the following guidance is for our remote attendees when directed you must raise your
virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak second if you're called to testify you will be
prompted to join as a panelist please accept the request and turn on your camera third the webinar
q a is for questions during the hearing do not comment on cases in the q a and fourth
And fourth, if you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand.
For in-person attendees, please refrain from talking, eating, or drinking during the hearings.
Verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated.
Restrooms are across from the elevators.
A water fountain is just outside the room to the right.
When speaking on the record, you must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and the court reporter.
In the event of an emergency, please follow the directions given over the public address system or by the staff.
The main exit is through the double doors at the rear of the room.
The nearest stairwell is to the left outside the doors.
In case of an evacuation, the rally point is at Love Park directly across Art Street.
Please remain there so we can account for you.
So I'm going to go over the list that we have for this afternoon.
So, number one is MI 2021-004-365-4501-03 Belgarage Street.
I vote to dismiss and waive and with a waiver of the two-year rule.
Michael Johns, I vote to dismiss and waiver of the two-year rule.
cheryl gaston i vote to dismiss with waiver the two-year rule it's not a graham i vote to dismiss
with wavering the two-year rule ryan mcadams i vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule
hi i want to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule and so number two mi 2024 002 779 6907 to 11
Tarsdale Avenue. I recommend a dismissal with waiver of the two-year rule.
John, I recommend a dismissal with a waiver of the two-year rule.
Cheryl Gaston, I recommend dismissal with waiver of the two-year rule.
Tanita Graham, I recommend dismissal with waiver of the two-year rule.
Tywin McAdams, I recommend a dismissal with waiver of the two-year rule.
Tywin, I recommend dismissal with waiver of the two-year rule.
And number three, MI 2024-006-394-1747 West Venango Street.
This case is continued attorney moving party.
And then number four, MI 2025-006-395-4020-58th Street.
No exhibits, first listing.
owner is Lycomen Investments, listed owner LaVar Scott.
Good evening, Mr. Chair.
This is Jason Handel, your co-host for this session.
There are no hands raised for the matter, and I do not see either
in the virtual audience today.
Thank you.
So MI 2025-006-395-4020-58th Street, this case is continued to August 19th, 2026 at 3.30, and Mark must be heard.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.
Can we go back to the dismissals and just vote those as dismissed with two-year rule waived and not recommended?
Because we're making a decision that that language was recommendation for you.
So, yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion.
Right.
So, okay.
So I think I only did it on the second one or both?
Okay, sure.
MI 2021-004-365-4501-03 Belgrade Street, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Michael Johns, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Tenetta Graham, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Ryan McAdams, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Tywin, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
And number number two, MI 2024-002779-6907-11, Tarsdale Avenue, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Michael Johns, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Tana Graham, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Ryan McAdams, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Iowan, I vote to dismiss with waiver of the two-year rule.
Here you go. Thank you.
Thank you.
number number five mi2025-006-988-7975 oxford avenue joseph consul is the attorney
hi joe i think i i saw you earlier today right i mean it seems like a long time ago it does yeah
just for your just for the record could you please state your name because you've already
been sworn joseph console right could you um identify your client a relationship to the
property yeah my clients i'm mr james brody and he is the tenant hoping to um to run a coffee shop
in this location okay and um we have a letter of unanimous support from fox chase civic association
25 total votes um community was very receptive to having a coffee shop on the avenue and our
vice chair has a few questions good afternoon have you put uh submitted your documents and exhibits
five days in advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the referral and
stipulate to its accuracy i do yes all right thank you to your screen and proceed with your case
All right, everyone. Joe Consul here for Mr. James Brody. He's on the call today. I think I just heard him raise his hand. We are seeking a ground floor commercial space for use as a coffee and prepared food shop. It's not the kind of place where they're going to make food.
they're going to have that, you know, prepared food purchased and brought in and sold at their
location. It's zoned CMX1, as you can see, and we're here seeking a special exception. We believe
this is a straightforward, low-impact application. This use would be conditionally permitted as a
special exception in CMX1, and we're here seeking the board's approval, as we don't believe this
provides or will cause any more of a detrimental impact than would any other similar use.
As mentioned, we got unanimous approval from the Fox Chase Civic Association.
Give you photos of the interior of the space. Here's what it looks like now.
we have a rendering which we'll get to in a second show our posters on the outside it's an all-state
office here's the layout we can come back to that if we need to
Here's the proposed rendering. As mentioned, small space, no kitchen.
A few other different angles here.
uh let's see we've got the lease which we we supplied proof of mailing
and our posters and anything else that might be relevant we already looked through these
and we're gonna look through that there's a tax clearance certificate
um yeah it's pretty straightforward i don't see um what else we would really
present to you proposed hours are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
no alcohol and low intensity use with community support with that i would call
mr james brody sure why don't you bring him on
i'll be coming back in there's a panel of short
are you there james yes i'm here okay sir could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer yes james brodie j-a-m-e-s-b-r-o-d-i-e right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes counsel james are you the applicant
and the tenant for the space at 79 75 oxford avenue yes are you seeking a special exception
to open a small coffee
and takeaway pastry shop
called Avec Coffee Company?
Avec Coffee Company?
And did you hear my testimony just now
regarding your application?
Do you adopt it as your own?
I have nothing further.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney,
Questions or comments from our attorney Hillary Emerson.
Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
I do not see any hands. Mr. chair, any commission.
Amy put with the planning commission, the comprehensive plan recommended no change in zoning to the previous to commercial mixed use.
the planning commission voted not to approve the down zoning of many cmx2 properties
to cmx1 in council district 10 in 2021 the proposed use will be allowed by right under cmx2
the planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested special exception
for eating and drinking establishment mi2025-006-988-7975 oxford avenue i vote yes michael johns
My vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Sonetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Board.
Thank you.
Council?
Number 6, MI 2026, 00787, 226 Harvard Street, Harvey Street, David Orfanides is the attorney.
This is a reconsideration hearing.
So, counsel, could you state your name and you you're already been sworn once today. So just state your name for the record.
My name is David. The last name is both O R. P. H. A. N. I. D. E. S. Right. Mr. Orphanides. Could you identify your client in this case? Sure. My relationship to the property. Certainly.
I'm cutting everybody off today. Sorry. I'm eager to go. I apologize for cutting you off.
Sure. 226 W. Harvey ST LLC is the owner of the property. And as you know, in the past, we've had
there's several letters of opposition relative to this case, but this is a reconsideration,
them, right? Sure. The evidence and testimony presented at the November 19, 2025 hearing in
this matter are incorporated into the record for this hearing on reconsideration. The scope of
this hearing is limited to the presentation of supplemental evidence and testimony only. The way
we see it, there will be, you will make a presentation, there'll be questions from the
board there'd be public testimony and then planning okay so start your certainly um mr chairman um
members of the board uh the property in question 226 west harvey street um again is owned by my
client 226 w harvey st llc i i have with me uh brady martinez who is who is the entity he owns the
entities here with me today he appeared at the last hearing as well i have a couple of other
witnesses as well. I have the contractor who can just speak to some of the costs that are
associated with some of the different options regarding the number of units. I have Carlo
Batts who was before you yesterday who submitted an appraisal report. I have Brett Slackman who
provided the work with RATI and provided the financial analysis that was submitted with the
request for reconsideration. So I've listened to the recording from the last hearing. It was a
pretty basic presentation that was presented to the board. I think there is a basic misunderstanding
right from the beginning, and that's one of the things that I presented as my first point
in my request for reconsideration. This application involves a permit for a total of six units
at this property. At the time of the last hearing, the zoning archives for this property
only included the permit, and I can give you the number, but it's a permit from 2015 that
was approved by variants that went in front of the community group, and I believe they
were opposed to it, but the zoning board at the time voted to approve the variances for
six units and now it was first of all clear in that permit and in that approval it was change
it was taking four units in a daycare two units on the second floor two units on the third floor
and a daycare on the ground floor which had once been two units on the second floor two units on
the first floor units on the third floor so it had been six units since the 50s hadn't been I
I think, a single family since the thirties.
I have to look at my notes on that.
But a long time ago was one,
then from the fifties on it was six.
At some point then there was a daycare at 222
West Harvey Street, and they applied and they went into the expanded into the ground floor. And I thought expansion originally meant that they were the building next to it. They're actually separated by space, which is interesting. And I'll show you some street view images where you can actually see the sign for this daycare in front of our property in front of 226.
West Harvey Street and they applied
and they went into the expanded into the-
so at some point that daycare on the first floor and then how many units so there was it so there
were six and then they removed the two on the ground floor and put a date and the daycare that
was at 222 went into the ground floor at 226 and then at some point that daycare left and in 2015
the application it's on the application form itself it shows daycare ground floor two units
on the second two units on the third and then what they applied for in 2015 was two two and two
to put the two back that had been there before the daycare. So the variance, and because I
listened to the testimony, it seemed that some of the neighbors were going off into single family
land. This is a question of, is it going to be a four family with a vacant ground floor,
or are we going to allow additional units, residential units in the ground floor, or
maybe leave it open to someday be in the daycare again? So it's not a question of, is it going to
be six or one? Is it going to be six or two, six or three? It's a question of whether it's going to
be six, five, or four. And if it's left at four, then that means that the ground floor, and we're
going to have testimony, is going to be left vacant because of the financial costs of incorporating
the ground floor into one or the other of the second floor units. So that's number one. And
the reason why I was able to, we were able to figure this out is once I was retained in the
permit for 226 from 2015 they referenced a an expansion of daycare from the budding property
and again I thought it was this other side of the twin at 228 wasn't there 222 that's where we saw
these permits and those permits are included with my exhibit package that now provide this very
important history for this property it kind of completes the puzzle of how we got to where we
got and that also answers i think um board member win and board member john's points where they said
that there was a permit for only two units that's because the only thing that was being permitted
added was the two units at the ground floor so that's what the building permits that were
referenced that i've included in my exhibit book uh other permits i think there's a mechanical
permit or electrical permit that was issued following that 2015 variance and zoning permit
reference the six units. So just to clarify this, again, it's a question of four or five or six,
not going all the way down to one. Are the four units rented now?
No. So what happened was, and this is another part, I don't know that this completely came
through. So that developer started construction and started doing some work and ran out of money,
put it on the market with the permits. And my client paid, and he can testify to this,