we are live thank you and uh yvette do you need a few minutes yes chair okay when you're ready
you'll let us know thank you and zba staff check your email i'm sending case summaries now
thank you thank you tanya thank you
Chair, we have 21 attendees.
We're good to go.
Thank you and thank you again everyone for your patience.
I apologize for the delay.
Good morning.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our board secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza
and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator Yvette Benton and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance,
as is our Zoning Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkit.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will
be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
Repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I would also like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments or questions should be directed to our Board Administrator, Ms. Yvette Benton.
Having said that, I will proceed with the 930 list. On our add-on list, MI 2021-001476, 731 North Uber Street.
Let me get my paperwork.
MI 2021, make sure I have my planning out of pose.
MI 2021-001476, 731 North Uber Street.
My vote is yes.
With proviso revised plan, one page approved today.
Did I leave anything out, Sharon?
no that's it thank you thank you confessor plaza yes with proviso james snell yes with proviso
thomas halliman yes with proviso thank you on our regular 9 30 list i'll read off the following
cases that have been requested to be continued or withdrawn case number one mi 2020 that's zero zero
303-265, 1224 Herbert, H-E-R-B-E-R-T Street. Numbers three, four, and five on our list.
MI 2020-003-442-1677 Falkrod Street. MI 2021-001-982-1816 North Van Pelt Street request to be continued.
Number six on our list, MI 2020-001-959, 2408 North 31st Street is withdrawn.
Number 12 on our list, MI 2021-001-984-6822 Old York Road is withdrawn.
on. If anyone objects or has any concerns about the cases I've just read into the record as to
objects or has any concerns about the cases i've just read into the record
as to being either continued or withdrawn
please raise your hand if you have any concern
about the cases i just read in the record
to be continued or withdrawn please raise your hand at this time
i see no hands at this time chair
I will now ask if anyone would like to request a continuance or withdrawal from the 930 list, please raise your hand. If you would like to request a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand at this time.
Chair, we have Leo Mulvihill with his hand up.
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Mulvihill. Please identify yourself for the record, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Chair.
Leo Mulvihill, L-E-O, M as in Michael, U-L, V as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L, 315 Green Street,
First Floor, Philadelphia, 19125, or 2-3.
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir.
Please proceed.
Certainly, Chair.
This is with respect to 505 North Allison Street.
This is my request to withdraw.
Thank you very much.
That's number eight on our list, MI2020-003-393.
505 north allison street is withdrawn thank you thank you any other requests for continuances
or withdrawals on the 9 30 list please raise your hand chair we have mary jones with her hand up
ms jones you can unmute yourself and speak thank you good morning ms jones please identify yourself
and i'll swear you in morning mary jones uh council president daryl clark's office room
City Hall, room 494.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
This is a request slash question.
I heard you list 1816 North Van Pelt, but we also had 1814 North Van Pelt.
And we don't have a record of that community meeting taking place, so that one probably should be continued as well.
if i missed that i apologize so you're saying number 1814 correct 1814 yes okay i'll read
that in now mi 2021 that's 001 983 1814 north van pelt street is continued thank you thank you
thank you for bringing that to my attention any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
on the 930 list please raise your hand i see no hands at this time chair thank you uh we'll
proceed with our regular list now number two on our regular list mi 2021 excuse me chair i believe
it was going to go out of order if you could call number 11 i have different sheets now that we got
everything's true sorry i'm sorry no no my apologies hold on um let me see that's number 11
carpenter street that's right yes and harry cook is the attorney yeah got it thank you i'm working
off a couple different sheets here all right so we're going to go a little bit out of order folks
We're going to go to case number 11, MI 2021-001-967, 614 Carpenter Street.
Good morning, Mr. Cook.
I believe it's a recording of record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, members of the board.
Please identify yourself, and I'll swear you in.
Harry Cook, Anastasio Law, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006.
I'm sorry.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
In this case, Bella Vista Neighborhood Association sends a letter of non-opposition.
That is correct.
Mr. Chairman, do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, we have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We do. We met two times and we do have a letter in the file.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Sure. Members of the board, I am representing Anthony Giacobetti today, the owner of 614 Carpenter Street.
The application is for a three family dwelling. This property has been a three family dwelling
officially since this board granted a variance in 1958.
Officially, since this board granted a variance in 1958, my clients maintained an active rental license through 2017, and due to some personal issues, that rental license lapsed for more than two years, and property reverted back to its designation of RSA 5.
We are here to legalize that long standing pre existing non conforming use. In fact, that was the basis of the 1958 variants as well.
I'm going to share my screen and go through some of the documentation if that's okay.
As discussed, I asked the board to take administrative notice of the June, January 27, 1958, variance granting three-family.
This board at that time made a finding that at least prior to August 10, 1933, this property has been a three-family dwelling.
That continued to be the case through 2017, showing now proof of a rental license expired on February 27th, 2017.
This property was inherited from my client's father to he and his sister.
I'm going to switch my share screen just a moment.
does the board see the uh copy of the refusal yes okay so um i'm gonna move on to the plans
now we met uh two times with the rco the first time we met the units were all two bedroom units
they had concerns regarding density and we made accommodations to bring each unit down to
one bedroom units starting with the first floor you have a bedroom in the rear kitchen
bath living room entrance going up the stairs to the second floor again you have a bedroom
in the rear with a proposed fiberglass deck, bathroom, kitchen, living room, entrance up to
the third floor where you have a living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. This is a, as part
of our understanding with the RCO, this property had been not only a three-family dwelling, but the
front first floor had been a commercial operation it was a candy store it was a grocery
the area where the commercial glass that you see in this photo will be infilled infilled with a
consistent brick and window to match the facade of the property so it maintains its historic aesthetic
going on to some of the additional photos you can see we are preserving all of the
cornices and all of the aesthetic aspects of the property and we will be restoring
some of that as well. Mr. Cook I think it would be appropriate at this time if you would summarize
And with that, basically, I'd like to call my client just to adopt testimony. Essentially, we are seeking to legalize this lapse of longstanding non-conforming use, legal non-conforming use in this neighborhood.
We have non-opposition from the RCO.
We've met all of their requirements in our plan.
And we ask that the board grant this variance coming into full compliance with the zoning code would be cost prohibitive of the way the structure is laid out.
And that concludes my testimony.
But I would like to call Mr. Giacobetti to testify and adopt.
jacobetti please identify yourself spell your full name and i'll swear you in alexander jacobetti
you have a another device on if you do we're getting an echo
uh there is a true mr jacobetti you're having a difficult time hearing you do you have an
We're having a difficult time hearing you. Do you have another device on?
There is a tremendous amount of feedback, Mr. Chairman.
You're coming through the same way that I'm projecting to you.
Okay. Why don't we do this?
Mr. Cook, you being an officer to court, will stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry, anyone else to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Mr. Cook, are you getting a reverberation on my end now?
I am not.
Okay, thank you.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Morning, sir. David Vecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. Chairman, members of the board. The comprehensive
plan recommends no change in the existing single family zoning at this location. However, this
appears to be a longstanding pre-existing multifamily use. We recommend that the board
approve the requested variance. Thank you. MI 2021-001-967-614 Carpenter Street. My vote is yes
with the proviso one bedroom per unit. Professor Plaza, yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso. Thomas Holloman, yes, with proviso.
Thank you. We'll now go to number two on our list. MI 2021-001968, 1710 Cater Street.
Mr. Whelan is the attorney of record.
Sassana sent a letter of support with provisos.
Apparently, those provisos are incorporated into the revised plan.
Mr. Whelan, if you're available, please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Chair, I don't see Sean Whalen with his hand up. We do have someone else with their hand up, an Andrea Gosfield. I don't know who that is.
Let's see. She's appearing for on behalf of Mr. Whalen.
I see a little notation at the bottom. Okay.
She's being promoted to panelists now, Chair.
Good morning, ma'am. Please spell your full name and I will swear you in.
good morning miss gosfield good morning mr chairman good morning members of the board
this application for 1710 cater street i am working with mr sean whalen on behalf of owner
developer bgm1 llc mr michael murray would you pardon the interruption would you please spell
your full name? Absolutely. First name is Andrea, A-N-D-R-E-A. Last name is Gosfield, G-O-S-F-I-E-L-D.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Thank you, ma'am. You're now pushy.
Yes. And do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans
five days prior to this hearing? Yes, that packet has your mail. Okay, have you met with the RCO and
have a letter? Yes. Thank you, please proceed. Thank you. This application is for 1710 Cater
Street. There is an existing two-story row home to be renovated where the developer is looking to
add a third-story addition. There was a refusal where the two-story homes on either side of the
property, there was required in order to build that third-story addition an eight-foot setback.
We are seeking to erect the third-story with no setback. Originally, we proposed for the full
third-story flush with a third-floor wall. The community supports the third-story but wanted a
mansard roof with two dormers. And so there was a revised plan and a proviso plan
form submitted to the members of the board showing this change today's presentation will
include testimony from Agata Reister from Landmark as well as the owner developer and if the members
of the board or the chairman would would swear in Ms. Reister please raise your hand Ms. Reister
Raise your hand, Ms. Reister, and spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Ms. Reister, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair to be sworn in.
Please spell your full name.
Agatha Reister, A-G-A-T-A-R-E-I-S-T-E-R.
You swear?
I'm sorry?
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Ms. Gosfield, are you asking questions of Ms. Reister or is she presenting testimony?
I am asking questions and then she will also present testimony. Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you. Ms. Reister, you are the project architect for this property?
That is correct.
Did you hear the testimony that I just presented?
Do you believe it should be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
Is there anything else you would like to add for the members of the board?
Ms. Gosfield, just for the purpose of record, if you can share some of your screens,
share the screen with us as it relates to the tax clearance and
other pertinent information that the board would need.
I believe Ms. Reister is prepared to share that additional information if she can be
given the capacity to share her screen.
Thank you.
She's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
if you can let me know if you can see the screen
yeah but you have your schedule and oh there you go we got it now good tax clearance yes just
scroll through it if you could um that's this is a one page okay are there any other documents you
would like to see um i think we just would like to see a bit of the uh site the plan oh certainly
yeah it's pretty much cookie cutter for that neighborhood but i think we'd like to see it
just in case oh absolutely um so our street is primarily two-story structures as you can see in
here just give you a little bit of a context this is a building that our client owns it shares a
overbuilt alley with the adjacent property here i'll zoom it in a little bit closer
here are views of the rear yard the adjacent property to west adjacent property to east
On the side plan, I will zoom in slightly. This is the portion of an overbuilt alley. Property to west, property to east is right here.
Originally, this building contained an addition in the rear. There was two stories. The rear yard was about nine foot four.
We proposed to remove the addition and propose a separate addition that would still be compliant with code.
That was the revision that we had made originally.
We obtained a refusal for open area, proposed 80 percent.
But since then, after meeting with SOSNA, we reduced the scope of addition to meet the zoning code.
um right now we went from nine foot four rear yard to eleven foot nine uh compliant with
the open area the proposed third floor as you can see and here we're proposing a dormer
after meeting with the neighbors they voiced their opinion to the design of the structure and
preferred two separate dormers in lieu of one shed dormer that was originally proposed
Our client is not looking to change the character of the facade. He is looking to remove the artificial stone and restore the brick, install new windows, restore the stone lentils that are there, install new doors.
So we're trying to keep the character of the street as much as possible.
The corners also will be restored.
And SOSNA had requested that the siding at the rear and the sides
also matches the siding of the lighter color of the dormers.
We seem to have come to an agreement with the neighbors and also the community group.
with the neighbors and also the community group i appreciate that thank you uh any questions
I appreciate that. Thank you. Any questions?
from the board no mr chairman no no uh anyone else would like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand if mr michael murray is available on behalf of the owner and developer
i'd like to call him mr chairman please do is mr murray on the line i can't tell a couple of zoom
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Mr. Murray, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Murray, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Michael Murray, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Ms. Gossfield.
Great.
Mr. Murray, you are here on behalf of the owner developer for this property, correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Did you hear the testimony that has been presented. I did. Do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. I do. Would you adopt it as your own. Yes, I would.
I have no further witnesses and I rest my case if unless the board, the members of the board have any questions.
chair you're muted is there anyone else thank you i'm sorry anyone else who'd like to testify in
this case i see no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good morning david
effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in the existing multifamily zoning at this location. Because the applicant
has included a mansard roof, we have no objection to the variance from the requested third floor
setback. We also believe that the relief sought for occupied area is de minimis. We recommend
that the board support the requested variances. Thank you. Ms. Gosfield, there's one page of
revised plan is that correct correct one page proviso plan yes thank you mi 2021-001 968 1710
cater street my vote is yes with proviso revised plan one page approved today confessor plaza yes
with proviso james snell yes with proviso thomas holloman yes with proviso thank you we now move
the case number seven mi 2020 that's zero zero two seven eight one four one four six pechin p-e-c-h-i-n
street mr richard weissman i believe is the attorney of record there is a letter from the
center city residents association in non-opposition
mr weitzman if you're available please raise your hand
spell your full name and i'll swear you in he's coming back in as a panelist now chair thank you
good morning mr chair members of the board richard weitzman w-e-i-t-z-m-a-n
three north second street suite 200 philadelphia 19106 i'm entering on behalf
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you sir please proceed uh excuse me one second mr plaza has questions for you
yes morning sir you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing? Yes. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We do, yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. So good morning, everybody. This is an existing non-conforming corner building in
the Roxborough section of Philadelphia. It was used as retail first floor in the main building
and then a two-story apartment in the second and third floors of that building.
To the rear of the property, there's a detached garage that is still used as a garage.
Second floor was used as an apartment.
The existing retail, as best we can tell, the last permit was for a caterer that was in the early 2000s.
And at some point shortly after that, we believe the retail use was abandoned.
And the property is zoned as single family, but has continued to be used as multifamily based on those two apartments as described.
There is no interior access between the first floor and the upper.
there's no interior access between the first floor and the upper floors of the building excuse me
counselor i'm sorry yes do you have any pictures or sketches i i do yeah sure uh sure thank you
so there's no interior
your access from first floor to second floor and we're proposing to use the first floor now as
as for two-bedroom apartment so what you're seeing on this screen is the plans of the first floor
as it as it sits everything that you see in these photographs that are green has been changed to
black, including the shingles that are on this piece of the property here. The Bilco doors have
been changed to flat doors as well, per the RCO's meetings with us and changes that they requested.
So layout of the first floor, as you can see in the main building to the left here, the garage,
Peachin Street, by the way, runs on the right side of my computer, Pensdale to the top. So the
garage here and then uh with with how it sits the next page shows the second floor and then
the third floor down here in the main building and then into the garage they there is a large
loft style apartment kitchen and bath as you can see in the garage and again that is all existing
as it sits and then just a sketch of that so let me zoom so here's the building itself this is more
recent this photograph uh showing how the changes that were made to it the doors were requested by
the rco to be shown even though there is no longer interior access through those doors and again
that's that's the perspective from there you can see the removal of the bilco and the installation
of the flat panels this is a side view taken a little bit longer but here's the garage looking
up pensdale towards peach and up here to the left here so it is a rather long building that
extends the block and then some interior shots so this is the loft space above the garage
kitchen above the garage second floor living room looking towards the kitchen
second floor as well here kitchen on the second floor and then what's directly across the street
at 41 excuse me one second I believe it's 41
41 49 peachen is a similar style building the photographs went out of order but
There are three units here. It's the same. It's similar. That's the front door that sits at the corner of Pichin and Pensdale. And then as you work your way back down Pensdale, you see the building stretches out similar to the 4146 Pichin. And that one is also currently used as three units as what we're proposing here.
And we did meet with the community and, you know, followed their guidelines in terms of some exterior modifications and some cosmetic issues that they wanted to address.
All of those have been met and complied with.
And as stated in the letter from the RCO, they were in non-opposition to the application.
so i do have mark brownstein should be on the line with us if
uh you know he could be brought on he's just to adopt my testimony mr brown bronze is it
bronstein brownstein
mr brownstein could you please raise your hand
brownstein brownstein please spell your full name and i'll swear you in mark m-a-r-k brownstein
b-r-o-w-n-s-t-e-i-n you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr weitzman yeah thank you uh mr brownstein you were present during my
presentation to the board yes and you heard everything that i said yes and do you have
anything to add to it or do you adopt my testimony as your own nothing that i would certainly adopt
your testimony yes okay thank you thank you any any questions from the board no mr chairman
thank you thank you any any questions from the board no mr chairman no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good morning david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
The comprehensive plan recommends this property for single-family residential use.
This appears to be the reuse of a pre-existing multifamily building.
This reuse would not negatively impact the use of surrounding properties.
We recommend that the board approve the requested variance.
Thank you.
Mr. Weitzman, I think my notes say if the board were to approve this,
there would be a proviso as per refusal of the ZP number 2021002817.
Excuse me. This is Sharon. There was, I believe, an amended refusal, an amended application and a new refusal issued in this case. Is that correct?
Yeah, that's correct.
It was.
Adding that proviso will simply ensure that Ellen and I will consider the correct refusal when issuing your permit. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Okay.
MI 2020-002781.
4146 Pension Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
As per refusal, Z as in zebra, P as in Paul, 2021-002817.
Professor Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, yes with proviso.
Thank you.
We'll now go to case number nine, MI 2020.
0-0-0-2-0-3-5-3-8-6-2-Ave. Bart Levy, I believe, is the attorney of record.
RCO, Penn Area Neighborhood Association, sent a letter of non-opposition.
Mr. Levy is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
good morning mr levy please uh i spell your full name and i'll swear you in
good morning my name is bart levy b-a-r-t-l-e-v-y you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you mr plaza has some questions for you certainly
morning sir you agree to wait the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do and have you uh emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
approve of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing and have you met with the rco and have a letter on march 2nd and march 30th yes we do
thank you please proceed thank you um this is for uh variance or essentially permission let's see if
I can. Are my pictures being shared now? They are? No. All right. I'm not sure how to do that.
that I know is I have a file folder here.
Mr. Lee?
She'll guide you through there.
Yes, please.
Do you have your actual file open on your desktop?
And then if you go, are you using a desktop computer?
A laptop.
Laptop.
Look on your Zoom screen.
At the very bottom, you should see a green button
that says share.
fair screen okay so you click that button and then immediately go to your document file
that you wish to present on and we're opening now great you're there i am you have the file open
so you have a photograph is a photograph in view no the the list of your files are still there
i opened it so let's see so did you click on the actual documents you wanted to share
yeah because we're seeing your files on the screen
your list so let me do that again okay
so you would have to unshare to start all over
so hit the green button here right now hit the green button and then tap on the very file
And then tap on the very file that's open with the document showing.
that's open with the
So hit the green button again.
You hit the green button.
now i don't think i have your audio maybe it's me
it's drunk okay it's coming up but it's the same thing
so in other words now if i click on one of those full of those files it'll open up
you can try
did that open up
nope not yet it says you are screen sharing yes you are sharing but you're sharing your actual
file so did you click on the actual folder or did you click on the document that you
on the actual folder no it should be the document that's already open you have it open
on your desktop right
so you should be clicking on that and not
clicking on the actual
files that are
alright so if you'll bear with
me let's try this one more time
so stop share
and go to share screen I'm sorry I don't
know this
no worries
and then
we're going to look for the file
that you have open where the pictures are and everything you want to show that's what you
should be clicking on so it's the same thing coming up how about if he goes up to the next
line which says it's really weird because it says it's showing these i'm sharing these
photographs but i just don't show it um i get i guess what i'd like to ask is do you folks
of a copy of the documents i sent why don't we do this if it's okay uh tanya we'll go to the
next case and offline maybe you can help mr levy get through um does that work um no not really
because i have no way to communicate with him oh okay so it's your fault here i don't know um
all right you know what mr levy try to your best to uh give us the background on what this
application is all right well uh does the board have any first of all have the uh engineering
drawing or plan but actually the board no because it's done by zoom we have no way of really having
all these documents are the attorney and the uh has all that our attorney i believe may have that
information uh you know when we do this in person in a hearing when we have the plans literally in
front of us but we rely on zoom to see those plans can we can we check whether the attorney has the
the engineering plans i can check that and um i guess email them to the board but that could
take a few minutes you know what sharon is there what is your way is there a way of walking us
through what you have there just to get some information on the record i'm looking for a
simple solution i think because everybody apparently i'm not sure what the planning
commission's position is but the rco obviously supports this um it's it's essentially not the
alteration of the building from its use in any way this is just one of the many properties in
philadelphia which has been used as two separate dwellings my client acquired it in 2019 and on my
advice she seeks to be in full compliance with the law even though right now there's place for
and installed two separate kitchens two separate bathrooms and two separate entranceways
uh each with its own secure lock at the foyer you're basically asking for you're basically
asking for legalization yeah essentially because we want to you know obviously if you don't
have that you can't get a proper license and you can't even enforce
all the rights of ownership if you chose to rent it we seek to be in compliance even though the
property right now is not in the use of control. This is unusual, but let me just skip over if
it's okay and ask if there's anyone. Do you have your client?
and ask if there's anyone uh let's you have your client is your client available let's get your
client on to adopt your testimony and then we'll ask if there's any questions from the board and
members of the public um chair also this is sharing i did pull up the exhibits i have floor
plans and photos that i can forward to the board if you would like maybe to move this back one case
and to come back to it yeah okay why don't we do that that way mr levy everything's on the record
and uh no one can challenge not that they would but just to prevent that from happening
the meanwhile i'll try to technologically catch up okay so we'll go to case we'll go to case number
10 thank you thank you thank you sharon mi 2021-5801 christian street steve masters is the
attorney of record third ward executive committee and the west philadelphia economic development
corporation support this application with provisos mr masters please identify yourself
and i'll swear you in good morning um mr chair members of the board steve masters with the law
firm of just laws here on behalf of savannah freeman and his water ice business you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr plaza has some
questions for you yes uh do you agree to wait to read in of its refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy we do and uh have you uh emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof
of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days
prior to this hearing yes we have okay and have you uh met with the rco and have a letter
we have met several times with um several rcos and we do have two letters that we put in our
exhibit binder there may be a there is a third rco that participated and they may have sent in a
letter but we don't have a copy of it thank you please proceed um good morning mr chair members
of the board uh this is um one of the most popular zoning projects that i have had the privilege of
representing um as as you'll let me share my screen here um as you'll see from uh
our exhibit binder which we'll go through there was 182 addresses that the planning commission
gave us in terms of who to contact for the 250-foot radius, and 180 of those people signed a petition
in support of this water ice stand. Water ice apparently is one of the few things that maybe
can bring everybody together in our city, which is a good thing. This exact use was previously
granted a variance by the Zoning Board in 2019, calendar number 8770. And the reason we're here
is because that previous business owner never got a certificate of occupancy for this location,
and therefore the permit expired. We are here for really just a small shed in the rear part
of this of this property so let me just go through some of the exhibits and the photos
so the the refusal here is just for um it's a because this is an rsa5 zone district and this
is a takeout but it's a restrictive takeout restaurant use just for water ice with related
products um we we as you'll see as we go through uh we're only looking for uh for approving this
use in the rear shed, not the entire first floor of the property, which was something that was
very important to the community. The third ward letter basically states that they want this
variance to only be limited to the shed, which is what we also want, and that no expansion of
the area. This is a pre-existing structure that is way too small to be used for a single-family
dwelling, which establishes an unnecessary hardship by law. The third ward was in agreement
as long as the closing hours are appropriate and the trash is well maintained. And then West
Philadelphia Economic Development Council is the other RCO that issued a letter of support.
They said actually strong support, and their main concerns were that the water ice only be sold in
rear shed and that there's no change of use for the rest of the property.
We have the 180 petitions that were gathered by Mr. Freeman that we're showing the board now.
Showing the board now.
Our proposed provisos, the community when we met with them had specific concerns about the remaining first floor of that property because it was historically a notorious nuisance business.
so the community wanted us to ensure that the grant of the variance would only be for the rear
shed so we're we're asking the board to approve four provisos today change of use for sales of
water ice with related products limited to the rear shed of the property only no change of use
for any other portions of the property trash to be well maintained to prevent a nuisance
and the water rights establishment to close by 9 p.m. every evening.
Any changes to the closing time would be jointly agreed upon
between the applicant and the coordinating RCO.
We have just, although there's no construction,
we don't really need a plan for you,
but we wanted to show you just a plan and some of the photos.
so this over here is Christian Street and the this is a two-story building the
second story is an apartment the first story this is all empty this was where
the nuisance business was and then our business is going to be in the small
little shed in the back here you can see some of the photos now this is from the
side of the little shed the the water ice is the bright yellow this is the
front of the water ice establishment and this is the context it is next to a
house to the right of it and it's and it's got a solid wall there's no
there's no ingress or egress to the remainder of that property the
commercial property from from this water ice this is the vacant commercial
property on the first floor and the apartment that's uh occupied on the second uh you can
see houses behind the water ice and we have uh context of the neighborhood
uh we have the zoning posters i believe coming up yeah there they are
Mr. Could you go back to those provisos?
Okay, change of use, we limit it to the rear. Number one, change of use for sales of water related product will be limited to the rear shed of the property. There will be no change in the use other than?
Chair, do you want to make some suggestions?
yeah yeah i'm looking um proposed sale of water ice limited to rear shed of the property
um no change as far as number two well any other change of use would require further zoning
approval so that's reflected in the plan right trash will be well maintained to prevent a nuisance
that's too vague you can add a trash stored in doors or wherever it can be stored something more
specific um water rights establishment must close by nine each evening you can add that but not the
reference to future agreements between that that would be too vague well we we were concerned mr
chair that um that while our i just see when when when our when my client uh testifies or just
affirms my testimony he lives on this block very close to the establishment he certainly
is as concerned as everybody on the block to that this not operate too late but we didn't want to
be locked in to a specific hour in case uh that 9 30 or 10 might work on some night so we wanted
to have some flexibility but recognize that the community had a legitimate concern that the
establishment have a reasonable closing time each year so i correct me wrong we that's too vague
isn't it we just have it is it has to be or nothing exactly it has to be enforceable as well
the lni examiner is not going to go out to um confer with the neighbors and the property owner
to see if they've reached a new agreement we understand you can do that by a private agreement
perhaps we understand the intention mr masters but again it's too vague that's why one
We understand the intention, Mr. Masters, but again, it's too vague.
That's why I wanted to look at this.
And also, where is the trash now being stored?
So there is a trash container that will be put out when the business is in operation.
And because our owner lives just a few doors down, he's actually going to remove the trash from the property each evening and put it into his personal trash.
So it's such a small business, it didn't seem to be appropriate for a commercial trash pickup.
okay all right understood uh no no jesus other all right i i don't again those those i understand
the intent of those provisos uh but i want to lock you guys in at 9 p.m because there's no right
right so we're happy to do a private agreement with the community on that okay all right if you
can summarize and get your client on we'll uh we'll move forward sure and then just the exhibits
do have the lease and the letter from the from the property owner um and our rco notice and our
mailing and all the other good stuff um can savannah freeman can you raise your hands so you can be
recognized he's been allowed to talk good morning everyone my name is savannah freeman ma'am please
spell your full name good morning this is savannah freeman uh s-a-v-a-n-n-a last name freeman
f-r-e-e-m-a-n do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
yes thank you mr masters yes mr freeman you um you've been present during the hearing today is
that correct i have yes um so you heard my testimony do you adopt it and accept it as your
own yes i do do you have anything else that you wanted to add uh for the board today no i don't
thank you okay uh we have no further witnesses um mr chairman thank you any questions from the board
no mr chairman no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
mr chair this is jason hand i see no further enhance this time thank you jason uh planning
commission thank you mr chairman uh david effectos city planning commission mr chairman members of
the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing residential single family
zoning this building has a history of commercial and residential use we recommend that the board
grant requested use variants thank you mi 2021-05801 chair i'm so sorry to interrupt but i um i had an
email from andrew goodman and i just wanted to put on the record that um councilwoman gothier also
supports the shoes thank you sharon while you're on number 10 i have them i don't think i have a
complete mi number on that it looks like it's i'm sorry um i think you're correct i think it's
likely zero zero five eight oh one minute five oh eight five eight oh one is christian street
steve maybe you can help what is the um the my the calendar number i have is mi
MI2021-001978.
And that is correct.
I just checked against the words list.
I apologize.
No worries.
Thank you.
MI2021-001978, 5801 Christian Street.
My vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
We now go back to case number nine with Mr. Levy.
Thank you, may I be excused?
Yes, you may. Thank you.
We're now back to 5386 Chew Avenue.
Good morning again, Mr. Levy.
How are you?
We're good.
So let me try this the way I think I've got it.
There you go.
is that visible yes yes it is thank you oh thank you all for your patience all right this is 5386
shoe avenue and essentially um the property appears from the outside to be a regular single
family home in philadelphia in fact if you look at the bottom of the second of the elevation second
to the left, you can see that there's actually an entrance foyer. Now, the first door located
at the bottom, do you guys see my cursor? Yes. If you can see the bottom.
do you guys see my cursor okay yes if you can see the bottom that's where the entrance the house is
on the street which you can see uh here on the far right uh sketch of the the building which i think
serves us best um the kitchen in the existing structure is located in the back
and the kitchen in the second floor apartment is located in the center and on the third floor
there are three bedrooms and a full bath, of course, in each unit. The first floor is on the
back in the rear. The second floor is up front. We met, let's see if I can do this, with the
neighborhood office. And as was said earlier on the record, there was no opposition.
And basically, we have notice of two in attendance who voted non-opposition.
With that, I'll take any questions that the board may have.
Is your client available to adopt your testimony?
I believe it is.
This is Smith, if you can unmute and start your video, please.
is it jessica smith yes yes jessica you can unmute and wait to be sworn in
good morning ma'am please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
um jessica j-e-s-s-i-c-a hackett h-a-c-k-e-t-t hyphen smith smith
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr levy miss smith um have you heard the uh description i gave of the property
and the proposed use yes um is it your desire to get this property in uh proper license order yes
um have have you basically uh undertaken to uh maintain and uh uh keep the place you know clean
and and well pointed and all that good stuff yes okay and you adopt mr levy's testimony
yes i do okay thank you any questions from the board no mr chair no anyone else to
testify in this case if so please raise your hand here we have charles richardson who is available
to unmute himself and be sworn in by you good morning mr richardson you know the drill please
identify yourself and i'll swear you in good morning mr chair charles richardson from the
office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth or nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. As the RCO has indicated, it is not
opposed to granting this variance. The councilwoman supports the community and will not oppose this
variance as well. Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify in this case? No other hands,
Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission? Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the
existing single-family zoning at this location. This property has documented history as both a
rooming house and a three-family dwelling. We recommend that the board support the requested
variance. Thank you very much. MI 2020-00020353862 Avenue. My vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Hallowin, my vote is yes.
Thank you. I believe that completes the 930 list.
If anyone believes that they have not been given the opportunity to testify, please raise your hand.
See no hands.
Thank you. Any unfinished business?
tanya sharon no cheer not for me thank you okay thank you all see you back at two and jim you
can take your time at lunch thanks thanks frank talk to you bye thank you all
recording thank you and uh yvette we'll give you a few minutes you'll let us know when you're ready
you're good to go chair we have 43 people in the room thank you um good afternoon everyone my name
You're good to go, Chair. We have 43 people in the room.
Thank you.
is frank de chico i'm the chair of his only board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with our board secretary mr confessor plaza and board members mr thomas
holloman and mr james snell board administrator ms yvette benton and our board attorney ms
Sharon Saleta, are also in attendance, as is our Zoning Board Administrator, Ms. Tania Sunkit.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded, and that by participating, you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web
or otherwise. Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone participating
by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. I'll repeat that.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue and i'd also like to remind everyone please do not attempt
to testify in the chat any comments or issues concerns please direct them to to ms yvette
benton uh having said that i will now read off a list of requests for continuances on the two o'clock
list number let's see uh other than the cases 11 and 12 sharon there are no other requests so far
i'm going to ask if there are any but those are the only two we know of correct that's correct
now we're going to hold off on the request for continuances for 6399 drexel avenue until we get
to that on our list all other uh applicants and or attorneys who wish to request a continuance
at this time please raise your hand 63 99 direction we will get to you momentarily
chair we have alan notkinson with his hand up mr notkinson you know mute yourself and speak
thank you good afternoon mr notkinson please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
Yes, Allen, 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.
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you requesting a continuance?
A withdrawal of 21-23 East Schoolhouse Lane.
number four on our list mi 2021-00208621-23 east schoolhouse lane is withdrawn thank you
thank you any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
we have no other hands up at this time chair okay we're going to start with our first case
on our list uh mi 2021-002085 1157 durrance street colomenta amazon is the attorney of record
There's a letter of support from Point Breeze RCO, and I suspect that 1157 Dorrance should be South Dorrance Street.
Ms. Amazon, if you're available.
I don't know if Mr. Knockamson is handling this, but he had his hand up. He's been promoted to panelist.
Okay. I'd say the one. I know that sometimes Ms. Amazon's on our list, but are you going to be presenting this case, sir?
Yes, I am.
Okay. You're already under oath. Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
So, Knuckleson, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
So, Knuckleson, you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, we have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have a letter of support.
Thank you. Please proceed.
May I share my screen?
Yes, please.
Thank you.
All right. Let me just make it a little bigger so everyone can see.
Am I correct that this is South Dorian's?
You probably are, Mr. Chair.
Point Breeze.
Yes, it is. It's in the Point Breeze area of Philadelphia.
So we're here to present these variance requests for a proposed third-story addition to a pre-existing building structure in the Point Breast section of Philadelphia.
What you'll see is our agreement of sale showing that my client's under contract to purchase this property, certificate of tax clearance showing they're in good standing.
Notice of refusal. We'll go over the refusal for this RSA 5 property, simple variance request.
So number four would be the application for appeal.
Five would be maps of the area.
Six would be pictures of the front of the property and the surround the area, which will also show it's not out of character to have a three-story structure on this block.
Seventh exhibit are architectural plans and drawings.
Eighth exhibit is the letter of support from the Point Breeze CDC, as well as a petition that we generated getting signatures from people who live on that block and the block behind us on Cleveland Street, the people who will be most impacted.
So our agreement of sale.
Our certificate of tax clearance showing that the property owner is in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
Our notice of refusal.
I'm just going to slightly make this smaller so we can see on one page.
So this is an RSA 5 property.
We have a number of technical refusals.
This is not the largest lot, and that's why we're having these refusals.
So the first refusal has to do with the minimum rear yard setback of the roof, and the corresponding one is the minimum front setback of the roof deck.
So this has to do with the fact that our building, our pilot house in the rear, and you'll see it on the photographs, and we'll go through it, or the plans, hugs the back of the property.
The fact is we're a 14-foot wide lot.
We're not very deep.
We're 50 feet deep, and our building structure is 42.
To have a functional floor plan, we need it to have where the pilot house would hug the rear of the property, and that's why we have those technical refusals.
The third refusal has to do with the minimum open area.
We're required to have 25% open area, 176.75 square feet.
We are proposing that 15.8 square feet of 112 square feet.
We are doing a little addition in the rear. But if you look at the pre-existing building structure, at least based on the calculations I have, this property is not compliant under the code, you know, based on those numbers.
So right now we wouldn't be compliant under the codes. And, you know, we're trying to have a functional floor plan because the staircase goes, you know, front to back because of the width of the property is only 14 feet and the depth of the property is only 50 feet.
We really did try to have the least modification possible under the zoning code.
The next refusal has to do with the front setback because we're next to the left of us and to the right of us are two story structures.
We're requesting not to have a setback in the front.
Again, not out of the character of the neighborhood.
We'll go over the photographs of that block.
We'll see numerous examples of three-story buildings.
Additionally, because of the depth of the lot of 50 feet, 42 feet for the building structure,
if we had to comply with the eight-foot requirement, we would not have any floor plan, essentially.
And I have Chris Johnson, a 24-7 design, who's going to testify to that fact.
And then the final refusal has to do with the minimum rear yard depth, nine feet required, eight feet is proposed.
Again, we fall basically in line with the property to the left of us and to the right of us.
Unfortunately, even a foot would be too much of undue hardship under the circumstances.
And to have a functional floor plan, we would request that the ZBA grant that variance and the other variances.
Our application appeal to the ZBA, along with the notice of refusal and our project information form, just showing where Doran Street is, you know, behind us is Cleveland Street.
uh you know we're between you know behind us is um is cleveland street and you'll that's the reason
why i highlight that is because we have letters or a petition of support from nearby neighbors
and as you can see we're between ellsworth and federal and 18th and 19th streets essentially
for the rest of the properties is a pre-existing two-story structure
structure in the Point Breeze area of Philadelphia. As you can see, Doran Street to the right of the
property, there are numerous three-story structures. And then if you look at Doran Street
to the left of the property, again, numerous three-story structures. So it's not a character
to have a three-story structure which goes straight up in this part of Point Breeze.
Plans and drawings. I'm just going to make this a little smaller so everyone can see it. And
obviously it can expand out if requested but again what we're trying to do is just rehab this two
story structure making a three story structure not taking full uh account of the height limitation
of 38 feet our building structure will only be 33 feet high so we're trying to respect the two
story character of the neighborhood by building a three story structure which is not out of sorts
essentially trying to keep that traditional brick facade and then you'll see the rear of the
property and this is where I'm saying that the pilot house hugs the rear of the property again
just because of the conditions of the property the dimensions of the property
to have a functional floor plan we are requesting those variances you'll see the site plan you'll
see how we are a comparison to the property to the left and the right of us we are slightly
a little longer than the person to the left and right of us,
but we do have a three-foot alley in the rear.
I know that can't be counted towards open area,
but we do have a decent-sized rear yard of 112 square feet,
so we ask that the board also grant those variances as well.
And then just a floor plan.
We can go through it.
Let me just make it a little smaller so I can see all on one page,
but it's just a traditional, like, renovated floor plan.
open floor plan on the first floor, lower level has just a flex space, whether it's for a living
room, an office, go up a flight of steps, there's a bedroom in the front and the rear, there's a
laundry room, there's a bathroom. And then the third floor has the master bath with a roof deck
on up top. Now we do have a letter of support from the Point Breeze CDC.
see. And we did make great outreach to members of the community. As you can see, our petitions
are for people on the 1100 block of South Doran Street, the 1100 block of Cleveland Street. We
really focused our intention on those people who would be most directly impacted. And then here's
our proof of mailing for the community meeting. And with that being said, I'm going to stop sharing
the screen um i do have uh both the owner as well as the architect for this project
um so i would ask that tim goo the um or the proposed owner of the property virtually raise
his hand what is his name again mr knockamson goo tim goo gu um i also know that sometimes he'll
have like a handle of koo do you see either those names
might he be under george curtis i don't think so um mr chair why don't we do this
mr notkinson you being an officer of the court will stipulate your client would have adopted
your testimony okay great is do you have uh chris johnson can chris johnson virtually raise his hands
he's the architect for this project.
Mr. Johnson, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson.
Please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Christopher Johnson, C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-E-T-R.
Johnson, 24-7 Design Group.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
mr notkinson yeah mr johnson uh you heard everything i stated today
and with respect to my characterizations of the refusals and our intention to
uh have the least modifications possible the zba are that is that true and correct i mean
under the zoning code is that true and correct yes and would that would you adopt as your own
testimony yes thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Who else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Chair, you're muted.
anyone else would like to testify in this case
there are no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission thank you chair to chico
ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission that's h-e-g-a-r-t-y
you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do thank you sir please proceed thank you chair members of the board comprehensive
of plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 5 zoning at this location however the proposed
dimensional variances are consistent with nearby properties city planning commission recommends
that the board grant the variances thank you uh mi 2021-002085 1157 excuse me 1157 south durant
Street my vote is yes. Confessor Plaza my vote is yes. James Snell my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you I'm gonna ask everyone to
bear with me for about two minutes I need to go offline for a second for a
couple minutes I'll be right back.
Thank you.
Thank you. Sorry about that.
Before we go any further, I want to go back to case 11 and 12, which I spoke to earlier.
um mi 2021 dash zero zero two two five four sixty three ninety nine drexel avenue and mi
2021 dash zero zero three four two zero six three nine nine drexel avenue there's a request
for a continuance by both parties to the two appeals against L&I challenging a buy-write
permit for both for the 6399 Drexel Avenue. These requests are denied. These cases will be called
at the end of the two o'clock list. Thank you. So we'll go back to our regular list. Number two
on our list, MI 2021, that's 002-084-1618 West Erie Avenue. Mr. Bertil, I believe, is the attorney
of record. Mr. Bertil is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bertil.
Please spell your full name when you get on, and I'll swear you in.
good afternoon mr chair members of the board how are you oh thank you please spell your full name
and i'll swear you in steve bertill b-e-r-t-i-l claire harrison harvey and bransburg 1835 market
street suite 1400 you kind of faded out so i'll spell your last name for the reporter b as a boy
e-r-t as in tom i l do you swear or affirm to tell the truth whole truth nothing but the truth
uh yes i do can you can you hear me better now yes we can uh mr plaza has some questions for
you yes hi um you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
uh i do and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
Sharon? Yes, to all of them. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes. Thank you.
Excuse me. This is Sharon. To the board, in the summaries, it says that we haven't received
the letter we now have. It is support provided that you limit it to four units. Thank you.
And support is from whom? Sorry. The Upper North Neighbors Association.
The Upper North Neighbors Association.
Thank you.
Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but the coordinating RCO is actually the 13th Democratic
They did send in the letter.
Theirs, I believe, is in opposition.
Maybe that didn't get to, and I'm not sure if they cc'd Ms. Saleto, but I'll forward
that to her as well.
upper north neighbors is an effective rco and i know they sent that in but um i don't know if
the democratic wards letter got to miss saletta or not but it sounds like it didn't so i i can
get that over to you thank you please proceed okay uh apologies for the confusion there um
as i stated earlier my name is steve bertill i'm here representing the owner of 1618 west
area avenue mr colleague green with uh he's on the call with me and i'll call him um later to
adopt my testimony also um we have um our architect uh mr devon lawney from lawney engineering
um who can testify um regarding the uh the floor plan when we get to that point um so what we're
here seeking is a request for relief for the adaptive reuse of an existing five unit rooming
house to a four-unit residential building. The property in question is 1618 West Erie
Avenue. It's currently zoned as RSA 5. It's situated on Erie Avenue, fronts on Erie Avenue
between North Smedley Street and North 16th Street. Excuse me. The property has a pretty
unique history um and it's one of the few uh rooming houses in the city that are are legal
um as we know that there there was a problem in the city with a legal rooming house but this
isn't one of them and i'll walk the board through that um right now um as you can see this this
property has actually been a rooming house since 1939 um based on these zoning records um i know
it's hard to see some of these older records when you scanned them they kind of become tough to see
but if you need me to zoom in just let me know um as you can see here it was uh approved as a
rooming house uh excuse me excuse me counselor we can't we can't see anything oh my apologies
here let me start sharing that is my fault there
Can you see that?
Thank you.
so as i was stating the um the property was approved as well actually let me back up too
so you can see the property again because you didn't see that because i wasn't sharing
this is the the property in question um six it fronts on area avenue which is this here
We don't see the property. We only see your exhibit.
Okay. Sorry about that. I don't know why I'm having trouble with the sharing.
Let me just stop sharing. This was working earlier today.
Screen two. Now, is that better?
No, we don't see anything now. Now we have an aerial shot.
There you go. All right. Sorry about that.
So you should be seeing an aerial shot with Area Avenue and a mouse moving back and forth.
Yep. Yes.
Okay. All right.
All right. So as I was stating, the property is located on Area Avenue.
this is between 16th and Smedley. The property in question is currently a five-unit rooming
house. What I was stating earlier was that the property has been a rooming house since 1939.
And I just wanted to jump to show you the records there. Are you still, are you seeing the records
as i'm sharing this thing yes okay awesome all right so as you can see here the property's been
Okay, awesome. All right. So as you can see here, the property has been approved as a rooming house since 1939. And then subsequently, it was sort of rememorialized for that use, because I believe the owners were doing some additional work to it back in 1976, but they reconfirmed that it was a rooming house, a five-person rooming house.
uh approved as a room
The property stayed in existence and the use wasn't abandoned.
And that was the case until Mr. Green obtained the property this year.
He acquired the property was still being used as a rooming house.
In fact, there are tenants still in there to that effect.
And so usually I think when we come across these rooming houses in the city, they're typically a use that was either never approved
or they were approved and they were abandoned, you know, years ago, and then someone kind of
stumbles upon it. But that isn't the case here. Now, that said, Mr. Green, I think in assessing
the property and assessing what's in the area, came to the conclusion that he doesn't think that
was the best use for the property. And our engagement with the community and the individual
neighbors that are adjacent, that are on the block, and in the immediate blocks that intersect
with 16th Street seem to agree by the support that they provided in the petition, which I'll
get to in a second. So what we're proposing to do is to change this use from the rooming house
that it currently is to a traditional residential multifamily building. We originally were proposing
going from a five unit room house to a five unit, a traditional five unit building. But after
conversations with the affected neighbors, after meetings with the meeting with the coordinating
RCO and with some affected RCOs, we decided to reduce the density that we're proposing from five
residential units to four residential units in the building. The refusals that we have or refusal,
We only have one refusal, which is just for the multifamily use, because as I stated, the property itself is zoned as RSA-5, but you'll see in a second that there's essentially no RSA-5 use on that property.
I mean, excuse me, on that block. It's all multifamily or commercial across the street or in the bottom of the properties on the corner.
And you'll see why in a second. I'll get into the area context.
So as you can see, this is the refusal proposed multifamily is prohibited in the zoning districts that is in existence.
So as for what's actually there, it's actually the buildings on this block are actually fairly beautiful on the on the exterior to have these sort of historic design.
every other sort of a pertinence on the top of the property. Ours is one of them. This is our
property here that has that. We're maintaining the exterior. We're not changing it. In fact,
we're just going to do the facelift in terms of brick pointing and things like that to make sure
it's all safe and nice looking. But what you'll see is that these properties that face on Erie
Avenue are extremely deep. I believe the locks are about 97 feet, almost 100 feet deep.
And because of that, most of them have multiple multifamily uses, and some, especially the ones
on the corner, have what looks to be, at some point, some commercial spaces at the bottom
level so you can see here just so you get a context of how deep these parcels are and why
multi-families actually um why it's so prevalent here um despite the zoning of this property um
you can i mean just by the sheer number of windows here i'm not even sure exactly how many units are
in this building but i know it's more than three um without including whatever these commercial
spaces were in the bottom um this is just another look at the corner this is the adjacent building
to us. This is across the street. Again, this is just to get a context of how deep these parcels
are, how many units is in most of them. And then so you can get a reference to the traditional
sort of two-story homes that are not fronting on Erie Avenue. You can see them here in comparison
to what's on Erie Avenue. They're just substantially bigger. And that sort of falls in line with why
you'll see that basically almost every house on Erie Avenue in this area is multi-family.
They're massive. Here's just a close-up. Looks like this one has six different units.
I think they're all residential. I don't believe there's a commercial one in that property.
I think they're all residential. I don't believe there's a commercial one in that property.
And again, just so you can get some of the frontages, I just took some photos of the
part. These are all on this block. This one has five units. This one has two separate door
entrances. I believe it's three units. And just again, supporting why multifamily is on this block
and why the properties facing Erie Avenue generally have multifamily. This is the corner.
So there's transit on the corner, so literally a 30-second walk from the doors.
It looks like there's two separate buses across the street.
There's commercial, and there's much more commercial up and down.
But I just wanted to give you kind of a snapshot to sort of explain why basically the entire block is multifamily.
Now, in addition to the context and why we think multifamily, a traditional multifamily makes more sense in the rooming house and why there's variances, excuse me, there's variances to minimums because of that, we did speak to the immediate adjacent neighbors.
We spoke to neighbors. We met with them on Erie Avenue. We met with neighbors on the adjacent
blocks on 16th. I'm happy to report that it seems that most people we spoke to agree
that they would prefer to see a traditional multifamily structure use here than the rooming
house. So before I get into the level of engagement that we got into, I just want to
briefly, excuse me. I just want to get into our plans so you can get a sense of the floor plan
and what we're proposing to do here. And again, if there's like specific questions,
I do have our architect on the line. But you know, if that's not needed, then I won't call him,
but I just want to let the board know that he is here. So as you can see from this overview,
Excuse me. We are proposing four units, basically one unit per floor. And so this first one is a
basement unit that will have a separate entrance, as you can see here with the front yard, just
only two walk-ups, one that walks up to the basement unit and one that walks up to the
ground floor unit and above. The basement unit is two bedrooms, one bath. The second
ground floor unit is two bedrooms, one bath. The third unit, unit three in green here,
is two bedrooms, two baths. And then the smallest unit you'll find is on the highest floor,
which is one bedroom, one bath. Just for context, we originally were seeking five units,
as I stated earlier. This was what the original floor plan that we were proposing when we met with
the RCOs and the community groups. But after hearing some concerns about density and
And reducing it, we decided to reconfigure it to reduce it to three, excuse me, to four units.
And I'll have our architect explain why we couldn't really go to three units because of the sort of existing setup with the rooming house.
It made it a substantially higher sort of conversion than just going to the four.
But I'll let the architect touch on that.
In addition to reducing it to the four units, we did agree to a proviso to do private hauling and also Mr. Green agreed to construct a trash storage container in the front.
That's kind of what you see here. I don't know if you can see that. I can zoom in some more. That's kind of what you see here.
What you'll see if you look up and down the block is that most of the homes or the residential properties, they kind of just have trash lined up in front of the porch.
And so and because it's an elevated entrance on this along Erie Avenue, it's susceptible to like wind, knocking over the trash, knocking over the lids, you know, carrying the smell, et cetera, et cetera.
And so this was something that we, I mean, we wanted to do this anyway, to sort of mitigate that kind of issue.
Normally, what I would suggest to applicants is to find a way to do rear trash storage, but you'll see from the area of the property that there isn't like a rear alley, there's no real rear access or rear space because the properties are so deep, the structural properties.
So this was a sort of workaround to solve that issue.
This was a sort of workaround to solve that issue. Now, in terms of community engagement, I'm happy to say that there's been a substantial amount.
We did meet with the coordinating RCO in July, I believe it was July 15th. That RCO was the 13th Democratic Award.
um in addition to that we we've met with uh the some affected rcos um and in addition to that
most importantly i think we've met with the immediate neighbors on that are um would be
immediately impacted by this proposed project um we met with our adjacent neighbors uh we reached
out to everyone on the block individually um and all the adjacent blocks i'm happy to say
that, excuse me, we obtain support once we obtain support from neighbors on Area Avenue. You can
see we have our immediate neighbors, 1608, 1605, 1612, 1616, 1626, 1620. And so we have support
from the people that live there
that would be directly impacted.
We also have some support
from neighbors on 17th Street
on 16th Street as well.
Oh, and 1729, just a block up.
In addition to that,
we received a letter of support
from one of the affected RCOs,
Upper North Neighbors Association.
As you can see here,
again, actually, I do think
y'all did receive this one because this is the one i think you referenced earlier um there is
a letter of opposition from the 13th democratic ward um we met with them they had uh the uh
representative mr karn stated that uh there there were concerns regarding the density when we met
with them it was still five units um they had concerns regarding the trash as well um it was
still five units at that time and we informed them um actually during the meeting we informed
them we were willing to reduce it to four and we would see if it was possible for us to do three
considering the strange configuration of the rooming house and what that would take um and
and once we followed up um and and informed them that we were reducing it um they wanted to have
um another meeting um i informed them that it was important for us to go forward and we tried to get
the schedule beforehand. That wasn't possible. We do, just for full disclosure, we do have a
meeting on a record with them to let them know, well, they already know, but to present
officially, I guess, the reduced units. And that's in October. But it was important for Mr. Green to
be able to go forward and at least have the board see the work that was done, our proposed project,
and see the level of engagement that sort of was already done and so the board can understand what
the support is on the ground and so with that unless the boards have any specific question
for me I would like to have our architect be caught up his name is Devon Lonnie L-O-N-E-Y
i'm not sure if he comes up uh with his first name or his last name but just to speak to why
um we had to settle in the four units as opposed to the three
mr lonnie you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
and i'll go to the plan so you can direct
please identify yourself spell your name good afternoon this is devon loney d-e-v-o-n
and l-o-n-e-y you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you i have a question the basement apartment uh in the upper part of the
diagram that's in front of us is that a staircase leading out of that I believe it's a bedroom
or is that a window well so there there is an existing uh staircase that leads to a hatch in
the basement um we left that intact for for this phase that can be easily converted into a window
well um but as of now that is a stair that's leading to a hatch
Um, questions from the board.
I'm sorry.
Can you blow it up some more?
I really can't see it clear.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. Tell me. Just the top part where there we are. Yeah, blow it up some more.
Tell me that just the top part where.
I asked a window well that has an area space around it, correct?
So that existing stair, I don't have a picture of it, but it's one of those hatches that lead to the backyard.
start uh so we can we left it in place for this uh the purpose of this meeting however
that can be easily converted into a window well okay thank you yep and the basement apartment
just to clarify does have direct access uh to street level in the front um so by code we're
not required to put window wells for the bedrooms here however we you know we like to we we left
this as another means of egress for that bedroom uh just to supplement the egress in the front
okay thank you that explains a lot thank you any other questions from the board no mr chairman no
no mr vertillo you want to would you want to get your client on to adopt your testimony
oh sure um unless the board wanted to hear why we can uh i was going to have mr um
lania testified to why um we had to settle on the four units versus the three but if the board
doesn't want to hear that i can certainly well i don't yeah i'd be interested i guess to find
that out i mean just you make three by eliminating one correct that that is correct mr chair um the
the reasoning was mostly behind the uh the size of the uh building so in order you know with the
four stories, we can either get rid of the basement altogether, which is currently finished
or partially finished. And that would require obviously a lot of extra demolition and stuff
that we think is a little unnecessary. But also by combining any of the other floors,
you create a very large multi-story unit that we don't really think would be affordable for the
area and the client's plans. So we looked at it from a perspective of if this was zoned RM1,
what would be allowed. So with the lot area that we have, as Steve mentioned, it's about 97 feet
long. It worked out to about 4.1 units once we divided by 360 as allowed per the RM1 zoning,
and that led us with, you know, rounding down to four units, which just seems to make sense for
the property of this size. Thank you. Again, Mr. Bertil, do you have a client to adopt your
testimony yes if uh mr green could raise his hand and be recognized green please identify yourself
spell your full name then i'll swear you in mr green you can unmute yourself and speak
hello good afternoon everyone can you guys hear me yes please spell your full name and i'll swear
yes my first name is k-h-a-l-i-d khalid last name green g-r-e-e-n you swear and affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Mr. Bertil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Green,
did you hear the testimony that I provided to the board this morning or this afternoon rather?
Yes, I did. Do you affirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own? Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Green. Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case,
please raise your hand here we have charles richardson mr richardson you can unmute yourself
or wait for the chair good afternoon mr richardson please identify yourself you're still under oath
yes mr chair charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312. i have with me
here mr charles karn who is the head of the 13th ward rco he can't he was having trouble
getting on to the call so uh i have him on via tele via my cell phone okay mr karn please
please identify yourself spell your name and i'll swear you in
charles karn 13 ford rco chairperson 38 53 off 19th street
uh you spell your last name mr karn all right c-a-r-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir thank you sir please proceed yes sir um the
original um community rco meet for 16 18 we did have in july um we wrote a letter of opposition
based on how many um units uh mr uh council did receive we wanted to reschedule an additional
We wanted to reschedule an additional meeting. However, council had a conflict at that time.
meeting. However, council
So we sent them back another email and it was after the date, which was going to be, I'm looking at the email now, September 29th.
On the email, council states that he wanted to present to you, the board, their presentation and still schedule a community meeting.
Now, during the original community meeting, there was a lot of opposition towards this project.
And Mr. Council and owner understood that.
So when they came back with the four, we never had a meeting with the community itself.
I've been listening and I'm listening to that.
The properties adjacent, a lot of those are illegally developed units, and I didn't want to get chasing folks around, but we had a problem with the density and a problem with the trash, putting trash in front of the unit there.
But our density issue, if you look along there on the south side of Erie Avenue,
and we've been working with the planning commission for like the last five years to maintain RSA5 on those units across there.
I am surprised that the adjacent, one of the adjacent RCO sent a letter in from down off of Tioga Street.
now that's um if you look at area avenue tayoga street that's quite a bit of ways away
so this is the first i've heard that they have sent um a letter um supporting this project
however council and i were have been going back for the like um since sunday until monday
about having rescheduling rescheduling a meeting and in my letter of opposition i did mail it in
to the um the notification board stating we do have opposition towards this project but however
we will we will are in favor of three units and mr chair i don't know uh i think because mr karn
uh had trouble logging knowing he might have missed me um saying this but i i don't disagree
with basically anything he said except maybe the the mass opposition but in terms of we do
as i stated earlier we do have a meeting scheduled in october with the democratic ward um and we
were trying to present the the revised plans to the democratic ward which we have not been able
to do thus yet and that's why we have that meeting scheduled um what we're going to ask well i guess
i can do it now um what we're asking of the board is to to hear this testimony um to to hold a vote
until that meeting. I believe it's the 14th off the top of my head. It's either the 14th or the
15th. But Mr. Karn could correct me if I'm wrong. But to hold the vote so we can present our revised
plans to the coordinating RCO and allow them to update their, if they see fit, to update their
um position and then we can report back to the board uh what happens at the meeting that's if
the board shall allow it mr karn are you are you amenable to uh for the board to uh have a
resumption hearing um after you meet with mr patel and his client we can we could do a resumption
hearing at which time we will then take into consideration any feedback from the your rco
Yes, sir. Actually, not to prolong this year, we've actually been in conversation with council for, I think it was October 14th. I'm scrolling through my emails.
so that was he confirmed that we were going to have this meeting so i was just surprised at the
meeting and the presentation that went so long in the sense of i had trouble getting oh i'm sorry
but um i am we are in agreement with um having another community meeting okay that's that's
what i need as long as you're in agreement we'll do that if not we'll we'll vote on it today but
If you're in agreement, we'll hold off on any vote.
Yes, sir.
That works?
Anyone?
All right, Mr. Korn, thank you.
And Mr. Richardson?
Yeah, Mr. Chair, we will withhold the Councilwoman's position until that resumption.
Yeah, Mr. Chair, we will withhold the councilwoman's position until that resumption hearing.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I think just for the sake of, I guess, point of order, if I'm allowed to state that, of course, this is something we're amenable to, or I wouldn't have referenced it in the beginning of our presentation.
but I do know because that's going to be a resumption hearing just for the sake of procedure
and for the record, I wanted to make sure that we still allowed testimony like public testimony now.
Excuse me, Mr. Bertil, the difference is if it is limited to reading the letter into the record,
you can schedule it immediately after the meeting.
If it is to take testimony, then Ms. Sunkett will give you a date, but it is likely to be much later.
Right. No, I understand that. That's why I'm referring to them today, to right now, to make sure we get our testimony, to get testimony in if we are limiting the resumption hearing to the results of the next community meeting.
So I want to make sure public testimony happens.
I think Ms. Saleta just explained, if we do a resumption hearing, we will limit it to any feedback from the RCO. Are you asking for additional time for more testimony?
No, I'm asking for testimony today.
Well, you've given us testimony, haven't you? I mean, we listened to your presentation.
your presentation. Right. I'm referring to public testimony. I don't think we asked for any public
testimony. Well, I just did. That's why Mr. Karn and Mr. Richardson, unless I'm misunderstanding
your question, I just asked if there's anyone else who would like to testify. Mr. Richardson
from Councilwoman Bass's office and Mr. Karn, who's the leader of the 13th Democratic Ward,
just testified and i will continue i will ask again is there anyone else who would like to
testify chair we have someone by the name of kiana shedrick miss shedrick you can unmute yourself and
wait for the chair chedrick please spell your full name and i'll swear you in yes um first name
kiana q-i-a-n-a last name shedrick s-h-e-d-r-i-c-k you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes i do i think you were on earlier but please proceed i'm sorry i
didn't hear you i'm sorry just just proceed okay no i thought you said i was on earlier so this is
my first time speaking um our letter i'm sorry i'm sorry chair i don't believe she was present
earlier it was the upper north neighbor someone had uh that was part of someone else's presentation
well they showed the letter from our organization that was forwarded by right but i was coming
forward to make testimony in regards to the case okay just to proceed with your testimony but did
you hear there's an agreement between mr karn the leader of the 13th war democrat committee
and councilwoman bass's office to have a meeting sometime i believe it's going to be the 14th or
15th of october i'm sorry yeah tanya i was just wondering can she be sworn in
i did swear in oh okay yeah i did uh so i'm wondering if if you heard in having heard that
testimony uh would you prefer to hold off for any further uh discussion until such time that
meeting takes place i don't know if i have a choice at the moment i feel like i'm being
discouraged from having my record oh i'm i'm asking whether you do you want to go i no please
don't take it i just asked well i guess i want to prefer because i raised my hand and waited to be
recognized i know and i'm asking do you want it to continue with your testimony or would you rather
wait until after the October meeting, because the application may be amended.
No, I can be heard now, and I can be heard at that time.
What I wanted to state-
Please proceed with your testimony.
Sure, thank you.
What I wanted to state and have recorded for the record was that as an affected RCO and
neighbor nearby, I am familiar with the case.
And we did have members who were present at the actual community meeting that was held.
At that time, it was mentioned that it was presented to be five units, but they agreed to already reduce the units to four.
So the conversation that will be held at a later date has somewhat already been had.
That's my first point.
I think this project is also being an asset to the community because they're taking what is currently rooming.
also being an asset to the community because they're taking what is currently rooming situations
and making them into individualized units for people to use. And it's already been said that
it's been historically used as a rooming home. And then I also wanted to have on the record that
from our RCO, we did have members present at the meeting that did take place. And so just wanted
to have that information on the record that there was already a community meeting that was held and
the things that are being proposed for discussion have already been discussed and presented. The
units have already been reduced, and the trash situation seemed there was already a resolution
presented. So just wanted that noted for the record. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Thank
you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. We might as well get the Planning Commission's
position now and then we'll we'll talk about after the uh october uh resumption hearing uh planning
commission thank you chairman de chica appreciate it ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to rm1 at this
location um so the revised uh proposed use that's been presented by mr bertill is consistent with
the recommended zoning district both in terms of the use and the number of dwelling units
city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance with the condition
to reflect amended plans with no more than four dwelling units on the property
thank you mi 2021-002084 1618 west area avenue this hearing will be resumed on tanya if you
have a date after the 15th of october that would be helpful november 17th at 2 p.m this hearing
will be resumed on november 17th at 2 p.m at which time the board will consider any feedback related
to the rco's position thank you very much i'm chair and the council woman's position and the
councilwoman thank you and councilwoman bass's position thank you uh number three on our list
MI 2021-002183, 2009-11 Sansom Street.
Carrie Nays-Poust, I believe, is the attorney.
CCRA, Center City Residents Association,
sent a letter of support with provisos.
Chair, Ms. Nays-Poust is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Ms. Poust. Please spell your full name.
Good afternoon, Chairman Carrie Nace Poust, C-A-R-R-I-E-N-A-S-E-P-O-U-S-T,
the law firm of Fox Rothschild, 2700 Kelly Road, Suite 300, Warrington, PA, 18976.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. Mr. Plaza has some questions for you. Yes. You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. And have you submitted a packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I did. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do.
thank you please proceed you're welcome you one moment while i share my screen
chairman can you see my screen via index yes okay you can make it a little bit larger that
would be helpful thank you you're welcome uh good afternoon i'm here this afternoon
on behalf of the owner of the property of 2009-11 Sansom Street. Also here with me this afternoon
is the owner, Britt Naylor, our sign consultant, Eric Rothwarf, and the architect, Jerry Gutierrez.
The property is located on Sansom Street between 20th and 21st Street. It is located within the
cmx4 zoning district we did submit a copy of the deed it marked as exhibit four showing my
client's ownership interest in standing to bring this application before the zoning board
we did send notices to the rco and the surrounding neighbors marked as
Send notices to the RCO and the surrounding neighbors, marked as Exhibit 6 is the notice that went out, as well as the certificate of mailing.
We also did have the notice posted on the property for the requisite period of time.
Let's see, here we go.
Here's just an aerial map just showing the location.
Again, it's on Sansom Street between 20th and 21st.
The property involved was previously occupied by the Academy of Social Dance, which I'm
sure most of you are probably familiar with.
We're here this afternoon seeking a variance to replace the existing projecting sign on
the building.
And in replacing it, we will be replacing it in the same size and location.
The owner purchased the property back in March of 2019 and is proposing to use the property as a restaurant.
We submitted a zoning permit application for the renovations to the existing building.
We did receive the zoning permit as well as the building permit.
In front of you here is just a copy of the zoning plan that was submitted and approved.
So this photograph shows the existing facade, or what was previously the existing facade,
and right here is the existing sign that was used for the Academy of Social Dance.
When we started doing the renovations of the property, we always intended that this existing sign would remain intact as is, and we would simply reface the sign.
However, as part of the renovations of this building, it was determined that certain areas of the front facade needed to be repaired and replaced.
In order to do that, we needed to take the sign down.
When we took the sign down, it became evident that the framework of the sign was actually rusted and in bad condition, and so it was the applicant's decision to move forward and replace the entire sign structure.
But again, the intent in moving forward was always that we would keep this sign as is.
When we went in to get the zoning permit for the sign, L&I flagged it as not being compliant with the zoning code.
In fact, they issued a refusal indicating that the projected sign is prohibited, that it was not permitted to extend over the public right-of-way.
The allowable area was four feet. We're at six feet.
maximum sign area allowable with 66.66 square feet we're proposing 151
and signs are not permitted to project above a second floor window
what we're proposing is actually to replace the existing sign
with the exact same dimensions so it'll be the exact same height exact same width
and the exact same thickness as you will call it.
And again, simply just replacing the sign panel,
as you will, to reference the name
of the proposed restaurant.
Just scrolling down here.
These are the, again, just dimensions
of the proposed sign.
The sign will be illuminated.
Let me see if I can rotate this for you.
It will have neon lighting in the sign that was previously there from the prior user, even before the Academy of Social Dance.
Because we are replacing the sign in kind in terms of size and location, we believe that it was permitted to remain as an existing nonconformity.
We believe the prior sign was legally permitted in accordance with a zoning permit that was issued back in 1982.
However, Ellen and I did not agree with our interpretation that this was an existing non-conforming sign,
and in fact determined that we would need to get the variances that we're here for today.
We did review, here's just again a comparison.
This is the existing sign, this is the proposed sign.
you'll see they're the same in terms of size we did uh review the proposed sign with the uh both
the historic commission as well as the art commission um you'll see here is a letter that
we received from the um sorry this is the approval from the historic commission
the, sorry, this is the approval from the Historic Commission that we received back in January
of 2021. And then we also did receive approval from the Historic Commission as well.
Do want to point out that it was indicated in the approval from the Art Commission that they
stated that the signed committee was extremely supportive of this proposal and was also approved
by Philadelphia Historic Commission.
Ms. Nasehouse, I think you could summarize what would be helpful.
Wendy, we got a good picture of what you're looking to do here.
So we did meet with the RCO, which is the Center City Residents Association, twice over the summer.
We met with them.
We were able to address their concerns.
They did issue the letter of non-opposition dated July 28th, which was also submitted to you.
It was subject to a few conditions.
You'll see here, one is that the sign must retain all the dimensions and shape of the sign it's replacing,
that it may be illuminated within certain levels that we discussed at that meeting,
and that it would only be lit between dusk and 10 p.m.
My client did agree to those conditions and is willing to comply with those.
So we are, again, here this afternoon requesting relief for the variances.
We believe that there is hardship here just due to the condition of the property and replacing the existing condition of the existing sign.
So if I may just quickly call Eric Rothwarf on the line to accept the testimony.
Sure. And, sir, when you get on, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Rothworth, can you please raise your hand?
Mr. Rothworth, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello.
Hi, good afternoon sir. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Eric, E-R-I-C, Rothworth, R-O-T-H-W-A-R-F.
Do you swear if I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Ms. Powell.
Thank you.
Mr. Rothworth, were you here this afternoon during the presentation I had just given?
And do you believe that the statements that I had made are true and correct?
and would you agree to accept the statements I made as your own testimony had you testified
yourself? Yes. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your
hand. Chair, we have a Wade Albert. Mr. Albert, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Thank you. Mr. Albert, please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
A-L-B-E-R-T.
First name?
First name is Wade, W-A-D-E.
Thank you. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Thank you. My name is Wade Albert. I am counsel with law firm Stevens & Lee, and I represent the coordinating RCO, the Center City Residents Association.
So I just wanted to point out, I know that the applicant stated that the applicant came to CCRA, and we reached an agreement, non-opposition with some provisos, and just wanted to put into the record that CCRA generally just favors projecting signs that project to the public right of way.
um and if the applicant had sought to erect a similar sign under the current zoning code um
notwithstanding any pre-existing sign we likely would have um objected to it um but because it
is a replacement of of a of an existing sign uh we non-oppose with with certain provisos that have
already been read into the record and which are contained in our letter so i therefore would
respectfully request that the uh that the zba uh if you vote to grant the variance uh include the
provisos in the license thank you thank you thank you anyone else to testify in this case
there are no hands at this time chair planning commission
thank you chairman duchico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board the proposed sign as you've seen is a reconstruction of a previously approved
members of the board the proposed sign as you've seen is a reconstruction of a previously approved
sign the design has been approved by historical commission and the art commission so the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance thank you before we vote on it
sharon um as it relates to those provisos yes chair i have them in front of me the first
other than okay you finish yeah i'm sorry um as far as the dimensions and shape not be being
changed that's already a given because they would have to take any change back to lni
for the illumination levels i don't know enough about the technology to say what level could be
added as a proviso the final proviso can be added but it'd only be lit from dusk until um 9 p.m i'm
sorry 10 p.m 10 p.m okay yeah i thought so i just wanted to check with you all right thank you um
MI 2021-002183-2009-11 Sanson Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Signed to be lit between dusk and 10 p.m.
Professor Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, yes with proviso.
Thank you.
So I'm at number five on our list, MI 2021-002-089-2128 North Darien Street.
Mr. DeMarco, I believe, is the attorney of record.
Mr. DeMarco is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please identify yourself, and I'll swear you in.
Richard DeMarco, attorney for applicant, 2005 Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
And his name is spelled D-E, uppercase M as a Michael, A-R-C-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? The whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Good afternoon, Mr. DeMarco.
Will you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I can.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have a letter of non-opposition from APN.
Thank you.
So I'll share my screen.
I'll go through the exhibits.
Mr. DeMarco, if I can interrupt for one minute.
Chair, there's a note in the summaries that I was unable to open the attachment.
Mr. DeMarco has since sent them as a PDF attachment.
You were just going to ask that.
Thank you.
Yeah, sorry about the snafu with that.
I did send it via email.
I'm not sure what happened.
I resend it.
Sorry about that.
Mr. Chairman, the refusal, this is a RM1 property.
This is a rehab of an existing duplex dwelling.
As you can see from the refusal in front of the living room.
There is a dimensional issue with regard to the second unit.
It is an RM1 property.
This entire area is RM1.
So we're just a little bit off on the lot size for the second unit.
um and then i'll show you the floor plan
we have trash storage in the rear yard for both units i'm going to show you a photo in a month
in a moment the property is unusually small which is why we need the um dimensional variance for
the second unit it's a very small street although it is zoned rm1 therefore we should be permitted
to operate a multifamily dwelling with a small dimension variance.
Show you the photo so you can see this is an unusual property.
And all of the properties are similar, by the way.
And I do want to point out to the board, this board granted a variance very similar to this one a few doors away.
These lots are unusually small and consistent throughout the block.
this is the interesting rotate so you can see this it is a easement
i'm sorry um this is my picking up yeah am i picking up background i thought it was mr
demarco but it sounds like there's my excuse me for interrupting you tanya
sounds like there's some chatter we're picking up in the background is that what you want to say
sounds like there's some chatter we're picking up in the background is that what you want to say
no it's actually mr demarco is fading in and out okay yeah i don't know i'm sorry i don't know why
that happens um i'm alone in my office there's no one talking it's just i guess i'll move a little
bit closer to my mic as close as you can to the mic and just try to keep your voice at the same
angle so it doesn't fade back and forth i see okay thanks mr demarco yes sorry thank you tanya
Thank you. All right. Thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Chairman. You can see here there's a there's an unusual easement that runs to the rear.
So that provides both tenants trash storage access. You can see it again right here.
And there's multiple vacant lots on this block, Mr. Chairman. I'll have my client speak in a moment.
but clearly the investment would need to be made for multifamily. As you can see,
there's new construction, which is also multifamily in my exhibit packet, is evidence of this board's
prior variances and the predominance of the multifamily on this block. The client,
you see from these photos, the property is in poor condition. The client needs the two units
to justify the investment.
We did meet with APMRCO.
Sorry, I'm fading away again.
We met with APMRCO.
One person attended, no opposition,
and the councilman's office agreed not to take a position.
I'd like Raj Soen to be granted panelist status
so he can adopt my testimony.
And then that will be it.
This is the RCO notice.
Raj Soin should be on the call
Mr. Soin can you please raise your hand
Mr. Soin you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Thank you
Sir please spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in
Yes it's Raj R-A-J
last name Soin, S-O-I-N. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Mr. DeMarco?
Raj, Soin, did you hear my testimony and factual statements before the zoning board today?
Yes, I did. You adopt them as your own testimony and as true and accurate?
I do. And you were granted the same variance for another property on the block by this zoning
board, correct? That's right, correct. And you would be unable to develop a single-family home
at this location under circumstances with all the vacancies and a difficulty in that area, correct?
Need the two units in order to justify your investment in this property, correct?
Yes. The property was in extremely poor condition. You already have some
significant money into this property in order to bring it up to speed, is that correct?
that's correct mr chairman i have no further um testimony uh happy to answer questions um
thank you questions from the board no no do anyone would anyone else like to testify in
this case please raise your hand there are no hands at this time chair thank you planning
commission thank you chairman de chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board the comprehensive plan actually recommends a zoning map change to rsa
5 at this location owing to the narrow street council has cited the lot size as a hardship
however in this case the lot size is actually the reason for the refusal it's simply not large
enough to support two family use under the existing rm1 district according to the code dimensions
This isn't a dimensional variance,
it's a use variance for dwelling unit count.
And so the lot size is not a unique physical circumstance
that you would need to show
to demonstrate a hardship for this use variance.
RM1 doesn't entitle multifamily use,
it permits it on sufficiently sized pieces of property.
So the city planning commission recommends
that the board deny this variance.
Thank you.
Yeah, I don't want to belabor it, Mr. Chairman,
just to briefly respond.
The lot size is actually less than half
of the minimum lot size in the entire zoning code so clearly the lot size creates a physical hardship
to the property. Thank you. MI 2021-0020892128 North Darien my vote is yes. Professor Plaza my vote
is yes. James Snell my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman my vote is yes. Thank you. Number six on our list
mi 2021 mi 2021.002 098
MI 2021-002-098-3103 North 16th Street.
Mr. Consul is the attorney of record.
The RCO Upper North Neighborhood Association supports this application.
Mr. Consul is coming back in as a panelist, Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
uh please spell your full name and i'll swear you in joseph console that's j-o-s-e-p-h-c-o-n-s-o-l-e
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do mr plaza has some questions for you yes uh you agree to wait the reading of its refusal
and stipulate your accuracy i do and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral
voters and plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. And have you met with the RCO and have a
letter? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. Hey, Joe Consul. It's 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204,
Media PA 19063 here on 3103 North 16th Street. This property is on 16th between Allegheny Avenue
and Clearfield Street. Allegheny's up here, Clearfield's down here. The owner is 3103 North
16th LLC. With me on the call is the sole member of that LLC, Mr. Nathan Tolchinsky.
The property's footprint is 1,790 square feet, and it's zoned RSA 3.
Where it's zoned RSA 5 or RM 1, it would have sufficient room for the four units that it has in the property.
This entire side of the block, as you can see, is zoned RSA 3.
But this particular property, as well as most of the properties on this block, are attached on both sides.
And this property, on one side of it, has a permitted multifamily unit.
It has another property that had multifamily approval on it.
And this side of the block has at least four other that I found multi-unit properties,
which leads me to believe that this side of the street was previously approved for multifamily units before it got remapped as RSA-3.
Either way, as a fully attached property surrounded by multifamily properties, we do not believe the RSA-3 is appropriate here and RM-1 would be more appropriate.
The property is set up as a four-unit. We're seeking to legalize that use.
The previous owner died in 2019. I'm told this happened while he was in the process of trying to legalize this use himself. The loan he was under defaulted, and my client ended up with the property as a result of the default. I'll pull up some of the pictures from the outside here.
and so my client's stepping up to take care of the situation he acquired the property with
tenants in three of the units there's only two occupied units at the moment because my client's
waiting for today's approval his goal is to get the building fully approved by PHA as a veteran
and Section 8 approved units and to get it rented out ideally in October. The plans we included in
our packet show three one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom unit. There's no bedrooms in the
basement. It's just utility and storage, which is accessible by all four units. My client's
property management team goes out there every couple of weeks and cleans the property. That
was a request to the RCO. He set that up. Unfortunately, the trash enclosure is going
to be out front versus shared space in the rear, but my client has promised to make that
space nice as well. We went up in front of Upper North Neighbors Association on July
8th. 13 people showed up. We got a letter of support from them, and that's also included
in the packet that we supplied.
If I could call Mr. Tolchinsky,
you could raise your hand.
Are you there, sir?
It seems like we're having technical issues, so, Mr. Consul, you being an officer of court will stipulate your client would have a copy of your test.
Oh, there he is now.
Sir, please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Nathan Tolchinski, N-A-T-H-A-N, last name spelled T as in Tom, U-L-C-H-I-N-S-K-Y.
you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr
council good afternoon mr tolchinski did you hear my uh presentation today regarding 3103 north 16th
i did yes do you agree with what i presented i do do you adopt it as your own i do is there
anything you'd like to add seems sufficient okay thank you questions from the board
no mr chairman no anyone else to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
there are no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
thank you chairman to chico ian hegarty with the philadelphia city planning commission
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 3 zoning at this location
however the proposed use is consistent with comprehensive plan goals for transit-oriented
development and given the adjacent non-conformities multifamily use is appropriate city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the variance thank you mi 2021 that's zero zero two
zero nine eight three one oh three north 16th street my vote is yes confessor plaza my vote is
yes. James Snell, my
vote is yes. Thomas
Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Number seven on our list,
MI 2021-
002199
15th Street.
Clementa, Amazon,
I believe is the attorney of record.
My notes indicate we have not
yet received a letter from the RCO.
That may be
that may have been corrected
before we call the case so is miss amazon or mr notkinson now chair okay mr notkinson
please identify yourself for the record and you've already been sworn in
you're muted sir sorry uh alan a-l-a-n uh last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia
PA, 19109. As I indicated, you're still under
oath. Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Yes, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with
the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copies of the refusal or referral of photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing? I have. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do. We have a letter
of support. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay, may I share my screen? Yes, please. All right, so I'm
here to present 322 North 15th Street. This is an RSA 5 property which has a history of multifamily
use as you'll see. It has a history of multifamily use as far back as 1960 as a triplex. Somewhere
along the way the property lost its zoning authorization and we're here merely to
revitalize the multifamily use of this property. What you'll see in my presentation pack is the
deed to the property, certificate of tax clearance, the notice of refusal, the housing approval dated
uh march 15th in 1960 that shows that this was a triplex application for appeal maps of the area
photographs of the property that surround the area plans and drawings and a letter of support
from the upper north neighbors association as you can see kk two kings llc is the owner of the
property and i have their representative miss cornish on the line and she'll adopt my testimony
along that the next thing is a certificate of tax clearance showing that the property owners
have been standing with the city of philadelphia with respect to this property notice refusal this
is merely a use variant for triplex because this is an rsa5 property the lot size of this property
the lot size of this property is 1552 square feet it's a rather large property and as you can see
is 1552 square feet it's a rather large property
if you look sideways sorry about that but like um you'll see that the use has been a triplex
as far back as 1960 so it's not out of character for us to ask for this to be a triplex again
our application appeal with the zba along with the notice of refusal and the project information form
maps of the area uh we are just uh half a block away from west allegheny avenue which is you know
a large street which is not out of character to increase density near such a street like that
there is also an alley in the rear just so for egress of individuals but there is no basement
living the basement is solely used for laundry facilities as well as trash removal
showing where we are in the neighborhood again not that far up for broad street either which
is a commercial quarter again not out of character to add density in such a situation like this
photographs of the property probably not the best picture here but there is a door a separate
an entrance that goes down to the basement level. Not that we have any living, not that we have any
bedrooms down there, but that's where we store our garbage and that's where our laundry facility is.
Every floor has its own unit. We're not increasing the dimensions in this property or doing anything
to the physical structure of the property other than interior renovations. Properties on North
15th to the right. To the right again. Nearby triplex. Again, not out of character to have
multifamily in this area. So 3223 North 15th Street. So triplex. And then just simple floor
plans here. You walk up to the front porch. You go into a basketball area. You go on the first
floor, you have two bedrooms, one bath, common living area. Go up a flight of steps, same floor
plan, two bedrooms, one bath, kitchen, living room, dining room, and the same thing for the third floor.
Most importantly, the basement area, which has separate egress. There is no living in the
basement. There's a trash room, a dedicated trash room, and a laundry room, and tenant storage as
well where support as you can see this is a highly attended meeting where we had 16 individuals 14
people were in support one was opposed and one was a non-opposition they did have discussion about
like you know making sure that we responsibly had trash removal and storage which i think
we accomplish by way of the basement which has its own trash facility and then just here's
our like you know proof of mailing of the community notice i'm going to unshare right
now so then i can ask miss cornish to virtually raise her hand to adopt my testimony and i
can take any questions from the board from there
I see no one by that name, Mr.
Notchamson, Mr.
Chair, I just asked as an officer of the court that you know, you take everything that was
truly factual.
Let's stipulate you being officer court that your client would have adopted your testimony.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, no.
would anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission thank you chairman de chico
ian hegarty for the city planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
rsa 5 zoning at this location however the proposed use is consistent as you've seen with previously
approved uses of the property city planning commission recommends that the board grant the
variance. Thank you. MI 2021-002199-3222, North 15th Street. My vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
thank you you number eight on our list mi 2021-002-195-3401 aramingo avenue
parcel b as in boy mr patterson is the record of attorney
Parcel B as in boy, Mr. Patterson is the record of attorney, the attorney of record, excuse me, and there's a letter of support from Pro-PAC.
Mr. Patterson is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Mr. Patterson, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Hi, good afternoon. Ronald Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N, Claire Harrison Law Firm, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA-19103.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you, Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Mr. Patterson, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tech compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and planes five days prior to this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, to all of you about.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Okay. Can you see my screen I'm sharing?
Thanks. So this application regards 31, I'm sorry, 3401 Aramingo Avenue. With me, when I'm speaking, you can promote him as John Cogan, C-O-G-A-N.
This is a shopping center property over here and there on Aramingo Avenue, fronting also on Ontario Street, slightly south of Castor Avenue, Benango, and Tioga.
It formerly contained a Payless Shoe store.
There's a kind of a shot up to the left of the Castor Avenue.
here's the site that's currently under construction.
So the building is under construction for a by-right CVS store and this appeal regards
signage particularly the total area of wall signs on our supposed CVS.
Here's typical CVS frontage. As I mentioned the property fronts on Aramingo Avenue and Ontario
streets um it's located in a icmx zoning district there's a site plan which is important because
you'll see the icmx uh district allows sign area based upon a formula of two square feet
per linear foot of a building with fronting on a street on the long side which would be aromingo
avenue in this case and three square feet per one square foot on the shorter side
actually that's our mango the other one's ontario and so that totals allowable 288
square feet as our refusal noted we're proposing 498 square feet
i will show you the refusal
so that's what we're proposing
So the property location and configuration and the juice creates a sign that's hardship
The building has four sides, as you can see, they all have and need signs for identification
and for traffic safety visibility along Aramingo Avenue, yet the code for ICMX is actually
limiting the provision maybe unintentionally and that the allowable is not based upon the width
of the lot lines here it's actually based upon the length of the building that's fronting that
street so you calculate this building area of three feet times this area and this part which
sorry this part here facing Ontario yeah we have signs on all four sides and we don't get credit
for the other four sides. So you take the calculation of two sides and we're trying to
spread it all over four sides. So not all four sides of the building are fronting on
the street, so the rear and the side here. So that's where we get a detriment here. So
this is a detached building having four sides, yet calculated areas based on the two sides.
Otherwise, if they were based on the four sides, we would be within the allowable sign
area. With that said, I'd like to ask Mr. Coven some questions.
John, are you here?
Can we have him raise his hand?
he can
he can now unmute and wait for the chair to swear him in okay thank you
good afternoon sir please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
good afternoon john kogan j-o-h-n-c-o-g-a-n where from to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes thank you mr patterson thank you hi john could you tell the board your
connection to the development? We are CVS Pharmacy's developer for Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Okay, and so you're involved in the construction of the building, correct,
and the installation of the signs? That's correct. Okay, and you've heard my presentation and
testimony. Would you agree that it's true and accurate and you would adopt it as your own?
Yes. And so the amount of signage, is that typical of what is proposed on CVS?
Yes, it is.
And is it fair to say that it's needed for branding and for traffic safety, especially along Ironman Go Avenue?
Thank you.
And we met with the Port Richmond on Patrol and Civic, ProPAC, back on June 2nd, correct?
And here is our letter of unanimous support for the signs.
Pretty much the discussion, which is not in the letter, is because of the highly commercial nature of that.
um street right there that's all i have any questions from the board no mr chairman
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
we have no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
thank you chair chico ian hegarty with the philadelphia city planning commission members
of the board comprehensive plan recommends ca2 zoning for this uh entire block and the proposed
sign size would be conforming under the proposed zoning district so therefore the city planning
commission would recommend that the board grant the variance thank you mi 2021 that's zero zero
two one nine five three four oh one aramingo avenue parcel b as in boy my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes thomas holloman my vote is yes thank you mr plaza had to step away
for a moment thank you number nine on our list mi 2021 that's 002024 4309 main street
mr bill o'brien is the attorney of record there is a letter of support from m as a michael n as
nancy c i suspect that's manny yonk uh but i'll wait to be uh that to verify that with our
mr o'brien gives his testimony mr o'brien has come back in as a pen list now chair
thank you mr o'brien please spell your full name and i'll swear you in william o'brien o-b-r-i-e-n
manny yonk law office 4322 main street philadelphia 19127 you swear a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you um i will ask the questions mr plaza
stepped away uh do you agree to waive and stipulate to the accuracy and have you have you
read and emailed an exhibit packet with required documents including proof of ownership proof of
tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photographs and their plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, to each of the questions. And have you met with the RCA
and do you have a letter? Yes, we have. Thank you. You may proceed. May I share my screen?
please do. On the screen is the refusal. I represent Somo Maniunk, a full-service sit-down
restaurant which is seeking to expand from the initial location at 4311 Main Street to the
adjacent building at 4309 Main Street. The zoning district allows a restaurant use,
CMX 2.5. However, about 24 years ago, a zoning overlay was introduced and was continued in the
2012 version of the zoning code, requiring parking for the expansion of an existing restaurant.
So the sole refusal is the fact that the proposed expansion does not have eight spaces for the
additional 32 inside restaurant spaces.
The next page in the packet is the unanimous letter of support
from the Manioc Neighborhood Council.
Their letter indicates that there were 22 members who attended the meeting, and there is no opposition.
Their letter indicates that there were 22 members
who attended the meeting.
The next is an image of the restaurant.
You can see on the left is a four-story building.
On the right is a three-story building, and below them shared is Somo Maniok.
Again, it shares both buildings.
There is a three-foot wide breach in the party wall to accommodate the flow of traffic between the two buildings.
The next page is the seating plan, which shows the 32 seats, a 88 bathroom, and a rear exit.
We do have an agreement with the Maniunk Neighborhood Council, the Maniunk Development Corporation, and both owners and the operator.
It's a standard agreement used in Maniunk.
It includes a parking plan, which is on the screen now, which requires the operator to have certain rules with their employees in terms of where they can park and can't park, to advertise Main Street's parking facilities on its website and marketing materials, and also to purchase three monthly parking spaces in a nearby parking lot.
The party wall breach documents are shown on pages 7 through 11.
The streetery docks, there's both a streetery, a sidewalk cafe, and a rear streetery,
all of which have been approved by the historic commission in L&I, and there's a building permit.
those plans are pages 12 through 20. The zoning notice and the certificates of delivery are on
pages 21 to 32. The tax clearance, the certificate came up non-compliant. The owner of 4309, it's a
single purpose entity. It has no employees. I did attach a copy of the revenues printout showing that
the real estate taxes are paid in full. And then finally, pages 35 to 40 is the deed.
If I could introduce James Morrissey, who's the
managing member of SOMO Maniunk, would you please introduce yourself?
My name is James Michael Morrissey.
Would you spell your name?
j-a-m-e-s uh middle initial m for michael morrissey m-o-r-r-i-s-s-e-y
mr chairman uh can he be sworn in uh mr yes sir pardon me um would you please identify i'm sorry
you identified yourself do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do uh mr morrissey did you did you hear my uh testimony yes uh was it truthful and accurate
And do you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002092.
4890 Summerdale Avenue.
Carrie Nays-Pausse is the attorney of record.
35th Ward Democratic Executive Committee
sent a letter of non-opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I think that's on a different file.
I'm sorry, say that again?
I think that was on a different application.
Chair, on this one, we have a letter of support
from many neighborhood associate neighborhood councils we just voted that one didn't we
we're at 4309 main street i believe chair well we haven't voted the case yet
i apologize i i got distracted i'm sorry mi 2021.002024 4309 i'm sorry i'm interrupting
you again but did we get planning commission on this phone i didn't hear you probably not
my pal my wife just asked me what i want for dinner and interrupted my train of thought
that's a true story i'm sorry um
i want to know if i want to eat dinner yes i want to eat dinner um planning commission
thank you chairman to chico i hope you put in a good request for dinner uh members of the board
a comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing cmx 2.5 zoning this refusal is
This refusal is related to a minor expansion of an existing use, and the City Planning Commission would recommend that the Board grant the variance.
related to a minor expansion of an existing use in the city planning commission would
Thank you very much.
MI 2021-002024, 4309 Main Street, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Tom you're muted
Mr. Holloman
maybe somebody's asking him if he wants dinner
Mr. Holloman
there you go Tom
yes I did
vote uh thomas how thomas yeah thomas alvin my vote is yes thank you again i apologize everyone
uh number 10 on our list mi 2021 that's zero zero two zero nine two four eight nine zero
summerdale avenue carrie nays house is the attorney of record chair this is sharon since i did the
summaries, Ms. Paust has submitted revised plans, three pages. Three pages? Yes. Thank you. Again,
as I said earlier, the 34th Ward Democrat Executive Committee sent a letter of non-opposition.
Ms. Paust, just please spell your full name again for the record, and you've already been sworn in.
Great. Good afternoon. Carrie Nace Paust, attorney with the law firm of Fox Rothschild,
C-A-R-R-I-E-N-A-S-E-P-O-U-S-T. Address is 2700 Kelly Road, Suite 300, Orrington, PA, 18976.
Thank you. Do you agree to waive the reading and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents?
I have.
Including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
and photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
And also, have you met with the RCO
and do you have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Great.
And you can see my screen?
Yes, we can.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Good afternoon.
I'm here this afternoon
on behalf of the applicant,
which is Safe Store Somerdale LLC with regard to property located at 4890 Somerdale Avenue.
The applicant is under agreement of sale to purchase this property. I have included in our
packet a deed to the property as well as portions of the agreement of sale confirming my clients
standing to bring this application. Also included in my packet is the notice that we sent to the
RCO and the surrounding neighbors regarding the hearing this afternoon as well as the
CDR review process. Also included is the certificate of mailing.
We have also included copies of the zoning notice that was posted on the property.
Here in front of you is an aerial showing the location of the property. It's located
here along Somerdale Avenue. Along here is Roosevelt Boulevard. We have townhouses and then
the Home Depot to the rear of the property. This property is currently comprised of two parcels.
What you see on your screen here to the left are the two parcels. We have one thin parcel here that
that is approximately one acre.
This parcel here is 3.7 acres.
We did receive approval from the Planning Commission
to consolidate these two parcels
and resubdivide it to create two new boundaries
to make a more usable land area.
The front portion here is approximately 2.78 acres
and will remain as is
with the existing industrial building.
The property that's before you this afternoon
is the rear portion along here, which is approximately two acres.
Exhibit 11 is just simply correspondence from Planning Commission approving the subdivision.
Exhibit 12 shows photographs of the existing conditions. So here is Langdon Street,
which is a private street. Here is the entrance that will go into the project site. Here are the
Here are the townhomes that I had referenced. This gives you a better view of the property.
townhomes that I had referenced. This gives you a better view of the
Again, this will be the entrance going in. This will be the redevelopment for the self-storage
facility, and these are the townhomes. Just another couple pictures here showing the existing
conditions of the property. In front of you here is a copy of the zoning plan that was submitted
to lni as i indicated we have the front portion rear portion is being developed for a three-story
self-storage facility comprised of approximately 104 000 square feet we are proposing 23 parking
spaces along with five loading spaces the proposed project this type of use in this zoning district
would require 53 parking spaces which is excessive for this type of use we believe this type of use
given that it's low impact really needs much less than that and in fact we believe the 23
is more than sufficient however we did receive a refusal due to the number of parking spaces
here's a copy of the site plan just to give you a little bit better context of what's being
proposed so here's the self-storage facility existing townhouses we are putting an eight
foot fence along the property boundary of the townhouses along with some shrubbery
here the parking and then we have loading area over here along with the trash enclosure here
we did again because of the size of the project it did trigger review by the civic design review
committee we received several comments from them and as such we were able to revise the zoning plan
one of the comments was to add this sidewalk along this entrance road which we did
not shown on here but it is shown on the zoning site plan they also asked for a crosswalk
And then they also had made some comments with regard to the type and species of the landscaping that's being proposed, which we did revise.
Here is a rendering of what the proposed building will look like, which is what we reviewed with CDR.
This is just a view of the nighttime facade showing the lighting.
This is the other entrance farther down on Langdon Street.
And then here, again, this was where I was showing you the entrance.
These are the townhomes.
This is the fence that's being proposed, as well as the landscaping to provide the buffer.
As indicated, we did meet with the RCO to review the variance that's being requested.
as well as the design and the cdr process we did receive a letter of opposition from them
dated june 20th which is before you and again we did meet with cdr so we're here this afternoon
requesting the variants to provide less parking than is otherwise permitted or required i'm sorry
under the zoning code as i indicated it would require 53 which is excessive for this type of use
and we believe that what's being proposed is more adequate and allows for better design of
the property given the features of the property. So with that, if there are no questions,
I would like to call the engineer of the project, Mr. Dan Mattson.
Dan, could you write the down?
you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, please spell your
name and I'll swear you in. Sure, Daniel, D-A-N-I-E-L, Mattson, M-A-T-T-S-O-N. Do you swear
if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Ms. Powles.
Great. Mr. Mattson, were you here during my presentation this afternoon? Yes, I was.
And do you agree that the statements I have made are true and accurate?
Yes, I do.
And were you personally involved with the preparation of the zoning plan and design of this project?
And had you testified yourself, would you adopt the statements I have made as your own testimony?
Yes, I would.
Great. Do you have anything further that you would like to add in terms of the relief that's being requested or the project that's being proposed?
no i think you did a good job of summing it all up i'm happy to answer any questions should they
arise thank you thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman what else
any questions from the board no mr chairman what else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand here we have hillary emerson miss emerson you can unmute yourself
and wait for the chair uh good afternoon miss emerson you know the drill please identify
yourself spell your name and i'll swear you in good afternoon mr chair members of the board
hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker my last name is spelled e-m-e-r-s-o-n
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes, thank you.
Preliminarily, I just wanted to ask if counsel for the applicant could forward our office in the RCO a copy of those revised plans.
We did see the recommendations from the CDR committee.
I apologize.
And we were not aware that changes had been made in response to those recommendations.
So if we could get a copy of the revised plans, that would be great for our records.
And based on our meeting back in June, the councilwoman has no objection to the requested variance for the parking in light of the low traffic volume for this use.
There was also no community objection raised to this project.
The letter was a letter of non-opposition.
And we also appreciate that the access point for this commercial space is adjacent to other commercial space and not off of Somerdale Avenue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chairman DiCicco, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
As has been noted, the City Planning Commission's CDR, our Civic Design Review Committee, reviewed this plan and recommended actually less parking than is required by the code.
So in keeping with this recommendation of the Planning Commission, we recommend that the board grant this variance that's being presented today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Pals, is there, there are three pages?
There are two pages.
Two pages?
Oh, I'm sorry. No, there are three pages because we have the attorney. So, yes.
Okay. MI 2021-002092, 4890 Somerdale Avenue. My vote is yes with the following proviso. Revised plan, three pages, approved today.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
Jim, Jim or Confessor out there?
We have Jim.
I've asked him to unmute, but no response yet.
Chair, if I may request a pause so that I can contact them through phone.
And to the court reporter, we do have three other cases.
Two are combined, which we're going to call at the end.
And we have one more if you want.
We can take a break now or we can come back after the next case.
We'll take a five-minute break.
As you prefer, Chair.
It's fine with me either way.
Thank you.
sorry for the hold of miss paus we'll be with you shortly no problem
Hi, Chair, this is Tanya, the administrator. Okay, there we go. Jim is there.
Thank you, Tanya. Jim, I don't know if you heard, MI 2021-002-092-4890 Somerdale Avenue. My vote was yes with a proviso. Revised plan, three pages approved today.
I'm sorry, Chair.
It appears as though he's having technical problems.
Jim, if you can hear me, could you please go out and come back in?
Chair, as you wish, could we move this a little past so we can wait for him to come back for the vote?
So we can wait for him to come back. Yeah. I was going to suggest that we'll take the five minute break now. Miss Pouse, if you don't mind, we'll get the technical stuff straightened out and then we'll come back. So also to the court reporter, we'll take five or so minutes out, please.
I was going to suggest that we'll...
Sure. No problem. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Tanya.
proceed and we'll go back we'll go back to the uh 10th the number 10 on our list one more time
mi 2021-002092 4890 summerdale avenue my vote is yes with proviso
revised plan three pages approved today.
Yes, with proviso. Thomas Holloman. Yes, with proviso. Thank you. Thank you again,
Ms. Powell. Sorry for the delay. No problem. Thank you very much. Have a good evening.
We're now going to go to case number 13. MI 2021-002-094-625 North
53rd street jared klein is the attorney of record my notes said we're still awaiting a letter from
the rco and mr klein is coming back in as a panelist now chair he'll clarify that thank you
for us good afternoon mr chair members of the board please identify yourselves by your record
and i'll swear you in certainly jared klein k-l-e-i-n from blank rome 130 north 18th street
philadelphia 19103 you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you do you agree to waive the reading and stipulate to its accuracy
yes and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents including proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property
days in advance of this hearing? Yes. And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we do. Thank you. You may proceed. Mr. Chair, as I was transitioning into being a
panelist, I heard you mention that you were going to ask me to clarify something, but I didn't hear
what that was. My notes indicate we have not yet received an RCO letter. That may not be accurate,
so you'll clear that up for us. Yes, we do have one. It was a letter of support, and I will
show that to you all shortly. Thank you for clarifying. So yeah, so I am here on 625 North
53rd on behalf of the Liberty Housing Development Corporation, which as the board knows is a fairly
well-known affordable housing developer. And we're here for what is a very well supported by
the Community Affordable Housing Project at 625 North 53rd. To give the board the specifics of
what we're talking about, it is a mixed zoned parcel that has ICMX and RSA 5 on the same lot.
So we received refusals both for the use as multifamily household living,
which wouldn't be permitted in either the ICMX or the RSA 5 and the required bicycle spaces.
To orient the board, this is the property here. It's long vacant and part of this
proposal is to consolidate some of these lots into a new lot and to erect a new structure there.
Here's the sort of mixed zoning that I was describing for the board previously.
And these are some existing site conditions to give the board some context as to what is in this
area right now. What we are proposing to do is to consolidate the lots, as I mentioned,
and then to erect a new structure that's going to be used for 31 affordable housing units and
five off-street parking spaces. The end product will look similar to this, and we do have Ian
Toner, who's our architect on the line, should the board have any detailed architectural questions
as we move forward. These are some sample floor plans for the various units that will be contained
within the building. There is a mix of three-bedroom, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units
within the building, trying to give a variety of housing styles as part of the affordability
offering. And as the chair asked, we did meet with the Civic Association. I'll bring their
letter up first. The 44th Ward Democratic RCO convened a meeting, and their letter of support
is up on the screen now we met with them on july 13th and their letter of support
We met with them on July 13th and their letter of support is here.
Also in the materials that I had submitted to the board were a variety of other letters from other stakeholders.
I won't spend a ton of time on them now, but there are letters of support to hear from Vince Hughes,
State Rep. Amon Brown, Councilwoman Helen Gim,
Councilwoman Gauthier and Councilmember Green. So we have pretty wide-based community support
not only for this particular project but of the Liberty Housing Development Corporation in general.
I know the board has had a lengthy agenda so although we have our design professionals on
the line to answer any additional questions I'll ask if Bianca Waladin could raise her
virtual hand and adopt my test book. Bianca, if you're out there, hit that little button.
Ms. Walladin, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair to speak.
Bianca, are you there? I'm here. Okay. Good afternoon. Please spell your full name.
bianca walladin b-i-a-n-c-a w-a-l-i-d-d-i-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr klein uh thank you chair uh bianca did you have
a chance to listen to my entire presentation this afternoon yes and do you adopt my uh statements
as true correct and as if they were your own i do thank you very much uh mr chair as i said we
have the the team on to answer any questions but we would stop our presentation there thank you
any questions from the board no mr chairman no no any uh i'm sorry anyone else would like
to testify in this case please raise your hand there are no other hands at this time chair
thank you planning commission
thank you chairman de chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board the comprehensive plan includes a recommendation to encourage the
supply of a wide variety of housing types and levels of affordability throughout the city
this property is proposed to be as a tax credit uh supported affordable housing development
and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant this variance
thank you mi 2021-002094 625 north 53rd street my vote is yes confessor plaza my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes thank you all have a good afternoon
Thank you. We'll now go to cases 11 and 12. MI 2021-002-254-6399 Drexel Avenue and MI 2021-003-420-6399 Drexel Avenue.
There are a number of attorneys that are involved in this case. Mr. Shermer, I believe, is representing the appellant. Mr. McClure, I believe, is representing the permit holder. There's also a Mr. Conor Kokorin, who represents the appellant.
gentlemen let me do this first let each of you get on identify yourself spell your name and I'll
swear each of you in and then I have a couple of comments prior to your testimony excuse me chair
could we also promote Mr. Reuter who represents the city yes Mr. Reuter okay Mr. McClure I see
you're up would you spell your full name I'll swear you in sure Matthew McClure of Bower Spar
McClure is M-C-C-L-U-R-E, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, which is the legal owner of the property, as well as CORE, C-O-R-E, Development LLC, which is the equitable owner of the property.
Also with me is Nathan Farris. I don't know if he's been brought up.
I'll get to him next. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
thank you uh mr faris please spell your full name and i'll swear you in good afternoon mr
chairman members of the board nathan ferris ferris is farris at ballard spar 1735 market street
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr reuter
can't hear you uh leonard good afternoon chairman members of the board leonard f
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board. Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, senior.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Shermer, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
And I don't see him.
Well, we'll go to Mr. Kokorin right now, Connor Kokorin.
Don't see him either.
I'm sorry, Chair.
this is tanya the administrator i do not okay let me see if this is the person here
uh overbrook farms club is there could be mr sherman i believe
i'm sorry the uh one title overbrook farms club please state your name
this is connor corcoran counsel for overbrook farms okay if you hold a second sir i will
promote you to a panelist. Thank you. Sir, when you get on, please identify yourself by spelling
your full name. He was in between, Chair. Yeah, no worries. No problem. Okay.
Okay, Mr. Connor, could you state and spell your last name, please?
Good afternoon, everyone. Connor Corcoran, C-O-R-C-O-R-A-N, on behalf of Overbrook Farms Club.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Is Mr. Shermer available? Kyle Shermer?
I do see him as in attendance. Henry Shermer?
Henry Shermer. He's been promoted to panelists here.
Mr. Shermer, please spell your full name.
He should be coming back in any moment, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Video is not cooperating.
My name is Hal, H-A-L, last name Schirmer, S-C-H-I-R-M-E-R.
I'm representing Darlene Marquette and Gary Brady, the neighbors adjoining the property and across the street from the property.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
All right, gentlemen, I'm going to try to set some ground rules.
I understand there's a lot of contention going on here, but we're not going to let that interfere with this proceeding.
I'm going to ask Mr. Conner and Mr. Shermer, you will be each given 10 minutes to identify your clients and summarize the grounds for your appeal.
After that, we'll ask Mr. McClure and Mr. Reuter each have 10 minutes to respond.
And I believe that we're not going to be able to complete this case today and we'll have a resumption date available at the conclusion of your presentations.
So with that, we can begin with Mr. Conner and Mr. Schirmer. You guys decide who wants to go first.
Hal, after you, you're the first appeal.
Thank you, Mr. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Hal Schirmer.
I'm representing the adjacent neighbor, Darlene Marquette, and the neighbor across the street, Gary Bailey.
We filed this appeal because there were three different zoning permits issued under the same name based on a brand new piece of legislation which attempted to allow the Historical Commission to grant zoning variances or special exceptions instead of having them go through the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment.
The paperwork was the permits were never actually posted. So we appealed the three different versions of the zoning permits. There is one issue that my paperwork, which Sharon has included my correct email address, the cover sheet had an old pre-COVID email address. So I found out about this case as of Friday afternoon.
Excuse me, Mr. Shermer, just to clarify, it was not the cover page.
It was the actual appeal form that included the wrong email address.
Well, the standard form.
So the standard PDF form, which is the first page, and then you have please see attached,
et cetera, which I guess Ms. Saleta is correct about.
I did want to ask if it's possible for the board to make known how many people are here
because I know my clients have said they expect 20, 30, 40 people who wish to speak who are interested in this.
20, 30, 40 people who wish to speak who are interested in this. I'm not sure if it's
it's not standard to put them on the record so that we know how many people are there,
but I am kind of curious and I would note that at the end of our appeal paperwork we did request
that under 1430315A.4 that L&I actually provide the zoning board with a written explanation of
what they did and why they did it and that we might get a copy which we still have not had
uh i can if i'm mr shirmer to answer your question once all of the folks that i've
mentioned the attorneys and mr reuter is also an attorney obviously uh have your opportunity i will
then ask the audience for people who are in the audience on this case to raise their hand and
be able to get a general idea of the number of people who would like to be heard okay excuse me
chair if i can just also mention that this is an appeal against lni it's not a variance case
public comment is generally not accepted as well it's not relevant um this will involve the legal
issues understood uh we'll have to make that understood again i guess to the folks that are
out there, but I'll just, as Mr. Shermer asked, we'll just get a sense of how many people are
appearing today. Yep. Or and or against. Or against. I'm not going to bother sharing my
screen because I'm just going to talk and read off. The RCO is my co-appellant. They actually
did send out a note to all of their neighbors, which we can share with you. If anybody doubts
me, I'll send it over to you. But they had the largest no they've ever had of 91.8% of the
neighbors who are members. I don't want to get into the body of the case. We're just asking
to identify the purpose. I understand you're going to say this is unusual and that's one
of the reasons for the appeal, but if you can narrow it down to just the grounds for the appeal
and what it is that you're trying to get across to us. Not a problem. Along with the grounds of
appeal, one of the grounds for the reason requesting a continuance is that we
filed an appeal when there were three different versions of the same zoning
permit, ZP 2020-006800. After we filed the appeal, we found out there's a fourth
version of this permit floating around, which we did not know about until we
went back and looked through, so we'd like some time to actually figure out
what's the fourth version of this permit. And if I can share my screen for
one shot yeah as i said at the onset this case is going to be uh continued so and i would like to
object because we haven't seen any of the exhibits as filed as required by the board on friday
that's not what yeah my objection system we're not going to get into that part of it just
i don't know if i'm explaining myself correctly i i understand i'm just trying to figure out if i
can make this quicker and simpler but essentially there's a new code section which allows rsd3
to be effectively de facto rezoned to cmx3 which is way more dense than what anybody thought and
i'm just going to quote its committee on rules june 15 2021 which is that happened after that
happened after the actual permit was issued uh it correct but before a building permit was picked up
so there's a system you're agreeing then the objection is this thing okay okay bill 2020
bill 2100361 the planning commission agreed that objection that was after the actual issuance of
the permit i know but the point that we wanted to raise the same objection i know but i at least
get an offer i'm sorry what the objection i'm sorry to interrupt i'm sorry thank you chair
please try to stop i know mr mcclure you want to object and you have every right to
i would ask after the objection is made uh for mr shermer to wait and see what the board decides so
your objection again is sustained mr thank you okay okay do i get to make an offer of what was
there that you're not going to hear offer of proof anybody mr sherman just to clarify what you are
the um the change that you would like to discuss happened after the permit was issued or certainly
after the permit was applied for is that correct it happened after one of the permits was issued
the permit was reissued four different times and so i have no idea because we've never seen
because we've never seen any documentation which version of the permit was issued before or after
any documentation which version of the permit was issued before
this based on the numbering of the different permits it looks like a new permit was issued
after this case after this was actually gone through under pending ordinance that's one of
the reasons why we had to file this to find out so there's something sharon that we could wait and
i mean that could get worked out during the time i'll skip i'll skip i'll skip ahead i'll skip ahead
and certainly mr sharma we will ask um ellen i to provide you with all of that information
second hearing you'll get it all okay uh trying to keep that sorry i feel bad for the stenographer
but okay our appeal basically went through the exception to use tables which says that you can
get an exception which changes your use table from the RSD 3 over to CMX 3 as
long as you can show that you had a public civic or institutional use or
office use category that's section 7a 1a and 2a b in this particular case there
may have been a letter there apparently was a letter from the plan from the
chairman of the historical commission however the actual documentation which
The Board can take recognition of, which is a zoning plan for 2020-006-80000, was approved by Laura de Pasquale not until March 16th of 2021.
So we're not talking about something that was approved, finalized, and done back in October.
We're talking about newer information, which is why it's important to find out when did things change.
There is a letter apparently from the Historical Commission executive director
dated October 9, 2020, but in the meantime the law seems to have changed. More
importantly the actual permit that was issued includes a note that you
actually have to begin construction or you have to begin the use within six
months. This property and project was not begun within six months because under
the definitions, the footprint of the property was not changed, therefore this
is outside the definition of development. This is simply ripping the inside out of
a historic house and then hoping you find something else to do with it. Since
the footprint of the property didn't change, there's a six-month time frame,
it's not the full three years. And then finally, for this particular property, as
my opponent has duly noted back in 1955 this case a case about this property
surprise surprise went all the way up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which
held that yes this little lady can actually have a home occupation in this
property because she is basically working as a dormitory. The problem here
is that in order to actually provide the regulation and to make the changes that
the Historical Commission and that L&I did, they need to show that there was
actually some kind of approved institutional use, public use, or an
approved office use. When you go through the Zoning Archive, which the Zoning
Board can take notice of, which I request now, that there is no permit
for the National Catholic Bioethics Institute in the Zoning Permit Archive
documents, and there is no actual permit for the use as a boarding school in
here because this was done through a court order, and according to the
regular rules of Philadelphia, when something's approved by a court that is
not a normal standard use that you can then go back in and change without
actually going back to court. And finally, we have the issue of notice that there
was no notice posted the first time that we heard about it we filed an appeal
within 30 days of it and we have found that this is an issue that is problematic
because if you expand the definition of school to include also boarding house
and we teach people we teach you know handicapped kids life skills then you
also can expand that into well this is a rehab facility and we teach people
living skills. So we are concerned about the idea of taking what's supposed to be a little loophole
to help historic buildings and turn it into a giant loophole, which allows pretty much every
building which is in the RSD zoning classification or residential zoning classification to suddenly
be expanded to CMX3, which has unlimited density, which is clearly not what was intended and has
and has since been fixed through city council.
been fixed through City Council.
I think I'm still on time or close.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think that we were going to hear from you.
The reporter next.
Thank you, everyone.
I'm here on behalf of the Overbrook Farms Club
to ask that this zoning permit be denied.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, you're muted.
Just identify yourself for the purpose of the reporter.
Thank you very much.
Connor Corcoran, C-O-R-C-O-R-A-N,
on behalf of Overbrook Farms Club,
we are here to ask that the zoning permit be denied.
The reason for that is that the current proposed use,
as articulated in the permitted issue,
is to build 19 apartment units within one of the grandest and most important mansions in
Philadelphia's history. It's approximately a 12,000 square foot property that they'd like to cut up
into 19 units inside an RSD3 district, which explicitly forbids multi-unit dwelling. Despite
Despite that general prohibition, it appears that L and I had allowed an exemption under
14-602 subsection 7.
The basis of our appeal, however, is that L and I allowed that permit, despite the fact
that the current use, the proposed use, and the former use of this property does not meet
the requirements for the historical exemption in 14602 subsection 7. And I'll tell you why.
The applicant claims that the property was used as a school for handicapped kids. And of course,
we can't deny that. And in that regard, the applicant relies upon the Supreme Court decision
from 1955, which allowed a zoning variance for the school to be there. Subsequent to that opinion
from 1955. Philadelphia City Council passed the current city code to prohibit those kinds of
schools from then existing in this RSD3 district. And today, as we sit here, neither the Bioethics
Center nor CORE are able to demonstrate how they satisfy any of those exceptions, as I put forth
in the brief before the board today. The proposed use of 19 apartments doesn't qualify
as an office either. And those two grounds are the main faulty grounds upon which the applicant's
permit rests, that it should be a school or it could be used as an office. And neither of those
uses are permitted underneath the code as it sits today, nor have they presented any evidence to
indicate that they satisfy the uses that would allow them to get that historic exception.
The other grounds for the appeal or for our appeal here rest upon this notion that the applicant has some kind of by right issue and it can just march in here and tell the board and the neighborhood that they can switch this to a multi-unit dwelling.
That's absolutely not true.
According to the specific language of the statute at issue, it says that at the discretion of the applicant, it may apply for this historical exception.
But it doesn't mean it's guaranteed. It doesn't say it shall get it.
And Mr. McCaw's brief, which was dropped on us on Friday afternoon, after this appeal has been sitting here for five months,
somehow wants to convince the board that it's a by-right designation, and it simply is not.
I'd especially like the board to recognize that argument in our brief.
I otherwise join Mr. Shermer's arguments with regard to the failure to get a certificate of occupancy within six months, as well as the late posting, which didn't happen, I believe, until April 13th of 2021.
And finally, City Council has acted once again.
On July 1st, 2021, Mayor Kenney signed a bill that created...
objection that bill happened that happened after that sustained thank you very much it happened
after you can't reach back thank you thank you very much uh please note my objection to that
uh and i do have the president of the organization thaddeus squire here if you need me to bring him
on the call to uh attest to everything that i just did as well i'm going to hold on i apologize if i
I missed this, but could you just briefly explain the circumstances that give your client standing?
The president of the Overbrook Farms Club is Thaddeus Squire, and I believe that he is
here on the call. The Overbrook Farms Club is the registered community organization.
here on the call. Overbrook Farms Club is the registered community organization for the district
addition. If it may be helpful to Ms. Saleta and the chair, at least for purposes of the property
and we stipulate to Stanley. Thank you. Thank you. City also is not challenging standing or
the timeliness of the appeal. I'm sorry, Chair. I hate to interrupt, but because there's so many
different attorneys could we just please remember to state your name for the record um i apologize
leonard reuter for the city the city does not object uh to the standing of the appellants nor
the timeliness of the appeal as did mr mcclure thank you um mr kokorin you have you uh finished
with your testimony i have sir thank you very much thank you um we will now go to to mr mcclure
and then Mr. Reuter
and I'm not sure, Mr. McClure,
if Mr. Farris is textifying as well.
Mr. Farris is with me.
I know he's with you,
but I don't know if he...
So we'll begin with you
and then you decide.
Just one of us in Ballard's Park.
Mr. Reuter, do you want to go first
or I can go?
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter to me.
If you have the floor, go ahead.
Why don't I give some background
and then you can get into the technical stuff.
Our client is...
Matthew McClure is speaking.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Our client is National Catholic Bioethics Center, as well as Core Development LLC.
The center has been the owner of the property since about 2004.
And Core Development is the equitable owner of the property since September 2, 2020.
The property, again, is 6399 Drexel Road, which is a 20,000-square-foot facility.
It was originally a mansion, but it's more than that now based upon its prior institutional use.
The zoning permit that was appealed is ZP2020-006800, which is an amended permit.
and the way l and i treats things is they keep the same a permit number and as you change things you
can actually amend the permit and it was last amended on march 18 2021 which i believe is that
is the appeal permit um the project that our client was engaged in at least core was the
historic real rehabilitation of this former complex the this mansion it was originally a mansion of um
um of the founder of something's echoing in the background i don't know if someone's
has can you hear the echo i'm sorry we hear no we hear i hear you fine i don't know about anyone
else okay now the echo is gone okay um there was a reverberation i apologize um it was originally
the uh former mansion of the luden's call cough drops uh founder and then later on was albert m
greenfield all of us in philadelphia know later on it when became a school as stated in the walker
case which we cited in our brief um and the court was absolutely emphatic this was a k through 8
school i mean k through 12 school where kids went on to college some resided there and some didn't
reside there and that whole issue was discussed at length in the court and the court was emphatic
and really wrapped the Overbrook Farms Club
on the snout, so to speak, back in 1955.
And the Chief Justice wrote,
it is a school the same as any other private school
except that its students are physically handicapped.
So it was a school as ordered by the Supreme Court
as confirmed by Dr. Farnham's letter,
which is in the record as well.
So the project is to do an adaptive reuse
of this phenomenal building, a 20,000-square-foot building, not a normal home, and that involves
approvals for the National Park Service for historic tax credits and the like, but it requires
a tremendous amount of work. So City Council enacted an ordinance in 2019, which actually
is the same year that actually the building became on the register, the Philadelphia Historic
Register, that says, okay, if you have a large property, and it used to be used for something
other than residential and you meet these identified criteria and the
historical commission confirms that objection it's not just residential you
have to be a certain section we can get into that confirms it confirms that the
building is on the Philadelphia register and confirms it had a prior one a prior
use one of which would be in the public civic and institutional use category
here's a school you can use cmx3 uses that is the law the city council enacted
in 2019 and that was objection it's a private school that not
and that was objection it's a private school that not public the code does not make a decision
please don't interrupt me overruled thank you mr chairman mr mccarr if he's going to issue as many
objections as he has mr sherman certainly should be afforded the same without a request to not
be interrupted that's ridiculous mr chairman may i go on yeah please proceed well sure
Sure. So the ordinance itself was recommended originally from the Zoning Code Commission.
Not the Zoning Code Commission, sorry, the Historic Preservation Task Force, of which, by the way, I was the chairman of the Regulatory Committee of the Mayor's Historic Preservation Task Force.
And the purpose of the ordinance was to create an incentive to take these large buildings that are on the historic register and give them a chance of adaptive reuse.
adaptive reusing a 20 000 square foot building is quite a feat especially of historic nature
and give it a market way so the market can have something come in there to adapt to reuse the
building and that was the that was the law that was enacted in uh 2019 um going on to the arguments
that are made by uh the appellants if you look at our letter brief that we submitted on friday
our september 17 2021 letter brief it's about six pages but it goes through each and every one of
the arguments uh that uh that that are made by both appellants which are voluminous uh but we
believe them all the all the arguments are without merit and we ask that you you look at them but
just go through to summarize very quickly uh one the property was used as as a school and that is
clear it was used for 50 years as confirmed in the walker case and as confirmed in dr farnham's
letter of october 9th that is in the record um that would also it was um it was mr shirmer's
clients we know do not confirm actually the prior use of school in his papers he may have changed
his mind today but mr shirmer and his papers did not confirm the use as being qualifying under the
uh under the ordinance in his papers as ms selettin knows very well the failure to post a
permit within five days of issuance does not invalidate the permit the only thing it does
is delay the delay the actual appeal period uh it tells the period appeal period uh when it's
objection they're not contesting the time of the permit move along
to object and move along okay they did anyway the relevant section is stated in our brief
section 14 303 15 a.3 on that issue uh as whether or not the prior office for the center was legal
or not is totally irrelevant we're i mean obviously we're not relying upon that we're
relying upon the fact that it was used for school for 50 years as documented by the pennsylvania
the supreme court in a decision that is binding upon the overbook farms club on this specific
property it's egregious that they are just objection that's way before any of this happened
if we can't talk about what happened three years ago we can't talk about 30 years ago and i have
to object mr shermer the ordinance asks you to look back at prior uses that's the whole purpose
of the ordinance prior permitted uses a use which is a use which is allowed by a court is not a
permitted use you know that mr sherman move along or you want to move along mr sherman the statute
reads for itself and you were actually misrepresenting the statute okay mcclore you
have about another minute i'm i'm getting there fast okay uh the october 9th letter from uh dr
farnham was a ministerial act it was already do so as stated in our in our uh brief uh specifically
as well the zoning permit did not expire there is alteration work inside there there are uh code
bulletins as well to code language on that the permit lasts for three years as cited in our
brief moreover there's an appeal of the permit by operational law permit is told at that period as
well and that is clear and this board understands that issue when there's an appeal of a permit
You can't appeal the permit and say, oh, by the way, you didn't start work yet, so it's expired.
No, there's an appeal of a permit.
Objection.
The appeal of the permit started after their deadline ended.
The deadline is three years.
Three years, I should say.
Or six months.
That's what we're here to find out.
The issuance of the permit was in March.
Your filing of the appeal was the following month.
That's not the big part.
No, the posting of the permit is the time that the appeal starts.
You know that.
Mr. Schirmer, please stop.
thank you you started it shirmer uh we were we were actually moving along quite well i knew it
Thank you.
You started it.
Mr. Schirmer, we were out.
was too good to be true all right please okay and in contrary to mr corpin's arguments ellen i had
no discretion to not hence issue the permit it is the language is clear at the discretion of the
applicant that's that's that's our client they can decide whether or not they want to go under
the the the residential uses or whether they want to go under the cmx3 uses the ordinance is
absolutely clear um as for this argument that portions of the property aren't historic the
entire property as confirmed in dr farnham's letter is regulated by by the the historic
district as contributing in fact as significant which is a regulated resource the entire property
and moreover it is actually really absurd for this argument you made saying that the actual
nomination for the property designating the property entirely as significant was made by
the overbrook farms club so that's is really rich to actually make that i have to object mr chico
i did not in any of the briefing on behalf of overbrook farms club suggest that any portion
of the property was less than historic absolutely mr schermer sure as hell did so let's move on
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, Mr. McCoy, Mr. Shermer, hold on. Mr. McCoy, you did reference Mr. McCoy. The objection is sustained.
Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move on.
And the one of the last arguments they made in their papers is that the entire mansion is somehow not eligible for CMX3 uses because it wasn't deemed as contributing.
I put that point out. Again, the whole thing is pointed out as contributing in the district.
As for the garage, it is not excluded from CMX3 just because it's an accessory building.
That is clear.
It is part of the principle use.
The code is clear.
And as for this constitutional challenge that was put in Mr. Shermer's brief, we believe
that he's without standing to raise that because you can't argue there's an unconstitutional
delegation to the historical commission if you're not directly affected by it, i.e.
you have the property a property interest has been denied uh deny all the permits so we don't
believe that they have standing for that specific issue um however you already waive standing i
waive standing for your appeal not to raise that particular issue i have to raise that issue in
front of the zoning board are you objecting to that comment mr sherman yes objecting overruled
um excuse me mr mr sherman you you you're you may have been making some comments towards me
which is towards the board that we don't maybe care enough about what's being said here today
i can assure you even though i may overrule you it's not because of personal reasons oh no i i
understand the zoning i mr chair i am sorry the zoning board when you get faced with a constitutional
question the zoning board I know you guys have to process it you don't you aren't in charge of it
that's laid down in case law Len is sitting here nodding and understanding but yes I have to raise
it you guys can't deal with it but I have to raise it in front of the zoning board hearing even though
it doesn't get dealt with by you guys I'm not trying to be smart Alec I just have to make a
note and i know that you have to deny it so you can raise it but you can't decide how we're ruling
on it you can raise an objection we'll decide whether it's whether it's sustained or overruled
that's all i'm getting at i know so mr shirmer can i get one thing on the record can i'm not just you
but all of the attorneys would we all agree that the constitutional arguments that have been raised
well it might be necessary to raise them to preserve them for the record that they are not
within the board's jurisdiction to decide yes we agree thank you thank you mr mcclure if you could
summarize we'd be helpful we still have to get to mr reuter yeah mr chairman in summary
our client has invested about our client core has invested about 250 000 hours so far in this project
yeah I don't think that's relevant at the moment in our well let me just finish for purposes of
argument and we relied upon an ordinance those issues that was enacted by City Council and
signed by the mayor and the way it works is it says that if you apply with these issues you get
to use this property for MX for uses now mr. Sherman will say he doesn't like how it gets
the ordinance was applied. He may say that he thinks it was unfair how it was applied,
but is the letter of the law we applied with, Ellen, I agree with.
but it is the letter of the law we applied with ellen i agree with historical commission staff
member dr farnum agreed with we believe the issue the permit was issued correctly our client has
done nothing but complied with the law we would like to proceed it's a phenomenal project in
accordance with national park service standards and we believe the commission should deny both
these appeals they may be now they may be uh well-meaning when it comes to concerns of neighbors
in life the decline has applied with the complied with the law there's been no error by ellen i and
certainly no error by dr farnum thank you thank you mr reuter uh thank you uh chairman members
of the board leonard reuter for the city of philadelphia um we obviously agree with most of
what uh our colleague matt mcclure has said regarding uh the deficiencies in the appeals
that have been filed i just want to highlight a couple points first of all there's been the
suggestion that the prior use of the school was never permitted that it was simply due to court
order if given the opportunity if and when the opportunity arises the city would be prepared to
present evidence that in fact it was permitted in fact and that the zoning board of adjustment
itself ultimately approved the permit in response to the court's decision back in 1954 and we have
88 pages of zoning documents that demonstrate that it had in fact been a school so at least
that many and more with respect to the use as an office again I'm not sure that that's relevant
I do believe that there is also documentation of that, but certainly its prior use as a school is well documented and I think is really, at this point, really beyond any serious challenge.
The issue here is the ordinance in question prior to a post-appeal amendment to the ordinance, and it simply states that any property that is residential that had one of any number of prior uses gets the benefit of CMX3 uses.
And it doesn't matter whether that prior use was last year or 20 years ago, as long as that's confirmed. And it is confirmed by the Historical Commission. It is a ministerial act for the commission to make that determination. It's simply a review of records.
And so we would we would suggest that the appellant's suggestion that that kind of decision has to be made by the full commission isn't really supported.
There's any number of things that have to be decided by various agencies that happen to have boards that happen to meet as have public meetings.
But not every one of those decisions is required to be through a public meeting.
and in this case again it is simply a referral to the department of licenses and inspections
that's made by the historical commission staff in this case Dr. John Farnham so again there's
really no serious question here that the record shows that this was a school there's also no
And there's frankly no suggestion that the property is not historic.
And I'm glad to hear that Mr. Corcoran and the Old Book Farms agrees that the entire parcel is historic by definition.
That's how the Historical Commission designates things, at least since the 1984 ordinance went into effect.
So there's no, again, there's no dispute that the property is historic.
and while there may be non-historic fabric within the property or on the exterior of the property
that's something that would be an issue if and when a building permit is presented to the historical
commission for review which is also something else I want to point out there's a lot that's in
at least Mr. Shermer's appeal that appears to address building permit building permits and the
The first is a building permit, a minor building permit that was issued by L&I for interior demolitions.
Again, interior work as a rule is permitted by the Historical Commission and it's reviewed at staff level because the staff merely makes a determination of whether or not any exterior portion of the property is being affected.
So an interior permit involving the interior of a building where that interior itself has not been designated as a public interior, that's just routinely approved.
Again, I know we're getting ahead of things.
We'll be happy to present the evidence that backs up those assertions if and when the time arises.
those assertions if and when the time arises. So, you know, so much of this has to do with
stuff that hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that the Historical Commission staff, that Dr. Farnham
confirmed that the property is in fact designated as historic, as Mr. McClure points out, it is
listed as significant uh to to the uh overbrook farms historic district uh and that the property
had previously been a school uh again these are just ministerial acts that are performed by by
the commission but the mere fact that they've simply confirmed that for purposes of l and i
uh processing the permit uh as their uh want to do under the ordinance in no way obligates the
Commission itself to approve any of the alterations that are that are proposed
by the applicant so I just want to make it clear that the the changes that the
some of the alterations to the exterior the property that are outlined in the
zoning permit the mere fact that the Historical Commission confirmed that the
building was historic and had been a school in no way shape or form means to
the Historical Commission is necessarily going to approve those alterations they
might if they determine that it meets the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of
the Interior, but they're not obligated to do that. So that's really not even an issue
that's before the board here. There were no issues that were raised in the appeals that
we've been able to discern where there are any other bases for claiming that this permit
should not have been issued by right. There's nothing about improper setbacks or this, that,
or the height's not right or that any of those things it's an existing building that's proposed
to be altered uh and for a change of use so again the only issue that has been raised in the notices
of appeal before this board have to do with the historical commission's uh actions with respect
to simply confirming that this had been a school and that it was historic uh that it is in fact
historic so well not quite but again this is what this my understanding is that this is really by
way of opening argument and you know again we're not presenting evidence and we're happy to provide
uh either direct or more likely on rebuttal uh you know whatever evidence we need to to
back up these assertions but the ordinance speaks for itself if city council and i just
want to address a couple of legal arguments briefly um i think the claim is that city council
illegally or improperly gave the historical commission the authority to
grant a de facto variance. So in the first place, that's basically a validity challenge. And I think
council, all council here would agree that like a constitutional challenge, this board doesn't
have the authority to make a decision about whether an ordinance is valid. You are required
by the charter and by the zoning code to follow the zoning code as written. If Mr. Shermer or
mr corcoran want to make a you know want to preserve the validity challenge uh that's fine
and that would ultimately then be decided by a court if this matter is not you know resolved
amicably in some other way so that's just again something off the table i think they can preserve
those arguments if they want and then you know just you know hashtag move on uh but in terms of
the um the other issues having to do with like well city council can't give the historical
commission the authority to do that um you know it is actually in the zoning code that city council
did it they passed an ordinance signed by the mayor that gave the historical commission this
authority it's not giving the commission the authority to grant variances it's simply saying
once the commission approves or once the commission confirms the prior use of the
property and the fact that it's designated it is a buy right use uh for that for the applicant or
for the property owner they have a buy right cmx3 use so that's not giving the commission the
authority to grant variances and frankly i would suggest even if city council had said the
historical commission could grant a variance i don't see that there's anything that says the
city council can't i mean if the historical commission just took it upon themselves to do
that that'd be one thing but uh there's really nothing that says this the that the city council
has no authority to tell uh to say that the historical commission can decide can make a
determination about whether a building's historic and had been a school and therefore that gives
that property owner the right to make use of cmx3 uses so again i'm not really again that goes to
the validity challenge but i'm just not sure i follow that argument but clearly that being
leaving that aside there's really nothing here that even suggests nothing in the ordinance
that suggests that the cmx that the what city council did was to give the
that suggests that the cmx that the what city council did was to give the historical commission
any authority to grant variances that's not what's happening here um it literally they could have
left the historical commission out of it entirely and just said if the department of l and i makes
a decision determination that the property had been used as a school uh then they get cmx three
uses i mean it you know i again i'm not so that that's that's kind of you know again goes to the
validity challenge but you know that seems to be the crux of the whole appeal here is a legal
argument i you know i i and i think even the argument that has been raised that this isn't
really a school because it wasn't a permitted school aside from the fact that i think factually
that's demonstrably not true uh that is also a legal argument ultimately uh even you know whether
or not the court had the authority to make something a legal
use, whether that becomes a legal use. Again, I'm not sure I'm really
quite grasping that whole argument or train of thought, but anyway, it
sounds like a legal argument for the most part. So in conclusion
with my remarks here, I just want to say that
just to make it clear to everybody that's here that
again, all the historical commission staff
did that John Farnham did is simply confirmed that this was a school and
that it is in fact designated and the the Picayune issue of whether or not it
was permitted as a school that is whether they actually had a zoning
permit in their hand that said yep you're a school
see the council's description of the legal argument is Picayune the letter of
the code is what provides here well again we are more than prepared to present uh you know
documentation that in fact they did have a permit so going back to 1954 so that's you know uh and
we'd be happy to present that in rebuttal i do want to remind the board and everybody here that
this is an appeal against lni and therefore the obligation is on the appellants to to move forward
with their case, meaning that they go first and they bear the burden of going forward and they
bear the burden of proof in terms of proving that there was no zoning permit or proving that it
wasn't a school or proving that it isn't or that parts of the property are not historic. So, you
know, the city's entire response to the appeal is essentially a rebuttal argument. That being said,
we will provide uh whatever documentation we have to uh council prior to the next hearing
i don't have a problem with that i should point out leslie that all of the zoning documents i'm
referring to are in fact publicly available through the city's zoning archive so and as far
as i know they have been for quite some time at least since i think 2008. excuse me mr reuter would
you also be willing to um have the zoning examiner appear at the next hearing uh i i would but again
i think again typically i think the zoning examiner would be here to testify yes i received this
information and yes i approved the issuance of the permit in this case dr farnham wrote uh the
letter uh going over the history of the property and confirming the use and everything uh
to Sarah Adama, who is currently on maternity leave. I'm not sure when she gets back,
but I can certainly see if there's somebody here. And actually, you know, again, if we need to
present rebuttal evidence, you know, we may bring somebody in just to verify and to certify the
documents that are in the zoning archive. So, yes, I'll see what I can do about that.
If I can chime in, the documents weren't stamped by Mr. Farnham, they were stamped by Laura D. Pasquale.
Mr. Chairman, may I just add one point just to add?
Before you go, before I answer that, Mr. Shermer?
Sorry.
I'm happy to ask Laura to come as well. I'm sure she'll be happy to.
The stamps on the plans did not come from Mr. Farnham.
they came from the a different person at the historical commission so it's probably better
to have the person actually hit the stamp than the person who signed the paperwork
that makes that much of a difference for you we'll we'll ask that that person up here
if that is that important mr mcclure yeah i'm going to wrap this up yeah i just want to add
one point that mr roger's remarks is that one if you look at the code the code there's nothing
there that says you have to find a use that has a permit for it it just has to be a documented
prior use and and why is that and why did the court why did city council say look to the historical
commission it's because there were uses that existed before permits so if the play if the
So if the building was used as a school in the 1870s, before there were zoning permits, before there was zoning, it still has a documented history of being used as a school.
building was used as a school in the 1870s.
So that's the logic of the use.
The ordinance doesn't ask for when there was a permit or not.
It just is a documented history of the property.
Did it fit in one of these use categories?
And it did.
That's it.
Thank you.
um i didn't think i cut anyone off did i by any chance but i do have i do have a point of order
uh should uh myself mr shirmer and mr mccore uh wave in our the testimony of our respective
clients for the purposes of today so that we can pick up cleanly whenever the next hearing is
i object because i wouldn't know what the testimony of the clients are because this is a
permit appeal and opinions as to whether this is a good project or not a good
project have no relevance to that. My client's not testifying to that. My
clients just have to find everything I said. You can do that but again I was
just actually going to remind council especially the appellants we do respect
the fact that the public wants to engage and they people who live in that
area have a strong opinion about this case. I need you to remind them as best
you can that this is an appeal against l and i it is not a typical variance case we run into this
often when they're filed when there are cases that are uh against l and i the issuance of permits by
l and i that would be very helpful uh if you can uh relay that message to your constituents thank
you very much and mr chairman although not relevant i would just assure the board that our clients
did meet with the community and had to public meeting understood understood but again it is
hard it's for some people even me for a while to distinguish between a variance and an appeal
against lni so that if you can make that clear then it will be helpful i believe earlier mr
sherman had asked if we can get a sense of how many people are out in the audience uh so with
that without any objection i will ask all those who are out in zoom land if you will who are here
today on behalf of this case to please raise your hand all others lower your hand and we'll try to
get a head count yvette if you can give us some sense of that that would be helpful so if you're
here for this particular case please raise your hand all other cases lower your hand at this time
Mr. Shermer and Mr. Nathan Farris have their hands raised, obviously they're not neighbors.
We're not going to get an exact count, but we'll get an approximate count.
I'm just saying it's at least about 17 to 20 people chair okay thank you so
gentlemen mr. Shermer you got about 20 people out there who appear today we
apologize to those folks I we know you've been on the call for a long time
whenever we're going to get past this case today because we have other cases
yet to be heard uh we will have a date specific i will say for the record uh we will do a resumption
hearing on tanya you have a date and time no you're breaking up at the end of the tanya how about now
November 2nd
at the end of the 930 session
November 2nd
that's election day if anybody's concerned
Mr. DiCicco you of all people
should understand the importance of that day
I don't know with election day
I do have a problem because I'm running
alright Ms. Sunkett
tanya is there another date we can do because i knew that was going to be a problem november 2nd
um i have you have to give me a minute and i can check
and while she's checking can i also ask that any um any requests for subpoenas or any documents
that you were requesting from another party if you copy me on those requests please thank you
and that anything you submit, you submit to all parties.
and that anything you submit you submit to all parties
can we get a cc from everybody to everybody list to make it easier
pretty much i will send you one mr shermer yeah um leonard reuter for the city i would also suggest
uh if there's going to be things like subpoenas uh and whatnot that that there'd be a sort of a
deadline for making those requests say you know at least a couple weeks before uh the next uh
whenever the listing is going to be I mean I'm exploring early retirement
options right now so I don't even know you and me both and I would point out on
the issue of subpoenas obviously as mr. Reuter has stated and as you as the
board members can tell and Ms. Selenna can tell almost all the issues if not all
the issues in the talent papers are legal I understand mr. McClure and the
board but of course make the call on whether the requested witnesses are relevant and agreed and
most of the facts are back in 1955 so they're no longer around or they're down in florida
enjoying the sun just uh so everyone knows the 3 30 list we will get to that list as soon as we
get a date uh for the rehearing on this particular case november 17th at the end of the 3 30 session
Okay, MI 2021-002254, 6399 Drexel Avenue, and MI 2021-003420, 6399 Drexel Avenue.
This is a resumption hearing, will be held on November the 17th at 3.30, or is that
what you said, Tanya?
Yes, Chair.
3.30 p.m.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, again, I implore the appellants attorneys to advise your clients that this is not a variance case. That would be helpful.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Thank you, Chairman.
Be safe.
Thank you.
We're going to go to the 3.30 list.
I guess I'll need to read the opening remarks again.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our board secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza, and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator Yvette Benton and our board attorney, Sharon Saleta, are also in attendance, as is our zoning board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
First, we will be administering oaths to participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and that the recording will be made available to the public, on the web, or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue. I will repeat that as well. To enter an appearance
statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at
issue and i would ask everyone to please do not attempt to testify in the chat any comments or
concerns or questions should be directed to the board administrator ms yvette benton with that
I will now ask if there are any requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 330 list.
Any requests for continuances or withdrawal on the 330 list?
Please raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Would anyone like to request a continuance or withdrawal at this time?
If you would like to request a continuance or withdrawal on the 330 list, please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Sharon.
I had a feeling we would not.
MI 2021-001912, 1510 Montrose Street.
Matt Monroe is the attorney of record.
South of South Neighbors supports this application.
Mr. Monroe is coming back in as a panelist here.
Mr. Monroe is coming back in as a panelist here.
Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Monroe, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Hey, good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco, members of the board.
Let me just, if I may, just share my screen.
Spell your full name, please. Spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
Sure. Monroe, M-O-N-R-O-E, first name Matt, M-A-T-T,
2030 Pemberton Street,
19146. You swear to firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. Mr. Plaza has questions for you. Okay.
Good afternoon, sir. You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Good afternoon, Mr. Plaza. I do. Actually, we can't stipulate to the accuracy.
There was a refusal that we expected to get in the refusal that was not there for open area.
But other than that, we agreed to waive the reading of the refusal.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, photos, and plans five days prior to this hearing?
We have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We have, and we have a letter of support.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
All right.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco, members of the board.
I'm pleased to be here, and just as an initial matter, I don't plan on making any constitutional challenges in this case today.
I'm simply just going to be presenting our project for 1510 Montrose Street.
Let me just see.
We've submitted in our application packet the standard stuff, a deed, a copy of the refusal at tab two.
I just want to note that the copy of the refusal does include a letter.
to the plans examiner from January 11th, 2021,
where the architect indicated
that they anticipated receiving a open area refusal
because 21.7% was proposed
in the RSA 5 code, calls for 25%.
This was just simply,
we were trying to not hide the ball,
presented this to the RCO.
And even after submitting this letter,
uh the the refusal and came back with a single refusal for uh the eight foot setback uh my
clients are building a third story uh with roof deck and uh on their graduated hospital home for
their growing family they have a um a small lot uh like many of these lots it is about 51 percent of
the 1440 square foot minimum lot size required under the philadelphia code um they're simply
building up and uh their immediate next door neighbor uh uh who i believe is known to the
board uh former city council employee and political gadfly lauren vitus uh is their immediate next
door neighbor and came out and supported this project the neighborhood supports the project
and i know it's been a long day so we'll try to move through this quickly um uh we provided all
the proper notices uh had a nice meeting with sasna uh posted the property and um here i just
want to note here's a picture of a rendering uh the plan is uh it's designed by s2 design uh who
is an architect uh architectural firm that also uh lives on the same block it's 1510 mantra street
uh maintaining a mansard roof here uh and maintaining the existing cornice line uh which
means that they're not going up to the to the full height permitted under the code at 38 feet at the
roof. It's something less than that. And I won't squint too hard at these plans, but just just to
note that they're not pigging out here. And the plan is just to go up. And as you can see, they're
planning to cantilever the rear stair over the side yard and just go over the back. But
there's a number of homes on the block that already have three stories, as you can see in
this overview. So this isn't going to be changing the character of the neighborhood or the block.
For the single refusal that we've received for the mansard roof, there's going to be no material
impact light or air. The deck will be set back five feet from the front roof line according
to code. And so here we go. And as you can see, there's another home right here on the
corner of the block that has a similar design. And there's already existing three-story homes
on the block, a number of them. Just none of them next to TJ and Emily's home. This is TJ
Hearst and Emily Hearst at 15th and Montrose Street, and they have a new baby Poppy, who
And they have a new baby, Poppy, who is adorable.
is adorable.
And I think that she was watching this
And I think that she was watching.
and we were just singing,
Mamas don't let your baby grow up to be lawyers
as we were watching the zoning hearing.
But with that, knowing that a lot of these presentations
may just come from questions from the board,
we're happy to answer any questions that the board have.
And here we have the tax letter.
So we provided everything that we can
and hopefully we can just
Mr. Monroe, do you have a client to adopt your testimony?
We do.
And Emily and or TJ, if you could raise your virtual hand.
Mr. Hurst, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Hurst, please spell your full name and I'll swear you win.
Yes, Chairman DeChico.
It is Thomas J. Hurst, T-H-O-M-A-S-J, as in Jefferson, and Hurst, H-U-R-S-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Monroe?
All right.
Good afternoon, TJ.
How are you doing?
Doing well, doing well.
Got the full fan.
Did you hear the factual statements that I made on the record?
I did.
Were they accurate?
They were accurate.
And if you were testifying yourself, would you adopt them as your own?
I would adopt them as my own.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Does anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
uh this is uh run bednar city planning it's r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r you swear
if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth i do you're on the late shift
every day aren't you i noticed that the late show all right um this property is indicated for
residential on a city plan given the surrounding neighborhood context we recommend that requested
variance be granted. Thank you. MI 2021-001-912-1510 Montrose Street, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Next case, number two, MI 2021-001980, 164 Meehan Avenue. Stephanie Hyman, I believe, is the attorney of record.
Ms. Hyman's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Hi, Ms. Hyman, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Stephanie Hyman, S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E-H-E-I-M-A-N-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
area? Yes. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
This is a, appellants are seeking two variances, dimensional variances to make possible the
building of an ADA-accessible, single-story, single-family, detached residence.
And the proposal was met with 100% approval by the RCO East Mount Airy Neighbors.
The variance sought.
Ms. Hyman, do you have any exhibits you can share with us?
Yes, I do.
I hope that would be helpful.
Thank you.
can you see those yes okay uh yeah so these are our exhibits tax clearance a tax compliance summary
the deed the refusal application for the appeal the project information form a site photo with
the notice of the hearing today posted um the rco letter of support uh zoning plan summary and
um three elevations for the proposed um building a site plan and a four floor plan
This is the deed, the application for appeal, this is the site.
this is the site
um this is the email from the rco
conveying 100 support for the project
it's a kind of housing that's that's needed in the neighborhood
and the these are the elevations
slow down one minute go back to those elevations please
sure uh could you is there a way of making that screen wider
um that exhibit wider if not is that working well we still have on the left of our screen
uh a photo of the posting i'm trying to get oh okay
let me see if i can no worries if you can one second does did that change it
uh not no not really um let me see if i can share just this exhibit of the of the um
the elevations
we've lost uh we lost all this lost your screen pull it up a different way one second okay
if you can't get it that's fine that'll be all
Okay, is that better yeah a little bit I just wanted the our resident architect if he had any questions I always like for Tom to see the site plan.
it looks good to me frank okay all right we can move along miss uh okay so we're seeking um two
dimensional variances the first is for surface parking in a front side yard um the previous use
had parking in the front side yard um and and we plan to leave the parking in the same location
this is crucial for the ada accessibility and um ada housing has to have parking on the property
close to the front door and this is the front door with the ramp leading up to the the door
the parking space would have access to this ramp and be partially covered by a roof overhang and
this this received unanimous approval by the neighbors the other variants that that we need
to prevent an undue hardship for for this ada building is a front setback there there was
The previous use had no setback, and the building proposal has a two-foot, 10-inch setback.
The interior square footage is at a premium in this ADA-accessible house to allow for sufficient space to maneuver a wheelchair, and the current design maximizes the existing footprint and provides some setback, and this was also unanimously approved by the neighbors and the RCO.
okay you can summarize that would be helpful okay so yeah so essentially we're seeking these
two variances for the parking and a setback um to allow for a ada accessible single family
detached resident residents to be um built on this site and um i can call mr phil pa to adopt
my testimony please do thank you um phil if you're on the line can you raise your hand
mr pa you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair good evening sir please identify yourself
spell your full name and i'll swear you in hello my name is philip pa uh philip with one l last
name pa p as in peter i e if you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you mr hyman okay mr pa did you um did you hear my my testimony i did and do you
adopt the statements that i've made as your own i do um do you have anything to add
uh one thing to add the whole reason that we need this variance is so that we can build our
new structure on the existing foundation which is there right now that's the genesis of this
whole thing and that's the only thing i have to add thank you any questions from the board
no mr chairman no one else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Mr. Richardson, you can...
Good evening, Mr. Richardson.
Identify yourself.
You're still under oath from earlier today.
Good evening, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 312 City Hall.
uh just calling in to let you know that the councilwoman has no objections to granting
this variance these variances thank you anyone else
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
ron bednar city planning property is indicated for residential on the city plan given the
physical certain conditions of the property we recommend requests for variance be granted
thank you mi 2021-001-980-164 me and avenue my vote is yes
confessor plaza my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
Thank you. Number three on our list, MI 2021-001953, 1726 Seibert, S-E-Y-B-E-R-T, P-E-R-T Street.
And Chair, we do have those exhibits.
We have the exhibits, okay.
Whoever's testifying, please raise your hand and identify yourself.
chair we have someone by the name of anastasia briscoe
miss briscoe you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
anastasia briscoe please spell your full name good evening my name is anastasia briscoe a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-a
b-r-i-s-c-o-e you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Are you an attorney or the owner of the property?
I'm the owner of the property. So you're representing yourself, correct? Yes, sir.
All right. Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Yes. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing? Yes, sir. Okay. And have you met with the RCO
and have a letter. Yes, sir. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay.
I'm not sure how to share my screen. If you have any documents you can share with us,
that would be helpful. I do. I'm not sure how to share my screen with you guys.
So, Ms. Briscoe, do you have a computer, laptop, or?
Yes, I'm on a laptop, ma'am.
Laptop.
So, if you're looking in your Zoom.
She's coming in now as a panelist.
Do you see a green button at the bottom?
i'm i'm back in all righty sorry about that inconvenience um so at the bottom of your
screen do you see the uh green share button yes ma'am okay so if you have your documents already
open on your laptop then when you hit the green share button then you there they go they coming
up right now let's see what we got thank you now let me see is this your file okay there they go
thank you miss briscoe thank you we're good to go thank you please proceed yes this is the property
located at 1726 cyber street the property was refused because the rear yard depth exceeded
the allotted amount by one foot so what we're asking here is for the legalization of an addition
on the rear of the existing structure the property was purchased by myself and my husband in july of
2018 the structure was already existing there so we're asking that the structure that's currently
there be allowed to stay there um even though it uh it violates the uh the code section 14701-1
number 10 basically asking asking the board to legalize an existing condition correct correct
sir all right you just quickly can go through some of your exhibits they
if you have any site plans that would be helpful and we can move on from there
My application for appeal was submitted.
my application for appeal was submitted
I also have here, the tax clearance was complete.
This is the site plan that we have.
This is the property.
And you can see that the, the, the, any way you can enlarge that, yes, sir.
Very good.
thank you are there any questions on this uh any questions from the board no mr chairman no no
okay i think we i think we're in good shape here um i also received a support letter from the
community from the uh i have from map holistic cdc which was my coordinating uh rco okay and i also
received support from the friends at 47th ward uh headed up by uh miss bundy and my map cdc rco was
mr lewis nash this is the letter that i received from them um miss mary jones um from councilman
clark's office she uh took note of who was who was in support of our um our appeal and there
was no opposition she has those exact numbers for reference i also have a letter from map holistic
cdc in support of the uh keeping the uh existing structure in the rear
okay thank you very well done uh any questions from the board no mr chairman no no anyone else
would like to testify in this case please raise your hand there are no hands at this time chair
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Yes, this is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Given the physical circumstances of the site, we recommend the request of Vanceby Land.
Thank you. MI 2021-001953.
1726 Cybert Street. My vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes thank you very much you go to case number four MI
2021-001-955-1946 South Redfield R-E-D-F-I-E-L-D Street Zen Jin is the attorney of record
the 40th Ward RCO
sent a letter of non-opposition
sorry I don't know was Jim
trying to say something
good evening
yes I'm sorry chair this is Tanya the administrator
Mr. Snell can you go out and come
back in we're getting that warble sound from
you again
can you hear me now Tanya
now we can
yes okay i switched over okay yeah yeah my vote was yes on that last year thank you mr jen please
identify yourself and i'll swear you in yes zen jen z-h-e-n-j-i-n uh 1617 john f kennedy boulevard
suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the applicant you swear if i'm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr plaza has some questions for you
Mr. Jinn, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have met with the RCO and we have a letter.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case.
We have submitted previously to the board the refusal RCO letter, evidence of prior RM1 status, photos, plans, and related documentation.
I want to point out that this refusal, which is now before you, is because the property is essentially an existing two-family dwelling that has now fallen under the RSA 5 zoning.
My client purchased the property at the end of last year in December of 2020.
At the time when it was purchased, the MOS listing has it.
At the time, when it was purchased, the MOS listing has it listed as RM1 zoning designation,
and the property was sold essentially as is to him.
Knowing the current real estate market, people are picking up properties as is,
because if you don't, someone else will probably pick it up before you will.
What had happened is that once they went to go for rental licenses,
it came up that it is RSA 5 zoning.
So my client went and appealed and applied for the case that is before the board today.
The RCO is in support of, they are not in opposition of this application, partly because
this block is, for the most part, multifamily and was, in fact, RM1.
And Mr. Craig Melodosian, who has the RCO that is coordinating, recalls that a lot of
the property here, in fact, are multifamily. And as a result, when we went before the community,
we had non-opposition from the community and the neighbors. So the property, just to quickly show
the board, is very straightforward. First floor is one unit. Second floor is one unit. There's
no basement living. That is for basically utilities, and it's just a basement space that
is unfurnished. And the property has been used this way in the past. My client has renovated
the exterior and updated that. The interior has already been renovated before and was, in fact,
used as a duplex. As you can see, the basement is unfurnished and not used for any living spaces.
So given the prior non-conforming condition of the property, we would ask the board's favorable
review of this application i'll be happy to answer any questions or show any additional exhibits to
the board and would you have a client to adopt your testimony uh yes i believe mr edward pronay
the manager for the property owner should be here with us
mr pronay can you raise your uh hand on the zoom so you can be identified
mr pronay you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr pronay yes please spell your full name uh my name is edward pronay e-d-u-a-r-d-b-r-o-n-a-y
and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr jim thank you mr pronay uh did you hear my and see my presentation to the
zoning board? Yes. Can you verify that what I represented to the board is true and correct
and that you would adopt it as your own testimony? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions
from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, no, no. Anyone else to testify in this case, please raise your
hand. Mr. Melodosian, not out there. I see no hands, Chair. Okay, thank you. Planning Commission?
Ron, Mr. Bednar, you're muted.
Hi, this is Paula from Flo Furns.
Sorry, I beat Ron to the punch, so I will let Ron do it now.
I'm sorry, he's back.
So the property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Our adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing residential single family zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request of parents not to be back.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, Chair.
Could I just please ask the gentleman to state his name and department?
Ron, you're muted again.
Ron, you're still there.
There you go.
Name is Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Thanks, Ron.
Thank you.
MI 2021-001-955-1946-South Redfield Street, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Harleman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Have a good evening.
chair you're muted
Chair, you're
uh mi 2020 does zero zero three three eight one two two one three west burke street
mr lambert is the attorney of record uh we understand this is the second listing
Mr. Lambert
There's no one here by that name, Chair
And there's no exhibit, so
MI2020-003381
2213 West
Burke Street, my vote is to
dismiss
Confessor Plaza, dismiss
James Snell, dismiss
Thomas Holloman, dismiss
Hugh, is there anyone who believes they have not
yet have an opportunity to be heard or your case was not called please raise your hand at this time
um chair i have a request i don't know whether you've seen it but i sent a request for
reconsideration it's just a couple of pages if there is any chance that you could vote it
today i'm just getting it now and there are no hands up chair
All right. MI 2020-000108, 5000 North 12th Street. My vote is yes to rehearing and reconsideration.
Professor Plaza, yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
James Snell yes to reconsideration and rehearing Thomas Holloman yes to reconsideration and
rehearing thank you thank you anyone who feels as though you have not had an opportunity to
be heard or your case was not called please raise your hand there are no hands at this
time chair makes me feel good thank you thank you again everyone as usual especially the
folks behind the scenes who help make this happen everyone stay safe and tanya we don't have a
tuesday hearing next week correct no chair we do not just see you next wednesday right yes
good night all and thank you all especially to our it personnel um dpz zoom bill thank you so
much as well you guys have a great day all the way to thank you take care we'll wait to thank
you later tonight so you know i was on yesterday in the background too so background okay have a
good weekend goodbye i gotta let others shine is their time to shine i hear you goodbye all right
have a good one