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,