Anyone else like to testify in this case?
no hands chair you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan but was remapped
to multi-family in 2018 the proposed use would be a special exemption under the recommended zoning
and we feel the proposed use would not create a larger than expected impacts in this location.
Additionally, we feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board approve the variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-002-384.
1227 Belmont Avenue, my vote is yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number three on our list, MI 2021-002853, 1736 Ellsworth Street.
Mr. Orfaniti is the attorney of record.
East Point Breeze Neighbors sent a letter of support.
And he's coming in now as a panelist.
identify yourselves by your last name and i'll swear you in certainly david orphanetes orphanetes
and toner 1500 john f kennedy boulevard suite 800 philadelphia pennsylvania 19102
and i have with me today uh wendell holmes please spell your last name for the reporter
certainly o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s we're from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
Thank you.
The Vice Chair has some questions for you.
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Working backwards, we have a letter from these Point Breeze neighbors who's a coordinating RCO.
That's number one in our exhibit book.
The letter is dated August 18, 2020.
We did meet with them, and hence the letter.
I did forward my exhibits.
The one thing that is missing from the list of items that you stated is the tax clearance.
My client is working to secure a tax clearance, and I have communicated that with the zoning board attorney in advance of today's hearing.
And I have communicated that with the zoning board attorney
in advance of today's hearing.
And we will request we be permitted
to present our case today, but the matter be held
pending the provision of the tax clearance,
at which point the board could issue its decision
in this matter, if that's agreeable to the board.
Yes, agreeable, so noted, thank you.
And may I share my screen?
can everybody see
larger if you could get larger not a problem how's that that's good thank you again my name
is david orphanetes and i'm here this afternoon on behalf of wendell h holmes who's the owner of
the property uh 1736 ellsworth street as i indicated mr holmes is should be on the call
i'd ask him to raise his hand and at the end of my uh what i would hope would be a very brief
presentation, for me at least, we would, I would ask him to adopt my statements. As indicated,
as referenced at the beginning, and as I mentioned, we do have a letter of support
dated August 18, 2021 from the East Point Breeze Neighbors, who you would see later at my exhibit
21, was designated on July 9, 2021 as the coordinating RCO for this project. As indicated,
it as a letter of support. We had a Zoom meeting back on August 18th, and as they indicated,
there were 10 people in support who were on the call and one who was opposed, and hence their
position. We did reach out to Councilman Johnson's office to see if they had a position in the
matter. I'm not sure if France or anybody else is on the call, so they can maybe chime in later if
they are um we do have um revised and i'm going to have to shrink this up again this is a um it's
an application we do have revised plans and i did forward the uh revised proviso plan form to the
zoning board attorney uh this is an application to subdivide two parcels that were historically
two parcels but back in uh i guess it was in 2008 my client submitted an application which
went before the board at calendar number 4057 to consolidate into one um and so what mr
i have to interrupt you for a moment i didn't have this one as having revised plans did you
send those recently yes i did uh yeah i mean it was indicated that there were revised plans here
and i forwarded the uh form earlier today how many pages david uh the plan is just one page
it's just a survey plan okay and there are minor alterations it's simply adding there was an issue
regarding the width of the alley behind the property and the encroachment of the existing
encroachment of the front stairs on the footway um noted um and some other minor minor alterations
but nothing of substance that would affect the zoning variance so sharon i apologize i emailed
we were working on the tax clearance and trying to get that in under the wire so i didn't send
Okay, I'll check it now. Thank you.
Yep. But again, so this is a revised survey from the one that we originally submitted.
Their refusal has to do with the fact, and again, the original survey plan is at Exhibit 4.
And that plan was rejected by the Planning Commission because it was the lots that we're creating,
which are the same size as the lots as they used to be, are 1,280 square feet each.
And as you know, the property is zoned RSA 5, the minimum lot site requirement for RSA 5 is $1440.
So again, the refusal, which was issued on May 26, makes note of that L&I shall not issue any zoning permits for a lot adjustment unless a lot adjustment is shown on the plot plan has been first reviewed and approved by the commission.
And again, as I stated, the City Planning Commission disapproved the plan because of the size of the proposed lots.
The current deed, which Mr. Holmes recorded, was dated May or August 12, 2008, recorded on August 14, 2008, was the deed of consolidation, whereby the two parcels that had been separate were consolidated into a single 32-foot wide by 80-foot deep parcel.
As I indicated prior to that, Mr. Holmes purchased the property in April of 1999. Here is the deed dated April 28th. And as you can see at that time, they were two separate parcels, 1736 Ellsworth Street, which was 16 feet wide by 80 feet deep, and then 1738 Ellsworth Street, which was also 16 feet wide by 80 feet deep.
That math, if you do the two, is 1,280 square feet.
That math, if you do the two, is 1,280 square feet.
The reason Mr. Holmes applied to consolidate the lots is, as you can see in Exhibit 10,
before that, going back, I pulled prior deeds.
And even before the deed where he acquired the property, the properties were always separately described.
They were two separate described parcels.
Here's a deed for the two parcels back in 85.
and we have deeds that go back before that also at Exhibit 9.
In the zoning archives that I have at Exhibit 10,
you'll see that dating back to 1974,
the property was approved,
even though they were still two separate parcels,
as you can see from the deeds that I've shown you,
for eight rooming units with one apartment per 20 people.
What happened around 2008 is that, according to Mr. Holmes, and who will adopt my statements, the state came along and said, you can't have this rooming house.
And they apparently went throughout the city and hit a number of other rooming houses were requested to make this change.
You can't have the rooming house on two separate parcels. It needs to be on a consolidated parcel.
So in order to maintain a state license for the rooming house, he went ahead, consolidated the lots, as I indicated, in 2008.
Until recently, he continued to utilize it, run it along with his wife as a rooming house.
The desire now is to subdivide it.
The use would be two single family dwellings.
The existing breaches in the party wall that were created when this was used as a rooming house would be refilled, or they could be demolished and single families could be built at that point.
We don't know whether Mr. Holmes is going to develop the properties as two single families or whether he'd sell them and somebody would develop them after the fact.
Here at tab 11, we have the existing floor plans for the rooming house.
Again, it's permitted.
That use has not been abandoned or discontinued, so it's still legitimate and valid use.
At current photographs of the interior of the property at tab 12, photographs of the current exterior of the property at tab 13, historical images.
Going back, this is through Google Street View, again, showing the facade.
Basically, in its current condition, there have been some changes to the front steps.
They've been modified.
It went from a single step to back in 2011.
You can see 2009, 2007.
And then more currently, it went to two steps.
And again, they needed two doors that had to do with the second means of egress and what have you.
And those are those historical photos.
For Mr. Holloman, we have Sanborn maps that show the parcels going back all the way to 1918 as two separate parcels, 1736 and 1738.
In terms of the other properties on the block, if you take a look at the zoning map at tab 17, here's our property as a single lot.
You can see there's an alley that runs behind them from east to west.
And the parcels are all, as you'll see, we have a summary.
We went through all the deeds, pulled all the deeds.
They're all approximately the same depth until you get down here.
This one jogs a little into the alley.
And then you have the four parcels at the end, which are substantially shorter.
And here, again, at tab, let's see, 16, here's a summary of what we put off the OPA,
all the properties on the block.
And then for those that are on the south side, our side, we went through HD, and you'll see all the single families are either the same size, 1280, as what we're proposing and what these properties previously were before Mr. Holmes had to consolidate them into a single lot to maintain the rooming and boarding house.
and you can see as you go further to the east 1230 and then you can see those smaller ones all
the way at the east they drop down to 700s and 800s and those are all single families
so the the again the proposed lot size is the same as it was before the consolidation
and is clearly still in keeping with the conditions of the other single families and
other properties on the off side of the 1700 block of Ellsworth Street we did post the property
and photographs are tab 20 and then at tab 21 again the email from the planning commission
designated East Point Breeze neighbors as a coordinating RCO copies of our 14303 notice
that went out noticing the August 18th zoom meeting noticing
Noticing the August 18th Zoom meeting, noticing today's Zoning Board hearing, providing the Zoom links for those, included our project information form, the notice of refusal, instructions on how to appeal, the list of addresses we received from the Planning Commission heading on their link,
and then the certificate of first class mailing of our notice of the meeting and the hearings are also attached at the end of tab 21.
And again, August 18th, a letter from East Point Breeze Neighbors, the coordinating RCO, supporting this return to the properties as two separate parcels, and then the use of them, as indicated in our application, of the permitted RSA-5 single family from the existing rooming house with one apartment.
And with that, I would ask Mr. Holmes to raise his hand and be allowed to speak and that he be sworn in so that I may ask him to adopt my statements.
Hello, Mr. Holmes, you can unmute yourself.
I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
Yes, sir. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name.
wendell holmes w-e-n-d-e-l-l h-o-l-m-e-s do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr holmes uh did you hear the statements i made to
the zoning board yes i did are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes they are uh particularly that you've owned that how long you've owned the property
which was is back um and also that you consolidated the lots uh due to a state requirement that the
boarding house be on a single parcel as opposed to two separate parcels yes and would you adopt
my statements as your own yes i would okay um does the board have any questions of my client
thank you any questions from the board no mr chair no one else like to testify in this case
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan.
The proposed laws are consistent with existing lots on the block.
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board approve the variance
thank you MI 2021-002853 1736 Ellsworth Street my vote is yes
you have to hold the vote sorry I didn't want you to go too far
I'm sorry I thought that's where you were going but I didn't want to jump in
my mistake that's why I was jumping in to announce that the record
is closed, except for receipt of the proof of tax compliance. And Mr. Orphanese, when you send that
in, could you copy me and also note in your email that the date of this hearing today, that it was
heard today in 2019. Absolutely. You will get all the information and more. Thank you. Ms. Saleta's
testimony is in the record. Thank you. We'll now move to case number four. MI 2021-003.
1912-213-1910 Chestnut Street. Mr. Patterson and Mr. Maglioni, you've both been sworn in.
We'll begin with Mr. Maglioni.
He's coming in now as a panelist, Chair.
good afternoon mr chairman good afternoon mr matione
mr patterson yes i don't know if you heard you're still under oath from earlier so correct please
proceed thank you uh my name is ron patterson again 1835 marker street for the lbpa 103.
i represent the applicant at this address which is 1910 chesna street i believe ron
not to interrupt i believe the vice chair will have some questions for you oh sure sorry
Hi, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
i do agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, to the above.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Are you viewing my screen?
Sure, we see everything.
with that brown cap. Beautiful. So again, this regards property 1910 Chestnut Street. It is a
Pearl Properties property. It fronts here on Chestnut Street, which is the Boyd Theater,
the Harper Apartment Towers here, and the entrance, which is facing Sanchez Street,
and the entrance, which is on 19th Street. A few more pictures. So this regards, application regards
the reuse, renovation, rejuvenation, what's called the Boyd Theater, and its expansion into this
building here, which was last used as the Gap Retail Apparel Store. Across the street, and just
for relevance, because Mr. Mattione's here, this is the William Penn House. It's located actually
two streets behind, but it has an entrance and exit right here on Chestnut Street. So
they would view this restaurant.
Okay, can you see the next rendering?