Thank you.
good morning should i see 38 attendees in the audience okay we're ready to go
yeah good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's meeting
with me is our vice chair ismail shaheed
present mr chairman our board member james snell present mr chairman our board member
rachel l gaston present mr chairman our board member tanetta graham and i am present our board
member michael johns president here mr chairman and our board member okay also present is our
attorney hillary emerson and our deputy director for planning and zoning kathleen grady here's our
virtual format. Be advised the planning, the proceedings are being recorded. With your
participation, you agree to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting kathleen.grady
at phila.gov. For a court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves
before testifying. If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand
and star six to unmute.
To enter or appear in a statement,
call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address
and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed
to Kathleen Grady, our deputy director.
Let's look at today's schedule.
Let's see here, number...
Number one, MI 2022-002-928-549-51-North 10th Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney, but also the RCO rep.
Please come on for this case.
Mr. Anastasio.
Vern Anastasio has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you state your name for the record, please, and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, sir.
It's Vern Anastasio, V-E-R-N, last name A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, on behalf of applicant, appellant,
Cherry Lee.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
This is the sixth listing.
I understand there's a request for a continuance.
Is that correct?
The letter came from the 14th Ward Registered Community Organization.
asking for one final continuance.
They had asked for a site visit.
We walked them through the property.
We've met with them separately on several occasions,
come up with a plan that they were willing to support.
But they did, in fact, ask us to return one last time.
All right. Is the RCO on the line?
yes we have um somebody by the name of philip murray murray here and they have allowed to speak
please unmute yourself philip good morning could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer.
Philip?
They seem to be experiencing technical difficulties with unmuting themselves.
All right.
Hold on.
Vern, have you sent the letter over to Hillary?
The RCO letter was emailed to all of us in mid-June, but then I did forward it again
to Ms. Dandy yesterday. All right. Thank you very much. All right. So MI 2022-002-928-549-51
North 10th Street. Cases continue. Mark must be heard. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Number three, MI2023-006-947-133 South 60th Street.
Number three.
Cases continued.
Number five, MI2024-001-175-1517 West Indiana Avenue.
Cases continued.
Number six, MI 2024-001-176-5101 Funston Street.
Cases continued.
Number eight, MI 2024-001-331-3144 Euclid Street.
Cases continued.
Number 17, MI 2024-001-331-3144 Euclid Street.
MI 2024-001-571-809-North 42nd Street, cases continued.
And number 18, MI 2024-001-591-803-North 42nd Street, cases continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Chair, we have Vern and Anastasio with their hand raised.
They have been allowed to speak.
Good morning again, Mr. Chair.
Just for the record, state your name.
You won't have been sworn.
Vern Anastasio on behalf of Rasa Holmes.
And I'm calling, I mean, Rosemont raised my hand because the board did continue 133 South
60th Street.
But for the benefit of the board's docket, I would prefer to just withdraw the case and
resubmit when ready.
What case is that, Vern?
133 South 60th.
That's number three, Mr. Chair.
Oh, okay.
You had already continued it.
All right, so you want to withdraw that?
Yes, sir.
So MI 2023-006-947-133 South 60th Street, case has been withdrawn.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuance?
Niama Thomas has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and the Board.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
My name is Yama Thomas.
My name is spelled N-Y-A-M-A-H.
Last name is T-H-O-M-A-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you requesting a continuance?
Yes, I am.
Okay, so this was your first listing and you need an attorney for the case, am I correct?
This is correct.
Okay, thank you. So MI 2024-001-329-2330 North Reece Street, case has been continued. Thank you for calling in.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Board. Have a good day.
Number 15, MI 2024, 001-514-2550 East Clearfield Street. No exhibits first listing. Samuel Yaron and Ashley Nevarez are the listed applicants.
Samuel Yaron and or Ashley Navarez, if you are in a virtual audience, please raise your virtual hand.
I see no hands.
Okay, so this is the first listing.
So MI 2024-001-514-2550 East Clearfield Street, cases continued, mark must be heard.
And then number 10, MI 2024, 001-378-1608 West Nidro Avenue, this case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-on cases.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, number nine on the list was no exhibits.
Did we call that case?
No, you know what? You're right. I'm sorry. MI 2024-001-335-4752-54 North 11th Street.
David Roa is the listed owner. Rayaz Al-Azbal is the listed applicant. No exhibits, first listing.
David Roa, if you're in a virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Or A.B. Reyes, if you're also in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
see anything i see no hands so mi 2024 001 335 47 52 to 54 north 11 street cases continued mark
I see anything?
I see no hands.
must be heard thank you hillary we're going to go to our add-ons um
let's see here okay mi2023 007202 5369 the 75 wing of hockin heights i vote i vote no
excuse me mr chair um can we read the letter from the planning commission record thank you
The Planning Commission has sent us a letter. Pursuant to Section 14-301-3C.2.C. of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, the City Planning Commission reviewed the variance requested at 5369-6575 Wing-Hawken Heights, heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 21, 2024.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single-family zoning at this location.
The proposed four units' land areas, consistent with the underlying zoning, which would allow the new land area to be subdivided by right if Wingahawken Heights were a legally open street.
The City Planning Commission therefore recommends that the Board grant the variance for the unit count as requested.
sincerely, Maritime DeCamp, AICP Executive Director. I vote no. Also voting is Ismael
Shaheed and James Snell. Ismael, could you please certify?
I certified, Ismael Shaheed certified that I have watched a video and my vote is yes.
James Snell my voters no
Hillary we'll have to get back to this right am I correct
yes because we because this was heard under the rules that need
three sure sure agreement yes okay thank you
excuse me I'm looking at the wrong case
my apologies I'm a no on this vote
all right thank you very much um no number two mi2023 002 921 2018 east ontario street
the vote in this matter has been rescheduled to the start of the 2 p.m list today and number three
mi2023 006 846 6922 east roosevelt boulevard
I vote no
James Snell my vote is no
Jim you're not a vote on this one
Oh is this one? Okay you're looking at the wrong one
Cheryl? Cheryl Gaston my vote is no
Tanetta
Tanetta
you're you're muted you're muted you're muted Tanetta
Tanetta Graham my vote is no thank you Tanetta
let's start want to go to number two first mi2023 006 568 216 south 52nd street roger
Roger Perry is the attorney.
There is a letter of support from the West Philadelphia Economic Development Council
with Provisives.
Yeah, good morning.
My name is Roger Perry.
I'm here representing Philaboo's LLC, the owner of the property, as well as a proposed restaurant operator.
Okay, Mr. Perry, could you please state your name again and spell for the stenographer?
I'm sorry.
Roger Perry, R-O-G-E-R, Perry, P-E-R-R-Y.
You swear, Fern, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Could you one more time state who your client is and the relationship to this property?
Yes, I represent Phyllabiz LLC, a limited liability company, which is the owner, and I'll share the documents. And I'm also here today, I believe, with the proposed restaurant operator and probably the architect, which is Group G.
restaurant operator and probably the architect, which is Group G.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Okay. Can I share the screen as well?
You can start sharing your screen.
Thank you.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have. This is a matter that is continued from April.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed if I were to share your screen.
Okay, thank you very much. As I indicated, I'm representing the owner of this property. You can
see the deed here, Philobivs LLC. That's one of my clients. This is a referral. As I note,
here's the refusal here. This is a request for a takeout restaurant only in the 52nd Street
corridor. And it's not a refusal, it's a referral. It's in a CMX 2.5
district and so forth. This is a request for a takeout by Hot Chicken Incorporated,
which is a franchise operation, and they do spice chicken and mix steak sandwiches and so forth
with related. We have met several times with the RCO. I'll deal with the big issue first.
The big issue, which the continuance was based on from April, was the fact that they wanted to
review the property in person and did, and were asking for a possible sit-in restaurant. We met
with them. We met with the architect a number of times. This property, as I'll show you, which
probably will be the best indication here okay here's the property 216 south 52nd street it's a
very small uh former uh property and so the posting well let's go down to the site and here
it is here apartment above and so forth and we indicated with uh much input from visiting in the
neighborhood and the architect that it was not feasible to completely reconstruct this property.
The idea is to utilize an existing kitchen and the space in this one narrow property.
And that's across the street. And put out takeout only and so forth. We talked to them. We indicated
that we would be glad to put in security cameras,
put in lighting here, put in a new tree in front,
the hours, and I don't have the letter,
so we can look at the provisos,
but we agreed to a 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. hours
of operation.
That would be seven days a week.
Let's see what else we got here and so forth.
In terms of the size of this property,
The takeout restaurant would be a benefit to this particular corridor here.
This is a corridor that's had a number of vacancies and so forth.
This would not be adverse to the commercial nature of the properties I showed there across the street.
That's a lot of commercial uses and so forth in this 52nd Street corridor that most of the boards are probably familiar with.
This would allow us to reconfigure the space and get the tenant in there.
Let's see what else.
And that's where we were and so forth.
I see that we're still waiting for a tax clearance.
There's a tax bill.
And I talked to the owner about this.
And he said, well, he was waiting for the RCO letter to see whether or not he could get a tenant in there so that he could pay the taxes.
And that's the only thing that I'm aware of that's pending. But I don't know if it's been paid yet, but they're on notice that that has to be paid either to get a vote or otherwise. But otherwise, we think that this particular use as a takeout restaurant would be beneficial to this particular corridor.
Mr. Perry, do you want to have your client come on and adopt your testimony?
Yeah, sure. Do we have either Nasir or Sabir in the audience?
Nasser or Sabir, please raise your virtual hand.
I see no hands. Mr. Perry, you're an officer of the court.
We'll accept your testimony. Questions from the board?
As you said, who weighed in from the community?
we have um west philadelphia economic development council and also the generalists of the philadelphia
The West Philadelphia Economic Development Council and also the generalists, the Philadelphia Cobbs Creek RCO, both.
They based their support on provisos that we're not sure the provisos are enforceable.
Right.
I'm waiting to see where I'm waiting on, Michael, is when I call for the board, call for the virtual audience, see who's in the audience.
OK, because it is actually for an eat in restaurant.
Correct.
they they want uh am i correct hillary um eight seats more seats than than would be a takeout
that's right exactly yes a takeout cannot have more than three seats or in the code language
fewer than four seats they're requesting at least eight seats which is a different use
i think i think the desire is to change the character of uh 52nd street to less take out
some more heat in.
All right.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Before you go,
I have a question.
Are there any pictures of the interior?
Is there enough space in here
for the eight
seats that are being
or one of the
requested provisives?
I'm not sure if Jerry Gutierrez
is in the audience, Group G.
Jerry is the architect that was working
with the owner and the
restaurateur
and we both did a site visit
and he visited a number of...
Is Jerry in the audience?
Jerry, if you're in the audience,
please raise your virtual hand.
I see no hands.
Are all the photos you have, Mr. Perry?
We don't have photos of the
interior, but you can see that this is...
So for a point of information,
this case is going to wind up being held anyway because of the tax issue.
And what we'll do is, hold on, and Cheryl, before we vote on it,
we'll make sure we have photos of the interior, okay?
All right, questions or comments from our attorney?
Yes, just to add on to what you were saying, Mr. Cherry,
we did request interior photos and a proof of tax compliance.
um mr perry we couldn't tell because they at least one of the photos that we get close enough
to see looked like it was a posting from the prior hearing in april we couldn't tell if there
was an updated posting photo um i'm sorry for today's hearing we did not get a request or a
so if we can get a poster from the board we'll go ahead and repost it get the photographs uh and
get the uh tax clearance uh to submit in conjunction with this hearing if that's agreed
so you did not get a posting for this hearing well we didn't get a request either
well you wouldn't have gotten a request you would have received a poster 30 days in advance from
the board to post at the property so we're actually so and if you didn't receive that
you should have requested it but if if it was not received then we're actually going to need to do
a resumption hearing um because we should not have heard this case today if it was not posted
for today's hearing right i just know just for the record that the request from april was by the rco
just to um do another review in terms of sit down but at the time of the hearing in april we didn't
get a request to repost. We normally get that. Okay, so Mr. Perry, Mr. Perry, so MI 2023-006-568-216-South
52nd Street, cases continued for a resumptive hearing. Okay, thank you very much. Okay? Yeah,
thank you. Thank you very much. All right, number four, MI 2024-001-066-1826 North Newkirk Street,
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
No RCO letter at this point.
Meeting was held July 15th before the Strawberry Mansion Community Concern.
Applicant also has a petition of support from six neighbors on the block.
One, the adjacent neighbor at 1824.
for. Mr. Anastasio. Good morning, Mr. Chair. You've already been sworn, sir. Just for the
record, state your name. Yeah, it's Vern Anastasio on behalf of Spencer Flood, the owner of the
subject property. Our vice chair has a few questions for you. Thank you. Good morning,
council do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case?
you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case
Bob is in advance of this hearing.
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, we have a 63-page exhibit binder for the legalization of a pre-existing
two-family dwelling at 1826 North Newkirk Street. It is prohibited in an RSA 5 district.
This is the subject property right here where my cursor is, a two-story.
We're looking to have a unit on the first floor, a unit on the second floor.
The basement is pure mechanicals.
First floor is a...
it's a one-bedroom unit these plans are mistagged but that's there's a bedroom
back here this is the living and kitchen area dining area and we have here one
bedroom with an optional study or bedroom it does have a closet the living
space and kitchen there the bath that is again mistagged side rendering this is the block itself
there are a few vacant properties on the block as well as some vacant lots
there's a school at the end of the block
This is the property exterior. Very well done. Here's the exterior. Here's the exterior with a wire that is referenced in the RCO letter of support. That wire has been removed and replaced with a light fixture, which was, in fact, sent to the RCO.
Just had the RCO.
Byron, do you have a copy of the letter?
uh she just she just sent it over yesterday okay because i don't i don't think we've seen
a letter if you get a chance could you put it up when you're done yeah
strawberry mansion community concern and there were a list of provisos as well
but here's the interior just want to get through that for you
and a bunch of photos
here's the exterior
HVAC units
exterior electric
here's the letter that went out
to all interested parties
here's the addresses
There is the poster and the proof of posting.
This is the deed.
Proof of tax clearance.
Signatures of immediate neighbors on the block.
i'm going to stop sharing and see if i can
pull up the hillary do you have the letter
yes we did receive it early this morning mr chair it was um give me one second it was in
um non-opposition they did ask for two provisos that were enforceable
One was no household living in the basement and interior trash storage.
And we agree to both of those, of course.
And with that, I'd like to call my client, Mr. Flood.
Mr. Flood, if you're in a virtual audience, please raise your hand.
I see no hands.
Mr. Anastasia, an officer of the court will accept your testimony.
I appreciate that.
Questions from the board.
Yes, I have a question, Chair.
You said this is a legalization.
What's the history or use of the property?
Like, was it a duplex?
It was a single family home.
Then it was vacant for quite a long time.
The person that sold the property to my client did divide the property into two units.
Sold the property to my client, did divide the property into two units.
He purchased it, believing that it was legalized, refurbished just some surface materials,
and then learned that he needed to get a use variance before he could lease it.
And how many other duplexes are in the surrounding block?
On that particular block, there are at least three other duplexes.
And then in addition, there are at least two vacant lots and less than five boarded properties.
And again, the petition of support includes the adjacent neighbor.
can you have questions from the board yeah can you pull up the plans again of course quickly
so the first floor is a one-bedroom unit that's correct and the second floor is a
A one-optional two-bedroom unit.
They're marking this as a study or a den, but of course could be used as a bedroom because there is a closet back here.
So I guess the concern I have is the layout of the first floor is a decent living space and the second floor isn't.
That's correct.
Same issue as before.
So in terms of proving a two-bedroom, a two-unit conversion, I'd be leery of that based on the layout.
This is a pretty large second floor.
Yeah, it is.
But if you compare that to the first floor, go back to your first floor, which is a two-bedroom unit.
if they were two one bedrooms that'd be a different story we can't deal with that because
this is zoning but we can only deal with the fact that it's one family or two family and based on
the layout i can't agree that i would support a two family based on the layout if we were to
again if we were to agree that the second floor unit could only be a one bedroom
from what is the perspective.
I would support that.
You would support that.
Absolutely.
We're open to that.
What was the RCO vote?
I mean, the community vote,
was there a community vote taken?
Based on the letter,
it was non-opposition.
There was no one opposed.
The only issues were
making sure that there was
interior trash storage
and no living in the basement.
thank you yep what questions from our attorney
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have strawberry man in the community with their hand raised they have been allowed to
speak good morning good morning could you please sure could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer. My name is Bonita Cummings, B as in boy, O-N-I-T-A, Cummings, C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Ms. Cummings, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed. We did submit a letter. I did have in the letter
this property, there was no indication from the property history that this property
was ever a multifamily or two unit use. So it was renovated with really no permits at all.
So it had 17 violations. I do remain a little concerned because the fire door lock process
still has no date that it was completed. It's two dates there, February and then again in May
it failed for their fire safety door locks.
So I did want to mention that just so that if it was approved,
we really could make sure that everything in this property is safe.
They have a first floor tenant and there was some wires hanging when they
uh presented that we were concerned with that may have been uh relative to lighting they did
presented that we were concerned with.
There may have been relative to.
show they did send a new um picture that that lighting has been added um but i think there
may need to be at least some some review to just make sure that the property is okay but other
you know also they presented with trash cans all out front as a way of their storage and we
would like to make sure that storage trash storage will be inside not on the porch and not out front
and of course no basement living was also uh discussed um thank you miss cummings we appreciate
as usual your comments is there anyone else in go ahead why don't why don't we see anybody else
is in the audience okay is there anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands
Please proceed, Vern.
Thank you.
Appreciate Ms. Cummings' input on that.
We did talk about the outstanding violations.
All have been cleared.
But for one, that will come as part of the process of getting a CO.
We can't occupy this fully building until there's a CO, which we'll get upon securing the zoning permit.
So with that, I have nothing further.
Planning Commission.
thank you chair bergman sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission s-a-r-a-h-b-a-n-h
i'd also like to welcome the new board members okay thank you do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth uh i do yes please proceed mr anastasia would
you mind scrolling back through the the photos of the second floor unit
Mr. Anastasio, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, can I go back to the second floor drawing, please, of course.
Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. So this is the second floor unit that Mr. Johns
recommended that it only be a one bedroom was that was that correct that's correct okay okay
great okay i have my recommendation thank you uh okay in 2014 the zoning map was amended to rsa 5
at this location in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan the requested variance
is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property
however the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance with
following proviso one bedroom only in the second floor unit. Thank you. MI 2024-001-066-1826
North New Kirk Street. I vote yes with provisos. No household living in basement,
interior trash second floor one bedroom only
my vote is yes is with proviso michael johns my vote is yes with proviso
tennetta graham my vote is yes with proviso
daryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso
tyan win my vote is yes with proviso
james snell my vote is yes with proviso
thank you counsel thank you
number 11 mi 2024 001 388 3515 shelburne street alexander perry is the attorney
Alexander Perry will be coming in as a payment, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir. My name is Alexander Perry for the owner applicant, and that's spelled A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R, P as in Peter, E-R-R-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And could you identify who your client is and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Millie Perez. She has been the owner and occupant of this property for nearly 30 years.
Thank you. Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the written of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed.
Counsel, just for a point, do you have an RCO letter?
I didn't receive the letter. We had full support from the RCO, but they were going to send the letter to your board.
to um to your board i can follow up today and have them send that in um as soon as they can please
I can follow up today and have them send that in.
proceed i'm going to share my screen if that's okay sure uh this property is a single family
home it's been owned and occupied by the owner millie perez our client for nearly 30 years during
covid her family member i believe her brother-in-law built a porch in the rear of the yard
The porch is 100% legal. However, because it takes up the rear yard, it needs a variance for the lack of space in the backyard. The city counts that as taking up the space. So the variance is for a rear yard of zero because it's been taken up by a porch. And I'll show you pictures in just a second.
Here's the deed to the property listing my client, Millie Perez, from 1996.
It's a single-family RSA 5 home.
It's on the corner of the street with windows on the side and front.
And it's across from the Police Athletic League Park and just adjacent to the Police Athletic League building.
That is also where the RCO meeting was held with Kensington Independent Community Association.
The refusal here for variance notes the rear yard depth required nine feet, proposed zero.
There is a three-foot alleyway behind, immediately behind this property that hasn't been encumbered by this deck.
Here's the appeal number for the erection of a one-story rear addition.
It's considered an addition because it's not a deck, it's a porch under the code.
Here's the notice to all adjacent neighbors, our required posting.
I'll skip through this.
This is to all of the neighbors.
Here's the property.
It's 31515 Shelbourne Street.
It's a corner property with windows on the side.
Over here is the park.
and then behind it, here's the notice of posting, and here's the porch itself.
After the porch was built, based on feedback from the neighbors, it was enclosed because
it is in Kensington, and they were having people sleeping on the porch, putting refuse on the porch,
and the neighborhood said, you need to build that in. Because there are windows on the side,
it doesn't propose any fire hazard to occupants of the building.
Here's the alleyway.
This building on the left is the Police Athletic League, and here's the alleyway that is shared by all common owners on the block.
Here's across the street is the park.
Here's our tax clearance, and here was the architectural diagram that was submitted to the city with the porch as well as the fencing in.
And that's it.
And my client, Millie Perez, I believe is in the audience, and she can adopt my testimony and answer any questions if desired.
Please, please bring her on.
Millie, can you raise your hand if you're listening?
Millie has been allowed to speak.
Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning. Can you hear me?
We can.
Oh, good morning, everyone. My name is Milagros Perez, and I can spell that M as in mom, I-L-A-G-R-O-S, last name P as in Paul, E-R-E-Z.
Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Mr. Perry.
Thank you. Ms. Perez, did you hear my testimony that I gave previously?
um yes i affirm your statement um i'm so sorry oh no that's that's good you're you're jumping
ahead could you adopt it at your home uh your own testimony if it was true and correct yes
and just to confirm this is your your single family home and you've lived there for nearly
30 years correct correct yes okay thank you uh any questions from the board questions from the board
I don't know whether it's a question, but a comment. What you've done here is it's not a deck. Well, it's not fish or fowl is what I'll say. It's not a deck because a deck can't have a permanently affixed roof or stairs.
and it's not really a porch in the sense that you know this is I'm not sure what it's being used for
but it's more like with windows in it most porches don't have windows in it either so
I'm a little concerned about what was done here I'm also concerned about all this
i'm also concerned about all this um uh security fencing which is now being
Um, oh.
was there uh were there any refusals for all the fencing that was put in there
i'll share i'll share this screen again um sorry
can you see this okay so this this is the you're correct it's it's not a deck it's a porch
my misspoke it's a porch based on its height uh the there are no windows it's all open air
there is a roof which is okay under the code however the only window is over here this was
the existing structure this was a backyard it was previously all fenced in this is kensington
North Kensington. Right now, especially after the city moving everyone from under the L,
there's a tremendous volume of individuals who are breaking into homes. And the reason why this
actually first obtained a violation was the RCO member called the property in because there were
independent individuals sleeping on the porch and causing trouble in the neighborhood. The bars were
put on the plan sent to the city and they were a suggestion and if not requirement if they weren't
put in the police athletic league would have required it and uh i'm sorry the rco would
have required it because of its proximity to the police athletic league
thank you other questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time mr not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bond the philadelphia city planning commission s-a-r-a-b-a-n-h
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning.
The proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
Hillary, I should hold this until we have in our hand the RCO letter.
Am I correct?
You can do that, Mr. Chair.
If you'd like to set a time limit on that, you can.
Yeah, I will. Why don't we set a week on that? Council, we're going to vote on this next week. This is closed other than the RCO letter.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
And that'll be a vote at 930 on July 31st, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chair, would you like us to attend or will you do that as a board and we won't need to be there?
Good job, but you can listen in, but you don't have to come on.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board.
Number 12, MI 2024-001-412-15141 Endicott Street. Clementine Amazon is the attorney. There's a letter of support from the Somerton Civic Association and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member O'Neill.
good afternoon good morning good morning good morning council
hi could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
of course flamenca amazon sorry about that i think i think you have two devices on
uh give me one i think they're bouncing a little bit
please proceed again come on to amazon that's spelled c-l-e-m-e-n-t-a last name is spelled
a-m-a-z-a-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Counselor, could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Of course. My client is Joelle Avicino. She is the owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, council. Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
Thank you.
Can everyone see my screen?
We can.
So again, my name is Clemente Amazon, and I also have Agata Reister on the line.
If she could also be promoted as panelist,
She is the architect for this project.
In the event the board may have questions regarding the design, she'll be available to answer.
Thank you.
I'll be presenting 15141 Endicott Street.
During my presentation, I will go through the refusal.
As the chair mentioned, we do have a letter of support from the Civic Association.
We also received a letter of non-opposition from the councilman.
We have maps of the area, photos of the property, as well as the surrounding area.
posting photos, our application for appeal, project information form, the dean showing that my client
does own this property, it's evidence of tax clearance, as well as the notice that was sent
out regarding the community meeting. So this property is owned RSA3. My client purchased it
in 2020. At the time of purchase, it did already have a rear deck in place. She simply removed the
deck and replaced it. Unfortunately, she was unaware that she had to obtain licenses.
For the replacement of the deck, it was no change in location of the deck, size of the deck.
She just updated the design, and she received a citation from L&I.
And so now we are going through the process of zoning.
We received two refusals.
The first refusal is for the fact that the bottom of the proposed deck is enclosed.
You'll see in the images of the property that it does have latticework on the bottom portion of that deck.
the second refusal that we have is that the rear deck goes into its full lot coverage in short
as you'll see in the photos it's very characteristic for several problems in this
area council your council you're like you're you're sort of like i think
you're hard to hear put it that way
Hold on a minute. Court reporter, are you okay with it so far?
Yes, Chair.
You're okay with hearing?
So far, yes. It was a bit garbled, as you noticed, but so far, I think I'm okay.
All right. Please proceed, counsel.
So as I said, the post that we have here is some of those that are within this area work along Wilford Street, which is the street.
Excuse me, Chair. Pardon me. This is the court reporter.
I'm afraid it has gotten to the point where I'm having difficulty understanding.
Okay. I apologize. Is it possible for me to...
Do you want to go out and come back in?
Why don't you do that?
Go out and come back in.
Hi, my name is Julie Weeks.
I'm going out with you because I'm still in search of an attorney who's looking for more...
Thank you.
can can the board hear me now we can okay is that better is it clear yes thank you yes yeah this is
the reporter that's very much better thank you okay I apologize for that so I'll just jump back
here so we've gone through the refusals we did receive a letter of support from the RCO they
met with us on May 14th at 7 p.m. as you will see here in this letter they did highlight that there
are several properties along the block that have similar decks that are in place. It was a well
attended meeting with 65 neighbors being present. Again, they did highlight that the enclosures
were common for the area and similar properties have decks of this sort and that this deck was
in place by prior ownership. My client simply redesigned it and received a violation from L&I.
That's covered in this final paragraph that you see here.
that's covered in this final paragraph that you see here
and again this was a full letter of support and they highlighted that the renovation of the deck
highlighted their investment in the home and in the neighborhood so why don't you bring the letter
up when do you bring the letter up so i can see i believe i'm sharing my screen apparently no it's
We only see you.
Oh, well, let's try and share the screen again.
Thank you.
You're up now.
Great.
So now tech issues are resolved.
Screen issues are resolved.
We have a letter of support from the RCO.
It's three pages long.
And as I summarized, they highlighted that there are similar uses and decks within the neighborhood.
The renovation of the deck was just a showing of investment within the community as well as in the property.
We also received a letter from the council person.
Unfortunately, it does have a typo as to the address.
I believe the council person's zoning aid is on the line to testify that the council person is in opposition to the project.
Here we have a map of the area. Okay. And we are along Endicott Street. Again, the property is owned single-family. The only change that we have here was the replacement of the deck. It is the same size and design here.
and here we have the site plan that was also submitted with the presentation
we have the property's front yard it is full coverage from endicott street to a common alleyway
the single family home and this is the existing deck at the rear of the property it is adjacent to
the driveway of the property as well and here we have just the design showing the lattice work as
well as the fencing above that. This is a photo of the property that we were able to pull from
Google Maps prior to the structure being added. Again, my client simply renovated the deck. She
did not initially put the deck in herself. The prior owner did that work. And as I mentioned,
this is very common for the area. We have the deck on 1515-151 Endicott Street, 15167 Endicott
Street here, 15165 Endicott, 15140 Milford Street, 15137 Endicott Street, 15133 and 15127 Endicott,
15128, 15122 Milford Street, and Milford Street is simply to the street adjacent to Endicott Street.
We have 15123 Endicott Street as well, similar in design to the deck that we have here.
And in the interest of brevity, I'll just breeze through the remaining properties that have a similar deck.
Could you show us your deck?
Just show.
I don't remember seeing your deck.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Of course.
So here we have the photo of the posting of the property that also shows the rear deck itself.
and we have our application for appeal that was filed the project information form
the notice that was sent out regarding the may 14th community meeting which was held at 7 pm
there were 65 attendees we did receive the letter of support that reviewed previously
proof showing that we did in fact send out that mailing a list of the properties that were notified
of the community meeting, the deeds to the property showing that my client does, in fact, own it,
and our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
So with that, if I could have my client adopt my testimony.
Please.
If you're in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
It should be Joelle.
they have been allowed to speak good morning could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer good morning chairman are you able to hear me i we can joelle
acovino my first name is j-o-e-l-l last name a-c-a-v as in victor i n as in nancy o
my husband jonathan sanders is also present all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth is nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed counsel
did you hear my presentation today i did john did you hear my presentation today yes i did
i didn't swear him just could we just go with
I didn't swear him. Just could we just go with her, please?
Of course we can. Sure, sure.
Was it true and correct?
It was. The only correction I would have is the Google Maps photo shown was actually of the neighbor's yard, not ours. But yes, everything else is true.
Okay. And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I would.
thank you with that i'd be happy to answer any questions questions from the board
i just have a comment i think it's understandable these these houses in this
area really don't have usable rear yards so and and and you don't really want to use the front
so it kind of makes sense that people do this thank you michael uh questions or comments from
our attorney, Hillary Emerson. Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual
audience? Yes, Chair. We have Alex Udovich with their hand raised and they have been allowed to
speak. Good morning, Alice. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Chair and members of the board. Alice Udovich, A-L-I-C-E-U-D-O-V-I-C-H,
on behalf of councilman brian o'neill you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do please proceed the councilman has no objection to the grounding of the variance
at this location thank you very much for calling in is there anyone else in the virtual audience
i see no hands any commission
thank you chair sarah bond with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning
the proposed dimensional variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of
the zoning code the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the
variance thank you mi 2024 001 412 15141 endicott street i vote yes
my vote is yes michael johns my vote is yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes tya winn my vote is yes thank you counsel now my vote is yes i'm
sorry jim thank you all right thank you number 13 mi 2024 001 413 139 south 24 street zen jin
is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
Good morning, counsel. Would you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, my name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My client is 139 South 24th Street, LLC.
They're the owner of the property.
All right.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reason of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the documentation we previously submitted in support of the application.
Can the board and everyone see my screen?
We see, sir.
Thank you. We have submitted a copy of the refusal, the letter from CCRA in non-opposition, photos, plans, tax clearance proof, deed, the copy of the appeal project information sheet, as well as the hearing notice.
This is an application for use of a property which is currently a vacant lot in a CMX4 zone district.
Due to the size and location of the lot, after much consideration, my clients made an application through their architect to use this property as a single family household living property with a built-in front entrance garage.
There are a few reasons why they ultimately went with this, and I will explain to the board as we go along.
But the refusal items are for the parking, as well as due to the CMX Ford zoning nature of the property, the occupied area as well as the commercial zoning requires more than single family.
I want to point out we did meet with CCRA, who issued a letter of non-opposition, partly based on the same reasoning that I will...
who issued a letter of non-opposition, partly based on the same reasoning that I will be
explaining to the board in one second. The property is a smaller lot located at 139 South 24th Street.
On this portion of the street, particularly this side of the street, even though it's all zoned,
the entire area is zoned CMX4, these are smaller lots with existing properties that are generally
much smaller use than typically what you see in CMX4. In fact, right around the corner,
we have a development right here that came together before the board, but are actually
also single family dwellings. There are other single family style dwellings and mixed use
properties along this block. And another point why we're asking for a front loaded garage at
this location as well is because on our side of the street, you're not allowed to park on the
street. Because they expect that there's parking lots and everything nearby and parking on the
other side, this side of the street was not permitted to park. And as a result, in the past,
many of the properties here had built-in front-loaded garages already. Because of the
width of the street, pulling into the space and out of the space would not pose an issue for
turning radius or really have a meaningful impact on the street itself. With the location,
there's another point why we decided to use the first floor as a garage rather than
building a living space there. This is part of a floodplain and by requirement, we're actually not
allowed to build the living space there. When I discussed it with the architect, part of the
reason a garage was designed is so that first floor will be elevated so that if there is a flood it
would only flood to the garage. There are actually breakaway panels designed into the first floor
for that purpose. For all these reasons and also due to the fact that existing buildings on this
block generally are built straight back plus there's a pretty extensive wall on the back here
already in existence. With the setback of the other buildings behind us, CCRA did not feel
that our coverage would be an issue. And first floor would have to be 100% coverage due to the
flood issue as well. Leaving permeable space in the back actually would cause more problems
than it would solve in the case of any kind of actual flooding. The architect actually is here
with us today, Mr. Gabriel Deck, and he can answer specific questions if needed relating to this.
Now, across the street, we have a large building and a parking lot,
but around the corner and further up and down the street, we have other single-family
developments much similar to what we're proposing. It's because of all these reasons that
the community actually voted in non-opposition to our proposal. The design is pretty straightforward.
What we are able to do due to the size of the lot and the way the first floor has to be used is
we're able to extend the first floor only. I want to point out to the board that second and third
floors and upper floors are in fact set back. It's only the first floor that extends 100%
triggering the lot coverage we're able to potentially fit three vehicles in there
as well as storage but as you can see there's no living use of this space and everything starts
essentially on the second floor and up so due to the location size and unique nature of the property
we would ask for the board's favorable review of our request for variances in this case
I have the architect available as well as I believe Mr. Barry Hoffman.
My client should be here to verify my testimony.
And I can certainly redirect to any part of the plans if the board wish to have a closer look.
Thank you.
So what we're going to do is we're going to bring your client on.
If there's questions relative, we'll bring the architect on later, right?
So why don't you bring your client on first?
Mr. Hoffman, can you raise your hand to be identified?
Barry Hoffman has been allowed to speak.
Morning, Mr. Hoffman.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Morning, Chair.
My name is Barry Hoffman, B-A-R-R-Y-H-O-F-F-M-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Hoffman, did you see my presentation as well as hear my testimony before the zoning board?
Can you verify what I have represented is true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Questions from the board?
Go ahead.
Go ahead, Michael.
Okay. Can you go back to the site plan again?
I'll move it up to the site plan here.
This is the part you're looking for?
yeah and then there was a you show the turning radius out of the
garage yes okay and then there was another
plan i believe where you showed the this is the entire street no i think there was a plan that
you showed the floodplain and how let me um let me zoom out here i am not sure if
my apologies i'm not i'm not as familiar with the floodplain but this should be the
i think it was the garage plan where you showed the foot was the garage plan okay i will move
down to the garage this is the garage um i don't believe there's any more plans in this section we
have renderings and other information uh maybe it'll be helpful for gabriel to um be um
No, you showed it.
You showed a plan.
Oh, I did.
I believe it was the garage plan or the garage plan.
I think this plan here made, was there information on the flood?
Okay, right.
This one shows me.
Yeah, base flood elevation right here.
And you are, I can't see the whole plan.
You kind of like.
Let me move it.
And so this is requiring, is this the 100-year flood plan or what's the?
I wish I knew the answer to that.
I think this is definitely a question the architect would have to answer.
I'm not as sure of the exact.
Let's bring the architect on.
What's his name?
Gabriel.
Gabriel.
Yes, I'm here.
All right.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Gabriel Deck, G-A-B-R-I-E-L, last name D-E-C-K.
You swear or affirm the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Michael, please ask your question.
So, yeah, my question is, your reasoning to do the garage on the first floor is, for the most part, because you have the floodplain issue.
My question is, how do I tell that this is the floodplain, and how much far above the floodplain do you have to be?
If you can pan over to the left side of this drawing, you can see the base flood elevation indicated on the bottom left.
That is the 100-year floodplain.
We need to be at minimum 18 inches above that to any habitable space.
And you can kind of see that line does cut across the entire property, probably about three or four feet above the sidewalk grade.
But we can have no habitable space below that level.
So the only uses permitted are garage and storage spaces.
Absolutely. Thank you. That was it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
So this is CMX4, and CMX5 is the one for basically high-rise sort of multiple-type dwellings.
What's the difference?
Why is there this refusal concerning single-family household living?
How many units were you allowed to have?
I believe CMX4 does not permit single-family.
It actually permits multi, and that's actually the minimum use expected, generally, of that zoning district.
Right. And aren't you asking for more than single-family?
No, we're not. We're actually asking for single-family dwelling.
In this largest space?
The space is deceptively large. I'm sorry.
Let me actually re-post, re-share that.
My apologies.
so if you really look at the lot itself and what is surrounding it
the width of the property and the depth of the property is not really substantially larger than
your typical row home size I mean we're talking about I'm going to zoom in again to the total
depth here 65 foot 10 inch depth and a 16 foot 10 inch wide lot so this is not
a large lot in that sense that you would expect a dense multifamily
A large lot in that sense that you would expect a dense multifamily development.
My client actually looked very carefully at the surrounding properties, what is being developed on these size lots in the area.
And the original plan of multifamily, ultimately, they decided it would actually make more sense to do a single family here.
Given other single families were just developed right around the corner and there's easy comparables and it is a popular design for that area.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Amberson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning.
For the off-street parking refusal, the proposed use is consistent with nearby properties.
Several of the homes on the same block as this property and the block to the north have private
garages. For the occupied area refusal, the proposed dimensional variance is minimal and
does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code. For the single family
household living refusal, the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of this
property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2024, 001-413-139 South 24th Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Tana DeGraham, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ty Nguyen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Okay, number 14, MI 2024, 001-513, 1330 Ellsworth Street.
Brandon Saverin is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Pashunk Square Civic Association,
a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
hi mr chairman good morning counsel how are you could you please state your name and spell for
the court sonographer yes um i am brandon saverin of uh dilworth paxton um spelled b-r-a-n-d-o-n
and then s is in sam a v is in victor r-a-n is in nancy you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do could you uh identify your client and the
relationship to the property? Yes, I represent Tamara and Rasheed Williams, who are the new
owners of the property. Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions for you. Sure. Good morning,
counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to attack receipt?
Yes, I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed
and share your screen. Thank you. One moment.
There we go.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board. Like Ms. Bond, I just wanted to say congratulations
to the board's new members. I am Brandon, as I mentioned. I represent Tamara and Rasheed
Williams, who are a married couple that in December of last year purchased this property
at 1330 Ellsworth Street. They intend to live on the second floor of the building.
The first and third floor are separate units that are already rented out to arm's length tenants. So this is physically a triplex. And my clients thought that they were purchasing a legally permitted triplex.
Once they found out that it was only legally permitted as a duplex, they contacted me. I will go through some detail as to the history of the property, but we believe that historically, it has had three units for a very long time.
um going going very far back those were all residential there was an interim period where
one of those three units the ground floor may have been non-residential um as i mentioned i'll
get more detail on that for you when i walk through some of the historical uh permitting
um in any brandon can i ask a question you're you're looking for a triplex
Brandon, can I ask a question? You're looking for a triplex?
Yes, right.
Our notes, Hillary, don't our notes say four?
Right. So the refusal says four. And I think I heard an attorney earlier use the term mislabel.
So our architect, who is a very smart guy, did label the zoning site plan as four units, but that was never the intent.
And we have a proviso plan, one page that corrects that and states that it's a high flux.
All right. Thank you.
And thanks for the question, Mr. Chairman. That's very important.
So with that, let me run through some of the exhibits.
I submitted 18 exhibits to the board last week.
I will go through some, but not all of them in the interest of time.
But I would ask that all 18 be moved into the record of the case.
They are.
Thank you.
The first exhibit is our refusal.
So, Mr. Chairman, you just addressed a lot of what I was going to say about the refusal.
So starting at the bottom, the first refusal is a used refusal, and that is because we are increasing the legally registered number of units from two to three,
although there is and has been for decades three units present. In the RSA 5 district,
that increase requires a use variance. The other variance is a dimensional variance.
When L&I reviewed our site plan, which I'll show you in a moment, it noticed that there is a rear
deck, technically a roof deck. It is above the first floor of the rear of the property
that may have not been built with permits.
So we said that we'd like to legalize that deck
and Ellen, I noticed that the rear parapet wall
does not have a proper setback.
So we're gonna request a dimensional variance
for that specific issue.
And I'll show you photos of that in a moment.
Just to rehash one last time,
we're seeking three dwelling units,
not four as stated in the description text here.
Here's our proof of tax clearance at Exhibit 2. Here is our deed at Exhibit 3, showing that the property was purchased in December.
Just flying through here. Exhibit 4 is our application for appeal, where I again noted the mistake with the three verse four units.
I also attached a memorandum to the application, which explains why I believe the two variances that we have requested are supported by the relevant criteria in the zoning code.
I, in the interest of time, will not rehash that entire legal argument, but I'll give you a summary at the end of my presentation.
Let's see.
Exhibit 5 are the relevant sections of the zoning code.
um exhibit six is the original site plan and exhibit seven is the proviso site plan and just
to zoom in here um you'll see that the architect corrected the um four units to three units and put
change clouds over them that's the only change in the proviso plan versus the original plan
because there's no addition to the property proposed um we were not required to provide
elevations, but we do have this bird's eye view site plan that shows the extent of the existing
structure on the property, as well as the garage, which is this checked kind of area, which has the
deck on top of it. And here's the proviso form that accompanies that proviso plan.
Exhibit eight is the zoning map. So our property is on the 1300 block of Ellsworth Street.
It is a half block away from Broad Street. Like most of the properties on our side of the street, the property and the structure runs the full length from Ellsworth to Annan in the rear, being that we are sort of on the western portion where this block fans out.
I suppose. We have one of the deeper buildings on the block, although there are numerous examples of other multifamily use, which I'll run through in a moment.
But our property is one of the bigger ones at 85 feet deep or thereabouts.
Here's an aerial from Atlas at Exhibit 9.
This is what was on my screen when I was promoted to panelist.
It's just the photos of our zoning posters.
This is the front of the building on Ellsworth.
This is the rear of the building with the garage on Annan.
This is the rear of the building with the garage on Annan.
These are more photos that are from Atlas rather than taken by us at Exhibit 11, just showing sort of the context of the block.
You can kind of see, you know, what the form of the block.
It's almost uniformly, at least near us, three-story buildings built flush to the street like ours.
here's the opposite side of Ellsworth same thing here's Annan so here's our garage and our deck on
top of it it is very common you know the angle is actually a little tough here but you know going
probably six properties down the line from us everybody has a rear garage the opposite side of
Annan Street is vacant sort of in our section or largely vacant and what you have also common in
addition to the garages are these sort of decks at the rear. So our neighbor has one. Again,
this is us to the left. This is our neighbor to the west to the right. But you can see they also
have a deck. Theirs is higher than ours. But to go speak to that dimensional variance for a second,
so we have this very nice sort of wall structure where you have these wooden slats
between these boy I don't want to insult the architects in the room but I'll call them
balustrades these sort of stone posts that the the wood runs between so it's a it's an existing
back wall to the deck it's it's sturdy and we're going to ask for your permission to to leave it
there rather than demolish it and build a new one that would be five feet further back because if
we were to move it, it would reduce the usability of the deck substantially. And I actually think
this is really one of the safer setups you come across as opposed to a thin railing or a piece
of glass or something like that. I do have interior photos. I'm going to skip those for
one moment to go to our floor plans, and then I'll come back to the photos. So these are the
existing condition plans, I want to highlight a few things here. There is no livable space
in the basement because the ceiling is not tall enough to support it, and there will not be
going forward. So that's very important to note. That is for storage and mechanical systems only.
What we're going to do is we are going to sprinkler this building and give it a proper
fire suppression system if our variances are approved as we move towards getting a new CO
for three units. I believe that sort of the historical permitting quirk may, I'm not positive,
but may have come from a prior owner trying to avoid the sprinkling requirement and other
building code requirements. So we're going to correct for that. And we're trying to do this
fully above board and in compliance with the building code. So here's the three units. It's
one per floor. The first floor unit, as I'll show you in photos in a second, is pretty standard. It
has a big, very nice living room in the front and sort of what is the current tenant uses it
has a combo bedroom den in the back. There's this spiral staircase that goes up to the second floor
and currently on the second floor the rear of the second floor is separated from the front and as a
result the the rear of the second floor is almost part of the first floor unit. That is crazy
complicated, relies on the use of a spiral staircase and creates like an additional hole between the
first and second floors, which can't be good for fire safety purposes. So we are going to remove
that spiral staircase, patch that hole, and basically, you know, make this what you would
expect, which is, I'll go to our proposed conditions now, you know, one unit that occupies
the whole first floor and one unit that occupies the whole second floor, much more straightforward
and expected. And my clients, again, are going to move from Pittsburgh and live in the second
floor unit because that's the one that has the deck and they'd like to enjoy the new renovations
and the deck. The third floor unit is not going to be touched and really nor will the first floor
unit aside from the removal of that spiral staircase. It's the second floor where the
action is for the most part. And then I'll go through some photos. So here is what I call the
orphan space. This is the back of the second floor.
And the back of the second floor, which is, as I mentioned, currently part of the first floor unit, confusingly, that's the spiral staircase.
If you were to turn the camera around, this is actually quite a large space. It's bigger than it appears here. And that's the deck that I mentioned.
This is the third floor unit, not really proposed for much change other than the installation of the fire suppression system.
This is what currently exists in the front of the second floor, which is a studio unit. So the bedroom is sort of around the corner, but in the same room from the kitchen, which is shown here, the bedroom, there will be no bed in this room after the back of this floor is turned into a proper bedroom.
and this is the first floor um again not not major changes down here either it's quite a nice
space um the only thing is that the tenant currently has their bed in like this um den
space behind the kitchen there's an additional room behind this which is occupied by that
spiral staircase i guess they didn't want to sleep next to it so we'll be uh anticipating that
that person will use that back room once the spiral staircase is removed. Okay. And then I
just have a few more points to make on the history of the property and the block. So Exhibit 15 is a
list of other multifamily properties on this block. Not really surprising given the size of
some of these buildings and their proximity to Broad Street. So using rental licenses and
zoning permits online, counted three other triplexes, three other duplexes, and one, two,
three buildings that have more than three units. And I have copies of the relevant zoning permits
and or rental licenses in our exhibit.
So here, for example, at exhibit 15
is the rental license record for 1300 Ellsworth,
which is a triplex.
So I've got one of those for all of those.
I think it was nine or 10 properties.
Just breeze through those.
We did, again, keeping in the theme
of total compliance with the law,
I urged my clients to get a rental license for two units immediately after they bought the property.
They were able to do so because Tamara's father lives in the city, so they named him as their managing agent.
And, you know, that way the two tenants who are currently there are there under, you know, kosher circumstances.
Here's that rental license.
um here is a two-unit rental license that was held by the seller although um you know my clients
did not have an attorney when they purchased the property and the the mls the listing service said
that this was a four-unit building so they were not aware that only two units were legal
um this is the latest zoning permit the active zoning permit on the property it's from 1983
There's a few things of interest here.
So Tom, who was the owner at the time, declares in this application, I'll zoom in a little bit, that before he made this application, that the last previous use of the building was three units.
That's why we believe that sort of, you know, historically in a distant sense, this has been a residential triplex.
But then he writes in this sort of application text up here that his proposed construction is to do some renovations on the first floor and that it's going to be a personal art studio.
And accordingly, he sort of scratches off what I assume said something about what was going on on the first floor and just writes that there will now be two apartments.
We spoke with the community about this at the RCO meeting.
There was a gentleman who was very skeptical that this was really ever used as an art studio, at least one that was sort of open to the public or anything like that. So maybe Tom at the time did really have an art studio there. Maybe this was an attempt to shirk some requirements that would have pertained to his renovation of the first floor.
But what happened after this is somebody stepped in and renovated the first floor again. And, you know, you saw that it's a nice apartment. It's just that sort of flip back to a residence wasn't done with permits.
And we know that because here in 2007, an interim owner filed an appeal to this board seeking to legalize the lower unit. Now, that person failed to submit exhibits to the board.
Now, that person failed to submit exhibits to the board. We know per the ZBA's records that that is why the case was dismissed. So I just, you know, I want to be careful to make sure you know that this legalization of the three units, although it should have happened now almost 20 years ago, if not more, has never been considered on the merits by this board.
We know.
This owner failed to sort of submit the proper exhibits. And then later, somebody came along and tried to legalize this as an Airbnb, which the board denied. But we're not doing. This is not for short-term rental.
Finally, here is a copy of the RCO's decision letter. This was an in-person meeting. Their position is non-opposition. There was a 5-2 vote among the board members, and there was a 5-0 vote among the members of the public who were in the audience, so 10-2 in total.
And here are copies at exhibit 18 of the emails and letters that I sent out to advertise the RCO meeting.
I'll just quickly end with speaking about the hardships that I think we face.
I also would love to stop sharing my screen. There we go.
Okay. So I spoke about the hardship with the dimensional variance, which is really just that we have a solid structural back wall on that deck. And, you know, I think it would be economic waste to have to remove it and then reinstall it and you'd end up with less living space. Also, our neighbor basically has the same exact thing, but at a higher elevation in terms of the number of units.
So as you saw, I believe we're currently permitted for two units plus a art studio. There's no market for an art studio or any non-residential use in the middle of this residential block.
And, you know, I think history doesn't prove that there ever was such a market since the person who declared it to be an art studio used it as a personal studio.
It's not as though he went on the market and found a tenant.
If our request were to be denied, we would have to basically merge two of the units,
remove one of their kitchens, and almost certainly evict one of the tenants in the process,
in addition to putting a delay in my clients moving into the property.
That, I think, all constitutes a hardship.
There is no known use of this building only having two physical units, art studio or residence on the first floor.
It's always had three physical units as far as we can tell.
And finally, if it were only to be two units, there would not be a requirement to add a fire suppression system with sprinklers.
By legalizing this at three units, it's going to force us to put in those sprinklers, which I think is important and we're going to do.
um so that's bring your client on please bring your client um that'll be either
Rashid Williams or Tamara Birch Williams if you could raise your hand
they have been allowed to speak could you please state your name and spell for this
phonography. Hi, my name is Rashid Williams, that's R-A-S-H-I-D-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir? I do. Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Rashid, did you hear my testimony in your case this morning? Yes. Was it true and
accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? Yes. And would you therefore adopt it
as if it had been your own testimony? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Counsel, just one issue. You showed
the letter from Passion Square. Yes. We do have a letter from Councilman Squill, too, so just so
you know. Oh, okay. I was not aware. Thank you. Questions from the board. I have a question,
chair regarding use, referencing the use. So you saying your clients inherited, did your clients
inherit a tenant on the first floor and third floor, or were they acquired after their purchase
of the house? Ms. Graham, can I allow my client to answer that? Okay, go ahead, Rasheed.
Yes, they were, they moved in after we purchased.
thank you and just a reminder you know we we got the proper licensing to do that
um my questions are so you have this first floor you say with the spiral staircase that goes
into the second floor unit right and so there's a part of that space that
And so there's a part of that space that is not being used, but the front part was basically used as a what?
It's an apartment, board member Gaston.
I could show you those pictures again.
Maybe that would help, but it is fully built out as an apartment.
Maybe the nicest one in the building.
So who was living here?
was anybody living there yeah so there there was someone living there I think prior to the sale
and and there is now a new tenant living there they just don't use the back room at the spiral
staircase so here are the the photos of that unit again this is the kitchen this is the back room
which is sort of the bedroom and then there's I wish I had a photo of it but there's a really
nice living room in front of all this you can kind of see it through this uh portal here from
the kitchen okay so but but there's basically three units in there as we speak oh yeah yes
for sure and there's no question that that's been the case since at least 2007
All right. And then your plan is to take out this spiral staircase and make each unit a one bedroom unit, therefore, correct?
Yeah, that's right. I think that, you know, as we've heard discussion in prior cases, there's, it's hard to dictate how someone uses the space. So it's not to say that someone couldn't take a living room and make it a bedroom. But what I can tell you is that absolutely, it's one unit per floor, and we're not attempting to make renovations to, you know, pack in extra bedrooms or anything like that.
Okay. And then with respect to the deck or whatever we're calling this, it says, am I reading this right, that the roof deck lacks required five foot setback from extreme front building lines? Where is the front building line being considered here?
Excellent question. I had to wrestle with that myself. So what I learned is that with regard to certain code requirements, including this one, a rear street is considered a second front street. So there, yeah, it's not written clearly, but the examiner was talking about Annan Street. The deck doesn't get anywhere near Ellsworth, the actual front street.
Right. And don't we, well, okay. I thought that with multifamily dwellings, there was a, that the planning commission got to say what was the considered to be front street.
Yeah, so did I.
So I think the planning commission did make that determination that Ellsworth is the front street, but that determination does not apply to deck setback requirements.
At least that's what you explained to me.
All right.
And then that deck area is about how big?
and there's no there's no windows there's no it by the uh the neighboring property isn't affected
by windows anything so here's a here's probably the best photo of it so the neighboring property
has no um windows on that face the deck and because we have a shorter um structure in the
rear than the neighbor i think you know if anything they sort of encroach on us not the
other way around um yeah because they can move down from their deck going to this that's right
okay all right thank you you're welcome any other questions from the board i just have two or just
two comments i think the units are laid out fairly decently i think that the deck is consistent with
the the other decks that are uh adjacent and near the property thank you questions or comments from
our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bond with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single family zoning
however the proposed dimensional variance where the deck does not conflict with the purpose and
spirit of the zoning code, and the proposed use for multifamily is consistent with documented
for a multifamily is consistent with documented prior use of this property.
prior use of this property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2024, 005, 001, 513, 1330 Ellsworth Street. I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by CBA on July 24th, 2024.
for. And Mr. Chair, if we could add a second proviso just to clarify, maximum three dwelling
units. Thank you. Isn't that in the revised plans? But that's fine. It is in the revised plans,
but we do usually have it separate. Thank you. So revised plans will be revised plans,
one page, state by ZBA, on July 24, 2024, and maximum three units.
Shanael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Teneda Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Hi, Nguyen, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Smell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel. Number 16, MI 2024-001-516-1301 North 24th Street, TA-166919. Joseph Consul is the attorney. Ishmael Shahid is going to recuse himself for this project.
there's a letter of non-opposition
from the Brewery Town
Sharswood Community Civic Association
there was
a split
good morning Mr. Consul could you state your name
and spell for the court sonographer
it's Joseph Consul that's J-O-S-E-P-H
last name is Consul
C-O-N-S-O-L-E
do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
um do you identify your client in the relationship to the property yeah my client is
chivetta property group and on the call today representing chivetta is michael tomasetti
do you agree to the uh the refusal and uh its accuracy i do and all your paperwork has been
sent in on time. That's correct. Please share your screen, sir. I believe I am. Is my refusal
up? You're up. Yep. All right. Great. Hey, everyone. Joe Consul here for Chivetta Property
Group. We are here today seeking approval to build a single-family home at 1301 North 24th Street.
My client, Chivetta Property Group, LLC, is, as of January 2023, under agreement with the Philadelphia Housing Authority to develop 1301 North 24th Street as workforce housing under the Turn the Key program.
They are under contract or agreement to develop a single-family home that does not include commercial space.
we submitted the plans that will be used to develop this property would be a three-bedroom
two-bath home with a basement that is for mechanicals and it has a little bit of storage
availability but this will be a single family home that sits on the corner this lot or this
block from one angle looks like this there's a lot of lots on this block and a lot of lots looking
the other way uh that um a lot of which my clients are developing this property is on the corner and
zone cmx2 there's no commercial space in in the surrounding area and at the rco meeting there did
appear to be any appetite for commercial space here so for that reason and for um the fact that
we we believe that um this project is extremely beneficial overall uh for um the city as evidenced
by the agreement between my clients and the philadelphia housing authority we are um hopeful
that the board sees fit to grant this variance.
So again, the variance that we're seeking
is essentially downzoning,
looking here for an RSA-5 on a CMX-2 lot
for a three-bedroom, two-bath, and that's it.
RCO, as you mentioned,
took a position of non-opposition,
seemed like most folks were in support,
Most folks were in support. Some folks appeared to be just against any kind of a variance, but did not want commercial space there. So, again, we believe that even for those that were sort of that raised their hand against it, we don't believe that they actually want to see commercial space. We just got the impression that they didn't want any sort of an approval here.
some folks appeared to be just
Mr. Counsel, could you bring your client or representative of your client on, please, and adopt your testimony?
Absolutely. Mr. Tomasetti, could you raise your hand?
They have been allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Michael Tomasetti, T-O-M-A-S-E-E-T-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
yes sir please please proceed mr council good morning mr tomasetti did you hear my testimony
just now regarding genetis property at 1301 north 24th street yes i did do you agree with what i
said and do you adopt it as your own i fully agree yes thank you nothing further board sure questions
from the board um do we have a plan for this property and uh the elevations i know we didn't
go through the whole packet but do we have those or just yeah we submitted the the the construction
plan uh i'm not certain of the height i am certain that there is no refusal for the height
michael are you aware of what the height will be i believe on this block these are uh basement
two-story homes okay no i i wasn't concerned about that i just i didn't know whether you had
a plan that you had submitted as part of your exhibit packet as to if there if there isn't one
i've got the one that's in the system and can send that along um well no no no no no okay okay
okay thank you any other questions on the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
thank you chair sarah bond with the philadelphia city planning commission
The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to RM1.
However, the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of this property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
MI 2024-001-516-1301 North 24th Street, T-A-166919, I vote yes.
Danetta Graham, my vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Hi, Owen, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Porter.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 930 case has not been called?
I see no hands.
To everyone at 2 p.m., thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Who is chair?
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman.
I will be chairing this afternoon's CBA hearings.
With me is our vice chair Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tanaida Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
She's here.
Thank you.
Our board member, Michael Johns.
Present here, Mr. Chairman.
And also we have LeBaron Leonard Palmer, one of our alternate board members who will vote on a few cases.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Are we ready to start?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
Video will be available by contacting kathleen.grady at phil.gov.
Video will be available by contact.
For a court stenographer, we ask witnesses and attorneys to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to Kathleen Green.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number nine.
MI 2024 002 473 1675 Dyer Street.
Cases continue.
Number 10, MI 2024-002-476-5229 Market Street, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
And Hillary, I'm going to do a status check with number 11.
Number 11, MI 2024-002-479-1222-24, Wilming Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney for the appellant, and Michael Mattione represents several protestants.
Good afternoon, counsel. Good afternoon. I'm sorry. Could you please state your name and spell for the court snogger?
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mattione, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly.
Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Pritzker, why don't you start, we understand you, your conversations with Hillary.
could you tell us where you stand with this case? Yeah, I would like to request a continuance
as the board is aware and same with Ms. Emerson. I didn't receive any information from Mr. Mattione
until about 12 o'clock today with about 100 plus page document that I do not have ample time to
review or present effectively to this board at this time. So I would like to request a continuance
and I'll kind of leave it there.
Okay, Mr. Mattione.
Well, we would like to oppose the continuance.
We sent the materials over prior to the hearing.
Actually, there is no actual requirement
that we send anything over prior to the hearing,
but we did.
And we have witnesses ready to go
and everybody's here and it's been scheduled.
There's been two RCO meetings
and we're ready to have the case proceeding.
Mr. Mattione, we understand your point,
but we're going to continue the case
So it can be prepared by Ms. Pritzker. So MI 2024-002-479-1222-24 Walnut Street cases continue. Thank you both.
Thank you.
Number one.
MI 2023-006-059-5604 North 5th Street.
Attorney Derizio, please.
Raymond Derizio.
they have been allowed to speak
hi counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
good good afternoon members of the board i represent the applicant on uh 5604 north 5th
street mr derizio could you state your name and spell for the stenographer please yes it's raymond
r-a-y-m-o-n-d
last name Dorizio
d-o-r-i-z-i-o
do you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
understand sir you want to withdraw
correct
thank you very much counsel
appreciate you coming on
MI 2023-006-059-5604
North 5th Street
the case has been withdrawn
thank you sir
and then
case number three
MI 2024-001-323, 1204 Wilder Street, Camille Deering is the holistic applicant, and Carmela Lucy Salvecci is also the applicant.
Lucy Salvecci is the applicant, also the applicant. No exhibits first listing.
Camille Deering has been allowed to speak.
Who's speaking? Hi.
Hi, this is Camille Deering.
All right. Could you please spell your name for the court stenographer?
Yes, C-A-M-I-L-L-E, last name, D-E-A-R-I-N-G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
We do not have your exhibits.
This is the first listing.
We sent them in yesterday.
Well, if you sent them in yesterday, we don't have them in.
And we also need several days to really prepare for that.
That's why we have a rule about they have to be in five days prior so we can prepare for that.
So what I'm going to do is continue your case.
And if you have any questions, contact our office.
They'll tell you the appropriate time and things like that to get your paperwork in.
Thank you.
So MI 2024-001-323-1204-Wilder Street.
Cases continued.
Mark must be heard.
We're going to go to our add-ons.
number one
voting on this will be myself ishmael and leonard palmer mi 2023 002 291 2018 east ontario street
i vote yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes.
Number two, MI 2024, 000148, 8430 Busselton Avenue, number TA-224608.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, July 31st at 2 p.m.
The next case is 1006 Fairmont Avenue.
Ishmael and Leonard Palmer will both vote on this again
MI 2023
004397
1006 Fairmount Avenue
I vote yes
Her refusal dated 8-4-23
Revised plans one page
Stamped by ZBA July 24th
Ishmael, Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso
the baron leonard palmer vote is yes with proviso thank you
number four mi 2022 004546 3251 fox street
i vote yes with proviso use limited to spaces b01 101 102 and 201
ishmael shaheem my vote is yes with proviso
cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso
tenetta graham my vote is yes with proviso mike johns my vote is yes with proviso
james snell my vote is yes with proviso
number five mi 2022 zero zero excuse me mr chair yeah mr chair um i just want to note that uh
Board member Wynn is present, and Ms. Wynn, if you'd like to vote on the last matter, you may.
I did not hear it, so I would like to.
All right.
We'll make sure when you came in.
Thank you.
All right.
So we're going to five?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
So MI 2022-005-968-5524 Pulaski Avenue.
I vote no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no.
Tayoen, my vote is no.
James Snow, my vote is no.
And number six, MI 2023-003-577-1007 East Hoarder Street, my vote is no.
ishmael shaheed my vote is no michael johns my vote is no
cheryl gaston my vote is no tenetta graham my vote is no
Tywin, my vote is no.
tyowan my vote is no james now my vote is no
James Snell, my vote is no.
Thank you.
We're going to go to our regular list, and we're going to start with number two.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
We have another request for continuance from Mr. Nockamson.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry about that.
Is it number six?
uh is that 2843 west montgomery avenue yep it is we're asking for a continuance movie
moving party all right thank you so mi 2024 002 431 excuse me mr chair i'm sorry to interrupt
um i see um reverend williams has his hand raised probably related to this case okay
I just want to hear from him. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair and Board.
Reverend, how are you? Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonography?
Sure. My name is Reverend Tyrone Williams, Tyrone, T-Y-R-O-N-E, Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Nackamson has just requested to continue this attorney-moving party.
Well, I can understand why he would want to continue as I was in that meeting, and it was only myself, Ms. Cummings, and Mr. Nockmson. I asked for that to be part of the record in that meeting because there was no community. There wasn't even a chance for the community to have input. It was only three of us. And as you're aware, me and Ms. Cummings do not make up Strawberry Mansion. We're part of a whole. Thank you.
Yeah, sure. Mr. Nockmson?
um i i would agree i think there was a lack of notice to the community i didn't get the
the zoom information until eight days i believe before the requested community dates um that's
why i'm asking to be moving party so we could you know present to the community have enough time
and then when we feel comfortable then we can ask the board for a new hearing thank you very much
MI 2024-002-431-2843, West Montgomery.
Cases continued, attorney moving party.
Thank you for calling in, and thank you, Reverend.
There we have Allen with their hand raised again
at Strawberry Mansion Community Center.
It's been allowed to speak.
Hello?
Okay, I just wanted to...
Ms. Cummings, just state your name.
you've already been sworn is bonita cummings yep and please can go on testify i just wanted to
indicate that the uh there was no process there was no problem with the uh mailing and or the
notification for 2843 west montgomery avenue so i just wanted to indicate that the process
is that the applicants is responsible for notification which was which was done
And the residents within 250 feet who are impacted, closely impacted, will attend upon receiving those notices.
So I just want to indicate that because I get the impression that people are trying to indicate.
I have nothing to do with the notification.
No, I don't think that.
So we need to be clear.
We need to be clear for people who are trying.
Right.
I don't think anybody.
The process. I got it. The applicant process that was done. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Okay, so we're going to go to number two. Mr. Chair, I just would like to make a point
that after several months of inquiries to Ms. Cummings and request for to schedule a community
meeting, we did not get notification of the Zoom link until I think it was eight to nine days
before the actual community meeting date.
That is insufficient time for our office.
And I think we sent the notice the following day,
but that's insufficient time for the community
to get the notices in the mail
and to be notified of the meeting.
Yeah, I hear.
You know, I think you're continuing
with turning moving parties the proper way to go.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. We're going to go to number two here. Let's see. Right with you.
Number two, MI 2023, 006-111, 2100 South 61st Street.
This is a resumptive hearing.
And at the same time, could Craig Maldosian come on?
Craig Maldosian, come on.
And also
And also, here it is here.
Joseph Katuzzi, who is the attorney for Council President Johnson.
They will be coming in as a panelist.
Greg Melodosian, please accept the panelist's request.
Mr. Consul, are you on?
Just state your name. You've already been sworn.
Joseph Consul.
Mr. Melodozian, are you on?
Yes, sir.
Yes, Chair Bergman.
Please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Craig Melodosian, Craig, C-R-A-I-G, last name M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair Bergman.
And counsel, hold on here, Joseph Catuzzi, please.
Good afternoon, Chairman. Joseph Cattuzzi of Stradley-Rountain.
Could you spell your name just for the court reporter, please, sir?
Sure. It's C-A-T-U-Z-Z-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I know this is your first appearance for this case, am I correct?
That's correct.
All right. So this is a resumptive hearing. I'm going to have Mr. Consul give an update to where
he stands. I'm going to have Mr. Melodosian give an update and then go to you. And then we're going
to open it up to the public for questions relative to what we say today. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Consul, go ahead. Good afternoon, everyone. Joseph Consul here for John Lynn,
the tenant of 2100 South 61st Street. He's available should he need to be called as is
a representative of Z's Investments, who owns the property.
We're here as a follow-up to the June 5th, 2024 ZBA meeting, where we presented our case-in-chief
to the zoning board. At that time, we were finalizing our negotiations with the coordinating
RCO. And so at that time, myself and Craig Melodosian presented a request that I present
my case in chief that day because we had continued it a couple of times uh pending a an agreement
with the rco the board agreed we presented the case at that time we uh we adjourned to come to
the agreement with the rco um at that time there was no opposition presented uh between that
meeting and this meeting we finalized our agreement with the rco or or at least we had hoped that we
did. A client spent thousands of dollars cleaning up the property, removing all the junk as was
requested by the RCO, and has spent countless hours complying with the terms of the coordinating
RCO's request. However, three days ago, we thought we were on a good path. Three days ago,
we were made aware of the opposition by Kenyatta Johnson. Attorney Cattuzzi was meant to speak to
me this week about it and told me he would, but has not returned my calls or emails to speak to
me. We understand that this opposition does not come from the coordinating RCO, nor another
affected RCO, but from a citizen who appears to have a grudge against the property owner and is
conflating a ZBA application from six years ago with this application and with this tenant that
we're presenting today. This person made no attempt to speak to us, did not speak up during
the RCO process and, in fact, didn't copy us on any of the opposition and was not made aware to
myself or to the coordinating RCO until after 5 o'clock on Friday evening. And so we're hopeful
that we can demonstrate today that the reasons for opposition are antiquated in the sense that
they're relevant to a a zoning appeal that is for a completely different client
Our client and my client, the tenant, has mitigated these issues, and we don't believe that they are relevant, nor should it affect the board's vote negatively today.
and my client the tenant has mitigated
Mr. Consul, you do not have an agreement with the RCO?
We presented one. You can speak to Craig about that.
I am. I'm about to call.
Oh, yeah. Yes. Yes. Please call him because we agreed on a number of terms.
We signed the agreement and then we got the interjection from Katuzzi.
And now we're where we're at. Mr. Maldosian.
Greg. Yes, chair. Please. Could you tell us where you think we stand?
Right. In an unusual situation, to be quite candid, I serve at the discretion of counsel, in this matter, Counsel President Johnson.
My association with this project started back in approximately Q4 of 2016, where there were multiple movements of this application with different counsel and a different appellant back and forth between ZVA and Common Police Court.
And I was at that time, I use those quotations, on the same side as Counsel Cattuzzi because he was representing us in opposition to the project.
Moving forward, a new attorney and new applicant arrived on the scene.
And our consortium of RCOs in southwest Philadelphia, we always try to work with everyone and establish win-win situations.
We simultaneously are aware, as I've said this in the past, Council Member Johnson, now Council President Johnson, is assiduously committed to entertaining the position of all of his constituents as it might involve a matter before this group.
We were, we thought, working towards an agreement.
However, I learned after the close of business on Friday that apparently there was a problem with the application.
I learned that first from Mr. Consul.
I then followed up briefly with Mr. Cattuzzi, then spoke with Franz Pierre on an extended basis on Monday, trying to touch all the bases.
And then I received an email with petitions and a letter of opposition from Marlene Adkins, and that had, I assume, to the project.
Prior to receiving that, I had, and I'm saying I as a representative for the RCOs, for the new board members, we have a consortium.
we all work together. We don't have an issue where one RCO is greater or more powerful than
any other. We are collaborative in our meetings, in our decision-making process.
So yesterday morning, I received that, and that caused us to step back and to reflect upon this.
Again, we were unaware of that level of opposition, and we felt that based on our prior experience with the board and the outstanding resumes of the new members, that perhaps we would defer to the board to determine whether or not this was deserving of zoning relief.
and the degree of zoning relief to which it should be subject.
And this was confirmed, my position was confirmed by the RCOs that I could reach,
which was Ward 40, which was Empowered CDC, which was Eastwick United CDC.
I had previously had communications with Paschal Betterment League, who was opposed to it,
And I was unable to get a response back from Eastwick Community Network.
So at that point, we stepped back.
And what we did ask, which is unusual, was if zoning relief is granted, that the provisos that had been negotiated would still be applicable.
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Catuzzi.
Where do you stand on this?
So, we, again, I represent Council President Johnson in this matter.
As Mr. Counsel alluded to, this property does have a rather contentious history with the
zoning board.
The zoning board had previously on numerous occasions entered into or
The Zoning Board had previously on numerous occasions entered into or rather entered orders
declaring the automotive use of the property be a public nuisance.
It was subject to a fire.
There had also been numerous LNI as well as fire code public safety violations for the
property.
Those violations actually have continued all the way up through August of last year.
In fact, the same fire code violations have been cited.
Councilman John Council President Johnson's office continues to view the proposed uses
as being incompatible with the zoning plans and prerogatives for the community.
There's in the testimony we have prepared today will explain why automotive related uses
are incongruent with being adjacent to residential communities. It's also incompatible and consistent
with the executive, the district plan for this community, especially some of the public health
and environmental considerations set forth in the plan. I did send attorney counsel over
the exhibits that we intend on presenting today. I did have a lengthy call with him last Friday.
It did express that there was a degree, a significant degree of consternation. I wasn't
able to return speak with him I did not receive a call from him although I did get an email but
I unfortunately been tied up with court matters the last few days but did convey that council
president I left you a voicemail okay why don't you finish Mr. Cattuzzi sure so I did convey that
council president Johnson's office is in opposition to this project and we have with me a representative
of his office. We have several exhibits and some testimony prepared to present to the board
as to the reasons why this project should not be granted.
So, Hillary, what if we let Mr. Cattuzzi make his presentation now? Is that okay?
That is fine, Mr. Chair.
Why don't you make your presentation now, Mr. Cattuzzi?
Thank you, Chairman. All right, members of the Zoning Board, again, my name is Joseph Cattuzzi.
i represent council president kenyatta johnson in this matter um i would like to briefly introduce
have with me two witnesses the first person i'd like to introduce is france pierre who's in the
audience so france have you got a raise your hands we'll get you on
we have a denise uh dennis carlisles with their hand raised
Here you go, Franz, raise your hand
There they go, they haven't allowed to speak
Franz, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer
Franz, just mute yourself
it seems that they may be experiencing technical difficulties
mr katusi who's your other witness so i have a marlene atkins as well okay
do we see marlene marlene please raise your virtual hand
they have been allowed to speak marlene could you please state your name and spell for the
court sonographer. Marlene Adkins, please unmute yourself.
M-A-R-L-E-N-E-A-D-K-I-N-S. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. All right, Ms. Atkins, you just introduced yourself for the record. Can you tell the board where you reside?
I reside on Greenway Avenue, 6044 Greenway Avenue.
And can you tell the board how close that is to the property that's the subject of this appeal?
Three houses down and the property is across the street.
And how long have you lived there?
I've lived there over 10 years. I've lived here over 10 years.
Okay. And did you attend several zoning hearings in the past for this property?
Yes, I have.
And did you provide testimony as to the problems that existed when the property was being used for automotive repair-related activities?
Yes, I did.
Can you describe to the board generally the problems that you encountered when the property was being used for automotive-related uses?
when the property was being used for automotive related uses loud noise traffic congestion on
Loud noise.
61st street oil on the sidewalk things of that nature when you say and i want to go through
these when you say loud noises can you can you describe to the board what it sounded like bang
bang clang clang when they're trying to fix the cars uh the engines and things like that that
they were trying to fix and did you hear that when the doors for the garage uh for the the garage
doors the bay doors were closed yes how frequently would you hear those types of noises
when they were in operation so a daily basis five days a week okay and you'd hear it from
your house yes i can and you mentioned odors can you describe to the board what you would smell
oil um gas things of that nature did you ever smell like burning smells like burning rubber
things like that yes i've had i have smelled burning rubber and how frequently would you
would you have smelled um odors when it was in use as a as a automotive related use
at least two to three times a week okay now were you aware of uh any type of
now there was a fire at this property miss atkins yes and aside from the fire which we could get
into but were you aware of any burning activities occurring in the backyard the back rear of the
property um not to my knowledge because the gate they have a large gate that comes down so
okay are you aware can you describe to the board when you said traffic issues what did
you mean by that can you describe it to the board cars coming in and out of those bays
61st Street traffic
if you're on
a certain side of 61st Street
you can't see
the cars
coming out of the bays
to go back into
the auto
garage
the auto yard
and did you encounter
where there would be it would be difficulty to access the sidewalk or for pedestrians given the
nature of the work yes because they always had the cars outside of the bays okay and you had
mentioned that you would you saw some type of oil do you recall saying that just moments ago yes oil
on the when they when they use these bays they the oil would be on the sidewalk where they were
fixing the cars and and doing other things to them can i just object for clarification that
we're speaking about a separate tenant prior to the current tenants coming into the property this
is all right mr katuzzi yes yeah i look i i think i think part of the problem is that
um and i'll get to this the prior use of the property is certainly relevant to what's happening
here for several reasons. First, Ms. Atkins is talking about hearing noise, bang, bang,
clank, clanks, loud noises, three houses down, even when the doors to the bay garage are closed.
My concern is, has there been, and I don't believe there has been, any evidence as to how the
property has been remediated to address those sounds? Moreover, I think that, and it will
become more apparent through Mr. Pierre's testimony, but I don't believe that cleaning up
trash and cars and rubbish and car parts that were strewn across the back of the property
makes this property clean. I think that this is a property that was subject that really needs to be
environmentally remediated before another environmentally dangerous use can be allowed
to go back on and the people of Ms. Atkins community entitled to that. Are you done with
Ms. Atkins? Ms. Atkins if you could just a few more questions for you Ms. Atkins are you involved
in your community do you have a pulse of kind of how the community feels yes and what's the view
for this project the view for this project is a lot of us have sat and and lived through the fire
and watched the owner not really try to regulate what's going on but just to sit back and say
nothing and so you know we we're fearful we're fearful of this and did you did you attend um
And did you, did you attend any community meetings related to this project?
any community meetings related to this project
Yes, I did.
Did anyone from the applicant provide you with any type of environmental studies or investigations for the property?
No, he didn't.
Did anyone describe to you any remediation efforts to remedy any type of environmental issues at the property?
No, they didn't.
Did anyone present any type of environmental control plans for the property?
you mentioned the noise did anyone provide you with any details regarding revisions to the actual
garage structure to mitigate or prevent noise from going through the the garage did anyone
convey to you any type of detailed plans for how odor would be controlled normal good okay
Okay. And Ms. Atkins, could you just tell the board, you're three doors down, how would
you describe the nature of the community? Is it residential?
It's a residential community.
Okay. And have you experienced in your community issues with other automotive-related uses?
Yes, we have.
Okay. And do you find them to be detrimental to residing in a predominantly residential
community? Yes, I do. And would you be, now you're against this automotive related use, but
would you be okay with any other type of community related use? Yes, yes, I would. Yes, I would.
Okay. And when you were at the, at that meeting, did you ask whether the proposed user of the site
had any affiliation with a company called JB Auto over at 529 Woodland Avenue? Yes, I did.
And what did you, what was told to you?
He said, I believe he said that he knew J.B. Auto.
Okay, did they say it was an umbrella or somehow related?
It was JBR, I believe he said that MK5 Auto was a company, I think, owned by JBRto.
And then did you look at the L&I website for 529 Woodland Avenue, the JBRto site?
And what did you see via the L&I website?
i saw mk5 auto
and did you see violations related to that site
i saw violations related to jb auto okay um all right miss hackins i don't have any other
questions for you unless you'd like to share anything else with the board not at this time
Mr. Consul, do you have any questions?
Ms. Atkins, at the meeting that we attended,
did you once mention the noise that the councilman's council has mentioned
several times today?
Was that something that was brought up by anybody at the committee meetings,
community meetings?
excuse me was the issue of the clang clang bang bang that you both have talked about a couple of
times brought to anyone's attention prior to this hearing right now i i can't say i don't remember
okay additionally do you recall there being a representative from the clean air council
at the community meetings who discussed mitigation of harmful odors and that sort of thing?
Do you recall that professional being at the meeting?
I recall a professional being at the meeting, but I do not remember him stating how to mitigate anything.
Okay. You don't recall the Clean Air Council folks being at the meeting?
I only asked that because part of our agreement with the community.
I said, I remember that the Clean Air Council was there, but I don't remember him offering any suggestions about mitigation.
What I do remember was him saying that you guys needed an air permit.
and do you recall him providing us with the permit application and i'll just
suggest that that led to the application being filed on his bequest and became part of our
suggest that that led to the application being filed on his bequest and became
agreement with the RCO. Do you recall that?
What I recall is that he suggested that you guys get some type of air permit because you didn't have one.
That's all I recall.
Okay. So when you said that the odors was not mentioned, that wasn't correct.
Okay. Did you visit the site visit during any of the RCO visits to the site?
No, I was not notified of any site visits.
Did you visit the Woodland site, my client's other property during the scheduled visit?
Again, I was not notified of any site visits.
Okay. I have nothing further for Ms. Atkins.
Thank you, Mr. Catuzzi. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Catuzzi, we'll try Franz one more time. Yep.
Franz has been allowed to speak. Please unmute yourself, Franz.
Good afternoon, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon. Can everyone hear me? We can. Wonderful, wonderful. Yes, that's Franz Pierre.
That's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, P-I-E-R-R-E.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Mr. Cattuzzi.
Thank you.
All right, Franz, do you currently work for Council President Johnson?
Yes, I do.
And what's your role in his office?
Yes, I'm the zoning liaison.
And what do you do as a zoning liaison?
Yes. So as a zoning liaison, I assign RCOs, zoning appeals or zoning notifications when they come across.
I connect them with the applicant and help them through the zoning process.
And essentially, I'm the liaison between the applicant and the community.
And Council President Johnson has authorized you today to be here to convey his office's position on this application and project?
And can you tell the board what Council President's position is on the application?
Yes, absolutely. So, Mr. Chairman, fellow board members, the council member is presently in opposition to this appeal.
And can you explain why?
Yes. And the reason why is because this property is mainly a residential, well, within a residential area, and the Southwest community is particularly burdened by such auto-related businesses.
In fact, it's to the extent that our office likely intends to pursue legislation to prohibit auto shops from operating within a certain distance of residential areas.
So, this is essentially a quality of life issue, and understandably so, because folks simply just don't want to live by auto shops due to noise, chemical waste, and vehicle storage.
Thank you, Franz. Now, can you see what I put on my screen here for you?
Oh, I just put that on. Hold on here. Let me stop sharing. I put the wrong screen on technology.
All right. We'll get it right this time.
All right. Sorry, everyone.
Okay, Franz, what do you see on your screen right now?
Do you see a letter on Stradley Ronin letterhead?
Yep, and do you see it on your screen right now?
All right, so this is the July 19th letter that was submitted with our exhibits.
I want to run through a few things.
You had mentioned the community is predominantly residential.
I'm showing you exhibit one to our package.
Do you see the, does this reflect the zoning map for the community?
And the actual zone plan is predominantly residential, both in front of and behind and all around the located area?
And if we go to exhibit two, does this show an overview of the property and neighborhood?
yes it does okay and you'd agree with me again that not only is it zoned residential
but in fact there are residential row homes all surrounding this property
yes okay i'll object to that being zoned residential are you speaking about the
property itself or surrounding properties the the general contemplated surrounding properties
The general contemplated surrounding properties, Franz, they're residential, right?
fronts. They're residential, right?
And so that's the zone, but also the way it's been developed, it's in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
You'd agree with that characterization?
And you've been there and walked around the neighborhood?
And in fact, other non-residential uses that would be nearby, or there's some community gardens, a handful of churches, and a restaurant?
And you're familiar with the Philadelphia Zoning Code, Franz?
Yes, I am.
And the Zoning Code does contemplate that there's an IRMX as well as an ICMX use?
That is correct.
And the IRMX contemplates residential.
That doesn't allow any types of automotive-related uses, right?
And the ICMX prohibits paint shops, right?
That is correct.
And it prohibits the repairs of commercial vehicles, right?
In fact, none of the uses presented in this application would be permitted by right, right?
Okay. And in terms of neighboring communities, the permitted zoning uses, there is in fact a number of community-oriented commercial and retail uses permitted by the zoning code, right?
That is correct.
Like pharmacies, food stores, clothing shops, eateries, studios, businesses, medical offices, those would all be permitted, right?
That is correct.
Okay, but it prohibits certain automotive-related uses, right?
Okay, and you had mentioned some concerns that the council president's office has.
Some of those include environmental concerns?
Absolutely.
Odors?
Noise?
Traffic?
Okay, and is there a concern that these types of automotive-related uses,
that they have inherently detrimental impacts
on nearby residences?
And you mentioned that Council President Johnson's,
his district is where this community is?
That is correct.
And does your office receive complaints
from the community on a regular basis
about concerns that they have?
So it could be concerns about any number of uses
if someone in the community in the Southwest is concerned about something they could call
Council President Johnson, right? Yes. Can you tell the board a little bit about
the nature of complaints, if any, that your office receives about automotive-related uses?
Yes. So, as I mentioned, the complaints in regards to auto
businesses is that the noise that comes from them working on vehicles. And again,
this is a residential area. It also comes from how they store their waste, whether it's leaking
out into the streets. And then also there are concerns in regards to storage and how they
store their vehicles when they're not operating on them being on the streets, causing issues with
parking, issues with traffic. All these complaints are typically what we receive from our Southwest
constituency. Okay. And when you say you receive these complaints from constituents, how are they
received? Are they recorded by your office? Yes, they are recorded by our office. They're received
typically via telephone. And did the complaints rise to a level that actually it's prompted
an investigation and initiation of new legislation to address the problems in these communities?
Absolutely. Okay. And Franz, you're aware of the history, zoning history of this property?
Yes, I am.
And I want to go through every document of this 256-page PDF.
Mr. Catuzzi, I mean, that's the issue.
How much longer do you think your presentation will be?
I think it'll probably be five to seven minutes longer.
All right.
Five more minutes is fine.
Thank you.
Exhibits three, four, and five fronts of our package.
These shows the prior history of the zoning appeal.
And if we go to page 11 of the PDF, the prior use as an automotive release use was deemed to be a public nuisance?
That is correct.
And if we go to Exhibit 5, or sorry, page 32 of the PDF, did you review, you mentioned, or rather you're aware that this property previously had a fire?
Yes, absolutely.
And have you seen this before?
it's on the screen at page 33 the department of lni uh report related to that fire yes and if we
look on page one it reported that there were there was oily soaked waste not being properly stored
There was oily, soaked waste not being properly stored at the site?
at the site? Yes.
There was improper signage related to hazardous materials?
I'm just going to object for relevance.
This is six, seven, eight, nine, eight years ago, and unrelated parties.
Hold on, Franz, do you agree with me?
Hold on.
Mr. Consul, I hear you, but we're going to allow the testimony.
And Franz, you'd agree that there were, again, large amounts of combustible waste, plastic containers, boxes, rubbers found, engine parts found throughout the property?
And there was also oil tanks with 150 gallons per tank filed throughout the property that were not properly stored?
That is correct.
Okay. And if we go, another exhibit here, if we're going to go to page 99, your office had previously submitted pictures of how the property was maintained?
Yes. And if we look here, we're on page 100, 101. Fair to say that we presented previously to the
board that there was rubbish, car parts, and other trash up against people's homes?
That is correct. Okay. Now, looking back at the history of the fire report, as well as the pictures
we see, does this have concerns for the environment for the folks who live down by this community?
Absolutely.
And is your office aware of any environmental studies performed by the property owner or
any tenant as to the condition and impact that the prior violations had on the site
today?
No, we are not.
Are you aware of any environmental remediation work performed at the site?
Prior to the resumption of another use that would bring, again, chemicals, paint jobs,
and auto parts back to the site, would your office expect first to receive reports,
investigation studies as to how the site if at all had been cleaned up absolutely and your office
would expect to receive that because that would be protecting the public's interest wouldn't it
absolutely we haven't received anything right no we have no and does that have concern does
that create concerns for council president johnson it absolutely does okay and you'd agree with me
that years after the we just went over with the fire there was also subsequent violations for
the property right yes in fact the building if we turn to page 41 of the pdf was determined to
be an unsafe structure yes and if we go to most recently we're going to go down to page 251 of
the pdf uh fair to say that violations have persisted even up through 2023 that's correct
and you'd agree with me that and you reviewed the lease for the prop at least for the new tenant
right Franz? Yes. And that was February 2023 was the lease date? Yes. So if we go the March
violation that pertained to doing work without a license? Yes. And if we go down to the August
violations there was additional fire code violations right? That is correct. In fact if
look here on page 254 of the pdf there's a same fire code violation that section 304.1 that we
saw previously a decade earlier when the property exploded right that is correct there's also
violations about marking containers yes there's also violations about securing compressed gas
cylinders yes and that's not old that's recent right yes it is to the existence of these fire
code violations, licensure violations, property maintenance code violations shown in our exhibit
package, do those present concerns to Council President Johnson? It absolutely does. And does
this convey that there is an ongoing problem with compliance at the property, even with the new
tenant? Yes. Okay, and briefly, are you aware of the community plan, the lower district, the
southwest district plan for the community? Yes, I am. And if we go on the first page,
there's a key issue to reduce air pollution yes and in fact one of the strategies and
recommendations is to improve air quality in the environment for the community yes it does
and if i want to go to just page five briefly this is important where it says area sources
of non-point air pollution include commercial solvent use waste disposal and other small
categories it goes on to say that the district has a large concentration of salvage yards
and associated auto body shops, which may generate air pollution from gasoline and solvent,
as well as toxins, spray cans, et cetera, solvent-soaked towels, right? Asbestos?
And in fact, we saw a decade earlier that there was car parts riddled throughout the property.
There was a fire at the property, right?
Mr. Kattuzzi, we know that. You've said that a couple of times now.
Okay. And also for this community, if we go to page 113, these types of...
If we go to page 113, these types of, the community has found, or rather the city of Philadelphia has found that these types of problems and pollutants actually cause problems on the residents, right?
Yes, it does.
And in fact, there's an elevated level of asthma for children within the Southwest District, right?
and in fact if we go to page 139 of the pdf hospitalization rates for children with asthma
are higher in this district right yes okay and no plan has been presented to you to confirm
or assure the council president johnson's office that the site has been remediated right that is
correct okay um and again the zoning presently prohibits uh auto paint shops right we have that
Has your office, in your office hasn't received, Franz, any types of professional certification
studies or reports regarding the equipment that will be used at the site?
No, we have not.
How about the types of chemicals, equipments, and vehicles that will be stored at the site?
No, we haven't.
Have you?
I'm going to object because that was included in our packet and with our extensive RCO
communication, so this all seems completely disingenuous.
I think we're going to allow that question and his answer, his perception of what he answered by what he knows.
That's fine.
Yeah, and in front, I'm just saying, to your knowledge in the zoning hearing or in general, you're not aware of any of those types of plans or studies, right?
That is correct.
And Ms. Atkins had talked about hearing clink, clink, clank, bangs and noise.
you're not aware of any types of professional studies with respect or professional reports as
to how the property would be remedied or designed in a way to stop noise? That is correct. And as to
the vehicle sale and rental, has any plans been presented to you as to how the area will be lit
up for security? No. Or has any plans been submitted? Mr. Catuzzi, Mr. Catuzzi, how much,
That's okay. I mean, we have like a long series of cases here. If you're going to take much longer, I'm going to have to do a resumptive hearing. You told me, so how much longer do you think you'd eat?
Yeah, I think we can wrap it up with just a few more questions, Chairman.
Okay. All right. And do you have any information whatsoever as to how the vehicle, how many vehicles will be sold or rented at the site?
No, we do not.
Okay. And are you aware of any orange poster signs at the site for the hearings?
Okay. All right, Franz, unless you have anything else you'd like to add as a concerned resident, I don't have any other questions.
Mr. Counselor, do you have any? Go ahead, Franz.
No, I just want to reiterate our office's position in opposition of this appeal.
And again, this is mainly quality of life issues.
So I would ask the board to consider whether you yourselves would like to live next to an auto-related shop that has a history of such violations and not acting in accordance to the city's code, as well as not being a friendly neighbor.
Thank you, Mr. Council, do you have any questions?
I guess just briefly, Mr. Pierre, are you making any claim that the current tenant, Mr. John Lynn, is responsible for anything that that you're speaking of in the realm of quality of life issues?
Okay. The violations that Mr. Cattuzzi showed you from earlier in 2023, you agree that those have all been complied and there's no violations since my client came on, spent money to comply the violations. Has there been any violations since then?
Well, to my knowledge, there has been.
what violations has there been since they were the the 2023 violations were complied
oh since the 2023 okay no okay um you were were led to answer some questions by the attorney
whether regarding whether or not you received reports about various different things at any
point did the councilman's office participate in the process uh between myself and the rco
and the applicant regarding delivery of requested reports and things that were sought out?
I would say our office was in communication with the various RCOs within Southwest.
uh our office was in communication with the various rcos uh within southwest during the process yes
we received petitions in regards to neighbors being in you received you received petitions
from miss atkins right not from any of the rcos is that correct uh miss miss miss atkins is a
part of the rco consortium so i would say yes we received it from the rco she's a human that lives
near the property that is correct but she's also a part of the southwest consortium
okay um all right uh
has this property ever been anything uh besides an auto related use as far as as far as you know
no okay um i have nothing further from mr pierre thank you um hillary are
Our plan here is now to go for public testimony on updated information.
Yes, Mr. Chair, as well as the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Comments from the virtual audience relative to updated information that you heard today?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair, John Lubbocker, Planning Commission, J-O-H-N-L-A-V-A-C-C-A-R-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
In 2014, a zoning map amendment on this site amended the zoning from I2 Medium Industrial to ICMX Industrial and Commercial Mixed Use.
The proposed use that triggers a special exception referral related to vehicle sales, rental, and maintenance is consistent with documented prior use of this property and will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected.
However, the proposed uses that trigger a refusal, the addition of vehicle paint finishing, would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential properties.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the special exception, but deny the variance.
Thank you.
Voting on this will be myself, Ishmael Shaheed, and Leonard Palmer.
So, MI 2023-006-111, 2100 South 61st Street, I vote no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, the vote is no.
Thank you to everybody involved.
Let's go, here we go.
Number four, MI 2024-002-415, 5026 Cedar Avenue.
Darwin Beauvais is the attorney.
Cedar Park neighbors, there was no opposition to this.
A copy of the notice with proof of mailing attached as well.
And counsel Gauthier has taken a position of non-opposition.
Also, there's the applicant provided a petition of support from 38 neighbors.
Mr. Bovee.
Good afternoon, Chairman.
Counsel, how are you?
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
yes darwin okay vea uvaif council for advocate wing to llc and mr chairman if
just indulge me for 30 seconds i just want to uh earlier matter that we are both familiar with that
I want to apologize for, I guess, my overzealotiveness to you and to the remaining staff, as well
as the board council.
You never have to.
You're an attorney.
You're an advocate for your clients.
So why don't we?
I appreciate that.
But it was a little bit heated.
But with that said.
You still have to affirm to tell the truth that I swear you in?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, and our Vice Chair has a few questions for you.
Please proceed, and our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, Counsel.
Do you agree to create another refusal or stipulate to attack this?
I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
I have.
Thank you, Counsel. Please proceed. You've already shared the screen.
Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Darwood Bowie, and if we could identify Boyd Way in the order, if he can raise a virtual hand so he may have my testimony at the end of the presentation.
okay we'll get them for you yep okay so mr chairman members of the board i have submitted to
you 16 exhibits ranging from our refusal to the history of 5026 cdr avenue as well as photographs
property and identification of other properties in the neighborhood. Let's just start with the
So this project is for the erection of a two-story addition with two rear decks, part of an existing
semi-detect structure to be used as a household to family dwell.
Now, what's interesting with this project is that it already exists.
Darwin, we can't hear you.
Darwin, we can't hear you.
can you hear me yeah we hear you now sir all right
Tax clearance, I want to start with our D.
We start with, we're looking at Mr. Lloyd, at Mr. Wing, Wing 2, LLC, this is 2020,
term broke three prior to the excuse me um yeah yeah and i'm afraid our court reporter can't hear
you um um can you go go back out and come back in there seems to be some sort of connectivity issue
this is the reporter thank you
Thank you.
is that better it is we hear you now loud and clear great all right now let me share my screen
Thank you.
it's up yep
I I don't think you want this out I think there's some client bills here okay let me do that again
there we go so
there we go
can we see the d we do okay so
what i was stating before was that i submitted to the board two deeds one two from lloyd wing to
Wing 2 LLC, the second from Faux Property Management to Lloyd Wing. This is the prior
deed, and this is the deed in which the basis of our standing begins. Lloyd Wing, who is the
applicant, the managing member of Wing 2, created this LLC to support one of his daughters who's
on the spectrum. She's in her 20s, and they purchased a property for her to move in.
The property itself, it used to be a three-family dwelling that was approved in 1949.
If I could go to page 54.
this is the zoning history and it shows that this was a three-family dwelling
interestingly enough that this was granted by variants um during the application of of this
particular variance, they show that there was other apartments in the district, which I would
like the board to just take a moment and pocket that. What's also interesting is that the refusals
are the same, that it's for side yard as well as for the sanitation refusal, but that's for the
use because it's for three, it's for three units. As it stands, and if we can go to page 28.
As it stands, this is what the property looks like. It's a twin with three stories. It fits
the same character of, of the neighborhood. And this is the rear. The property has been abandoned
for several years. And my client bought it as is. There were studs still in there. I guess there was
a disgruntled investor who walked away from the building and it still has four meters and it was
only approved for three. Our application is to just reduce the number of units to two and to have
his daughter live in the first floor unit.
So here are the elevations.
There's no change to the design of the building
other than significant rehab.
So we're looking at the second floor
and the third floor plan,
looking at the first floor with the basement,
and clearly we're looking at an RS3
RSA 3 zoning classification, which is creating these refusals. One, we have a setback where
we're proposing five feet when it's eight feet and when it comes to the density. Now, we're asking
the board to grant our variance for several reasons. One, the building already exists.
We cannot, there's no way for us without demolishing a portion of the building to create
an eight-foot side yard. Second, the size of the lot is only 19 feet by 100. And because we are a
twin, we can't go across any more than what is already there. Now, we submit to the board that
there is no negative impact, and also when it comes to the density, because one, we're reducing
it from three, which was approved back in 1948, to only two, which should give some relief to
the density issues. And as you can see from the history, even back in 1948, there were claims that
there were other apartments in the district.
So, but let's look at page 102, which is Exhibit 16.
So we're looking at other units in the area, other properties that are also multifamily in this RSA 3 district.
We're looking at other units in the...
50-25, 50-21, 50-21, which is five family, and we also have 50-19, which is three family.
Now, given this, my client did walk the streets to seek support. He is also of the neighborhood, so he did issue, submit a petition for the board to review, which is page 69, our Exhibit 13.
There are three and a half pages of signatures. They total approximately 38 signatures. I say approximately because, as you can see in this last page, even he signed the petition himself.
Wow but with that said we did have a community meeting which my client did attend uh they they
supported the project as you could see the we mailed we did the proper mailing which we also
submitted to the board and with that I can show the board our better photos of the property
along with our posting.
So with that said,
I would like to send or identify Lloyd Wing.
Mr. Wing.
Lloyd has been allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes. Can you hear me?
I can. Yep.
Great. My name is Lloyd, L-L-O-Y-D, Wing, W-I-N-G, and I'm a junior.
Right. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Wing, did you hear everything that I said today before the board?
Yes, sir.
And would you adopt that as your testimony, as if you made those statements yourself?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that concludes my presentation.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
John Levacar, Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-3 zoning at this site.
Due to the history of multifamily use, there is a hardship, and PCPC recommends granting the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2024-002-415-5026 Cedar Avenue.
I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Canada Graham, my vote is yes.
Charlotte Gassman, my vote is yes.
Kaya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Councilman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Number five, MI 2024-002-426-3849 North Broad Street. Lee Elsie is the attorney. There's a letter of support from Nicetown-Tioga Improvement Team with Proviso.
Good morning, good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon, Mr. Sheriff.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly. Lee Elsie, L-E-E-E-L-S-E-Y.
Right. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is 3845 North Broad LLC. Representative Mr. Chadwick Smith is authorized to represent.
uh representative mr chadwick smith is authorized to represent and i believe is available for
comment on the uh webinar our vice chair has a few questions for you sir good afternoon council
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed
in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing. I have emailed them in. I request that you grant leniency. The documents
were sent on Monday morning. Friday was a day where we had difficulty reaching server as well
as sending emails. All right. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay, thank you. You should be seeing our cover page now. This is 3849 North Broad Street.
This is an existing building that was built in 2021. At present, we are requesting a variance
purely for a change of use in a limited cellar part of the building. If you can see where this
red arrow is pointing. There's a cellar space in the front of the building that's located
essentially, you know, most of the way above ground, but it is four or five steps below ground.
Currently, there are six residential units in the building above that and behind that. None of those
are changing. The only thing we're requesting is to change what was essentially just a storage space
to a building services space for use by the owner of the building.
Let me jump to an aerial image.
So we're on North Broad Street.
We're north of Temple Hospital, south of Roosevelt Street,
between Pike Street and blanking on the name below us.
But you can see these three longer buildings that were all built in 2021.
We're only talking about the northernmost one, the one that that arrow was pointing to, existing photo of the building, and let me jump to the refusal.
So we are in an RM1 residential zoning district, as you're familiar with, residential multifamily is the primary use allowed.
we requested building services which it's a little bit it's one that doesn't come up as often
we think of it kind of like a office for maintenance and repair providers the owner
manages this property as well as several others and essentially they want to use this
as their base of operations, both to have sort of a bathroom, a small meeting space,
as well as storage for samples, extra doorknobs, ladders, things of that type.
The existing building, this is the stairway down into the space.
Everything here is fire rated and separated from the residence above it.
You can see into the space now. I mean, to a certain extent, some of that stuff is already kind of in here.
They're just looking to legalize and get a CO for that use in this space.
Within the space, this is fire rated ceiling. There are sprinklers. There are lights.
It's the electricity is separate from the residence. It has its own water.
Right now, there is no bathroom in there. But as part of this process, you know, the next step, assuming a variance is granted, would be to seek a certificate of occupancy through a building permit, which would include at the minimum a bathroom as well as whatever else LNI requires of the space.
uh these are this is the property to the left towards the right we're showing that um i don't
think it's a surprise to anyone that there's a significant amount of commercial and non-residential
activity on the ground floor of broad street further up uh there's a community center there
is a um a place that was a retail area that is now for rent as of actually i sorry i think this
is post-dated to 2023. At present, it is a retail building. And then further on, we have a church
and an affiliated charter school. I'm sorry, not affiliated, but a charter school. We've got
zoning posters. We apologize. We were unable to secure the orange notice within the time limits.
The orange notice within the time limits here is a deed for the property, the plans, I'll zoom in here.
Now, this is the approved original zoning plan that sought the six residential units.
And here I can show you. So there's no zoning plan associated with this submission.
It's just a change of use. But this was approved in 2019. And there's one, two, three residences in the back, one, two, three residences in the front. And this area where my cursor is moving is a existing cellar space separated essentially in a box here from the rest of the building. And that's the area that we're proposing to change the use.
and let me get to the building plan so we're essentially 750 square feet and during our
meeting with the the community we had a an occupancy takeoff we're assuming the maximum
sort of amount of people that l and i will allow in here is is four occupants at a time
We publicized for the meeting, provided the required mailing of 99 letters, included information to Nice Town Tioga, held a meeting at which there's quite a few community members.
Six were able to vote based on the RCO voting regulations.
All six of them voted yes.
They do propose some provisos here.
Some of these were discussed.
Some of these weren't discussed.
The only thing I would say is they provided this limit access to four employees.
I think that was the number that we raised because that was what we were sort of expecting to get there.
and they say you know no hazardous items they're a little bit concerned that there could be
hazardous chemicals in the building I would say to that is that we have no intention of
storing any you know large amounts of hazardous items in that space or sorry the owner does not
and any sort of you know we'll go through the process with LNI regarding the certificate of
occupancy and the inspections that the actual hazard group is a hazardous items themselves
require a whole different level of building occupancy and requirements than what we're
planning to seek. This is, which will be essentially a sort of office business type
space with storage in it. We've included a few zoning precedents. This is, I think,
four house four four buildings over at 3843 which was a daycare and meeting center on the ground
floor um which is the previous zoning variance there's also a previous zoning variance just a
few more doors down at 3839 for a beauty salon uh on the ground floor was with residential above
uh we've included our project information as well as a tax clearance um at this time
i would like to request the admission of mr chadwick smith
mr smith
they have been allowed to speak sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Chadwick Smith, C-H-A-D-W-I-C-K-S-M-I-T-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Smith, were you present and were you able to observe and hear my presentation?
Are you willing to adopt it as true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. Thank you. Questions from the board.
I have a question. So is this the space where the tenants can come and confer with the management? And if so, what would the hours be for that?
So this is a space that certainly, and I'll let Mr. Smith address it in more particulars, as we discussed with the community, this is a space where they will be able to drop off rent checks and where they will be able to notify the management.
I can't speak to what the regularity of it would be, I would assume, probably during business hours with some likely times when no one's present.
mr smith would you like to elaborate upon that yes that's accurate we would we would interact
mr smith would you like to elaborate upon that yes that's accurate
with the community and hours would probably range from eight to six and sundays on weekends to
times on weekends thank you the questions from the board oh i did um so building services what
What is the zoning for this area? Is it residential zoning?
This is RM1 residential, which does not allow retail or commercial uses by right.
It is a little bit of an odd block.
I could pull up the zoning if the board would like that.
Primarily, Broad Street is CMX 3.
Across the street, CMX 2.5.
But north of it is similar zoning that all sort of allows or actually requires ground floor commercial or non-residential.
This is sort of an odd block in that there isn't a uniform commercial component to it, although there's certainly plenty of commercial on this block.
And definitely across the street is it a Pet Boys or something like that, Mr. Smith?
Something like that.
And along this side where this is located, are there any other commercial uses along that block?
Yes, there are.
Yes, so this is the building.
So, you know, one, two, three, four down.
Well, actually, three down has a zoning history as a daycare and community center.
Four down, I believe, is a sort of a religious type use.
And five down currently is a retail clothing sales.
And so what I saw in there, it looked like there was drywall and something else in there.
Is that what I was seeing?
So right now, essentially, it is what would happen pending the granting of a variance, I'm sorry, let me, would be a building permit.
And that would include whatever is required for the code occupation of this building by this type of business, which is it already has a two hour.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the rating is.
I think it's a one-hour fire separation from the unit above, complete with sprinklers and separate metered lights, and it has a fire separation from the hallway with a rated door, and it will include, at the very minimum, a bathroom, as well as whatever else is required through the plan review process with L&I.
and the plan uses for basically storage of building materials and supplies correct yes so
it's it's the the the i can read the definition it says uses that provide maintenance and repair
services for all structural and mechanical elements of structures as well as the exterior
spaces of a premise it lists some typical uses which are sort of janitorial window cleaning
plumbing things along those lines and this would be for what this would be property maintenance is
the the business that's looking to use this property maintenance of this building or this
building as well as other buildings so it will be essentially a business operated by the owner of
this building. Okay. And how is these materials and supplies supposed to be delivered? And
what kind of, will there be truck parking and what have you to transport these materials
to from so I'll let Mr. Smith elaborate upon that we had we had this we certainly had this
discussion with the community and it's not the intention to you know bring in a hundred windows
or massive quantities of drywall or that sort of thing it's more like
samples of material types for selection, the extra screens, sort of the odds and ends,
ladders, tools, things along those lines.
That's correct.
No large deliveries would be planned for this location.
No large deliveries would be planned for this location.
It is, just to point out, it is 750 square feet.
It's roughly 11 feet by 68 or by 69 feet.
So it's not a space that is sort of conducive to the storage of large amounts of materials,
especially once it has a bathroom and a sort of small sort of meeting desk area
that will also need to be in there and are you planning any kind of signage or anything like that
uh there is no signage on this application um
mr smith are you planning to apply for any signage in the future
uh we haven't had that in our plans no
thank you any other questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney hillary
members not at this time mr sheriff questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission
john lavacar planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends changing the zoning at this site
from RM1 to RM4. The proposed use would support the dwelling units and would not have inverse
impacts. Therefore, there is a hardship, and PCPC recommends granting the variance.
MI 2024-002-426-3849 North Broad Street, I vote yes with proviso. No storage of hazardous materials.
my vote is yes
with Proviso
Michael Jones
my vote is
yes with Proviso
Teneda Graham
my vote is
yes with Proviso
Joe Gaston
my vote is
my vote is
yes with
Proviso
James Snell
my vote is
yes with
Proviso
thank you
thank you
council
number seven
MI 2024
6150 Lancaster Avenue
David Meidel is the attorney
Letter of
unanimous support
from Overbook West Neighbors, Inc.
Chair, we have Henry Clinton
with their hand up.
What's that?
We have Henry Clinton with their hand raised.
Okay, Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not counsel on this case.
I inadvertently hit it because I heard 67,
and that's the first two numbers in the case I have later.
No, I'm sorry about that.
David Meidel, MITA.
He's there, Mr. Chair.
Sorry to see Daniel Meidel.
Thank you.
hi counsel how are you sir
could you unmute
did he disappear
no chair he's still there but he's just
unmuted
Mr. Meidel could you unmute your phone
your speaker
Mr. Maito, it seems that we cannot hear you. Do you mind coming out and coming back in?
Chair, we also have a John Donatino with their hand raised.
Should I allow them to speak?
Let's see if Mr. Meidel's there.
Mr. Meidel?
john you have to unmute it please speak mr meidel
daniel meidel i believe mr diantino is here regarding a case on the 330 list okay
OK. Mr. Meidel. Why don't we do this? Why don't we come back and call him later? Let's move on to the next one.
So number eight, MI 2024 002 470 855 North 16th Street.
Michael McElhenney is the attorney. There's a recommendation of support from the United
Francisville Civic Association. Vote was 11 in support, 1 opposed.
Afternoon. Hi, counsel. Could you state your name and spell please for the court sonographer?
Michael McElhenney, M-C-I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
My client is 2, LLC.
Its member is Nathaniel Mahone, and the LLC is the owner.
All right, my share has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reason of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. I'm putting our exhibit packet on the screen.
I know the board's behind schedule, so I will move through this quickly.
Just for the record, our zoning appeal is at Exhibit 11.
Exhibit 12 is our zoning poster posted at the front of the property on 16th Street and on the
side of the property on Harmer. Our RCO notice is at Exhibit 13. We did meet with United
Francisville on June 12th and do have a letter of support. My client's deed is at Exhibit 14.
My clients, Nathaniel Mahone and his wife, Tamika, they've owned this property for over 20 years at
this point, and they recently, in 2017, put it into an LLC that they control. The tax clearance
showing a zero balance is at Exhibit 15. And the RCO letter is at Exhibit 1. There were 12 attendees,
11 in support, one opposed. Exhibit 2 is our refusal. So our application here is to have
three dwelling units in the existing structure. The property zoned RM1, which allows multifamily
But as noted on the refusal, you need 1,080 square feet of land to have three units.
We have 1059, so we're 21 square feet short, which is about, we're off by about 1.9% of
a buy right third unit.
I will jump quickly to exhibit nine in our packet, which is my client's current zoning
permit.
Back in 2018, we got approved for a vacant ground floor commercial space and two residential
dwellings on the second and third floor.
and my client has proceeded to renovate the property
according to that permit
and has been unable to rent the commercial space
which brings us back to our request today
to rather than have commercial on the ground floor
to change that into a third residential dwelling unit.
Exhibit three are maps of the subject property.
The property's on the southeast corner
of North 16th Street at Harmer,
Poplar to the north
and the Ridge Ave commercial corridor
is a block away to the south.
The property and its surroundings are all zoned RM1.
There's two CMX1 properties.
And then the commercial corridor on Ridge Avenue is all CMX 2.5.
The page three is just an aerial view looking north at the subject property.
To the north of our property is a large multifamily building, 27 units.
And just showing on the south is the Ridge Avenue commercial corridor that has been substantially redeveloped in the past couple of years, 10 years or so.
um and there is extensive vacancy on commercial spaces on ridge avenue which is one of the reasons
we have a support letter from the community exhibit four our block photo current photos
of the property which is the in the middle of the screen 855 north 16th and other block photos which
i'll scroll through just to give context this is the side of the property on harmer street
uh the other properties to the east on harmer harmer street are all duplexes
the property to the north as i mentioned 1510 poplar is a 27 unit uh multifamily building
and i'll scroll down to page five the property across the street to the west of us is a duplex
across the street to the west and to the south are as a pha property that's a triplex and then
on the corner is 840, which is a one-unit PHA building. 848 North 16th Street is a two-unit
building. The properties on either side on Ogden Street and Harmer Street, you'll see are triplexes,
The properties on either side, on Ogden Street and Harmer Street, you'll see are triplexes, duplexes, and quadplexes.
Looking at page 7, going to the south on the same side of the property, we have a two-unit condo building attached to our building, then two vacant lots.
And then farther to the south, we have a commercial building with two units above.
And the rest of that block, we have triplexes, a quadplex at 839 North 16th Street.
the properties on Ogden Street on the 1500 block are duplexes and a six unit building in the middle
of the block and the property is 843 North 16th to the triplex and farther down that block we have
another triplex and then a four unit building at 837 North 16th Street again and on the west side
are triplexes. And so I'll just go to the exhibit five are photos of the subject property. This is
the first floor of the commercial space that we're asking to use as residential. As you can
see, it's a vanilla shell. This is a view looking at the front door from the back of the front of
the commercial space. The second photo is a view from the front door looking to the back.
and then going to the fourth photo this is just a rear room behind that front room and then there
is a bathroom part of the rear room on the first floor the basement is framed out and the client's
been using it for storage of his just construction materials for now as he was looking for a
commercial tenant which for the past two years he's been unable to find
our floor plans art exhibit so i did include exhibit six for the neighbors these are just
photos of the unit two and three on the second and third floor just showing the existing two
bedroom one bath apartments that are occupied and have been for the past year or two and i'll
skip through to the floor plans for it so the proposed floor plan zoomed in
the first floor it has an angled entryway it comes into the living space with a a full kitchen
my client's proposing to put the stairs on the the south side wall and remove the stairs that
are currently in the middle of the building and then we do have an existing room which would be
a den at the rear with a bath and we would end up with in the lower level we have the stairs coming
down to the lower level and two full bedrooms, two full bathrooms and approximately eight and a half
foot ceilings. The room at the east, it would be used for mechanicals and storage. So we're
requesting approval for a two bedroom, two and a half bath residential unit. Exhibit eight is just
the existing layout of the building just showing open commercial space stairs in the middle of the
building and then that rear room at the back and the lower level is just vacant the i did include
at exhibit nine a series of all the zoning archive records for the or at exhibit 10 rather all the
zoning records for the properties on north 16th street that are multi-family and multi-unit
the property or as i noted exhibit nine was originally zoned for commercial use it was a cmx
two zoning it was rezoned to rm1 as the refusal indicates and we're basically requesting to
keep the character of the block as residential there's not really a need for commercial space
on this corner especially when ridge avenue corridor is full of vacancies at this point so
that's why we do have a letter of support for the community and we would request um that the
zoning board do grant the variance for this uh third residential unit with that mr chairman if
i could call the client mr nathaniel mahone to raise his hand
mr mahones could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes good afternoon chairman how are you i'm pretty good thank you
Say your name and spell it, please.
Nathaniel Mahone.
N-A-T-H-A-N-I-E-L.
Last name is Mahone.
M-A-H-O-N-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Mahone, have you heard the statements I presented to the board?
Yes, I did.
And were they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
yes they were and is it true that you've tried to rent this property for commercial use for the
past year or two unsuccessful yes i have unsuccessfully and would you adopt my
statements as your own yes i do no further questions mr chairman questions from the board
Yes, I do.
No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the board.
Question. The new apartment that's for the first floor, that's bi-level, it's what, a one-bedroom with a den space?
It would be a two-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath space.
Can you go back to the plan of that basement level?
it looks like you're going at the bottom of the stair through a doorway into a bedroom out of a
bedroom so you're going so yeah we're changing the stairs from the middle of the building to the
south side wall it would come down to a landing which would then turn into the bedroom at the
i got it west and then a bedroom towards the east i got it i got it yeah i got it and luckily these
buildings have a deep basement and we have very high ceilings yep i'm good i got it excellent
questions from the board are there any uh hi mike um are there any uh commercial uses
anywhere around here i mean which what i saw was mainly residential you did show
there's only one there's only one use at
eight four seven which is a corner coffee shop on the ground floor with the apartments above
Okay. Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
John LeVicar, Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1 zoning at this site.
The variance to add a third dwelling unit is de minimis, and while PCPC would prefer that the first floor remain commercial to maintain the neighborhood fabric, considering the support of the RCO, PCPC expresses no objection to this proposal.
MI 2024, 002-470-855 North 16th Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Number 12, MI 2024-002-481, 700 East Hunting Park Avenue.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
No RCO meeting or summary, but notice was sent to the near neighbors with proof of mailing.
Meeting held on July 16th, 2024, before Aspera, Aspera Asperanza.
Good afternoon.
Counsel, you've already been sworn today. Could you just state your name?
Yes, Zenjin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N for the applicant.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is PC Philly LLC. They're a tenant at the 700 East Hunting Park Avenue location, and Mr. Ameri should be here on behalf of the company to verify my testimony.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wavering another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
I emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Yes, we have with the exception that we did not receive a letter from Esperanza who held the meeting with us. We did provide the proof of the meeting as requested by the board council.
Thank you, council. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the documentation we submitted. Can everyone see my presentation on their screen?
Yes. Yes. Thank you. So we submitted, as you can see, item one through 10, including refusal, proof of RCO meeting, photos, plans, and related documentation in support of this application.
This is an application that is refused for a sit down and take out restaurant in suite 10 of an existing structure.
I want to point out that the only reason we received this refusal is because this place, which this space, is part of a shopping center.
And the shopping center is still zoned in an I-2 industrial district.
This is very common around the city of Philadelphia, and that is the sole reason that we were given a refusal in this case.
As you can see, the ZBA did grant variance for another space, also for a similar use within the shopping center.
The application before the board is for a corner unit within the shop.
is for a corner unit within the shopping center to be refitted out into what is essentially
a chicken concept, a Latino chicken concept, which was originally started in New Jersey
through my client's corporation. They are trying to expand one of their restaurants to this place
at this location. It is both eat-in and take-out along with the drive-through,
all of which will be contained within the shopping center premises itself.
There are plenty of parking.
Again, this is an active shopping center.
The surrounding neighbors are all predominantly commercial as well.
So that is part of the reason we had very few notifications going out to residential neighbors in the area.
The original, when we first filed the appeal, we reached out to the Councilwoman Lozada's office.
and spoke with her zoning representative.
And it was told to us that there's no RCO for the area.
What we did then is continue to work with them.
And eventually Esperanza was appointed to help us have a meeting
because we were unable to get another RCO involved.
Esperanza met with us about a week ago.
At the time of the meeting, I was assured that a letter would be forthcoming to the board.
They did not feel that this is a controversial application.
Certainly, the use fits the nature of the operation of a shopping center and is not objectionable in any way.
So that is where we have had the prior discussion with RCO.
Here's a rendering of the concept, how the space would look once it's completed.
I am going to also show the menu. This is the menu, which would be the food types that would
be available on the menu. And also some of the information relating to hours of operation is
part of a business plan that was previously submitted to the board. My client will intend
to hire locally. They will be opening seven days a week from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. And their menu would
be predominantly the food that they would serve. Trash would be a waste management commercial
pickup six times a week as they have similar in their location in New Jersey. They will have
two three-yard containers for trash and one three-yard container for recycling. So given the
nature of the space, the area, and the site with the unusual I2 zoning for a shopping center,
we would ask for the board's favorable review of this application for variants.
My client should be here to verify my testimony,
and I'm certainly happy to redirect to any part of my presentation
and answer any questions from the board.
Counsel, is signage part of this?
Signage is not part of the application, Chair.
Is there a drive-thru window?
There is a drive-thru window, yes.
There's a drive-thru aisle and window.
Let me go ahead and put the plan up so the board can see better.
So the drive-thru, although there is a drive-thru,
the drive-thru is actually within the shopping center parking lot.
So it's not going to interfere at all in any way with the traffic
or flow of traffic in any part of the roadways that the shopping center abuts.
And as a consequence, neither the window, the driveway,
are really items of separate items of refusal on this particular application.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
You want to bring your client on?
Mr. Amiri, if you are present, please raise your hand virtually and be identified.
Tejas Amiri has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sir, Tejas Amiri, T-E-J-A-S, last name Amiri, A-J-M-E-R-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Ajmeri, did you see my presentation and hear my representation before the zoning board?
I did.
Can you verify what I have represented to the board is true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own?
It is, yes.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Yes, counsel, can you go back to the plans and show me where the trash containers will be stored, the trash and the recycling?
Yes. So this is the, I'm sorry, let me move this bar out of the way here. Let me zoom in.
so as you can see the this is this is the space area we're actually part of the overall space here
um mr uh edmary do you happen to know exactly where the trash uh dumpsters are on your space
yeah go go north right um and right right there to the left that this space is uh dedicated to
these tenant spaces for the trash containers correct exactly yep thank you and it's in one
of those enclosed um concrete okay concrete blocks yes ma'am all right thank you thank you
the questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
it's just a question um mr jenna yes so i was looking at the
the permit application and it mentions the takeout window um but then it's not on the refusal
um i did see like a key plan um but i'm not sure if this there was some sort of review for the
the drive aisle that needed to be done and whether that that happened i understand this
on private property so it wouldn't necessarily be a streets review um and maybe planning can
weigh in on this um but i i thought it was because it's contained within private property and it in
no way interferes with any of the sidewalk or roadways that's why it wasn't i mean the the
plan itself with the window and drive
aisle was submitted to L&I with the
original application. Yes, and
I do see that. I also see this was a
change of use application,
which means it might not have been
reviewed. So I may just want to just
hold this for
a week and make sure that
this was put through
correctly, because
with it having
the takeout
window and the drive aisle and
And the drive-thru and neither of those being mentioned on the refusal.
I just want to make sure nothing was missed that needs to be there.
Right.
We are understanding, and again, I understand you would like to check with L&I, but our understanding is that we did ask for these with L&I.
And the main refusal point was because of the industrial and because the windows and everything is off of, again, off of the streets and sidewalks.
That's why we didn't get a refusal in any way for that.
But that's, again, I understand if you wish to.
Well, hopefully, Hillary, we're going to have this by next week, right?
Yes, yes.
No, I just, yeah, I just need a couple of days.
All right, good.
So we'll finish the process.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, we have one hand.
Jihad Ali has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Ali, just for the record, state your name, please, and spell it for the stenographer.
My name is Jahad Ali, J-I-T-G-I. That was an error. I apologize.
Swear, did the court reporter get that?
Mr. Chair, I am familiar with Mr. Ali, but I am having difficulty hearing him.
Okay. All right. Good.
Chair, I just want to put on the record that Esperanza is also aware during our meeting that a takeout window is asked for along with the drive-thru.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, Mr. Ali?
Mr. Had?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
That was a mistake.
I apologize.
Okay, you're getting off?
Yes, I'm getting off.
thank you thank you thank you um planning commission
on love a car planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends changing
the zoning at this site from i2 to icmx which would allow commercial development at this area
therefore there is a hardship and pcpc recommends granting the variance
um mr zen we'll be back to you next wednesday at 2 p.m thank you and we'll vote down at two
o'clock okay and thank you very much appreciate it thank you number 13 mi 2024 002 517 6721 to 27
upland street henry clinton is the attorney no rco letter or summary but notice was sent to
nearby neighbors with proof of mailing provided on July 15, 2024, before the 40th Ward of Republicans.
2024, before the 40th Board of Republicans?
Mr. Chair, I believe we just this afternoon did receive the letter from the 40th Board of Republicans.
Is that Mr. Maldosian?
That's Mr. Maldosian.
So if he's still on, I believe he could speak to that.
Thank you.
All right.
Is he in favor?
I haven't even gotten to look at it yet.
All right.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
There's a number of advisors, but he's in favor.
Okay, good.
Mr. Clinton, could you just state your name for the record, please, and spell it?
Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Would you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
My client is Abdelmani Abdallah.
I'm going to spell that.
A is in Albert.
B is in Boyd.
D is in Dennis.
M is in Michael.
O, N as in Nancy, E as in Edward, I as in Isabel, M as in Michael, that's the first
name, Abdallah, A, B, D as in Dennis, A, L, L, A, and he is on the call.
Our vice sheriff has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to leave the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do wish it, Shahid.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with
this case of these in advance of this hearing i would say 90 of the documents were sent in five
days in the last couple days we we have the letter of support from the community and a floor plan
thank you mr planton please proceed and share this one thank you very much
is that visible mr chairman it is uh good afternoon mr chairman members of the board
i'm here on behalf of mr abdallah who is on the call with us this concerns 67 21 to 27 upland
in the southwest section of philadelphia my table of contents containing exhibits a1 through a11
And also at the end, I've indicated there's a rental license for four units.
I've given also some historical perspective for the property from 1939 until 2012.
This is a proposal.
I'll get the refusal.
So let me do this first and I'll go backwards.
So this is a proposal for concerning a large parcel of grant, about 17,000 square feet.
and it's nestled in between other automotive-related uses.
My client's property at one time was automotive-related uses,
but over time, it has morphed into more of a residential use.
We are zoned RSA 5, but we're surrounded by ICMX,
as well as the railroad tracks box us in on the north side of the property.
Historically, the building in the front,
and I'll give you closer perspectives of the building as well as the floor plan,
And the building in the front historically has been four apartments.
When I went back into the zoning records, you'll see at one time it was one family, then four family, then three family.
But I think the zoning, whoever asked for those variances, they never really converted the apartments into single family because I have photographs of four heaters, four hot water heaters, five meters.
So, and my client has had a rental license since he's owned the property, and I'll show you that.
So that's the first building.
The second building was supposed to be a storage facility for the automotive uses on the building.
It was built, I gather, in the 1990s.
It's a cinder block structure, which I'll show you a close-up view.
And we're asking for two dwelling units to be located here.
the four existing garages are here i've been in existence since 1939 the garage over here since
1939 and these three garages so the game plan is to take this structure this whole parcel and
basically remake it and make it pave it 17 parking spots also have landscaping around the perimeter
and also some storage for trash.
So that's the nutshell.
That's the overview.
I'll go backwards and then come forward again.
So the refusal is, again, this is an RSA 5 zoning district
surrounded by ICMX and the railroad tracks.
And the refusal addresses, because it's RSA 5,
we have more than one principal use.
We have uses of a four apartment unit building,
two units, as well as seven to eight garages and 17 parking spots.
So this is the RCO letter, which we got from Mr. Mitolozian hours before today's hearing.
hours before today's hearing. And we've had numerous discussions with him, as well as
And we've had numerous discussions with.
other RCOs. And there's about three or four RCOs in the Southwest Philadelphia Consortium.
And basically, we do have support with a number of provisos. One, landscaping design. We do have
to complete that in accordance with PCPC design parameters. We will have trash containers.
We will have two trash pickups.
We do already have, my client has a professional real estate management company.
It's Nova Real Estate, located at 70th and Dix in Southwest Philadelphia.
There will be no automotive repair uses, rentals, or storage.
There's a big concern, as you heard in a previous presentation, with auto repair outfits and
companies setting up shop in Southwest Philadelphia and really driving down the neighborhood use
and residential use.
Because this historically was that type of use,
we are morphing away from that and making it residential,
and the community is in support of that.
And we're also going to have public safety lighting from dusk to dawn
and also have CCTV system registered with the police department.
These are the various RCOs in the Southwest Consortium.
This is the original photograph I showed you now.
Some closer-up photographs.
This is looking from the north to the south.
Again, these are the garages that have been in existence since 1939.
This is the four apartment buildings in existence.
This is the proposed two-family dwelling.
A photograph from the street, Upsil Street looking in, Upland Street, excuse me, looking north.
Again, this is the building where we have four units.
you can see there's five meters each meter for one of the one bedroom
apartments and one for the common space those things basement shots indicating
four hot water heaters some of the heaters
but this is the the best shot right here of the four heaters there's one in the
background there it didn't show very much on the photograph and here are the
three heaters. We have some interior photographs. The units are occupied, so it was difficult to
get inside and ask the residents really, could we take pictures of the inside units? They felt
uncomfortable, but we do have photographs of the hallways and one historical photograph of
the interior of one of the units. This is the overall plan. We have two plans. This is the
plan that's been stamped by the streets department and again we're we're narrowing uh the parking
spots we're going to have landscaping around the entire perimeter trees shrubber used to bring some
greenery into the area at one point there were about 25 parking spaces because of landscaping
we've cut that down to 17 including one handicapped spot right here in the front we're also going to
have some landscaping in front of the existing four dwelling unit and then the trash enclosures
are probably going to be, not probably, they're going to be located along
the back wall here where there's another building existing on the other
property. This is the streets department
approval. And this is a floor plan. If I could,
I'll just change this view.
In the basement, there's no use of the basement by
any of the apartment dwellers. They're all utilities down there. The electric meters are
posted on the outside of the wall. We do have, as I said, four heaters and four hot water heaters.
These are all one-bedroom apartments. There's actually three one-bedroom apartments
and one studio in the rear. The rents are very attractive. They range from $500 to $650.
My client has tenants from the neighborhood who are very happy. Each of the tenants are allocated
at two parking spots. So that's four times two, that's eight. We have a request for two additional
units. That would be two parking spots per unit that would bring us up to 12. And then there's
other parking spots for people who may have to use garages. I just want to emphasize to the board
and to any of the RCOs or Mr. Medlosian who's on the call that this property is not going to be
used for automobiles in any way, shape or form. And we're going to be, my client's going to be
putting a lot of money into this project and he doesn't want vehicles that without license plates
with motors hanging out. It's just not going to be a good look for the people who'll be living
there as well as for all the improvements that he's putting in. It's just not a way he wants
to go. And he can actually adopt that when we ask for his testimony. This is the tax certification,
Actually, a printout from the Philadelphia Tax Center indicating no real estate.
Actually, a printout from the Philadelphia Tax Center indicating no real estate taxes are due.
And this is an instructive zoning map.
Again, our area is the shaded area, 17,000 square feet, RSA 5.
Arguably, if you had each property parcel, if we had enough width, you could put maybe 15 single-family homes on this property.
It really doesn't warrant that.
It would be an overuse of the property.
So we're still using a residential nature of the property for uses for, again, moderately priced, if not low priced units for people in the neighborhood.
The purple is the ICMX and as well as a railroad traction and across the street is McCreish Playground and the SPPO section.
Just a close review.
this is the deed indicating ownership of the property
we did send out notices for the meetings
that we've had with the community group this is our proof of mailing
mailed out 68 pieces of mail
to the surrounding neighborhood within 250 feet of the property
Upland Street as well as 68th Street these are some of the zoning
records Mr. Chairman which I will go through I don't want to be I don't want to overdo it
but I guess the tenor of this presentation is over the course of almost 100 years,
this property has had multiple uses.
The chief use has been garages, machine shop, and multifamily.
In 1939, in fact, I can actually show you this sketch.
This is a sketch I got from the zoning files from 1939.
Here it is, 1939 down here, indicating these garages are in existence
and the two-story, three-story brick property in the front is already in existence.
The only thing that's really changed in terms of structure since that time frame is in between
the four-family dwelling and the garages, there's a two-story property that is basically empty.
I was in it myself. There's nothing in it. There's no joists. There's no floors.
It was meant to be storage, but again, we're asking that this be residential because of the size and the enormity of this particular lot.
In 85, it was four family, eight garages.
Somehow it was converted to one family, but when my client purchased it, it was already four family, and he continued that use.
So, Mr. Chairman, I can go through the zoning records if you want me to.
This is from 1985.
1990, again, it's listed as a one-family, but not used as a one-family.
This is a 1996 commercial supplies, garages.
Again, here's a drawing that I found from 1996.
So this two-story structure, which I'll show you again at the end, has been in existence since 1996.
And all the other properties have been in existence since 1930.
All the other, excuse me, buildings have been in existence since 1939.
This is a drawing from 2012.
So sometime between, from 1996 to 2012, that two-story building has remained there.
And you can see parking was just kind of laissez-faire.
There really wasn't any organization to the parking.
There wasn't any landscaping, and it really was an eyesore.
And my client's looking to bring it back into conformity.
Here is the rental license that he's had since 2015, and I do have to point out to the board with candor to the tribunal that this is inactive only because it just ran out June 29th of 2024.
The management company, Nova, is in the process of renewing that license, but it is in effect and has been in effect for almost 10 years.
So just in summary, we do have a hardship, I believe, because this is unique physical circumstances of a large, extremely large, single-family lot.
I'm going to go back to the aerial photograph.
So extremely large, single-family lot.
It's had a commercial use, garage use since 1939.
Also since 1939, it's been used as residential.
It's surrounded by ICMX to the west.
And even though even to the east is RSA5, you can see it's all automobile related.
And the community and the RCOs were really adamant about trying to get rid of the automotive use that historically my client's property.
uh the automotive use that historically uh my client's property was used for
mr clinton did you uh did you show us what the two-story dwelling is going to look like
this is a two-story structure now this is yeah but i'm saying did you like how it's going to
be laid out for a duplex no because they're right now there's nothing inside in terms of what he's
What he's going to do, it's going to be two bedrooms, two baths on one side, two bedrooms, two baths on the other.
This cinder block is going to be stuck out.
There's no rooftop deck.
And this area is going to be windows with a front door, not a garage, because there's ample parking.
You want to bring your client on, please?
Yeah, I just wanted to conclude with we're not altering.
well, we are altering the essential character of the neighborhood because we're changing
this historic use into residential or residential. We're cleaning it up. We're not impairing the
development of any adjacent properties. It's in harmony with the code because it will be
residential and it's in harmony with what the community wants. So with that, I asked Mr. Abdallah,
can you unmute yourself? Yes. Hi, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer?
Abdelmuna Abdullah,
A-B-D-E-L-M-O-N-E-I-M,
last name Abdullah,
A-B-D-A-L-L-A.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Counselor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abdullah,
were you on the call
when I presented your project?
Yes, sir.
If you had the chance to testify,
would you adopt my testimony
as your own
and that's true and correct?
And can you state unequivocally for any of the RCOs or any of the neighbors that are on the block that this land will not be used in any way, shape, or form for automotive-related uses, repairs, or parking?
Yes, I assure that. It will not be used for automotive. It will be residential and storage only.
Thank you, Mr. Abdallah.
Questions from the board.
I have a question.
What shared outdoor space is there for the residents, or is there any?
So, if I can go back to the plans, this area here, which is now really not even, I wouldn't even call it grass, it's going to be a grassy area here for individuals, and also there's a little area, fenced-in area, in front of the building, Ms. Graham.
Thank you.
Question.
I have a question.
Yes, ma'am.
Who's going to, who are the parking spaces for and the storage?
Who's that for?
So the storage there, he rents to individuals in the neighborhood.
There's a police officer who has, he stores, I think this is the garage he has.
He has cars, not cars he works on, but just cars he owns.
The other spaces are, one is rented to a local company in the area that stores equipment in there.
The same thing with the other garage right here.
So it's local people who store items in there, not meant for, again, automobile related.
The parking spaces, to answer your other question, there's four units here.
That would be two per person.
That's eight.
If this gets approved, that would be four more parking spots because it would be two bedrooms in each unit.
That gives us 12.
And then the garages sometimes use parking when they come into the space.
And then to alleviate parking in the neighborhood, my client rents spots to anybody in the neighborhood for $50 a month.
And he has three local residents who live within walking distance who park their cars there.
What's the front of the two-story structure that you're converting into dwelling units?
And how does someone who lives there that's walking get to their front door?
So there's an entrance. I'll go back to the front.
There's an entrance on the front to enter in and walk to the back.
And also there's a gate here that opens for pedestrians.
One side, if a vehicle has to go through, two sides.
And then they would walk down along the fencing that's on the side of the front building to the entrance of the new structure.
So the entrance of the new structure, the main entrance of the new structure is through this door that we could sort of see where that square box is?
Right here?
No, to the right.
Well, you know what?
There's a door.
There's a fence.
Yes. You see that that door behind the white. So that's the door that will be.
Yes, you see that that door behind the white. So that's the door that will be the door and that'll be the entrance into both of the of the unit. It's kind of difficult because we don't have a layout of what that building is going to look like. So it's kind of hard to.
Let me see if I can show you further plan, Mr. Johns. You are right, though. So there's a fence and a walkway here that you can walk down to get into the four-unit building, and then it comes out here, and you can come in this way. So I didn't really explain it very properly, but this is a better rendition of what's happening.
so they'll be so there are two two units that are going to be there that uh i guess uh bi-level
units is that the plan but there's it's it's wide enough where there's going to be one unit
okay and the unit on the second side by side yes sir okay okay because the text though okay so
you'll be adding windows and the like i guess on the second because there are no windows on the
second floor. Correct. It's kind of hard to determine when there's no plan. All right. Thanks.
Questions from the board.
Questions from our attorney. Yeah. I'm sorry. Sure. But question. So then the 17 spaces or they're
not dedicated for use by this proposal. They're just there on the property.
Well, what we're going to do is in the leases, if this gets approved, we're going to assign parking spots to individuals in A and individuals in B.
Right now, we don't have it, Ms. Gasson, but there are going to be amendments to the leases so that there's dedicated spaces for each apartment dweller, so there's no arguing or consternation over who's parking where.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Questions that comes from our attorney.
Just quickly, Mr. Clinton, did you say there were originally proposed 24 parking spaces, but now it's 17?
Correct. I don't know if I can give you the number, but I think I might have said many.
But yes, there was 24.
I think this project has been germinating for about two years and been a lot of revisions on the parking over time.
Okay. I just want to make sure there weren't any like amended plans or amended refusal or revised plans or anything related to that.
Not that I know of, Ms. Emerson.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
And then the other, the one other thing I wanted to mention in terms of the provisos recommended by the RCO, I think probably the one that the zoning board could most readily add if they decide to grant would be having commercial trash pickup two times a week.
So I just want to make that note for the board.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
if any rcos are on the call we will abide by these provisos and we'll put that in writing
and it'll be signed by my client okay thank you mr clinton thank you miss emerson questions
or comments on the virtual audience
Craig has been allowed to speak
Craig Craig could you just state your name
please you've already been sworn
yes Craig Melodosian
please proceed sir
just historically for some of the new members
This ICMX corridor stretches along primarily the Chessie Railroad spur, running from approximately 58th Street to 70th Street.
This applicant came before us in 2012 when this space came back available due to a divorce and liquidation of a plumbing business.
We did approve at that time the automotive-related uses.
He failed to execute on his variances.
And when he came back, and in approximately 2014, there was a comprehensive rezoning along this in an attempt to push out or prevent new automotive-related uses coming in by going to RSA 5.
He came before us again in 2019. We opposed it. And after, as he came in with new counsel, Mr. Clinton, who was far more disposed to negotiating, and this was the compromise plan we came up with because it removed all automotive-related uses.
The two-story building there was originally for garages on the ground floor, offices on the second floor.
So garages on the ground floor, offices on the second floor was built out.
It was built out.
We felt the best thing to do is we need in the area is residential, even though it's RSA 5, we will look for apartments.
The other consideration with the 10 parking spots on what would be the north end of the parcel closest to the railroad tracks would hopefully be available in the future for further build out of an apartment type use.
uh it's a less than perfect plan uh i know that mr johns raised the issue there is a separate gate
approximately three feet wide six and a half feet tall that does lead to that pathway so
pedestrians can get in and out without having to go through the rolling driveway gate
and again it's it's a compromise but since this has been around since 2012 it seems at this point
in time it's it's the best that we've been able to arrive at we did have another parcel next door
20 sorry 6719 that tried to do something similar with automotive related uses uh we were able to
defeat that uh and uh we would ask you uh to to give consideration for this plan uh though less
than perfect uh six of the jurisdictional i'm sorry there are six jurisdictional rcos three
agreed to participate the vote on the rcos was two for one against uh we did have neighbors uh
one in opposition others voted uh for it including a near neighbor the next door neighbor
so in in light of what we have to work with it seems to be the best that we can do at this time
uh and i i leave it at that unless uh well i do want to point out again despite what uh
The council said we did ask for a corralling of the trash.
I know that that's something Mr. Johns looks at at the front of the parcel with actually two pickups per week.
And we'll abide by a memorandum of agreement regarding the other issues.
The landscaping is important.
And that was one of the reasons why the last application was defeated because of a very inferior landscaping plan.
So this landscaping is important to us, and we expect it to be in within full compliance of applicable PCPC parameters for species of trees and shrubs.
Thank you very much for your time.
Does anybody have a question for Mr. Maldosian?
Thank you. Any other people in the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I don't have a question, just a brief comment. I wanted to note, Mr. Melodosian
referenced that the next door neighbor was in support. We also received a separate letter from
the neighbor in support of the application. Thank you. And I believe that, and Mr. Clinton
can verify i believe that landscaping plans were submitted um and put and appear to be
have been reviewed by um the planning commission um for for this case so i think that's why there
aren't any mention of uh landscape related refusals on this on this uh refusal you're
You're correct, Ms. Emerson.
Planning Commission.
Jean Labacar, Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 zoning on this site.
The appellant has demonstrated unique physical characteristics of the property and documented prior use of multifamily, multiple principal uses, and off-street parking.
However, the requested variance is not the least minimum.
Therefore, PCPC recommends granting the variance for multiple principal uses and multifamily with the proviso that four units are the maximum.
mi 2024 002 517 6721 to 27 up on the street
i vote yes with proviso maximum four units commercial trash pickup
my vote is yes with proviso
Michael Johns my vote is yes with proviso
Tsunetta Graham my vote is yes with proviso
Cheryl Gaston my vote is yes with proviso
Tyone my vote is yes with proviso
James Snell my vote is yes with proviso
thank you Mr. Clinton
thank you Mr. Chairman members of the board have a great day
We're going to move on to 14, and then we're going to go back and do the one we didn't get to yet.
We're going to move on to 14, and then we're going to go back and do the one we didn't get to yet.
MI 2024-002-602, 31 to 33 North 43rd Street.
Meredith Verliger is the attorney.
No RCO letter or summary, but notice was sent to nearby neighbors with proof of mailing attached.
Meeting was held on May 30th, 2024 by West Poulton Saunders Park RCO.
Mr. Chairman.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, your relationship to the property?
My client is the owner of the property, owner VLLC, represented today by Rami Shrine.
um our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do agree to waive the reading i
don't stipulate to the accuracy i believe one refusal was issued improperly and i will address
that thank you have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i sure did thank you please proceed
I'll start first with what was seemingly missing, but is actually not missing here.
Can you see the RCO letter up on your screen now?
Okay, great.
So there was a letter.
It was sent, I believe, just yesterday.
It was a letter in support.
there is an attached letter, which I can bring up if you have interest in reading it while I get
started. Just do me a favor afterwards, make sure Hillary gets a copy of that. I most certainly will
do that. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the property before you today is 31 through 33
North 43rd Street, which is a property that is currently approved and permitted for the erection
of a new structure for use as a three-family dwelling that was permitted by a prior owner
of the property. Today's request merely seeks to reduce the number of units from three to two
and to add a small medical dental office on the first floor and within the basement.
The property is an extremely unusually shaped small property measuring 901 square feet at the
corner of North 43rd Street and Powleton Avenue. The exhibit packet before you includes 15 exhibits,
including tax clearance at Exhibit 2 and the deed at Exhibit 3. And as I mentioned,
this is the new owner of the property who purchased it in June of 2023.
In addition to the owner, I do have the project architect on the line,
should the board have any detail-oriented questions. By way of a preliminary summary,
this property was previously approved and is currently permitted for the construction of a
multifamily dwelling to contain three units. And I did include the prior permit history at exhibit
five. As you can see on the aerials at exhibit nine, this property sits among a diverse group
of structures and uses both on North 43rd Street, which is here, as well as on Powleton Avenue.
This view from the north here shows this very small triangular parcel right at the corner.
To the rear here is Fire Station. And if I flip to the east view, you'll notice across
North 43rd Street is a shopping center that contains a subway restaurant as well as a Dunkin'
Donuts. Looking from the south, the board will note again the extremely unusual conditions
burdening this corner property, which is adjacent to residences heading east on Powelton Avenue.
These residences include a mix of two-family, three-family, single-family, and some higher
density uses, which you can see in this view here. Finally, from the west, the board can see the
conditions across the street on Powelton Avenue, which is the beginning of the Drexel Athletic
Complex. From this view, you may also notice the commercial property that I referenced directly
across North 43rd Street, which does contain a subway and a Dunkin' Donuts. There is also an
entrance to the fire station directly behind this subject property which is entered from North 43rd
which is entered from North 43rd Street. The zoning map is also included at Exhibit 8,
Street.
which shows that while this property is zoned RSA 5, it is surrounded by a dense mix of
classifications, including CMX 4 across Powleton Avenue, CMX 3 across North 43rd Street and
directly behind the property, as well as RM1, which starts roughly halfway up this block along
Powleton Avenue. Flipping to the photographs at Exhibit 15, again you'll see the unusually shaped
lot right at the corner, which is next to a recently improved triplex. The next view is from
the side along North 43rd Street. As noted earlier, you can see the subway and the Dunkin' Donuts
directly across North 43rd Street in this next photograph.
In the next view, you'll see the entrance to the Drexel Athletic Complex,
which is directly across the street from the property, which is just here in the corner.
Flipping in the other direction again, the board will glean the mixed character of this direct corner.
If we move farther west on Powleton Avenue, you can see the location of this corner property
out here in the distance indicated by the arrow, which is directly behind that shopping center.
I have also included a final view looking north on North 43rd Street, where the board can see the
adjoining entrance of this fire station. Photographs of the zoning posters, which were
timely posted on July 2nd, are also in the packet. As I referenced earlier in the presentation,
in 2021, this property received a zoning permit for the erection of an attached structure for use
as a three-family dwelling. And as I mentioned, I did include that at Exhibit 5. We have also
included the zoning plans that were approved with that permit. Those zoning plans are not
slated to change with this instant application. As you can see, the former owner and former
applicant secured a variety of variances from this board in the past, including for exceeding
open area and height, insufficient rear yard depth and use. The previously approved zoning plans are
also shown, and as I noted, these are not slated to be modified. The application before the board
today is merely a change of use. In the previously approved floor plans, you'll notice, and this is
an important fact, that unit A was actually proposed to comprise the full cellar level
and the first floor. A building permit for this was approved in July of 2022, which remains valid
and active today. With this instant application, the new owner and applicant is proposing to
eliminate the basement and first floor residential unit and instead to replace it with a small
1,360-square-foot dental practitioner office. We did include updated floor plans at Exhibit 6.
And you can see here, I don't think there's anything necessarily surprising.
This is really laid out as a traditional dental office. I did include a printout of the dental
practitioner's practice to give the board a brief overview. This is an award-winning
practitioner who currently has another location in Center City. In the cellar level, there will
be staff areas, an office, sterilization room, and one patient room. The first floor will have
three patient rooms and a reception area. The dental office will be entirely separate from
the residential entrance. You can see here's the entrance to the dental office. Here's the
entrance to the residential hallway, which is towards the front. The two remaining residential
units will be substantially similar to the previous design, with a few modifications to accommodate
a sale of the units as condominiums versus the previous plan for rental units. Unit one will
remain 645 square feet and unit two will increase from 929 square feet to 1015 square feet with
bi-level living area on the fourth floor. I'll zoom out. In response to working with the local
community on this application, my client has also made modifications to the exterior look.
We've included renderings at exhibit seven to show the modified design intent and you can see
their balconies for the two residential units. The office hours for Dr. Al-Harir are currently
Monday through Friday 9 to 5 and Saturday 10 to 1 with flexible appointments available.
and Saturday 10 to 1 with flexible appointments available. This location would have very similar
hours. And in terms of trash disposal, as I mentioned, the zoning plans are not slated to
change here, but there is a designated trash storage area on the side that would be used by
both the residences as well as the dental office. And you can see that in the rendering here that's
meant to be shielded from public view. Regarding the refusal, this proposal received two refusals,
one which we submit is incorrect. The proposal received a refusal for the proposed two-family
use. To address this succinctly, because this proposal was already approved for a three-family
dwelling, this applicant or any other applicant could have elected to reduce the unit count
without seeking variance relief? Because the project was previously approved by variance for
multifamily use, and this application is only looking to reduce the units, unless the board
commands otherwise, I will largely not focus the argument today around the proposed multifamily
use, which was previously adjudicated by this board and will only be reduced in density by
this application. Instead, I'll focus on the second refusal, which notes that the proposed
commercial use is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. The applicant submits to a hardship
given the history of this property, the size and shape of this property, as well as the context of
this neighborhood and block. Given the unusual shape of the permitted design, as well as the
dense commercial surroundings, a first floor and cellar commercial use is more feasible in this
location than an exclusively residential use. As the board saw in the evidence I presented earlier,
this corner sits in a dense mixed residential and commercial area.
The proposed dental office will allow a more efficient use of the heavily unusually designed
space and will be a community-serving, very small dental office, which would be permitted
if the lot were zoned CMX2, like many corner properties throughout the city.
Additionally, the board also saw that the third residential unit that was originally
approved would have been required to occupy the full basement and first floor, which is
certainly not as desirable in terms of living conditions.
Conversely, despite the layout challenges that render a residential use less desirable,
the cellar and first floor of this structure are perfectly suited to accommodate a small-scale dental office.
I should also note that the refusal specifically only seeks to approve a dental office.
I'll highlight that here.
and not a broader medical use, which is narrowly tailored intentionally directly in response to
discussions that the applicant had with the community. The applicant submits the proposal
as the least minimum variance, as the property was previously adjudicated to have a hardship
in complying with both the use and dimensional requirements of the zoning code. Given the
property's location on a corner and the surrounding dense commercial uses, adding a small dental
office is the least minimum variance to more closely align the use of this property with both
the surrounding multifamily uses as well as the commercial uses. The proposed unit reduction will
also bring the property further into compliance with the RSA 5 zoning, with now only one extra
unit above that which the code would ordinarily allow. We submit the proposal will not increase
congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and air. Given this property's favorable
location at North 43rd Street and Powleton Avenue, it is surrounded by ample on-street parking and
does benefit from close proximity to area public transit, including the Market-Frankford line one
block south. Given the dense commercial uses, this proposed use does represent a careful balance
between surrounding residential and commercial uses and is consistent with general planning
principles that encourage small commercial uses at corners. I should also note that this
sits squarely within the 46th Street and vicinity commercial corridor, which does run all the way
up to Powleton Avenue. The proposed structure here is already permitted and is not proposed
to change except for the interior and the facade. A full analysis is provided in the memorandum of
law that I submitted to the board at tab 12. With respect to the community, we did meet with
Powleton Saunders Park RCO several times, including most recently for the official meeting in May.
including most recently for the official meeting in May. That discussion resulted in a vote of
That discussion resulted
support that, as I mentioned, was sent to the board yesterday, and I will ensure that council
receives a copy of that. One of the main concerns was ensuring that the approval would not
inadvertently grant approval for any other medical use, which the board can be confident that that
is the case, given that our application was specifically for a group dental practitioner
or office and no other. So I would bring up my client to adopt my testimony as well as to be
available for any questions the board might have. If the administrator, if you look for Rami Shrine.
Okay. They have been allowed to speak. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer? Hello, Rami Shrine, R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth told you is nothing but the truth i do appreciate counsel uh rami have you heard all
the testimony and evidence that was offered before the board today yes would you agree that testimony
was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own yes very happy to take any
questions you have questions from the board
go ahead yeah what size units are these going to be council so the unit sizes uh let me bring
up the floor plans here so unit two which is the second floor that is not changing from how it was
originally approved so that was originally approved at 645 square feet that is not proposed
to change the second and the third and fourth floor unit is actually getting bigger it was
originally about 960 929 square feet and it's now being increased to 1015 square feet
and these are I can't I can't tell because it's so doggone small is this two bedroom one bedroom
what so the second floor unit is two bedrooms and then the third and fourth floor which is a
bi-level unit uh that is also a two bedroom and again these are the the design changes here
were really to accommodate more of a condominium based design versus the prior rental
okay and there's going to be a deck i'm not sure if i saw whether there was it was on the front
yeah and that was that was a part of the original zoning approval so that would not have been a part
of this particular application which was just a change of use but that should be that should be
reflected on the original ones. I guess just the question is more about how small things are and
because of the unusual shape that's all. I understood it and certainly we would submit that
you know eliminating one unit and and expanding the size of one is is certainly a much better
situation than you know the original approval had so this is this is really bringing it a lot closer
to compliance as much as possible, at least in terms of the residential units.
Okay. And then with respect to this group dental practice, how many dentists, how many assistants
can you have? So with the group dental practitioner classification, that does not
limit the number of dentists or staff. So that limit really only comes if you have it approved
as a sole practitioner office. Rami, I know that you're very familiar with this dentist and his
current office. Are you able to address how many dentists you would anticipate him having in this
space and staff sure um and again this is based on the um other practices that that we have uh
for a four chair practice there will be um two dentists rotating and um and two staff um again
rotating uh you know different days but but it will be two dentists and two staff and one receptionist
thank you sure you're welcome other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson just briefly mr chair um first i just
wanted to note for the record that there appears to be a refusal missing for multiple principal
uses on a lot as this is an rsa5 property so i just wanted to to note that um second
So I just wanted to note that.
you can
Second, Ms. Ferlinger mentioned in the RCO letter that they wanted to see this particularly limited to a group dental practitioner.
I know it says that on the refusal, but technically the use is broader than that.
the actual use category group dental practitioner is not a use in the zoning code, but the board
could adopt a proviso limiting the use to a group dental practitioner if it wished.
And that would be perfectly acceptable to the applicant.
I have a question. The multiple uses that they weren't given a refusal for,
if approved, does that take that away? Does that include that?
yes it is it is presumed um approved if we approve this application so i just wanted to
note it for the record in case it came up in the future that we were aware of it and that
you know the board by approving it approved this additional refusal as well gotcha thanks
questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission chair we have pamela andrews with their hand raised and they have the number
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good afternoon, Pamela Andrews, P-A-M-E-L-A Andrews, A-N-D-R-E-W-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Give me the opportunity to speak this afternoon.
First of all, I'm the chair of West Pout and Saunders Park, RCO.
We did have numerous meetings with this developer.
However, the community is in support of this project, but I just want to note that we did work with the original owner on this project very extensively to get this design done in a way that the community could support.
And there was a CBA that was put together with a term sheet and specific ask that the community had wanted to see that developer sign off on with us.
Those items in that CBA were submitted to Mr. Rami, and I am hoping that if this is approved, that we will have an opportunity to sit down and to look at that CBA once again and get an appropriate term sheet set aside with his attorney that would address those issues.
Because we've been working with developers on this project since 2021.
That proposed CBA covered things like beautification of the block.
The developer said he would work with us to help to provide funds for our clean and safe community initiative.
But the community, first and foremost, wanted assurances that the dental practice could only be used as a dental practice.
moving forward in the future.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
Thank you for calling us.
We appreciate it.
Planning Commission.
You know, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
I do have one more question.
Does a dental practice require any kind of special trash disposal,
like you would say with a medical office?
Require by whom, Ms. Gatson?
I don't know by whoever.
I mean, would this produce like some kind of, I don't know, hazardous waste of any sort?
So I certainly, yeah, I mean, it's certainly not a zoning requirement.
Rami, are you able to speak to how that is addressed at the other dental practices?
I would imagine that there are designated disposal areas and pickups for things of that nature.
Yes, certainly. We actually, a dental practice is required.
You have companies that you contract with them and they dispose the, you know, the dental waste that they take it.
And it doesn't go with the regular trash of the building.
Okay. All right. Just asking.
Good question.
Thank you.
Chair, we have Pamela.
Thank you.
Thank you.
With your hand raised again.
Hi, Pamela.
Pamela?
Please unmute yourself.
I'm sorry.
I just wanted to note that the community did bring up concerns about medical trash, and some of those things were actually...
concerns about medical trash and some of those things were actually to be listed in the CBA
specifically in terms of how trash was going to be managed on that site so we had addressed that
thank you thank you very much Pamela um planning commission
John Levicar planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 zoning at
this site. Given the zoning and lot size, the variance for group practitioner's office is out
of character, but the variance for two-family dwelling is de minimis and appropriate for the
area. Therefore, PCPC recommends granting the variance for two dwelling units and denying the
variance for group practitioner office use. Mr. Chairman, just to address that briefly,
as I noted, that refusal for two-family is not even a correct refusal. And we submit that,
again, this proposal is bringing this property much further into compliance based on the context
of the surrounding area. Hillary, what was your comment about a provost?
Mr. Chair, I could indicate. Dental? Dental? Yes, that the use is limited to a group dental
practitioner. Thank you. MI 2024-002-602-31 to 33 North 43rd Street, I vote yes with
proviso to group dental practitioner. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, could you repeat that?
I didn't.
So what Hillary said, the use is limited to a group dental practitioner.
Oh, okay.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Jeanette Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tyia Nguyen, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel. We're going to go back. We're going to handle one more on this list and we're going to take a break.
So number seven, MI 2024-002-433-6150 Lancaster Avenue. David or Daniel Mita is the attorney.
Unanimous support from Overbrook West Neighbors.
Counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Daniel Mita, M-I-T-A, with Dwayne Morris.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Certainly.
Thank you for your patience earlier with the technical.
No, no, no, that's okay.
That's okay.
I'm sorry we didn't get back to you.
Appreciate that.
so uh we're uh we're representing applicant uh jaztech enterprises who is the fee owner
of the subject property uh being 6501 lancaster avenue
uh the applicant is sorry go right ahead our vice chair has a few questions for you okay
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy
uh yes with the one caveat that the refusal has an error in so far that uh it referenced code
section table 14702-2 uh where uh it should have been uh code section table 14701-3
okay thank you um have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance it is here yes thank you council please proceed
and share your screen thank you very much
okay great can everyone see my screen we can we can yep okay excellent um so i'm i'm glad to
go through each and every exhibit, although I'll forbear doing so unless requested.
The client is looking to overall create a project that will contemplate a modular pre-construction
one-story building that will accommodate restrooms and community meeting space, as well as landscaping
and hardscaping in a community areas.
The project will also include open air solar pavilion, producing clean energy and provide shade for community members and community congregation.
The project will also include open air solar pavilion producing.
The applicant is looking for two forms of relief from the board today. One is a use pertaining to special exception, and the other is a variance pertaining to frontage requirements.
The subject property is located in a CMX 2.5 zoning district, which is permissive as a special exception of a community center use, which is being sought by the applicant today.
The CMX 2.5 zoning district allows the community center to utilize the property as a community center.
The center intends to use the area as a community catalyst for educational purposes, green infrastructure, and leveraging the entire property for indoor and outdoor amenities and community space.
I'm going to jump down to the, oh, I should also mention that there is, we submitted under tab eight of our submittal package.
a provisio plan form, which noted that the modular building is set back four feet closer
to the frontage, which I'll get into just a moment with the plans, which results in
some de minimis adjustments.
So those are all memorialized in the plans that were submitted, as well as the plan provisio
with addendum.
this is a depiction of the site plan you can see Lancaster Avenue up at the top of the plan
and then it enters in this is the frontage of the subject property which is about 66.6 feet across
and just to kind of give your bearings this right here is the modular building I referenced earlier
that's about 56 feet by 12 feet in dimension or 672 square feet of area.
And then it has a large kind of frontage deck here for congregations sitting.
There'll be chairs.
The balance of the property is largely open community space.
There's going to be some cafe style tables for folks to have lunch at.
And then this square pad you can see right here will be, there's some kind of rubberized tiles, and then there's a pavilion that will have a solar structure so folks can sit out in the open, but have some type of coverage from the sun and be able to plug in their phones or computers for a little recharge with that clean infrastructure.
And then the balance of the space is largely going to be adorned with hardscaping and landscaping planters, things of that oak, to make it a really kind of welcoming community space.
You can also see in tab 10 that we have some elevations here. I'm glad to zoom in if that's helpful.
um let me just kind of so this gives you a little bit better visual of the layout
uh these are the kind of rubberized tiles i was mentioning that are the frontage of the deck
with some chairs there this is the modular building obviously uh you have kind of outdoor
chairs kind of congregating here you can see there's different tables uh including up near
the front portion of the property and then this of course is the pavilion that i referenced earlier
this gives you an elevation perspective uh this is the abutting property where there's some uh
car parking adjacent this is an elevation of what the pavilion will look like and this is an
elevation of the modular building which you can see has some chairs and plantings from a screening
and you can see there's chairs and ramps pertaining to the uh excuse me uh the deck
to get up into the modular building this gives you a perspective of what the frontage of the
modular building will look like uh with the steps here in the front and the chairs planters abound
there's a bike rack also contemplated planters seeds etc
and the to to give a little bit more context as to the zoning relief being requested i think the
community space itself uh the community use speaks for itself although we're very glad
to answer any questions and we have a number of witnesses available as well depending on the nature
we have a number of witnesses available as well depending on the nature of the questions that arise
of the questions that are
but the the the use variance is is really for for two particular items one the uh
the the the current zoning requires for a primary frontage building requirement which would require
that this building, in particular, the modular, be right up against the frontage of the subject
property. If that were the case, it would really crowd the front. It would kind of create a
monolithic block to the balance of the park that would be in the rear of it. The whole concept
that's being contemplated here is tucking the modular building towards the back of the lot
so the frontage opens up as kind of a welcoming invitation to the community, and they can see the
full kind of amenities that the outdoor community area will provide. And the same also goes, of
course, for the pavilion, which is also deemed a structure as well. Just to kind of give you a
little bit more clarity, the modular building is going to be set back 63 feet, four inches from
the frontage and then the uh solar structure is going to be 39 feet uh four inches from the frontage
and council who's council who's going to run this on a day-to-day basis sure so it's uh it's going
to be run by uh the applicant uh and i can give you a little bit more color which was actually
touched on, I would also reference the board to look to the RCO under tablet 14 letter where we
received unanimous support. I thought that. Yep, I have that. Excellent. Well, I thought the RCO did
a very good job of summarizing in a concise way, so I'm going to parrot the last sentence of their
second paragraph. The Overbook Environmental Education Center partners with 10 schools and
serves 10,000 people. So this is a well-established community citizen. And I'm
very glad to bring up the client who can speak in a little bit more detail if you'd like some
further back. Unless he can adopt your testimony, right? Yes. Okay, sure. Bring him on. Okay, great.
um jerome are you there
if not is up mr roosevelt sanders available yes roosevelt has been allowed to okay great
mr sanders could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
roosevelt sanders r-o-o-s-e-v-e-l-t s-a-n-d-e-r-s do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed counsel great uh mr sanders um can you confirm uh
your title with jazz tech enterprises i'm the board president great and mr sanders did you hear
my full testimony earlier?
Yes, I did.
And can you confirm that it's true, complete, and correct?
Yes, it is.
And would you adopt it as your own in full?
Yes, I will.
We're very glad to have Mr. Sanders answer any questions
as well as myself the board may have.
Questions from the board.
This looks like a great project.
i'm familiar with that group they do a wonderful work in in the neighborhood and around the city
any other comments from the board mr chairman i'm gonna recuse myself okay all right um
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes we have one hand gregory gregory allen and they have been allowed to speak
mr allen could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
chair and board my name is gregory allen g-r-e-g-o-r-y last name a-l-l-e-d-n
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth mr allen
I do. Please proceed, sir. So you saved the best for last. Well, we did. We did on purpose.
No, I appreciate that. So we're very well. We know Mr. Shabazz and Jazz Tech and Overwork
Environmental very well. He's been working on this project for some time. Probably the reason why we
Probably the reason why we have three, have a unanimous decision only the third time in our history.
have three, have a unanimous
So it's a very well thought out project.
They've been doing environmental education in our community for maybe a generation.
And so that explains the unanimous support of the project.
Mr. Allen, thank you very much, as usual, for your comments.
um planning commission
john labakar planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx 2.5 zoning
at this site the proposed special exception for community center use would not cause adverse
impacts and the variance for setback is in accordance with the proposed use and appropriate
for the neighborhood therefore pc pc recommends granting the variance and special exception
Thank you. MI 2024-002-433-6150 Lancaster Avenue. I vote yes. Proviso. Revised plans, three pages, stamped by ZBA on July 24th, 2024.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
danetta graham my vote is yes with proviso james now my vote is yes with proviso
thank you is there anyone in the three in the uh 2 p.m list whose case has not been called
i see no hands so we're going to take a five minute break we're going to come back and i
think we had three other cases. Thank you, everyone.
All right.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the 330 ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismael Shaheed.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Tenetik Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member, Michael Johns.
Michael's here, and also our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and also Kathleen Grady, our deputy director.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting kathleen.grady at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our deputy director, Kathleen Grady.
Here's our schedule.
So, get over here, number two, MI 2024-001-452-7130 Boyer Street, cases continued.
Number five, MI 2024-001-459-5357 Lancaster Avenue. Cases continued. Number six, MI 2024-001-594-922 New Market Street. Cases continued.
And number seven, MI 2024-001-595-52 East Washington Lane, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands.
We're going to start with number three, which is a pro se case.
MI 2024-001-453-2308 South 16th Street.
001-453-2308 South 16th Street.
John Fink and Audrey Ellis are the owner applicants.
There's a letter of unanimous support from Broad Street West RCO.
John Fink will be coming in as a panelist.
Thank you.
good afternoon mr fink hi everyone good afternoon all right could you state your name please
and spell for the court's sonographer yes it's john fink j-o-h-n-f-i-n-k right do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do uh mr fink this
application is for the demolition of the rear portion and the erection of a rear addition
to an existing attached structure for use as a single-family household living.
Their minimum required rear yard depth is nine feet, whereas five feet, ten and a quarter inches are proposed,
and the minimum required open area is 25%, whereas 17% is proposed.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, sir.
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to and required to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, I have. Thank you, sir. Please
proceed and share your screen. All right. Thank you, everyone.
So these are the materials prepared. And I will go to the picture of the house here on page 17.
All right, let's see, this is actually on page 21.
All right, so here's our house on 2308 South 16th Street.
My wife and I are where the owners, and this is, you know, existing two-story row home,
And at some point in time, a small one-story laundry room addition was constructed in the rear of the first floor.
And so here's the pictures of the rear of the property.
And this is under the second floor projection bay.
So this addition, it has structural issues, and it's settled significantly over the years.
And because of this, we'd like to demolish this edition and rebuild it.
And we'd also like to expand our kitchen into the space in order to make it more functional.
Let me bring you up to the drawings on page 17.
So here's the schematic and the drawings.
so the proposed addition will exactly match the footprint and height of the existing structure
we will not be expanding what is currently on the property it's this area here from above and
this area here from the side in the back of the house and the new addition doesn't meet the zoning
codes rear yard setback and open area requirements so that's why we're seeking a variance to replace
this existing structure. Finally, I'll just show the letter from the community organization here,
the meeting that we had in May, and the letter of support from that meeting.
Why don't you show us real quick what you're, do you have the drawings,
Heather, what it's going to look like when you're done inside?
um i don't think believe we have that drawing but i also have my architect here um on the line
uh for any technical all right so what i'll do is we'll have you leave your architect on the line
and if the board has questions we'll bring him on okay sure sure yeah i have these drawings of the
you know the schematics but not like a visual yeah sure questions from the board
no chair
questions or comments
I do what size area is this
width we're talking okay
yeah for this if we want we can bring on the architect to speak specifically to to this
um no just 16 feet wide right the whole lot is 16 foot wide that's right i believe so
that's right i believe so and then this is what how many feet in depth it's like 30 you're talking
and then this is what how many
about the addition 13 so small i can't read these yeah about 13 by seven oh okay all right like an
old kitchen yeah let me pull up the picture of the back of the house so you can get the real
the real view on it yeah okay i see so it's this it's like this part here kind of starts with this
window um and it's like the brick ended and at some point they built this out on you know as an
addition under this overhang so it's it's this and basically we're you know we want to demolish
it and then just rebuild it um properly um in the same footprint okay does it have any kind of
support system do they whatever now that seems like a good question for an architect if we can
all right just probably doesn't have any now i guess he's gonna have well it has settled
significantly over time that's why he's tearing it down once the territory gotcha okay all right
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Ambers?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission, A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The appellant requests dimensional variances for rear yard depth and for minimum open area.
The appellant seeks to remove the rear addition, then build a new addition with approximately the same footprint.
The proposed addition will not endure the use of adjacent properties.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed dimensional variances.
Thank you.
MI 2024-001-453-2308-South 16th Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Kaneta Graham, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ty Owen, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
I want to move to number...
Let's see here. Number one. Number one, MI 2022-007-577-3935 Ogden Street. Merritt Ferliger is the attorney.
we have
we have
we have a recommendation of support from Mantua Civic Association
Councilmember Gauthier is opposing this variance being requested at 3935 optic
She feels the proposal is an overbuilt unfit for such high-density residential living between active industrial uses and was structured to subvert the intent of the overlapping mixed-income neighborhood overlay.
So I'm recusing from this one, I believe.
Yes, sir.
Meredith?
Good evening.
Could you just state your name for the record you've already been sworn?
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Can you identify your client and relationship to the property?
I can. My client is Haverford Square by Metropolitan 7 LLC, represented by Member German Yakubov.
Our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to exact proceed?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case
in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. The request before the board today is the culmination
of a year and a half of diligent design work to land at a project that is truly transformative
for a historically neglected section of land at the northernmost point of Mantua's boundaries.
To summarize briefly, the project before the board today is for a new five-story building
the project before the board today is for a new five-story building to contain 87 dwelling units.
to contain 87...
To address some administrative items first, the exhibit packet in front of you contains 20
exhibits. Exhibit 2 has three tax clearances for the three separate parcels that comprise
this application, and Exhibit 3 shows the deed. At Exhibit 1, the board has a copy of the original
refusal that was issued December 19, 2022. You can see the number of refusals that were issued
based on the original proposal. Following that, the board granted this applicant leave to amend
its application, which resulted in the amended refusal that is in front of you today and is
dated June 28, 2024. The original project received refusals concerning a then-proposed commercial
use, the multifamily dwellings, height, occupied area, and floor area ratio. The basis for relief
has been significantly reduced to the remaining refusals for multifamily use, insufficient parking
spaces, and height, with the height refusal also reduced from 86 feet to 50 feet. I will just note
as a preliminary matter that this application was not subject to the MIN overlay that's referenced
in the councilwoman's letter. We certainly respect that position, but this application,
given the length of time it took to get this application to the board, this was applied for
prior to the inception of the MIN. So we really do take issue with noting that this application
was intended to subvert them in, that is by no means the case here. This project has been
significantly and significantly reduced, as we will show in the presentation.
Let me start first with some property background. The property before the board today is located at
3935 Ogden Street, which is proposed to be consolidated with 3945 and 47 Ogden Street.
At Exhibit 5, we've included the lot consolidation plan, showing the site layout of the newly proposed 21,000 15.5 square foot lot.
You will see that this irregularly shaped parcel is currently comprised of three lots, a large parcel in the rear that I'm indicating with my cursor that's somewhat of an odd L shape, as well as two square parcels on the Ogden Street frontage.
these would be consolidated into one parcel. Interestingly, the rear lot was historically
used as a part of a horse stable. As shown on the zoning map at Exhibit 7,
this parcel bears a split zoning designation including a portion zoned I2 as well as a
portion in the front zoned RSA5. Surrounding the property to the west is a stretch of parcels with
RM1 and CMX2 classifications stretching along North 40th Street. Directly to the south is
largely zoned RSA 5. Exhibit 8 shows several aerial views of the property and the surrounding
area. This first view is from the northwest, and the subject parcel here is shown as a cleared
vacant lot directly behind the new construction building that fronts on North 40th Street.
That 40th Street building, which I'll touch on later, was considered as phase one of this transformative project, which is known as phase two.
To the rear, the board will see the Amtrak lines, and immediately to the east is a large Pico substation.
Flipping to the northeast, the board will note the proximity and character of North 40th Street.
This image should also begin to give the board a sense of the still quite significant vacancy that exists in this area, particularly surrounding the RSA 5 zone lots that are to the south along Union Street, and Union Street is kind of where the curve starts.
This next southeastern view more clearly shows all of these aforementioned conditions.
We've also included a final view from the west, which again reflects the front of that phase one building.
Again, the considerable vacancy surrounding this property is apparent just even from this view.
If we skim through some street level photographs at Exhibit 20, the first view you'll see is facing the site from Ogden Street,
where again the board will see the scale of the six-story building that was recently constructed
on North 40th Street. The next view here is sort of standing in front of the property facing out.
The next view here is sort of standing in front of the property facing out towards North 40th.
Flipping back the opposite direction, this is facing Union Street.
And again, you can see the Pico substation off in the distance.
And another similar view is shown from a little bit farther south on Union Street, looking up towards the site.
looking south on union street the board will notice the abundant lack of structures that
exist in this area and then if we move west towards north 40th street this view faces the
site as if you were standing on north 40th and again this final view this final view shows that
phase one building which fronts on north 40th the phase one portion of this project is 100 percent
affordable, which I will note was built prior to the inception of the MIN and was voluntarily
rendered 100% affordable by the applicant. I have also included evidence of proper posting,
which was made on July 2nd. The current zoning plan is shown at Exhibit 9C. Given the unusual
shape of this lot, the project is designed with a unique U-like shape. To the west of the site,
the board will notice an area, let me zoom in a little bit, will notice an area marked as Sloan
Street. Sloan Street has now been stricken per act of City Council, and we have included that
ordinance as Exhibit 6. Once that striking is formalized, half of the Sloan Street area will
be to the use of this subject property. However, the applicant is still working out a few kinks
with the law department, so we're not able to officially include the area on the zoning site
plans as being a part of this property. Sloan Street aside, in the center of the U is significant
open space that has been left open for resident enjoyment. In addition to the vegetative buffer
that already exists from the railroad, this project includes additional landscaping in the rear,
which does meet the code requirements. We have also included colorized floor plans at exhibit
10. The 87 units are mostly two-bedroom, two-bathroom units, with a few one-bedroom
units included throughout. Although there's no actual bonus available for this site because of
the RSA 5 and I-2 zoning, 10% of the units will be reserved as affordable in accordance with the
standard mixed income housing bonus requirements. A designated trash room is on each floor of the
building, which can fortunately be accessed from outside on the first floor to avoid conflict with
interior operations. And you can see here on the zoning site plan that that door is roughly in this
area here that would be able to be accessed from the side of the building. We've also included
renderings of the building at Exhibit 11. As you can see, this was designed to harmonize with the
aesthetic character of the Phase 1 building. Furthermore, as I will show, this design has
been considerably modified throughout the entitlement process, largely as a result of
feedback the applicant received during the civic design review process, which has concluded.
These renderings also show an important aspect of this project, which is the inclusion of
Mantua Greenway connection along the Ogden Street frontage. The next view from 40th Street shows how
this building thoroughly transforms just this one block from North 40th to Ogden Street,
just in this triangular area here. From the street level, the buildings have been designed to have a
consistent aesthetic look as well as overall massing, with the North 40th Street building
being slightly higher than the one that's before the board today. We've included a few more views
for reference, which I will scroll through. We obviously had quite a few images for civic design
review. I will note that this current rendering that I'm showing here from the back of the building
is slightly out of date as this parking was removed in favor of an open courtyard for resident
use, and I will address that. The next view shows the abundant use of balconies, which again was at
a suggestion by the Civic Design Review Committee, and the intent to enliven the Ogden Street frontage
directly along the greenway. From the side, you can see the doors that are providing access to
the trash room, which will be accessed from the vacated Sloan Street. As I've mentioned, this
As I've mentioned, this project was considerably revised throughout this permitting process.
This project was considerably revised throughout this permitting process.
To give the board a sense of the volume of changes, I've included the original zoning plans at Exhibit 9A.
The original design was a somewhat oddly shaped building that largely followed the shape of the property.
This building would have had underground parking access from Ogden Street, which was a significantly unfavored design due to the conflict such parking would have with the future planned greenway.
The original building had 140 units and was 86 feet high.
After CDR reviewed this original design, the applicant returned for a second review with a revised design that is shown at Exhibit 9B.
The revision dropped the unit count to 87, shortened the building to 50 feet over a 30-foot reduction, and removed the underground parking.
Instead, 13 spaces were slated to be provided in the rear, accessed from Sloan Street.
Additionally, this design removed all of those rear units and created a greater separation from the residential units to the adjacent rail lines.
which are downhill and still roughly 75 feet from the rearmost property line.
Feedback received from the second design suggested that the parking in the back was unnecessary,
especially given the tangible benefit a large open courtyard would provide to building residents.
The board can see the monumental change from the original design to the current design at Exhibit 12.
And again, I'll briefly scroll through these. You can see the before version, an aerial view here at the top, and the revised version. And again, we have several of these views. Again, this was the view from 40th Street, and this is the revised design.
Again, another view from the top. And I think the street perspectives are really the most
compelling in terms of reflecting how considerably this project has been changed over the course of
a year and a half. And again, I will leave it at this last view here. At exhibit 17, I did include
a copy of the CDR completion letter. And I'll bring that up because I highlighted a few things.
I've highlighted a few illustrative points noting the applicant's significant changes,
as well as the thought-out design, which include larger units, balconies, and natural light.
The completion letter also incentivized the applicant to consider removing the rear parking
in favor of an open courtyard, with the committee noting the value in providing an outdoor amenity
space. Throughout the course of the process, Manchua Civic Association has been supportive,
and their official meeting summary sheet is included at Exhibit 19.
With respect to the refusals, I'll work down the list and address each individually.
The applicant submits to a hardship in complying with the code requirements,
and we further submit that each of the requested variances is the least minimum.
A quick technical note, because this law is split-zoned,
the code dictates that L&I must review the most restrictive provisions of each district
in determining the project's compliance with the code, and such is indicated on the refusal itself,
review done per most restrictive provisions of both of these districts.
Given that this lot is split-zoned RSA 5 and I-2, two of the most dissimilar districts in the code,
a hardship inherently results as it would be near impossible to design a use
of this property in a fashion that does not generate a refusal. For example, in terms of use,
I-2 prohibits any residential use of the property, which is considered the more restrictive
requirement. An applicant would need to identify a use that is allowed in both I-2 and RSA-5,
which a quick review of the I-2 and RSA-5 permitted use tables at Exhibit 13 shows does not exist.
That, board members, is the essence of a hardship where there is virtually no permitted use of this property.
Even if a use could be identified, the use would have to fit within the limited dimensions allowed under RSA-5,
despite the fact that this lot is considerably larger than a typical RSA-5 lot,
And that statement is true whether or not the properties are consolidated.
Since there is essentially no permitted use of this law, it becomes the least minimum variance to identify a use that is most appropriate in terms of the context of...
to identify a use that is most appropriate in terms of the context of the surrounding area.
Contextually, this area has been identified as one subject to significant blight and in need of
investment. If one refers just to the 2013 Mantua transformation plan, the board can see that this
property sits at the northern tip of the Mantua border. And let me bring up that exhibit so you
can see what I'm referring to. So again, this property sits at this northern tip of the Mantua
border, and even back in 2013 was one of the most densely packed areas in Mantua, noted for its
abandonment and distress. And again, privately owned vacant lot is the gray, publicly owned vacant
lot is the red, and you can see the density of those colors in this area compared to some
some other areas of Mantua. While things have certainly changed since 2013, especially in
Mantua, this area was also highlighted as significantly lacking in any investment
compared to other areas south and east. The West District Plan further supports the development
of residential uses along blocks with considerable vacancy, and this property certainly meets that
qualification. An industrial use of this property compliant with the I-2 district would not only be
prohibited based on the RSA-5 zoning, but would not be feasible or respectable here given the
size and shape of this lot, in addition to its limited access to a roadway network that is
necessary to support a modern industrial use, in addition to its surrounding residential uses.
A single-family use would be prohibited by the I-2 zoning, but would also be inappropriate given the adjacency of the Pico substation and the rail tracks.
It would also be entirely inconsistent with the predominantly multifamily uses of the surrounding area.
The proposed 87 units represents the most appropriate transition between the industrial
use to the east and the residential multifamily uses oriented along North 40th Street and south.
And I'll just bring the renderings back up. As I referenced earlier, the board recently granted
a variance at 879 North 40th Street, which permitted the construction of Phase 1 at 60 feet
high, and six stories. That building has 42 units, and the plans and permits are included at Exhibit 14.
In addition to that example, the Board has also granted repeated variances permitting
multi-family use of RSA 5 lots just in this immediate area, including several on Union
Street, North 40th Street, and Parrish Street. Examples of those addresses are listed on the
exhibit list. Given current development conditions, the project was able to be reduced from 140 units
to 87 units, which is the least minimum necessary to facilitate a viable project.
As the CDR committee recognized, the 87 units are well-designed and an appropriate layout for this
building. A development of this nature will continue the spark and development that will
facilitate the revitalization of Mantua to the northern end of its border. The proximity to
the proposed Mantua Greenway also supports the development of a denser multifamily use in this
location. The Mantua Transformation Plan, highlighted at Exhibit 15, envisions a bustling
area with public spaces and walking trails. It's hard to envision a better adjacency to such a
significant trail system than a dense multifamily building. The West District Plan also recognizes
the opportunity of the greenway to act as a catalyst for economic development, and this
project does just that. Regarding a refusal for height, this refusal again stems from the
unfortunate interaction between the I-2 and the RSA-5 requirements as applied to this property.
RSA 5 limits the property to 38 feet, while the I-2 would allow for 60 feet.
This project falls roughly in the middle at 50 feet and 5 stories, which is dramatically reduced from where it started at over 80 feet.
As the board saw in earlier photographs, the surrounding Pico substation and Amtrak lines to the rear, in conjunction with the vacancy in this area,
supports the construction of a higher building that will essentially mark the beginning of the
Mantua boundary. The height will also create a uniform line with the recently approved
North 40th Street project, which will remain slightly higher than this building.
which will remain slightly higher than this building. Finally, in terms of parking,
Finally, in terms of parking,
this project has seen quite a shift in parking conditions. The originally proposed underground
parking was determined not only to be economically unviable, as well as challenging given the immense
retaining walls that would be required along the Amtrak tracks, but it was also disfavored by
most who inputted into this project due to the interference with the greenway. As revised,
there were still a few remaining spaces in the rear. However, feedback suggested that providing
a few parking spaces would not be quite as beneficial as having open amenity space for
residents. As the board may know, the residential zoning classifications would not impose a parking
requirement. This is dictated solely by the I2 classification. So again, another example of the
somewhat odd interaction of the two. Given the project's location along the Greenway, as well
as its ample access to a rich public transit network, this project is uniquely situated to
accommodate a multifamily use with no parking. The Greenway will ultimately connect residents
to the Spring Garden Street Bridge, Center City, Schuylkill River Trail, West Fairmount Park,
Girard Avenue, and the Zoo. The applicant submits the proposal will not increase congestion,
endanger the public, or impair light and air. There are very few structures surrounding this
property, which is predominantly bordered by the rail rights-of-way, the PICO substation,
a vacated former street, a few remaining dilapidated structures, and the newer
multi-family construction on North 40th Street that is of similar mass. The height of the building
will serve to further shield surrounding residential uses from the remaining industrial
uses. Finally, the proposal will not burden area infrastructure or facilities, nor will it create
environmental damage or impact. A more thorough analysis of the proposal's compliance with Section
14-303-80 of the code is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 16.
And I'll bring up my client to adopt my testimony as well as to be available for any questions the
board has. German Yakubov, please. They have been allowed to speak. Good afternoon, everyone.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. German, Yakubov. German, G-E-R-M-A-N, and Yakubov, Y-A-K-U-B-O-V.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, so swear and affirm.
Please proceed, counsel.
German, before I have you adopt my testimony, if you could just give the board a few sentences on the issue of affordability in terms of this project that the councilwoman raised.
Sure. So we're probably the largest affordable housing developer in Mantua and Belmont. We recently purchased 103 deed-restricted affordable units that are part of a low-income housing tax credit that are a block away on 41st Street.
um the building that's adjacent to it on 40th street has 42 units um most of which are occupied
by section 8 voucher holders some are from the va others are from other programs but the entire
building is um subject to affordability um that we've chosen to kind of accept on our own um
And we've been doing that all through Mantua for the last 17 years.
And we continue to do that with this building as well.
We offered to set aside 10% of the units for moderate affordability, and that will also be deed restricted.
And it's really the only way the project works financially.
Essentially, we've talked to a lot of lenders, and the moderate affordability restriction is really the only one that they would be able to be okay with on landing on.
So we're excited about the project.
We're excited about phase two.
Phase one was a great success.
It took a while to get there.
But phase two seems to be taking a while to get there.
We've listened to CDR over and over again.
We've valued their input, and we've incorporated, I would say, 90% of their suggestions as well as community input as well.
So we're excited about the project and we hope to get approved today.
Thank you, German.
And you heard the rest of the testimony that I offered in front of the board today?
I did.
And would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
It is and I do.
So I'm going to open it up to the board, but Meredith first.
So the two together, 129 units?
so the two together 129 units no no no it's 87 units mr chairman originally the project no no
No, no, no.
no but i'm saying the one in the front oh right how many you got in phase one 42 oh goodness
gracious you're going to ask me to do math in my head yes it's 42 yes 42 and i thought it was 87
here it's 87 here yes so 129 units you have yes i mean they're two separate properties
to separate approvals, but yes, that is correct.
Yeah, but I mean, you're putting in there 129 units.
Correct.
And there's no parking.
That is correct.
And to be clear, no parking was required for this first case because of the RM1 zoning.
I understand.
Questions or comments from the board?
Are there any commercial spaces in this?
it says that there are but no um uh board member gasson so the original proposal did include a
very small commercial space but throughout the civic design review process ultimately it was
determined that that was not going to be their correct use so we did go back to l and i and
amend the application so that commercial space was taken out so that is no longer a part of the
application. Thank you. I have a question. So are you claiming hardship on the fact that it's I-2
and RSA-5 and it's hard to kind of get that or not for the number of units? That is absolutely
correct, Board Member Graham. The number of units is not actually at issue. It's a matter of
the multifamily use. So when you look at the interaction between industrial and single family,
you basically land with no permitted uses. Once you land at multifamily, it's not a matter of how
many units. That's not ultimately a basis for the refusal. It's just for the multifamily,
which would be the case if it were two units or two million units.
So why land on 87?
So German, if you want to touch on that. So again, this started at 140 and has been reduced. But if
you want to touch on uh the design and how 87 was ultimately reached sure so um 87 two-bedroom
units um we landed that number because it made the most economic sense um without having to
it was the cost to construct as well as the revenue that it would generate based on the
number of units um we cut out the parking even though that was a source of revenue
um so 87 is pretty much the least amount that we could do while still providing affordability
at the property next door and at this property here as well and just to kind of just to kind of
give it the scale the property next door um on 40th street is 42 units and i think that lot is
roughly 7 000 square feet so this lot is around 21 000 square feet so it's three times the size
but the building is only twice as big or rather the number of units is only twice as big right
and you can see on these floor plans here how the units really lay out well in this space here
and i'm just curious uh since this is a phase two of this project is there are there still some
vacant land around these two buildings do you guys is there a phase three four and five like
no somebody else owns no somebody else owns those other properties all right thank you
i have a question about the affordability so i know you're saying that the that part of the
overbuild is due to trying to keep this in the former property affordable and could you talk
a little more specifically about the levels of affordability that you're going to achieve in
this building and then confirm right now when you say affordable what you're doing is accepting
section eight you do not have actual project-based voucher contract or HAP contract correct we don't
have HAP contracts or project-based contracts we're accepting we're accepting housing choice
voucher in these and they're either coming from the VA and in some cases it's the bridge program
which is not a PHA program. There's also some TURN residents, which is also a city subsidy.
So we work with some homeless agencies, as well as a myriad of agencies to source
tenants that are looking for safe, brand new, affordable housing, which they seem to be
having a hard time finding. As far as levels of affordability, this project specifically,
we are fine with having a deed restriction for 10% of the units, which would be about nine units
at 60% AMI, because that's the least amount that the lender would allow us to take. But we
to to take but we we anticipate on taking section eight vouchers and other um uh programs in in a
anticipate on taking Section 8 vouchers and other...
bigger part of the building as well it's just that as far as deed restrictions go those are the ones
that our lender will allow us to commit to so so it's 10 deed restricted and anything else is sort
of section eight at your discretion correct okay and then do you have a social services administrator
on site? We have an office on, we have two offices actually, one on the corner of 39th
and Haverford, which is about, you know, like a 10 minute walk and another one on 42nd and
Parrish. That is also probably a 15 minute walk that we support our tenants and we liaise between
our staff as well as the support services for a lot of the tenants who tend to come from
different programs, whether it's the VA, Horizon House, or other entities that tend to support
the tenants in different areas of their life. And then who is your on-site property manager?
We're our own property manager. So everybody that we have works for us. So we hold ourselves
accountable and we're not beholden to a property management company. And German, how many units do
you have in mantua just to give board member win a sense of the volume of units that you have
in terms of your ability to actually manage them effectively yourself
sure we have roughly 400 units in between mantua and belmont so between 41st street and 39th street
between lancaster avenue and gerald avenue roughly
any other questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney hillary amerson
not at this time mr chair what is your comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have justin and they have been allowed to speak
i could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
sure uh my name is justin foster um as j-u-s-t-i-n f-o-s-t-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am a neighbor
yes i live at 863 north north 40th street sure please proceed yeah so i just have a quick question
um this is a consolidation and so the hardships that are mentioned here um by miss meredith as
well as the owner they are created hardships because the lots as they stood individually
were RSA-5 and individually were I-2. I-2 on its own, if you didn't consolidate them,
you would have to deal with the restrictions of each individually. And so they created the
hardship that they're trying to use to say, oh, well, there's nothing that could conform.
There's actually nothing of that size that could conform, but really you could make conforming
properties there. Secondarily, as a current resident who experiences what their 42 unit
building brings in, there is going to be a parking issue around here. If you put 87 more units into
a space and if only 10% are affordable and they are one and two bedroom or two family or two
bedroom units, you're guaranteed to at least get one car a unit over time. If that is the case,
where will they park? Surely Union Street does not allow enough parking for that.
And already if you parked on Union, you almost have to park on the curb because of the
slenderness of that block. And so I don't know where I was in regard to the invite to Mantua's
civic design meeting, but surely this building is deficient in the fact of seeing to the needs
of parking at the very least. And if there is a hardship, the hardship was actually created
because the consolidation creates the restriction. That's just my thought there.
No, thank you. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Mr. Chair, may I address his comments? Sure. Thank you. We do not agree in any sense of the word that this is a self-created hardship. As our presentation showed, each of these lots independently is subject to a hardship.
It is accentuated by the fact that this property has been used in conjunction with each other throughout history.
And the hardship, as my presentation established, the hardship would apply to each of these lots independently.
the hardship would apply to each of these lots independently and is and is not is not increased
by the fact that it is being consolidated these these arguments would apply independently to
each of the lots as they are zoned currently for all the reasons that were stated during
the presentation today so we we absolutely do not agree in any sense that this would be
represent a self-created hardship thank you planning commission
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
This proposal completed its Civic Design Review in March 2024.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the
City Planning Commission's recommendation or an opinion regarding exerting variants
of special exemptions or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the I-2 General Industrial and RSI-5 residential
single-family zoning at this location. If the site were zoned entirely RSA 5, the appellant
would be allowed 21 dwelling units. If the site were zoned RM1, residential multifamily, the
closest adjacent zoning, the appellant would be allowed 44 dwelling units. So 87 units are not
the minimum required to afford the appellant relief, even considering plans for affordable
housing as our board member noted it would be only program based or voucher based the city
planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variances for 87 units
the proposed variance for auto spaces and the dimensional variance for additional height
thank you um we've heard a lot today i'm going to take this to the executive session next wednesday
we will vote on at 2 p.m. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right, last case here.
Okay. MI 2024 001458 1521 Ogden Street, Clemente, Amazon is the attorney.
there's a letter of opposition
from Francisville
did provide
seven letters
of support from neighbors
and a vote in a letter 12 in support
17 in opposition
Clemente
good afternoon
Well, you've already been scored, I should remember.
State your name for the record, please.
Thank you.
Clementa Amazon, that's spelled C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A.
Last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N.
You identify your client and relationship to this property.
Absolutely.
My client is the owner of the property, 88740 LLC,
and I have Caroline Curran, who will be the representative.
okay our vice chair has a few questions for you
council do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes i do have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this period yes i have thank you council
please proceed and share your screen thank you
can everyone see my screen we can great so again i will be presenting 1521 ogden street
this is a photo of the front of the property during my presentation i will go through the
refusal. We did receive an RCO letter. It was a split vote, and I'll go through the details of
the letter, just identifying the numbers of the vote. We also have several letters of support,
all from individuals within a block radius of the property and arguably those who will be most
impacted by the use of the property, a map of the area, surrounding area photos, posting photos,
as well as interior and exterior photos of the property, the notice that we sent to the community
for the community meeting, our certificates of mailing showing that we did, in fact, send the
required notice, the application for appeal, project information form, deed, and certificate
of tax clearance. So the property is owned RM1, and the use that we have here is for visitor
accommodation. My client has been doing short-term listings for about two years now. She was unaware
She was unaware of the change in zoning and the fact that she would have to go through the process of obtaining zoning to continue the use.
of the change in zoning and the fact that she would have to go through the process of
Thank you.
She became aware of this and hired our firm to represent her through the process.
She did not have any open violations or any issues that led her to looking for the proper zoning.
She did this fully of her own volition.
She is a member of the community.
She actually lived in this property prior to leasing it herself.
And so she's a well-established entity within the neighborhood.
and she's simply looking to continue using the property for short-term rental.
Though the property is zoned RM1, she is using the entire structure as visitor accommodation,
so she's not splitting this in any way.
The entire structure would be available for that purpose only.
And we did meet with the community on May 28th, and we had a bit of a tight vote.
I understand that the letter has different numbers.
However, I think there was a bit of a typo there.
There was seven in support, nine in opposition, and four votes of non-opposition.
The tone of the meeting was that of a split.
They did acknowledge and realize that nearby neighbors, and we did present their letters of support during the community meeting,
were in favor of the project.
They were in favor of the use.
They were aware of the use of the property, had no complaints.
It had been ongoing, and they had no issues with the property being continued in that use.
The opposition that we received to the project was for short-term rentals overall, and you'll see that in the letter here.
The concerns that they expressed were for the increase of visitor accommodations because of affordable housing issues as well as accessibility of housing and trash.
So, the first issue we believe isn't necessarily appropriate for the proposed use that we have here. Even if this property was not being used in a visitor accommodation capacity, it would not be listed for affordable housing.
Secondarily, the trash, my client, and she can speak to this during her testimony as well,
self-manages this property.
She's done it for several years now.
There have been no issues with trash, noise complaints.
She does a very diligent job of making sure that those who are going to be occupying the
property are respectful and are aware of the house rules, specifically quiet hours from
11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
No parties, no smoking.
There's a five-guest maximum.
There is the property is three bedrooms, two baths.
Again, we're not splitting this for multiple uses for the visitor accommodation.
It's the entire structure.
There's a five-guest maximum.
There are security cameras, and there's a two- to three-night minimum.
So my client did reach out to individuals within the neighborhood to get a sense of how they would feel about the continued use of a copy for visit accommodations.
We have our first letter from one of the neighbors located at 1526 Ogden Street, which is directly across the street from the property.
And this neighbor said that Caroline has been in the community for well over 15 years.
She's a responsible host.
She screens her guests and takes care of the property and urged the board to approve the application.
In the second letter, also from someone on the 1500 block, they highlighted that there were no issues with noise, unruly guests, or unkept property.
issues. Furthermore, Caroline's responsible and professional and demonstrated that her presence
and oversight are benefits to the neighborhood. Our third letter, and I did redact some of the
personal information here. However, the materials that were submitted to the board did include that
information for the individuals that signed. And this is for 1521 Parrish Street neighbors and
their property runs through to 1526 Ogden. They said that they have only experienced positive
interactions with both Caroline and guests of the property. They believe that having an Airbnb is
an asset to the community and further enhances the pedestrian safety on the street. And highlighted
that Caroline frequently visits the site. Again, this is self-managed by Caroline. She's there
very regularly to make sure that the property is cleaned up and between guests, handling any trash
issues, as well as being a point of contact. Again, we have another letter from someone along
the 1500 block of Ogden Street, highlighting that there have been no issues with the use at all.
Similar letter from a neighbor along the 1500 block, stating again, no issues with the property
at all. A third letter stating that there have been no issues with the use of the property along
the 1500 block of Ogden Street. We also reached out to the block captain who provided an email,
which we also forwarded to the RCO prior to our community meeting
and presented during the community meeting,
stating that there have been no issues with visitors, noise, or trash.
Caroline screens the visitors as well,
And that the block captain lives only a few houses away, fully supports the project location-wise, it makes sense.
and that the block captain lives only a few houses away,
fully supports the project.
And as he mentioned in the letter earlier, it is very well run.
So again, we are on 1521 Ogden Street.
We are just off of Bridge Avenue, which is a commercial corridor.
And I'm sure for members of the board who are familiar with this area as is, we are just one block away from the Met.
So it is a multifamily block.
there is a lot of rental use within the area. In addition, we are along the commercial corridor,
and we have the Met, which also attracts individuals who are coming into town and who
may not want to stay at a hotel. They would like something a little bit more comfortable and suitable
to a family, and so they decide to stay at Caroline's property. And here we have a view
of Ogden Street to the left of the property, a view of Ogden Street to the right of the property.
here we have a photo of the posting of the property in the front as well as the rear
and caroline recently renovated this property should put a lot of time and effort into making
sure that it would be a benefit to the community and those who are staying there so we have a photo
of the bedroom one of the bedrooms a seating area the kitchen which is also fully renovated
the outdoor space that's available, and an aerial view, we also have Caroline Suggs who made an
appearance within the photos as well, and we did set out notice of the community meeting as well
as the DBA hearing, which is today, a copy of the refusal. Again, Caroline's simply looking to
continue the youth for visitor accommodation. As you saw within the letters that we received from
nearby neighbors. There have been no issues, no complaints. There are several individuals within
the 41500 block of Ogden Street who expressed support for this project during the community
meeting. The opposition that we received was from individuals who felt as if short-term leasing is
simply not appropriate overall throughout the city. As we all know, there is a space and a
need for that type of use, and it was reflected in the fact that we have neighbors directly across
the street to the left and to the right of the property who all expressed support and so they
have had no issues with the use of the property and the continuous of that use for the particular
property a list of the properties that were notified of the community meeting
our certificate of mailing showing that we did send that notice out to all properties
as required the project information form
our application for appeal and the dean showing that my client 88740 llc owns the property and
again caroline is the representative on today's call
and our certificate of tax clearance so with that if i can have caroline promoted to panelist
i could you please state your name and spell for the course stenographer
i'm sorry caroline if you're in that virtual audience please raise your hand
do we see your hand i've seen no hands counsel you are the person's last name
there is a caroline corinne and the audience they have
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for this stenographer?
Hi, my name is Caroline Curran.
My first name is C-A-R-O-L-I-N-E-C-U-R-R-A-N.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Caroline, did you hear my presentation today?
And was it true and correct?
I do have one slight correction.
You had said that I lived in 1521 previously.
I actually lived in 1523 Ogden Street.
So I lived right next door.
Thank you.
And you've lived in the community for how long?
Since 2010, I believe.
Thank you.
and would you have thought my testimony as your own?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission?
amy wood with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change the
arm one residential multifamily zoning at this location there is no unique physical
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed used variance for visitor accommodations.
Thank you. MI 2024-001-458-1521 Optin Street. I vote yes for a temporary variance that expires 7-25-26.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes
with that same proviso
Cheryl Gaston, yes
with proviso
Tywin, yes with proviso
Tynetta Graham, yes
with proviso
James Snell, yes with proviso
Thank you and have a good night
everyone. Thank you counsel. Is there anyone
in the audience whose case has not
been cold. I see no hands. Thanks, everybody. I think we had a good day and we're getting
better. I'll tell you that. Thank you. Thank you all. Take care, Chair. Good night, y'all.