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.