the...
Reginald Barian, what's in the address?
You're the owner of legacy leaders.
Oh, yeah, Reginald Barian, owner of legacy leaders.
And your address?
2334 North 29th Street.
If he testifies later, I'll swear on that, okay?
Mr. Holliman, could you ask the council a few questions?
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
With one exception, Mr. Holloman. When I originally sent in my exhibits, I sent in an older refusal.
Subsequently, I sent the correct refusal to Ms. Sooletter. And with that, I would agree to waive the reading of the refusal.
okay according to our records you have submitted all of the required documents on time is that
correct yes it is sir please proceed and share your screen
uh good afternoon uh commissioners uh darling freed on behalf of the applicant can you see
my screen? I can. We can. Okay. I have a presentation package here with several exhibits.
I have submitted to, for your review, the refusal, the appeal, the
project information form, tax information, the 2D, the zoning history for this property,
plans, pictures, a community letter, and a certificate of mailing. I'm going to start by
scrolling down to the pictures so you can see what the place looks like.
This is the place in question here. Mr. Berrien and his family has owned this
building for a half a century. Previously, his father owned this building in the neighborhood
and it was an upholstery shop. In 2016, the same building came for the Zoning Board of Adjustment
and we were legalized to use the ground floor as a pharmacy and is currently in use as a pharmacy.
In this particular application, we are requesting the board to approve a takeout ice cream, water ice space in the back of this building.
And I'm just going to flip through some of the pictures very quickly to show you what we're proposing.
As you can see here, the building stands here. There are only three buildings on this block.
This middle building is used as a single-family.
The first building is a barbershop on the bottom, and there is single-family uses on
the top.
Here is a picture of the site of our building with the mural, and here is a picture of the
posting to notify the community of what we were proposing here.
Additionally, as you can see here, we have a handicap clamp here to our building, and
And we also had erected a large fence, which is part of this application today, to legalize.
If I scroll down a little more, you can see a picture of the entire block here.
The entire block, again, only has three residences on it.
Mr. Barian owns 2334 and 2336.
Now, this is a unity of use application, and we're asking to use these two lots together, and I'll show you why in a moment.
This is the back portion of our building, and it's about a hundred foot shed, and we're proposing just to have a takeout water ice stand here.
We have a takeout window here. There are stairs up to the window here and there are stairs here.
And there's actually a gate here because we like to use an additional part of this property for community purposes to maybe sit down and enjoy their ice cream, water ice or soda or beverages.
Here is a fuller picture of the two lots.
Missing from the picture, you can't actually see the stand here, but I wanted to show you
a fuller picture of the lot.
We have tables that will be placed over here.
We have tables that will be placed over here.
Patrons can get their water ice over here, walk out into the yard, and sit down.
Patrons can get...
And it is an enclosed area.
Why is the property enclosed, and why is the fence so large?
And I'm going to address that issue.
At the timing of the Floyd, George Floyd, what can I say?
riots, the pharmacy was under siege. We had to put a roll-down gate here. They were breaking in.
They were breaking into the back of the building, and we just pretty much squirted off, and we put
a high fence here because people were attacking the building from all angles. We also put some
additional lighting and cameras on the building. You can't really see it from this picture, but we
also fenced in the air conditioning because they were, excuse me, gated in the air conditioning
because they were coming through the windows. This is just the back of the building and you
can see again how we put lighting and cameras out here and we gated in the air conditioning
and there was an existing fence back here but we also put a fence in the back to keep
the individuals from trying to break in and loot the pharmacy.
This picture here just shows you 29th Street.
We are directly across the street from the Strawberry, I guess you call it Strawberry
Square where there are a host of stores here, none serve ice cream or water ice.
It's a plaza with a bunch of commercial uses which is directly across the street from us.
This is an additional picture of the plaza across the street from us.
There is a heavy, heavy dumping problem in this area and a trash problem in this area.
And you can see in the grass area here across from the mall or in the same lot, it's strewn and littered with trash.
I say that to say we did put up a high fence.
We do know that it is outside the mandates of the zoning code, but the reason we chose to put this fence up is because of the continuous dumping and the breaking in of the pharmacy property in the front here.
Here I have a copy, and I'm just going to reduce it a little bit so you can see it, of the plan.
This was the building as it existed previously. I know our application says to add an addition. We didn't add an addition. This part of the building right here has always existed. When they broke into the building, we had to repair it. And the only thing that we did was square it off over here. And as you can see here, we just squared the building off.
We didn't actually add a whole addition. This was an existing in 2016 when we had the pharmacy use approved. It's currently existing now. We just squared it off.
So now I'm going to move the diagram over a little bit and I'm going to show you why we did the unity of use application.
As you can see here is the property line.
Here is the beginning of the fence and the gate where you will walk into this property.
The ice cream takeout water ice is in the back of the property.
The only way really to get to it is to actually use the other lot, which we do own, and walk back here so we can get to the water ice facility.
The facility we proposed to operate six days a week from about 10 to 8.30.
We did have the opportunity to meet with the Civic Association.
I sent out a letter to 87 patrons, and I have to say, really, only one neighborhood person showed up,
and I don't really believe that they lived on the block.
Here is my proof of mailing certificate that we got from the post office.
As a result of the meeting with the Strawberry Mansion community concerned, we did get a letter of non-opposition with several proposals, with several provisals in it.
And let me open that letter up for you very quickly.
I apologize.
We did meet, again, with Strawberry Mansion Community Concern.
They sent a letter with quite a few provisos, but it is a letter of non-opposition.
Commissioners, we believe that this business use will serve the community really well over here.
we have a place where the community can meet
and that they can interact with each other
over some comfort food, just an ice cream cone.
And with that, that's my entire presentation.
And we are willing to answer any questions
that the board may have at this time.
I'm just going to flip that to a picture
to give you a better look at what we're really proposing here
and how the community can use and enjoy this space.
Here is the picture.
Unfortunately, you can't see the water ice section in the back,
but you can see that we have the picnic tables and we have the table over here.
You can actually come through this fence right here and you can sit down and gather
and what we believe is a very safe place and what I would consider a pretty dicey area here.
May I interrupt for just one minute? Would you mind pulling back the letter back up?
I just wanted to clarify something. There were concerns about which addresses are included
within this application. I did confer with Ellen and I on that. The properties before you, it is
only two um it is let's see 2334 and 2336 yes they're the subject of the unity of use um the
the adjoining properties the adjacent properties are not part of this appeal they would actually
require a separate application so nothing that you rule on in this appeal will affect those
properties um and commissioners it is firm that with ellen i that those are independent properties
that only um the use of this property would be at issue and would be you wouldn't affect the other
properties thank you commissioners and with that um we are here to answer any questions that any
members of the board may have the use of this property. So why don't we have your client adopt
your testimony? Mr. Barian, you are the owner of 2334 and 2336 North 29th Street? Yes.
Can I swear in mid one minute, please? I'm sorry, sir. That's okay. That's okay. Could you state
your name and spell for the court reporter please reginald barian r-e-g-i-n-a-l-d b-e-r-r-i-a-n
thank you do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes oh thank you mr barrian go ahead mr barrian have you heard my uh presentation to the board
today yes and if you were to testify today would you adopt the testimony here that i have given
along with the exhibits that i have provided to the board yes thank you mr barry questions from
the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience chair we have strawberry
Mansion Community Concern. Yep. Yep. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Could you state your name and
spell for the court reporter, please? Hi, my name is Bonita Cummings. I am the Director of
Strawberry Mansion Community Concern. Could you spell your name, please, too? B-O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Right. Do you swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed.
I just wanted to address as the role of the RACO, the 10-inch fence in height is around property that is not owned by the applicant.
And that's what they're asking the RACO to participate in.
So 38 and 40 are also covered by that 10-foot gating.
So in terms of liability, I'm not sure what that would mean.
i'm not sure what that would mean and this is sharon maybe i maybe i can help explain that
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
Maybe I can.
because i did talk with l and i um this appeal again the board's decision in this case would
have nothing to do with that it would not approve the um fence on the adjacent properties if you
believe that is a violation l and i you could request that l and i enforce it it would not be
approved by the board today only the properties that issue would be i hope that helps well i
understand that but it does exist so i just wanted to uh state it in the record because
my understanding which came from um diana ramos is that there is no agreement of sale or ownership
um by the applicant um reginald for uh those those parcels that are are a part of
that whole open gated area there so we're really not just talking about 34 and 36.
but we are sorry but the board cannot consider the other properties and it wouldn't anything
they do if they approve the variances today that would not approve the fence on the adjoining
properties thank you mrs okay i just wanted to make sure because i didn't want to be liable you
know or given consent to something that the rfco really doesn't have the authority to give consent
too. But being that this is also, you know, kind of a still volatile area, and we're, you know,
dealing with some volatility of behavior, I just wanted to make sure that we also can pay attention
to the provisos, and that because this setup is where you kind of go into a yard space to get to
this ice cream uh scenario or this ice cream building um that they maintain their clients
or their customers in that gating that it does not spill back out onto 29th street we don't have
long lines running you know along that corridor which would be an obstruction to the sidewalk
so the the um some of the provisos um i wanted to make sure that we you know we were clear
and that I did do an update I don't know if it got printed out but I also wanted to just
uh you know in terms of the health welfare and safety events you know is are we authorizing
parties like what what would be also um because that you know it's 34 and 36 but you're also
you know they've taken more space than just 34 and 36. So yeah but we're not the other
But ma'am, just so you know, the other space, we're not, that's not an issue today. We're only talking about two properties today.
I understand that, but I think what I'm trying to help everyone else understand is the behavior that can go on, because instead of them gating off what they owned, they gated off more than that.
So instead of it being, the gate should have been at 36 and not at 40.
so i'm sorry i'm sorry miss cummings it's here if i could if you don't mind
just i'm we're going to just cut it we keep we can't keep talking about the other two properties
we're talking about two properties that's it 34 and 36 and chair could i mention that the use
that is proposed for um 34 and 36 that is only a takeout restaurant so any use for events or
parties, they would have to come back to the board. Ms. Cummings, if that is any help.
You did, I believe, two of the provisos requested would be enforceable. There's commercial trash
pickup. And Ms. Threed, if you could pull up the hours of operation that the RCO requested.
Okay. The hours of operation that the RCO requested was 10 to 830, and we don't have a problem with that at all.
Thank you.
Hi, Chair. This is Tanya. If I could just interject a thought to mention to all those in the community,
if there should be any issues or concerns that warrant an inspection by L&I, a call must go
into 311 for them to investigate further. But that information and others are not before the board
today. But please call 311 if there are concerns about them violating the zoning that they are,
if they are granted that zoning. Thank you, Chair. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience has
comment i see no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial and residential
commercial and residential mixed use. A takeout restaurant would be allowed with a special
mixed use a takeout restaurant would be allowed with a special
exemption other than under the recommended zoning. Accordingly the planning commission
recommends the board grant the variance use. Thank you. MI 2021 004837 2334 North 29th Street
I vote yes, with provisos, as stated, time and commercial pickup.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Yes, Ishmael Shaheed, yes, with provisos.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'm back on.
Thank you for that opportunity to say goodbye to my daughter.
MI 2021 004842 426 East Clearfield Street. No exhibits. First listing. Maria Rodriguez.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay. Cases continued. Must be tried.
MI 2021-004672, 422 North 64th Street.
RCO, HMC Squared Community Associates, Letter of Support.
Sean Ward.
good afternoon mr chairman sean ward on behalf of the applicant s-h-a-w-n-w-a-r-d
address three three one east street road trevos pa one nine zero five three good afternoon board
members as well. Do you swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? Yes, I do. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property? My client
is David Golan. He is G-O-L-A-N. He is the owner of the premises and the applicant in this proceeding.
Our vice chair has a few questions. Hi, Mr. Ward. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? This time, yes, I do. That's really good to hear. I assume
you've sent in the required documents according to my notes you have is that correct i submitted
my full exhibit packet including the rco letter of support okay great you may proceed and please
share your screen um hi mr ward this is tanya would it be possible for you maybe to turn your
volume up a little or get closer to the mic oh thank you tanya i thought it was may no
Thank you, Mr. Ward.
All right, let me stop screen share.
Oh, wait, hang on a second.
I've got to stop screen share to go to my microphone settings.
I think that actually made it lower.
I'm sorry.
Hold on.
Is that better?
Oh, it sure is.
Now you're there.
no in the just just so everybody knows when you go into the zoom audio settings uh you have
different choices of what your speaker is and what your microphone is and right now i'm on the one
that says same as system so tanya you might want to make a note of that that you know to tell people
go into their audio settings and click on same as system thank you mr ward okay all right let me go
back to screen share okay everybody say it we're good to go yes awesome uh mr chairman i've
submitted my typical exhibit packet uh again david galon uh doing business as edg real estate llc is
the property owner at 422 north 64th street uh subject of today's hearing uh at a1 is the notice
of refusal. We submitted an application for a permit for a two-family dwelling in an existing
two-story structure. There was one refusal. The property is zoned CMX, so commercial use is
required on the first floor. None is proposed. Accordingly, we seek a use variance. A2 is the
application of appeal. A3, the PIF, Project Information Form. A4, Proof of Ownership. A5,
proof of tax clearance. A6 are photographs. A7 is the RCO letter of support. A8 if submitted I
would ask that the district council letter be marked as A8. I did not get a copy of one so
I did not get a copy of one, but just in case there was.
But just in case there was a nine is.
A9 is the Rolvin zoning history, if any, but none was found.
I also did a licensing history search.
Nothing was found.
We also did a zoning survey of the block, of their uses, and all those permits are attached at A11.
Very quickly, 400-02 is a four-family.
404 is a five-family.
406 is a two-family.
408 is vacant.
410 does have one retail use and a three-family.
412 consists of two buildings, a four-family and a two-family.
414 has a group daycare.
16 and 18, we believe, are single-family, but we couldn't find anything on them.
But from all appearances, they seem to be single-family dwellings.
420, two-family dwelling.
424, three-family.
428, again, it's a two-building property.
a three family and a one family. 430 and 32 are both vacant commercial and five family.
434 is a single family. 436 is a vacant commercial. And 438 at the corner is a hair salon and a two
family. A12 is the zoning map. A13 is the aerial photograph. And at A14, we have proof of my
client's payment for a refuse collection for a duplex, which is charged by the city to my client.
So rather than belabor and go through all of those documents just listed, I will show that we have
tax clearance total through 2022 is zero. We did a licensing and permit history search.
again nothing was found. This map shows the four other possible retail uses or commercial uses on
the block despite the fact that it's on CMX. This is a picture of the subject property right here
at the tan with the awning out front. This would be an aerial photograph again I highlighted in
yellow those uses that we identify on Google as some sort of a commercial use on our side of the
block our property is located um where is it right here right under the word bakery
and the other side of the street there's some auto repair and towing businesses
along with the uh religious use towards the end of the block
pictures up and down the block
as you can see not necessarily a commercial block predominantly residential in use
we did meet with the rco hmc squared as you can see by their letter there were 12 attendees
eight in support three support with a proviso and one in non-opposition nobody opposed
they did include their letter i would just point out they're saying using this property as a duplex
is consistent with the character of the neighborhood there are several other multi-family
dwellings on the block and again they voted eight in support three in support with proviso one non
opposition and then from there on in are those permits that we referenced they are included in
the packet and at the bottom we have the the zoning map showing the entire block is cmx2
however there's very limited commercial use on the block and again just the overhead aerial
So, again, he pays to the city $250 per billing cycle to the Department of Revenue for refuse collection, given the multi-use recognized by the city through OPA and the Revenue Department.
So, and again, it was also included in a settlement sheet at the time he purchased it.
He had to reimburse the seller for the refuse collection charges from the city.
So, that is the sum and substance of our application.
I know my client was trying to log on. His name is David DeLong. David, if you are on, I would ask that you raise your hand. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I would, as an officer of the court, where'd my stop share? There we go. I would ask that as an officer of the court, the board stipulate that he would verify my representations as true and accurate and adopt them as his own testimony.
that's that's fine questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments
from the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change to cmx one commercial meduce under the
The comprehensive plan recommends a change to CMX-1 commercial use under the comprehensive plan.
We have no objection to the proposed use.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board grant the variance.
Thank you. Thank you.
MI 2021-004672-422 North 64th Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
MI 2022-000-929-7809, Castor Avenue.
We're on host, Civic Association, Letter of Opposition, Neal Sklaroff.
Mr. Sklaroff is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. Sklaroff, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Do you need to unmute yourself?
Over the bottom left of your screen and click mute.
Mr. Sklaroff, I just requested you to unmute, and I requested you to show your video.
So if you press those buttons accordingly, we can see and hear you for you to present.
Mr. Sklaroff?
So, Chair, there must be some technical problems.
If you wish, you can move ahead.
Yeah, I'll move on.
We'll come back.
MI 2021-004834.
Wait a minute.
He has it up, but he's done.
I'm sorry.
I'm trying to unmute.
Oh, okay.
We're good.
We're good.
Can you hear me?
I can.
Neil, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
It's Neil Sklaroff, N-E-I-L-S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
I have the privilege of representing the School District of Philadelphia,
which owns the premises known as 7809 Castor Avenue
and is operated as the Roanhorst Elementary School.
Thank you. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Sklaroff. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I will stipulate that that's what the examiner wrote, but in our appeal, we have pointed to alternative reasoning,
which is that the examiner erred in issuing the refusal.
And I'll explain that as we go along.
And according to our notes, you have submitted all the required documents timely five days
in advance of this hearing.
Is that correct?
Yes, I believe so.
Thank you.
You may proceed and your screen is up.
Does the board have a copy of the letter of opposition from the Roanhurst Civic Association?
I do not have that as part of my exhibits, but I will address that as we go on.
If I can get this working properly, we have a list of exhibits that we have submitted.
We have, I'm sorry, this is not seeming to work.
We have our tax clearance certificate, exhibit two is D, the property was purchased in 1947.
This is a copy of the zoning permit that was posted in orange and we'll show the posting
The orange is the zoning notice, the white paper is the notice of refusal.
The white paper is the Notice of Refusal.
And here are the different postings and photographs of the cross streets, the streets, the premises across the street from the postings.
This is an aerial view of Ron Hurst Elementary School.
Let me, before I go further, say that I believe Nicole Ward, the Acting Executive Director overseeing the Office of Capital Programs, and some of her staff may have joined this Zoom presentation.
The subject of this appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment is limited to the question of the placement of a temporary modular classroom building at the Roanhurst Elementary School.
As we will see in a moment, the placement of the modular school building is part of a larger project, which has already been permitted.
And from the aerial view, I can tell you that the white-roofed buildings, referred lovingly as the annex, will be removed, as well as that white trailer that you see near the back of the building.
This is the zoning permit for that part of the project.
That part of the project is a major renovation to the existing school building, as well as the addition of two more portions to the building.
This is the approved site plan that went with that permit that was issued January of 2021.
You'll see the square to the top. That represents a 3,000-square-foot addition, and the larger configuration is a 31,000-square-foot addition.
Both of them require the removal of those buildings that I pointed out previously.
Lake. There'll be additional landscaping bordering the homes. The streets to the left and right are
Hartel Avenue and Griffith Street. Both are aligned with what I believe to be residential
uses. The property goes from Caster Avenue to Large Street to the rear, and these are elevations of
that particular project. Again, that's not this project, but it's in the context of that
that we look at this. So we made an application for an educational facility which would be the
modular. This is a seven and a half acre property, and if you'll see the square that's darkened
toward the top of the screen, that is where the modular classroom building will go. It has eight
classrooms, a central corridor, and two bathrooms. This is a plan of the elevations, as well as the
floor plan that I just mentioned with the eight classrooms and showing what the elevations will
look like. This is the refusal. Now the examiner looked at this and decided that this would violate
the prohibition against multiple buildings, principal buildings on a lot. We suggest to you
that this clearly is an accessory building under section 604 of title 14 of which is the zoning
code specifically section subsection 1a and if I could read that in its entirety unless otherwise
expressly stated in this zoning code accessory uses and structures are permitted in conjunction
with allowed principal uses and structures limitations on the number of principal buildings
permitted per lot are not to be construed as applying accessory to accessory buildings
and structures this is a classroom that will be used to house students who are displaced
by the renovations within the principal school building. It cannot operate on its own. Students
students will receive a portion of their educational program, but the cafeteria and
will receive a portion of their educational program.
facilities and all the other things that go along with an elementary school will not be in this
building. And we suggest that it meets the accessory use standard as being subordinate
to the principal use and principal structure in terms of area and function as provided in the
zoning code. So we think that the examiner mistaken the building as not being accessory.
Were you not to accept that, we can't perform the educational services that we provide for which
we have previously received permits at this location, unless we have the modular classroom.
And we suggest that that would be a hardship to the property.
The second ground for refusal has to do with parking.
And the examiner viewed this as the addition of 8,000 square feet to the existing growth square footage.
We believe that's not appropriate because the room that will be provided in the modular is offset by the areas that will be renovated and cannot be used for school purposes while the renovations are going on.
So this is really a one-for-one kind of exchange, and that should not trigger additional parking because it did, excuse me, it did not exceed the existing building gross floor area.
Should you not accept that, we would ask for a variance in order to continue the educational use here.
Neil, do you want to bring somebody from the school district going to adopt your testimony?
Two things there. If Nicole Ward is here, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll ask under
section 14303.14F that my statements be considered those of the school district as long as there's
no objection to that. But is Nicole Ward available?
That's fine, Neil. You're an officer of the court. We'll take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
About the RCO. The RCO voted 10 to 5 against to oppose the project, but had an explanatory letter.
Most of the things they were concerned about had to do with trash and the pickup congestion in the streets as parents come to pick up their children.
And also, apparently, there's an issue with vagrants on the open areas of the school district.
My understanding is there's already been a maintenance crew out to clean up the area.
with this on account of this uh zoning relief there will be no increase in the number of students
or the number of staff um we we really don't have control about the uh the congestion the
vehicle congestion in the front of the building on castor avenue uh as i'm sure some of you may
recall there was a time when we always put elementary schools smack in the middle of
residential areas so that children and parents and staff could walk to school. That may not be
the situation now, but there's nothing the school district can do about the placing
of this school, which is well loved by its parents. Be pleased to answer any other questions.
And what's the time frame for this temporary structure?
I'm sorry.
We did have some discussion.
And while the original applicant put down eight months, that will not be sufficient.
As we explained to the RCO, it should take at least two years.
So, in an email I sent to the councilman's office, I asked for support for a two-year temporary zoning permit with the condition that if for an additional year, if the project has not been completed, we will not own the modulars and we would like them out as soon as possible.
But we need the time for construction.
All right. Any other questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Alice Udovich.
Chair, we have Alex Udovich.
Good evening, Chair and members of the board.
Alice Udovich, representing Councilman Brian O'Neill.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
My last name is U-D-O-V-I-C-H.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
The Councilman has no objection to the granting of the variance.
I believe that the community's concerns will be addressed in a future meeting with the
Ron Hurst community, and it really did not have to do with the zoning, per se, but maintenance
and other issues.
So we're hoping to get those items resolved.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Can I just make a comment?
Please extend Alice our thanks to the council.
Right.
Any other comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair planning commission i'm sorry go ahead excuse me um i was just going to
say that while you can certainly add a temporary proviso my recommendation would be that you simply
make it for a three-year period rather than including the conditional additional year
thank you we have no okay okay planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission let me just make sure i find the
correct box the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 3 single family residential
under the comprehensive plan we feel the applicant has demonstrated a temporary hardship
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board grant a temporary variance
thank you mi 2022 000 929 7809 castor avenue i vote yes for a temporary three years
Sharon? Yes, with a definite end date, so maybe April 1st, 2025. April 1st, 2025.
How about three years from the commencement of the work? Because we don't...
No, we can't do that, Mr. Sklerov. We need a definite date because there would be no one
keeping track of this, so... How about July 1st? Okay, so July 1st, 2025? Yes.
thank you other board members
thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso harold tenere my vote is yes with proviso
sorry to keep interrupting me chair you are okay with the july 1st 2025 date yeah yeah okay thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Sklaroff. Thank you. Everybody have a great day.
You too. MI 2021-004-834-9423 Hillsback Street. No RCO letter as of yet from Busselton
the Citic Association.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter, please?
Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N,
last name J-I-N,
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Suite 1838,
LWPA 19103,
here on behalf of the applicant do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do could you identify your client and state the relationship to the property yes my
client is x and m investment llc mr john chi is the um uh one of the managing members of the llc
and he should be here with us all right good our vice chair has a few questions mr john do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. And I assume
that you've sent in the required documents based on my notes timely. Yes, all documentation were
submitted. In fact, we also submitted the letter of opposition from Greater Busselton Civic League.
I will show that to the board during my presentation. Okay, great. Thank you. You may
proceed and share your screen. Thank you. I have now put up the submission we sent to the board.
Is everyone able to see that? I assume that everyone's able to see it. So the copy of the
I assume that everyone's able to see it.
So the copy of the refusal, RCO letter, history of the certificate.
refusal.
So this is an interesting case in that it is a pre-existing non-conforming condition situation.
The RCO's letter is actually in opposition.
I'm going to go to that right away.
So we can first, I'm sorry, let me just show the refusal briefly.
This is actually in an RTA1 district where two-family dwelling is by right.
However, this is a three-dwelling unit building as purchased by my client, and the application essentially is to legalize the third unit.
So the Greater Busselton Civic and the surrounding neighbors had a meeting with my office, my client, myself, via Zoom.
The meeting was held, and we had some support from neighbors, but a lot of opposition from neighbors as well.
the general feeling that I received, and I'm not trying to put words in anybody's mouth, is that
the neighbors don't want to see more triplexes popping up in the neighborhood. Their concern is
the precedent this would sit as a triplex, where normally you're allowed only duplexes.
So that being said, part of the reason this application was made in the first place goes
back to my client's purchase of the property and its prior legal use. My client purchased it at
the end of 2020 and was issued both rental license and certificate of rental suitability in 2021 in
the beginning for three units. As far as he knew from when he purchased it, this is a legal three
unit building because rental licenses at the time of purchase were, I'm sorry, this is his commercial
license. The rental license and commercial licenses were available, and this rental
situation for three units actually goes back to 2014. In addition, this property was issued a
violation for use in the records of the city back in 2010. That was subsequently complied for
whatever reason. We don't unfortunately have the detailed record of that. What we do now is that
the prior owner, who unfortunately has passed away and is unavailable to testify, the prior owner was
able to, since that time, acquire rental licenses for three units. And that's how the property has
been rented. This is a property that has been rented out of three units and has been used as
such until my client purchased it. Thinking that, again, it is a legal three unit. My client was
also issued, again, a rental license initially until L&I was called probably by a neighbor.
And L&I came and immediately issued a violation saying that you're not permitted to have three
units because this is RTA-1. An application made to L&I was refused, as the board saw earlier,
for the same reason. But again, based on what we know of the rental license history and also the
rental suitability certificate, as far as the old records in the city, and I don't have all records
because a search of the atlas did not come up with additional documentation, but the records that are
available seems to evidence that this property at some point has been operating for many years
as a legal three unit. The property is a corner property. It does have a unit that would
theoretically be considered a basement property, but as you can see, it's actually above grade and
there's a direct access. I will also point that out in the plans. There's a garage on the one end
And the property is otherwise existing in its condition. There are no proposed changes to this property because, as you can see, the apartments are existing and was actually occupied at the time of purchase.
Since then, my client had to, right now, in fact, the third unit is still occupied by a gentleman who's a disabled veteran, and we're still trying to figure out if the board is not to grant the variance, what to do in that situation.
But the plans here are pretty straightforward. I'm going to zoom in on the section of the floor plan so it's easier to see.
So this is the unit in question. It is essentially a studio unit on the same level as the garage.
But as you can see, this is a straight walkout unit. There is an exit that would lead straight
out of the unit. The first unit or second apartment, in essence, is on the, quote,
quote, first floor, but it's elevated. And then the second floor is the other apartment that is
first floor, but it's elevated. And then the second floor is the
the second apartment. So this total three units. And again, this is a unit that is really in
question here, because we know that RTA one would permit the first and second floor unit without
additional variances. So with regard to this application, again, Pennsylvania zoning law
tend to recognize where there's pre-existing non-conforming condition unless it was abandoned
under the Philadelphia Code, such as my client or the prior owner didn't pick up rental licenses
for many years, then it normally would be considered a vested right to the owner. And again,
my client did not create this hardship. He did not create this situation. He simply purchased
the property from the prior owner in 2020. And again, upon review of documents he had at the
time of the rental licenses, he had no reason to believe that this was an illegal building
in any way. And again, even when we brought it up with the community, some neighbors said,
hey, you know, we don't think it's legal, but the general consensus is they don't actually
accept that the city issued rental licenses would necessarily mean that the property was legal. So
that is ultimately why we still had a heavy vote against us during the community presentation.
But once again, our position is that this is a pre-existing non-conforming condition that to
kind of displace this particular individual renter now, even though we've had rental license
all these years to legally allow them to be in there would be a hardship and we would
ask the board's favorable consideration in this matter.
I will be happy to answer any additional questions and certainly happy to redirect any portion
of the exhibits.
Do you want to have your testimony adopted?
Mr. John Chi, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
If he's not here for some reason, we'll take your testimony, that's fine. Questions from
the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone with the last name Ling Chi.
Yes, that should be my client.
Correct.
And I'm on the line.
Okay, could you just state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
And X-I-L-I-N-G, last name is Chi, C-H-I.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr.
Thank you. Mr. Chee, did you see my presentation and hear my testimony that I made to the board regarding your case?
Can you verify what I've represented is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Okay. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Alice Udovich.
good evening again chairman members of the board alice yudovich from councilman brian o'neill's
state your name you've already been sworn okay and the councilman is actually on the call as well
i'm not sure if he's having technical difficulty um the councilman is strongly opposed to a
conversion from a duplex to a triplex if you were to look at the entire block of hills patch
It's mainly single family, single homes, small Cape Cods. At the end, we're built two twin
duplexes. And there's no reason why this duplex should be converted to a triplex.
It's an overuse of the property. There's no hardship here.
Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Ryan O'Neal.
Councilman, state your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Brian O'Neill, Councilman for the 10th District, representing this property.
I was just saying I was having trouble.
Wait a minute. That's okay.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, sir.
Thank you.
I was having trouble getting on.
I asked Alice to jump in if I was having trouble.
Thank you.
I would repeat what Alice said, what the community said, this is an illegal duplex, I mean triplex, straight.
This is an illegal duplex, straight, I mean, triplex, straightforward, illegal triplex.
The red herring here should be ignored.
The people with the rental license part collecting trash fees or whatever they're doing, making sure that it's compliant with a rental license, they're just sitting there.
If you pay it, you don't pay any more for a two family than a three family.
That has nothing to do with zoning.
And this is a sophisticated buyer buying at arm's length up and down Grand Avenue from the boulevard all the way to Busselton.
There's still a few single family homes, but it's either commercial or duplexes.
And this happens to be two sets of duplexes on a block.
It goes right to the to Grand Avenue. They're very close to the boulevard.
And every other home here is a single home, not just single family, but single homes.
And the idea that when these are built, they have the garage on the bottom.
It fits two cars usually, one for each of the units.
The area behind the garage is a bonus area.
I wouldn't really call it a bonus area, but it's an accessory area for each of the units upstairs.
They have a washer and dryer down there. They have some storage down there.
Somebody converted this. Ellen and I caught them. They went out in 2010. We just heard that.
They they they reinspected and there was no there was no use there.
And it's easy to get that inference because otherwise L and I would have kept issuing violations.
So at some point, L and I cleared it off their books.
The illegal use continued.
It's as simple as that.
The community is, this is a tough parking area.
It's so close to the boulevard.
Grand Avenue is so busy.
And it's an illegal use.
There's no unnecessary hardship. And I would just ask the board to return it to a duplex and refer the matter to L&I.
The fact that someone lives in there, they'll work out. There's plenty of units in the Northeast that that person can live in.
And if the rent gets raised by his corporation that bought it, he's going to be out anyway.
You can't personalize it.
And the zoning code is clear that the personalization is immaterial.
So I just ask you to look at it as a straight, illegal triplex and support the community
as I am in refusing the application.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman.
Any other comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
We have Bernard Jadish.
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
can you hear me i can okay bernard jadak uh bernard carl jadak j-a-d-a-c-h
i'm with greater bustle and civic league i just wanted to make sure you
wait a minute wait a minute do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do proceed okay uh i'm with greater bustle and civic
i wanted to make sure you got the copy of the letter i uh mr jinn presented you a copy of it
in his submittals we sent a copy in i don't know why you didn't get it because it went to uh
uh karima cantana at philadelphia.gov under the planning commission so you should have got a copy
of it i don't know why you didn't but we're okay we we know what was in the letter okay and thank
Thank you. We basically oppose it. It's a basement unit. It was licensed by L&I for some reason. I have no idea why, but it's a basement unit that should have never been licensed as far as we're concerned and the neighbors. That's why there was a vote of 18 to 3 opposing it.
all right thank you we appreciate you calling in hi chair this is tanya if allowed may i please
just interject the thought that all documents for zoning hearings must go to the rcl zba
at phila.gov email box not to personnel within the zoning board that's the only way we'll
we'll have it to present right okay any other comments from the virtual audience
Planning Commission.
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
Good afternoon, Chair, Peter Bernard.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rta one single family zoning
the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would justify multi-family housing
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board deny the variance
MI 2021-004-834-9423, Hillspat Street. I vote no.
Harold Tenere, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you. I just want to say, Sharon, it's been a pleasure working with you all these years.
I wish you a happy retirement. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
is there is there anyone else in the audience that case has not been heard from the 330 list
um thank you everyone you know i'm sorry chair i was trying to talk but i was still muted
we have one person gary mulligan okay mr mr mulligan
we heard all the cases
Mr. Mulligan
Mr. Mulligan
you're unmuted and you're free to speak
Mr. Mulligan
there are no other
wait a minute I'm sorry
We got one more just popped up.
Phone number ending in 0088.
Put them on.
Paula, you're unmuted.
Please speak.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Can you hear us?
Okay, great.
We're both here.
This is Barry Mulligan.
and mary mulligan and mary mulligan and do you have a case did you have a case here today
2900 this distance street we received a letter we're in the neighborhood we got it from a just
a consul esquire regarding 2900 distance i have a number it's that was that was heard that that
was already heard but do you know when they told us to get off on there was 330 it said 330 and we
got on before 3 30 and never heard it what time did they hear that that case was heard earlier today
i believe in the two o'clock section well how would we have known that when the letter says
i'm not sure ma'am i don't i'm very sorry but i don't know but it was not voted that case was
not voted the um is going to meet with the rco again right so there will be another hearing
hello looks like we all good chair that's a good
wait wait one minute thanks everybody and i think yes ma'am
maybe tanya did her thing look thanks everybody and i think what we ought to do is
send sharon out with a round of applause yes
I have a bottle of champagne in the refrigerator
I'm now going to go and I will be toasting
all of you in the next five minutes
thank you so much
we'll talk to you next Wednesday
I somehow know it
i know it thank you
all right good night all
thank you