And good morning, everyone.
Tanya, we'll give you a few minutes.
Yes, thanks.
You'll let us know when you're ready.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay chair we should be good to go thank you very much good morning everyone my name is frank
di chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with our board secretary mr confessor plaza and board members mr thomas
holloman and mr james snell board administrator ms tanya sunkett and board attorney ms sharon
Soleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual
hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, for the benefit of anyone
participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking
or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. Fourth, for anyone participating by phone
if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute
yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance
statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property
at issue. I'll repeat. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue with that said we can begin but before
we call the first case we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal of an
appeal listed for this morning's hearing excuse me chairman could we announce those that we know
are continued first before asking for additional thank you in the meantime though if you are
requesting a continuance or withdrawal, and it's not one that I'm about to call off,
please raise your hand. Number five on our list, MI 2020-000656 is withdrawn.
MI 2020-000085-1800 West Ontario Street is continued MI 2020-000148-2301 Bly Avenue
is continued at the request of the attorney who represents the applicant
MI 2020-000657-4154 North 7th Street, request to be continued, MI 2020-000826-6301 North Broad
Street. This case is being resumed. It's a resumption hearing that will take place on December the 2nd.
It's a resumption hearing that will take place on December 2nd at 3.30 p.m. at the request of Councilwoman Parker.
Again, that's 6301 North Broad Street.
The case will be resumed on December 2nd at 3.30 p.m. at the request of Councilwoman Parker.
If there are any other cases that are requesting a continuance or withdrawal, please raise your hand.
And if anyone has any objection to the cases I just read in as to either being withdrawn or continued, please raise your hand also.
Also, before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, if anyone here presenting a case today hasn't met with the RCO or hasn't emailed their exhibit packet five days prior to this hearing, please raise your hand.
Come forward now and explain to the board.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair, we're calling forward attorney Joseph Vaccaro.
Mr. Vaccaro you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in. Good morning sir please identify
yourself with the record first and spell your last name. Good morning may please the board
Joseph Vaccaro V-A-C-C-A-R-O attorney ID 83366 address 5918 Torresdale Avenue Philadelphia
Philadelphia PA 19135, attorney for the applicant.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, please proceed, sir.
Yes, we had placed a request for a continuance on this matter.
It's number 13 on your list.
And the reason for the request for the continuance is that we had not received the orange posters in time to put up on the property.
well that case is continued oh okay excuse me could we please could we um miss sunkett could
you explain to the applicant are we sending out orange posters um no for clarification
an email was sent out to the applicant of record with the posters and instructions
it might be that they didn't see it but I gave verification that Jason sent the poster out
timely it's going to come in your email okay okay thank you very much thank you anyone else
requesting a continuance or withdrawal or does anyone have any objection to the cases that have
already been called to be continued sure we have Augusta O'Neill you can unmute yourself and speak
to a continuance good morning good morning ma'am please identify yourself for the record first and
last name spell your name for the stenographer sure my first name is augusta a-u-g-u-s-t-a
my last name is o'neill o apostrophe n-b-i-l-l my address is 1835 market street suite 1400
philadelphia pa um i am the you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
about the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I just wanted to let the board know
I'm the attorney for the applicant for Appeal MI-2020-000148. The address is 2301 Blay Avenue,
B-L-E-I-G-H. And I just wanted to get on the record and let the board know that we have tried
quite a few times to get through to the RCO for this property, which would be the Ronhurst
Civic Association. And so the reason that we had requested today's continuance is just to give us
some more time to meet with the RCO. But if we are unsuccessful in meeting with them before the
next time that we get a hearing date, we do intend to move forward. But like I said, we will be
making more efforts to meet with the RCO but that was the reason for my continuance request today
oh okay can anyone hear me yes chair yeah okay I've I lost the video that's why I'm asking all
right uh thank you thanks very much
Chair, we'll bring it forward. Attorney Allen Nockamson.
Good morning, Allen. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Allen Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed i am entering my appearance for 1327 north fourth street mi-2020-000117
and i'm asking for a continuance it's number four on our sheet uh on
and i'm asking for a continuance it's number four on our sheet uh on our list mi 2020-000117
1327 north fourth street is continued thank you
anyone else yes we still have a few um slone folks from the council person's office you're
unmute yourself speak to a container good morning chairman to chico and the zba board good morning
mr folks please identify yourself and then i'll swear you in my name is sloan folks s-l-o-a-n-e
folks f-s and fire o-l-k-s office of maria can you understand
hello hello sorry mr folks can you unmute yourself
Okay, I'll try that one more time.
I thought, okay, now I see.
We got your name.
All right.
Sloan, folks, again, Office of Councilwoman Sanchez,
room 508, City Hall, 19107.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir, I do.
I don't have a page number,
but I'm going to give you the meeting number,
which is MI-2020-000740-2949 North Hancock Street.
We do not have a record of this applicant meeting with a coordinating RCO
or submitting a letter to a coordinating RCO.
If they have done so, we are willing to let the hearing go on,
but we don't have a record, and in that case, we're requesting a continuance.
okay that's uh number 11 on our list do we have any information on that could we call to see if
anyone from the applicant is here but we also have no exhibits on this one anyone here for 29 49 north
Hancock. I don't see a hand up for the applicant or owner. If I could, Chair, request that this be
labeled as must be heard as this appeal came in December of 2019. Okay, very good. Thank you.
And this is the second time we've continued this one, if I'm not mistaken.
Okay, MI 2020-000740-2949 North Hancock Street is continued to a date whenever we have a date yet?
If not, must be heard. At the time of the continuance, must be heard.
Okay, Chair, I'm bringing forth Hillary Emerson from the Councilperson's Office.
good morning miss emerson please identify yourself with a record and i'll swear you in
good morning mr chair members of the board hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker
we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do um i'm yes i'm here um regarding 6301 um north broad street um our office requested a
continuance in that matter, because we heard that there were some neighbors who were withdrawing
their opposition from the project. So we're planning to have a meeting in the next couple
of days with the near neighbors to find out if that sentiment is widely shared or it's just a
couple of neighbors that have changed their minds so that we can give an informed position to the
board. We had hoped to have the resumption hearing next week, but I heard December 2nd. Am I correct?
does that mean there's nothing available next week i believe so and then the following week is uh
thanksgiving right right it's december 2nd at 3 30 correct that's correct okay all right that's
everything thank you thank you anyone else we have a frida williams frida you can unmute yourself and
speak to a continuance. Good morning. Please identify yourselves by your first and last name
and then I'll swear you in. Good morning to you. My name is Freda F-R-E-I-D-A Williams and I am the
chair of the housing and zoning committee for OCA which is the RCO for the matter 6301 North Broad
street. We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do.
Have you heard that this case is being continued to December the 2nd?
I did hear it and I wanted to state for the record that as far as the RCO is concerned,
that as far as the RCO is concerned, we have had and we have sent to the zoning board three
we have had and we have
I don't know.
separate letters based on three separate meetings that we have had with the community.
And we are actually auto zone weary. The most recent meeting that we had was at the direction
of the zoning board. We met person to person, face to face at the site. We went through every
element of the um community benefit that had been offered and so we are i'm sorry yeah because
the attorney of record is not here right and then and so in other words they that was communicated
to them but it was not communicated to the rco that there was going to be a request for continuance
which we request was actually at the request requested by the councilwoman i understand that
I understand that. I'm simply saying that it was unfair. Since the attorney is not here,
it clearly was conveyed by the council office or whomever that there was going to be a request,
but the RCO was not given that courtesy. Sorry, this is Hillary from the councilman's office. I
emailed the RCO last night after I received confirmation from the applicant's attorney
that they would agree to a continuance, that there was going to be a continuance, and received
a response from the RCO this morning so I believe that they were aware that a continuance was being
requested. I checked my email I didn't have it. All right Ms. Williams I understand your frustration
uh you know we don't particularly like to continue to have hearings over and over again as well
uh but you know with all due respect in this day and age with the issues we're having with
Zoom meetings and all the electronic stuff uh you know we apologize if you didn't get that
uh uh that if that notification last evening but as it stands now the the cases continue to
december the 2nd at 3 30. any of the other issues i suggest you have a conversation with
uh miss emerson or the councilwoman's office all done chair ready to go forward
is that any or any more tanya no we're ready to go forward here thank you uh before we
begin hold on please um we have one add-on case uh mi 2020 dash 000325 944 belmont avenue my vote
is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes you and we'll go with the first case confessor
MI 2020-000666-1216
West Lycoming Street.
This is Sharon Sleda.
I have no record of having received appeals for this case.
I'm sorry, I haven't received exhibits.
Thank you.
Anyone here for 1216 West Lycoming?
No hands are up at this time
and my request again would be as
must be heard. The application was made November 2019. Thank you. MI 2020-000666-1216 West Lycoming
street is continued and must be heard uh mi 2020 that's zero zero zero three one seven
one three west wilde street
here i have promoted attorney clementa amazon
good morning good afternoon chairman and members of the board it's still morning good morning
okay please i'm a little ahead of myself uh spell your first and last name for the record and then
i'll swear you in of course clementa amazon c l e m e n t a last name is amazon a m a z a n
Thank you.
So we're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Plaza?
Do you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Actually, the refusal states that we are seeking a duplex, but that is not the case.
It is still going to be a single family.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral
quotas and plans five days prior to this year?
Yes, I have.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
have you met with the rco and have a letter yes and they are in support of the project
Yes, and they are in support of the project.
thank you please proceed um thank you before we proceed connect this is sharon saleta we did
Thank you.
receive a letter of support from fna and a letter of non-opposition from councilman squilla thank
you you're welcome thank you please proceed all right i'll just share my screen
can everybody see that yes perfect so here i have a packet of exhibits
first is the deed as you can see here
tax clearance
and as i mentioned prior we are seeking to do a single family home still we are doing a two-story
rear addition but it is not going to be a duplex
and this is our property right here still rsa5 maintaining that single
family a map of the area and this is a
photograph of our property right here in the middle
the view of the property to the right to the left
and here are our plans so this is the addition that we will be adding to the
rear. And it's just going to provide for a study. Everybody's working from home at this
point, so we're trying to facilitate that, make it a little bit easier. And as I mentioned
prior, we do have a letter of support from Fishtown Neighbors Association, as well as
the neighbors to the left of us. As you can see here, 15 West Widely and 17 West Wildey.
Our refusal and proof that we mailed out.
the refusal was regarding the rear yard yes okay you can summarize if you don't mind
oh of course so our refusal was for the rear yard for seven feet and we are proposing five feet for
that um so we're just going to have that two-story rear addition and we would like to also enter
proviso that it remain a single family home um and just as a heads up we would be demolishing
that back wall so we want to ensure that we would still be able to get the building permits for
that. And we're hoping that we can defer to the CBA on that matter as well.
Do you have your client with you?
I believe I do. Joe, if you could raise your hand.
Or virtually raise your hand.
If you're going to be able to get them on, we'll accept your testimony.
Hi, I'm here.
Hi, good morning.
Please identify yourself, spell your last name for the record, first and last name, please.
Hi, this is Joseph Zarnik, first name Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, last name Zarnik, Z as in cat, Z as in zebra, A-R-N-I-K.
And do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed, ma'am.
Thank you.
And Joe, did you hear everything that I stated today?
I did, yes.
And was it all accurate and correct?
If given the opportunity, would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
This is Sharon Saleta.
Can I just say that though the reference to it being a two-family dwelling and the refusal
appears to be a misunderstanding on Ellen I's part, just to clarify, if you should vote
to approve this, if you could add a proviso of saying single-family dwelling.
will do okay thank you uh anyone out there who would like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand no hands thank you planning commission
good morning david effecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do please proceed thank you mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated
for single family residential use in the city's comprehensive plan we have no objection to
granting this variance thank you mi 2020 that's 00031713 west willie street my vote is yes with
proviso remain single family yes for proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you
thank you have a great day you too miss amazon thank you next one up is mi 2020-001316 1305
north 19th street
okay chair i brought forward it appears to be the applicant or owner um excuse me this
is sharon saleta the owner for this property is um julian dominguez yes i'm here thank you
good morning sir please identify yourself with the record spell your first and last name and
i'll swear you in good morning mr chairman my name is julian dominguez
sh-u-l-i-a-n-d-o-m-i-n-g-u-e-z we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes i do and your address sir uh is 1305 north 19th street mr dominguez have you emailed
an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof of tax compliance
copy of the refusal photos and plans five days prior to this hearing yes i have also have you
met with the rco and have a letter yes i have please proceed um okay so i'm applying for
an appeal for my property in 1305 North 19th Street. This is currently a single family
property. I'm trying to get a variance for a two family, for a duplex.
Can I share my, sorry this is my first time, can I share my screen so you can see me?
Yeah, please do.
Share screen.
Can you see my screen?
yes okay um so this is my appeal apply application
this is a refusal and i mentioned here that this is a single family and but all the almost all the
the families on the block are multi-family or across the street is just a amount
part M1, so it's also multifamily, and this is my properties in D, and so here I'm showing
that all the properties on the block, almost all the properties are multifamily. This is
the layout of the property. Here you can see it's three floors plus a basement. I'm converting
the first floor and the basement in one unit and the second and third floor in another
unit. The first floor is going to be two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and the second and third floor
is going to be four bedrooms and three bathrooms. These are the views, so you have an idea of
the three floors and the basement.
So you know this used to be... It looks like it used to be multifamily in the past too.
it was converted back to single family um used to have two decks on the back uh the when they
saw me the the property they didn't fix this so that's my intention to fix this too during my
my renovations um
okay i i think you have all this augmentation uh do you have any questions sorry i don't know
if you need it. Okay, hold on please. Yeah. Any questions from the board? No, no, no. Anyone
else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, I have unmuted Mary Jones from the council president's office. Good morning,
ms jones please identify yourself for the record then i'll swear you in good morning members of
the board my name is mary jones i'm here on behalf of council president daryl clark
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
Thank you.
Please proceed.
The RCO meeting did take place for this project.
I've been in contact with them.
However, they told me there was opposition.
However, I have not received a letter just enumerating all their information.
their position, but they have communicated that to me.
Aaron, do we have anything on file?
It will take me a minute to look. Sure, take your time.
Thank you. Did Mr. Dominguez have the letter?
Which letter, sorry? Did you have a letter from the RCO you said?
i didn't receive anything from them okay mr domingo as you said the other properties on
the block adjacent to you are multi-families yes they are yes two units three units what
what's made mostly consist of uh mostly there are three or four units all in the block
you want to hold this aside until later on
sharon um if he has not received a letter then neither have we
because it would have been submitted by him if neither he nor the council person had
all right any questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand no hands chair thank you planning commission good morning david
effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated
for single-family residential use in the city's comprehensive plan. We do not believe that two
units within a house that is over 2,400 square feet is an unreasonable request. We do not believe
an additional unit will have an adverse impact on the block. Accordingly, we have no objection
to granting this variance. Thank you. MI 2020, that's 001316 1305 North 19th Street. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you uh number four and number four is
continued number five is withdrawn number six is continued we go to number seven
mi 2020-001127 1614 latina street this is sharon saletta i have no record of having received
exhibits going here for 1614 latona street chair i have a muted michael moss i'm here can you hear
me yes sir please my name is michael moss um i didn't we didn't know that we had this hearing
until just by excuse me sir you are are the the owner i'm not i'm representing i have the owner
with me i can swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do so i didn't know i didn't know that we had this meeting until just the other day but i
happened to just be on phil.gov but the last time that we were in front of the board you guys
approved this but i had a supply documentation and i brought it back that day and had it time
stamped and delivered on february 5th so i'm not sure what this meeting is even for right now
are you the attorney i'm not oh i'm sorry i thought you were the attorney i'm i apologize
the owner there yes uh please identify yourself with the record spell your name please
is william moss w-i-l-l-i-a-m-m-o-s-s we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir all right would you please uh just give us a brief description
you're you're you were not aware of this hearing we didn't know about this here we we had the
hearing in front of you on february 5th of 2020 you everything was approved we just had to supply
you with a couple documents which we brought back up the same day having time stamped and all
but then right after the city closed down because of covid that you should
But then right after the city closed down because of COVID, that you should, the papers all should be in the file that you requested.
So Chair, it sounds like this might be a delay list case that came over to us.
Okay. All right. Well, we could vote it then, correct?
I would prefer if we do the research to see what we have on it prior to the vote.
it was only i think it was something like just the deed or something like that but whatever we
brought them back up within like an hour or two we brought all the documents back up we and they're
all time stamped okay so tanya how do you want to proceed um i would suggest chair if we can hold
this to next week maybe wednesday morning and do a vote as long as we verify what was requested
it by the board and that it was um received so we don't we wouldn't be closing the record would
we you would be closing the record since those documents have been submitted okay all right
mi 2020 that's zero zero one one two seven one six one four latona street the record is closed
the board will render a decision at next week's uh hearing i i have a question when we were at
the last meeting though you guys approved it i i understand but there was documentation okay
so what what do we need to do do we need to log in for another zoom meeting next week you can
listen in if you want we're not going to have a hearing we're just going to okay go over the
documentation to make sure it's everything that we needed is and if there's anything that needed
to be updated since then till now that will someone contact us via mail or something because
like i said we haven't received anything it was just a sheer glitch we were checking licenses
and came across this hearing.
Okay, understood.
You'll be notified if there's anything
that the board, that the ZBA needs.
Thank you so much for your time, everyone.
Next one up is MI2020-000201-1822 Benson Avenue.
Chair, I have Andrew Feltzen.
Andrew, are you the attorney or applicant or owner for this?
I'm the associate attorney at Glen Ross PC, which is the attorney of record.
Okay, could you hold while I promote you to panelists?
Thank you. Hello.
Okay, Andrew, you're going to mute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, and I'll spell your name.
Andrew. Andrew Feltson, A-N-D-R-E-W-F-E-L-T-Z-I-N.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You'll give away the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I emailed them on Thursday, so yes.
Okay, also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
The RCO declined to meet with us, saying that they unanimously supported our position
and stated so in an email which was included in our packet.
Okay, so you said you emailed them this Thursday they just passed?
I emailed the packet this Thursday. The email from the RCO came in in, I believe, April, if I could check the date.
This is Sharon. I did review that email. The RCO said that their board had unanimously approved it.
They saw no need for a meeting and that the applicant could go ahead with the hearing.
Yes, and they sent that email. Yes, April 28th.
Okay, then please proceed.
Yes, sir. I apologize. This is also my first time at one of these meetings, so let me share screen.
No problem. We'll get through it.
Okay, thank you. I appreciate it.
um let's open this start with the deed for the property can you see the deed
no we don't know not yet did you click the share screen button first before opening up the document
i did click share screen hold on um and then click there we go okay you're screen sharing
I apologize. This is new for me.
No worries. No worries.
Okay. I have here the deed
for Bentoncourt Holdings, which is the record owner.
for Benton Court Holdings,
which is the record owner.
I have here the project information form, which describes the project.
I have all these were submitted in the packet. I have here the email from the Ronhurst Civic Association, which was our point of discussion.
I have here the submitted site plan and zoning board list.
I have a blown up of that, which I'll show you in a second.
I have the refusal form, which was posted.
I have pictures of the posting of the property.
Here is the property, by the way, was posted October 20th, so 21 days ago.
I posted it personally so I can attest to that and testify to that.
And I have here the plans.
Basically all we're trying to do, all we're trying to do is take a doctor's office in
what is currently a 55 unit building and basically demolish it to build two new units, which
are planned for here.
there'll be no net change in space to the building. We're only looking to do an interior
modification only. As the RCO notes, we're currently zoned for 56 parking spaces and need
to be zoned for 57. They've noted in their email that there's plenty of parking space
available. You can see the parking lot here. Would you like me to move on or do you need this in
more detail? If you would summarize, that would be helpful. Basically, in summary, we're just
looking to demolish what's currently a doctor's unit on an apartment complex and rezone it as
two residential units located here and get approval for one more parking space in a place
that has ample parking. Excuse me, sir. Mr. Chairman? Yes. The doctor's office, is it going
to be one unit or two units? The doctor's office currently takes up the space that would become
two units. Well, you're only adding one on your appeal. Well, it's a little bit confusing because
the doctor's office is counted as a unit right now. So we're subtracting one and adding two.
So, it's a net change of one.
But you have 56 and you add one for 57.
We're technically subtracting one and adding two.
So, yes, you could look at it like that.
What we're doing is we're taking a big unit, the doctor's office,
subtracting that and then adding two regular residential units.
So, it's 56 minus one plus two.
It would therefore be 58 units.
It would be 57.
the take the one unit gets split into two uh but you're removing that one
yeah it gets you to 57 yes correct okay um here is the certificate of tax
questions tom no um do you have your do you have your client with you yes i do
his name is alan to adopt your testimony we'll swear him in please
Haim, if you could raise your hand on Zoom.
What's the name?
Haim Muskel.
He can unmute himself.
Hello?
Hi, good morning, sir.
Sir, please identify yourself with the record, spell your first and last name, and I'll square you in.
Good morning. My name is Chaim, C-H-A-I-M, last name Moushel, M-U-S-C-H-E-L.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Chaim, did you hear my testimony in this matter?
Yes, I did.
If given the chance, would you adopt it as your own?
Do you have anything to add that I didn't say that you think is relevant to the board?
I do not. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board? No. No. Would anyone else like to testify
in this case? If so, please raise your hand. No hands. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the city's comprehensive plan. We do not believe that converting a doctor's office into residential units will have an adverse impact on this block. Accordingly, we have no objection to granting this variance.
this property
Thank you. MI 2020, that's 000201, 1822 Benton Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Here we go to number 10.
Thank you very much.
If we may be excused.
Yes, you may. Have a good day.
Thank you.
Thank you. Have a good day.
MI2020-000335-2530-North17th Street.
This is Sharon Sillette.
I have no record of having received exhibits.
hi is there any anyone here who would like to testify on 25 30 north 17th
no hands at this time and i request a must be heard this was an october 2019
appeal okay thank you mi 2020 that's 000335 2530 north 17th street is continued and must be heard
Okay, M-I-O 2020-001321-2916 West Thompson Street.
I have Andy Barrios, who's listed as the owner. You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Mr. Barrios. Please identify yourself with the records by your last name
and your give us your address how are you my name is andy barrios i am the owner of 2916 west
thompson street my last name spelling is b-a-r-r-i-o-s we're going to affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed thank you you have
emailed have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof
of tax compliance copy of the refusal photos and plans five days prior to this hearing i have not
okay i was going to say i have no exhibits i have only um an email exchange between the
applicant and the rco unfortunately we're going to have to continue this case we need that
documentation. Understood. Sorry. All right. MI 2020-001321-2916 West Thompson Street is
continued. Okay. MI 2020-000112-4829 Longshore Avenue. Sharon Saleta. Again, I have no exhibits
for this one okay is there anyone uh 420 14 i'm sorry is there anyone here for 4829 longshore
avenue please raise your hand
i have a patrick hopkins patrick are you the attorney applicant or owner no i am the applicant
Okay. And your relationship to the property?
I'm a tenant at this property.
Okay. So you were just here to testify?
I'm not exactly sure. I filed for an appeal for zoning on this property.
You are the owner?
No, I'm not the owner. I'm the applicant.
Are you a leasee or?
Yes, I'm a leasee on this property.
Okay. I'll promote you to panelists. Could you hold one moment?
Not a problem.
okay chair he's available i'll excuse before we begin sharing do we have documentation on this
i don't have a record of having received exhibits
mr hopkins please identify yourself for the record spell your last name
hello mr hopkins you have to unmute yourself
can you hear me yeah please identify yourself spell your last name and then i'll swear you in
it's patrick hopkins h-o-p-k-i-n-s we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes all right uh we do not have any documentation is that accurate sharon
I don't have a record of having received it. If the applicant can show that he submitted it, then you can go forward.
i don't have a record of having received it if the applicant can show that he submitted it
Hopkins?
Yes, I'm here.
Ms. Saleta, do you have any documents?
Sir, did you submit your exhibit packet five days prior to this hearing?
I haven't submitted anything, but just my billing points.
This can be continued, okay?
Unfortunately, sir, we're going to have to continue this case.
The board needs the documentation in order for us to proceed.
MI 2020-000112-4829 Longshore Avenue is continued.
Next one up.
It's MI 2020-001-370-8129 Hennig Street.
Did you miss one?
What about 16?
Martin Mills Road.
That was it, it was just continued
That's continued?
I don't have that
I don't have that as being continued
Wasn't that the one we just read up?
No, no, no, that was
Okay, I apologize
No problem
So go to MI2020-0007466729
Martins Mill Road
This is Sharon Saleta
i have no exhibits anyone here to testify on this case
six seven two nine martins mill road
i have a birth theta um you can wait to be sworn in are you the applicant or owner
or attorney i live next door to the property oh okay so no you wouldn't be the one yeah ma'am
we're going to continue this case we don't have the doc any documentation there's no one here to
testify this case will be what does that mean it'll be continued to another another date okay
will i be told when uh if they follow the procedure you should you will be notified yes
thank you thank you have a good day mi 2020 that's zero zero zero seven four six six seven two nine
martins mill road is continued last one page 17. mi 2020-001370 21 i'm sorry 8129 hennick street
this is sharon saletta we have a letter of non-opposition from councilman
o'neill on this one but i don't have a record of having received any exhibits
um i don't see the hand are you here for hennick street
Yeah, I don't have a hand. Oh, here we go. It's a phone. I don't know.
Killgallen?
Caller ending in 421. Are you here for this case? Caller ending in 421.
Is this Patrick?
This is Patrick Killgallen. Yes, I'm the homeowner.
okay if you could hold one second um chair i did want to mention that the applicant reached out to
me um way back i believe in september october having difficulty trying to schedule a meeting
with the rco so there was quite a few uh emails back and forth where he could not meet but he can
continue that discussion we have a letter
a packet
exhibit
let's get his full name
for the record please
it's by your last name sir
K-I-L-G-A-L-L-E-N
Kilgallen
we're in the firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
thank you professor please proceed
Patrick have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents
proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance
copy of the refusal photos and plans five days prior to this here yes on November 3rd okay have
you uh met with the RCO and okay and have a letter yes I do thank you um mister I'm sorry I'm did you
copy me on the email submitting the exhibit packet this is Sharon Saleta so uh what uh what is your
email it's s-u-l-e-t-a-z-b-a yes last uh last tuesday i did i received a letter of support on
monday and i emailed it tuesday but did you submit the entire exhibit packet
yes with the okay i will search for that miss sunken if you could check too if it's possible
I have everything in front of me. I don't know how to, like, anything that would be required, I still, I have right in front of me. I don't know if I can show you as well. I don't.
I have everything in front of me
I don't know how to
Anything that would be required
No, not by phone.
Okay, but you did email all of those documents to me and to the RCO mailbox.
Yeah, yep.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
We're okay, we're prepared to go forward, correct?
Yes, I think so.
okay all right sir please proceed and if you have any yeah i just yeah sorry i have everything in
front of me but basically i'm just getting a detached shed put out back in my garage um it's
less than 15 feet from the rear of my property um the rco was fine with it but basically i don't
even have anyone behind me and this is smaller than my next or neighbor so it's directly next
order do you have any exhibits you can share with us any photographs or drawings i do i just don't
i just don't know how to show them to you but here he's here by phone telephone so he would
not be able to oh okay sorry about that i paid for it to get surveyed and they said it's smaller
than my neighbors it's going to be built in one day and the rco was fine with it unanimously
all right why don't we do this uh planning commission
good morning david fecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board
this property is indicated for single family use in the city's comprehensive plan
we have no objection to granting this variance thank you is there anyone else who would like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand i went out of order that time but
what else
no hands up
MI2020-001370
let me do that again
MI2020-001370
Hennig Street
H-E-N-N-I-G Street
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes okay that completes the morning list excuse me this is sharon stiletta there's
actually one case that was scheduled to be voted this morning the record was closed i did not
include it on your add-on list it is mi 2020-001055 911 north 26th street um this is mr
knockamson's case he appeared before the board last week for a follow-up hearing
and you closed the record said you would vote it this morning there was quite a bit of
community input um i don't know what you would like to vote this now or
i can provide you with more information if you would like to announce it for the two o'clock list
yeah that uh or what was the position of the uh rco i'm not sure i remember there was quite a bit
of community we'll hold it till two o'clock okay thank you i apologize for not no worries
all right anyone else we're done with the list for this morning
anybody have anything to add all right okay all right thank you everyone we'll see you two
Good afternoon. Take care, everyone.
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone.
Tanya, we'll give you a few minutes.
You'll let us know when you're ready.
We're ready now, Chair.
You are. That's good news.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing
along with our Board Secretary,
Mr. Confessor Plaza,
and the Board Members,
Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Ms. Tanya Sunkit and Board Attorney
Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one
of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First,
we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone
participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
If you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that.
to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue with that said we can't begin but before we begin
we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal of an appeal listed
for this afternoon's hearing i will go through some of the cases that have already been
continuance or withdrawals have been requested
MI 2020-000953-2123 Dickinson Street is withdrawn
MI 2020-000312-650 East Ontario Street is continued MI 2020-000696-2408 Stewart Street
is continued MI 2020
0-0-0-1-9-9-2-0-4 North 52nd Street, that was number seven on our sheet.
Number nine, MI 2020-0-0-0-1-5-3-1-6 North South Ford, S-A-L-F-O-R-D, South Ford Street
is continued if anyone has any objection to the cases that were just read into the record as being
continued or withdrawn please raise your hand and also if you would like to request a continuance
or withdrawal aside from those that have been read into the record please raise your hand at this
time also Mr. Chairman if anyone here presenting a case today hasn't met with the RCO or hasn't
email their exhibit packet five days prior to this hearing please raise your hand come forward now
and explain to the board thank you i have no hands at this time thank you we have an add-on
which I'll read into the record and we'll call for a vote MI 2020-001055-909-917 North 26th Street
my vote is yes with a proviso three pages stamped today and Sharon I don't need to read them in
there correct because that'll be addressed in the revised plans yes that's correct
so my vote is yes with proviso three pages approved today yes with proviso yes with proviso
happen to tom but we've got majority three all right um
i think we go to um chair excuse me there is another add-on included in the um yeah i'm sorry
is that the ridge avenue it is yes is that vote vote only or resuming the hearing no no you're
resuming the hearing so it doesn't necessarily have to be first as long as it's heard at some
point i was going to hold that one to last thank you but thank you for reminding me okay okay i
I think, let's see, confessor.
We go to number four.
MI 2020.
I'll call it in.
MI 2020.
That's 0015593475 Collins Street.
Here I'm promoting attorney Rachel Pritzker.
Good afternoon, Ms. Pritzker.
Please identify yourself for the record.
and i'll swear you in rachel pritzker r-a-c-h-a-e-l p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1635 market street
suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes please proceed rachel you agree to waive the reading of its refusal
and stipulate to attack heresy yes also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
documents, proof of ownership, proof
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you.
Okay, so I'm going to just present the refusal and then Tanya, do you see Scott Woodruff
or can he raise his hand so he can present the plans to the board?
he's been promoted thank you good afternoon sir please identify yourself on the record spell your
last name and i'll swear you in scott woodruff uh w o o d r u f f design blends architecture
4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia PA, 19127.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Ms. Pritzker?
Chairman, members of the board, good afternoon.
Today we will be presenting our proposed project at 3475 Collins Street.
This is an existing structure.
there is a few properties on this in this same exact address but we'll highlight that we're
looking at the rear two properties here that are existing vacant industrial structures zoned
i2 the proposal today is just for a variance for use to be able to adaptively reuse these
structures for 86 moderate income and workforce swelling units with 44 parking spaces in an
existing surface parking lot for accessory off-street parking. We believe that we have a
hardship in that these buildings have been vacant for a significant amount of time due to sort of
the shift in industry in this area, the difficulty at the location of them not really having
a proper street frontage given they're sort of in the rear of the property, and also the fact that
the code and the comprehensive plan provides for zoning relief for industrial structures in order
to rehabilitate them, we do find that we have a hardship and that we are in compliance and
spirit of the code. So I just want to have Scott go through the plans. I also, before
allow him to do that, just so the board is aware, we do have a letter of support from
the coordinating RCO, which was Harrogate Civic Association, 17 in support, three in
opposition, and three in zero in non-opposition. We also did provide the board with a letter
from the councilman who is in non-opposition of this project.
With that, I will stop my screen share and let Scott present.
Okay, I just want to do a quick aerial of the existing property.
The buildings that we are looking to propose dwelling units in are these two
large structures that are running along the existing train tracks as we spin around.
These buildings are not within the project or scope of work, it's just these two buildings
and this existing parking lot that's at the rear.
So again, looking at the site plan, proposing 44 total parking spaces in the existing parking
lot towards the rear. No large additions or alterations. The exteriors of the buildings
will be made. There is an existing kind of like bridgeway between them that we'll be
removing and then rehabbing to an actual accessible bridgeway between the two buildings, keeping
with kind of the existing character of what was there.
looking at the ground floor of the the buildings proposed mainly dwelling units that are on this
ground floor there will be an entryway a new elevator that's along Tioga Street at this
entryway and there's also a separate entryway at the parking area with the new elevator in this
back building as well with some small amenity bike storage small gym lounge space for the residents
and then also some outdoor area that will be proposed going up again just a
typical unit and as Rachel said these are moderate income and workforce units
mainly loft style again keeping the existing openings and kind of the
existing character of the building again just the exterior building will be kind
of cleaned and retreated brick pointed some of the graffiti will be removed
obviously to kind of bring the building to be a safe habitable structure.
This is just looking at a portion where we will be rehabilitating and kind of adding the new
bridge element that is existing and then just a small ground floor addition to connect these
that is existing and then just a small ground floor addition to connect these building
building accessibly.
accessibly on the ground floor.
And here's just again you can kind of see the overview three-dimensionally with that
small portion that's being proposed with the addition standpoint and just for reference
if we can see it you can kind of see there's like an industrial kind of existing walkway
that's a little I think Scott probably froze um I'll just take in from here um I want to have
all right you you kind of um froze for a second Scott I'll get I'm wrapping up is there anything
else you want me to go over you're good no um I'd like to you know see if the board has any
questions. If not, I will get Phil on to agree to my testimony. Yeah, let's do that. Okay. Tanya,
do you see Phil Balderson? Yes. He can unmute himself this morning. Hello. Hi, sir. Good
afternoon please identify yourself spell your name for the record i'll swear you in my name is
balderston p-h-i-l-i-p balderston b-a-l-d-e-r-s-t-o-n i am the uh manager of collins lofts llc
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you bill have you heard my testimony today in front of the board
yes do you adopt it as your own i do thank you any questions from the board
questions from the board no no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand no hands okay uh planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission apparently the host has
stopped my video peter do you hear me yep all right just spell your last name and i'll swear
you in d as in boy a as in apple r as in roger n as in nancy as an apple r as in roger d as in dog
we're firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please
proceed good afternoon board this property is indicated for industrial use in the comprehensive
plan we do not feel the applicant has demonstrated sufficient hardship additionally this use is in
conflict with surrounding properties with existing industrial uses and could pose potential safety
quality of life issues accordingly we object to the granting of the variance
thank you um rachel how long has this property been empty i think it was vacant when i was
back in office back in 96. I could be wrong. I could pull up the records. It's been vacant
for a while. And to the planning commission's point, the neighboring properties are like one
story commercial and industrial uses that actually have legitimate street frontage for those
commercial uses. If you can just look at the aerial photos on Google, it's been in disrepair.
I think the zoning code is a little, the comprehensive plan actually specifically
states if i bring it up that um properties exactly like this should be the demand for
quality and affordable rental units with the district repurposed okay yeah a large because
there's a large supply of multi-story industrial buildings that are no longer favored by modern
industries uh they prefer a more horizontally oriented opportunity and as you can see just
from a loading even a logistics perspective the ability to load any industry or any commercial
industry that would want to be back behind the railroad like that i think it would be pretty
tough to find given obviously the long-term vacancy that has existed on the site um yeah okay
mi 2020-001559 3475 collins street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
Thank you.
July 2020-0015851800 East Moya Mensing Avenue.
Chair, I'm promoting attorney Richard DeMarco.
Good afternoon, Mr. DeMarco.
Please identify yourself with a record.
I'll swear you in, and then Confessor will have some questions for you.
Of course. Good afternoon. Richard DeMarco. Go ahead. I'm here for the applicant.
Of course.
Good afternoon.
Richard DeMarco, go ahead.
What's your last name, Richard, for the record?
D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
DeMarco, you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yeah, I mean, there's a typo, Mr. Plaza, on there, but we do stipulate to the accuracy,
but the examiner got the A's and B's and C's a little mixed up, but we do stipulate and waive
the reading. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of
ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days
prior to this hearing? I did do that, yes. Awesome. Also, have you met with the RCO and
have a letter? We do. I did have the letter came in after the five-day period, but I forwarded it
immediately to the board. I believe it was Friday. And yes, we do have a letter of non-opposition in
this matter from Penn Support Civic Association. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. Let me bring up
our exhibit packet. Okay, is that appearing on your screen now?
Yes. Great. So the refusal, there's some, and I don't remember exactly, some of these
lot numbers are a little mixed up, but the data is accurate, so that's why we can stipulate.
We have multiple dimensional variances. This is a subdivision of the existing Emota
empty, vacant warehouse structure at 1800 Moyamensing. It has been vacant for about
eight years. There have been one unsuccessful prior attempt to develop the property.
it has been extremely difficult to market the owner is on with us he'll testify in a little
while but there are multiple problems with the existing structure it's it's in poor condition
uh it's the roof is collapsing um we did have an earlier proposal that met with some
it was a denser proposal and a much higher proposal we were looking at significant height
variances. The community did not like it. My client, the developer, scrapped that in light
of the opposition for the neighbors and went to a duplex proposal. I'll bring up the site plan
so you could see it. Do you have any photos? I do. I can get to them in a minute. Do you mind
if I show them? This is the subdivision plan. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the
subdivision plan here. This is the site plan here, Mr. Chairman. This is a photo of the e-mode. I have
other photos I'll show you in a minute. These are our lots here, A through E, L through G.
This is Oriana Street. This is Moyamensing. Note that we are replacing an existing curb cut
with on-street parking because we do not have dedicated parking for these lots along Moyamensing.
there is dedicated parking for the lots along oriana oriana is a tertiary street which has
multiple curb cuts and no parking so we are not displacing any parking along oriana i'll get to
some of these are the floor plans i want to show you the elevation this is the moya mensing elevation
Can you rotate that, please?
Oh, boy.
You know, I'm going to ask Brian.
You know what we'll do, Mr. Chairman?
Brian Neuslanger, our architect, is prepared with screen share.
I'll finish up my introduction and turn it over to Brian.
and he should have better luck than me.
I'm not good at rotating my screen.
I got to learn how to do that.
I'm sorry.
Let me show you the photos that you asked for real quick.
This is the Emota facility. It's empty. It's in poor condition. It used to be a clothing storage facility. There was an attempt to develop it as a brewery. Unsuccessful.
There was an attempt to develop it as a brewery, unsuccessful.
The owner is on and will testify that he has been unable.
This is the roof, the hole in the roof.
And this is the inside, not great shape.
So let me do this.
I'm going to end my screen share and ask you to promote Brian Newsranger,
who should be with his hands raised.
is that okay tanya yes he's been promoted now thank you good afternoon sir please identify
yourself with the record spell your first and last name and then i'll swear you in
there i'm brian newswanger with atlantis architects and it's n-e-w-s-w-a-n-g-e-r
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed brian do you agree with my state did you hear my statements made to
the board um prior to this yes i did do you agree with the statements and adopt them as your
testimony yes i do all right if you could if you could share your screen and show uh the chair and
members of the board the uh site plan and elevations please sure um here we are
can everyone see that
yes yes okay that is our site plan and as rich said we have five units along moya mincing avenue
and we have six units facing Oriana Street here.
Mr. Newswanker?
We have a diet advertisement going on.
I'm sorry?
And your email.
You need to open your document and share that
because we're in your email.
Does that work now or no?
Double-click on the actual document or file.
Something interrupted your feed, Brian.
Oh, dear.
Bear with me for a moment. I'm sorry.
Can I just close out my email?
You may want to close and come back in.
There we go. Am I back now?
Okay, so we're in your actual files.
So which one you want to double click on it, open up.
It looks like you have a file open to the right as well.
Okay. Hang on.
You want to drag it over?
here we are that's not working on it
do you mind if i take control for one second sure i'm sorry let me see if i can get it
maybe i can keep moving with the testimony mr chairman weil because brian can testify without
the plan so i'll let me let me do this uh brian uh you're involved with pensport civic correct
That's correct.
I've been the zoning advisor and the board member for the past 10 years.
All right.
And there has been an unsuccessful attempt to develop this property in the past, correct?
There was.
That was probably about six years ago.
I was presiding over that.
And you're familiar with the existing structure, and from an architectural standpoint, is it unsalvageable?
It really serves no – it doesn't have any reasonable or useful life left in it at this point,
not without significant expenditure of money.
And is there a cost involved?
Does the property need to be demolished regardless of what is proposed to develop?
I would think so.
It doesn't really – its use is not really applicable to anything that we would convert it to.
Right.
And is the existing structure obviously not – it's not compatible with residential use, correct?
No, it is not.
Okay. The proposed homes that you are proposing, are they consistent structurally with
other, both new construction and existing properties in the neighborhood?
They are, with the trend in the Pennsport area. They're very much in keeping with that.
Okay. And you would know that because your office is around the corner, right?
Right. I'm a block and a half north of this site.
And we're not asking for any height variances, correct?
There's a minimal height variance, I think, of seven inches.
Seven inch height variance, right.
Correct.
And these are duplex units, right?
That's correct.
And you're replacing on-street parking by removing existing curb cut, correct?
That is correct.
Why don't you do this?
Why don't you click, Tanya, if it's okay, can we ask him to...
Tonya, if it's okay, can we ask him to stop screen share and then go back into screen share
so we can show the board? Well, you can actually see it, actually.
You can?
Before you go any further, just go back to that last slide you just had.
That one?
No, the one before that shows the...
Yeah, you got rid of it. So try double-clicking going back in.
i'm just curious a lot f is not shaded in is there a reason for that yeah yes mr chairman
the the the lot f is going to be the staging area for construction we were um the the client
matt milano who i'll will ask to testify in a moment uh was very hands-on with the neighbors
with this project and spoke to them.
Obviously, there were concerns about construction.
He's actually not developing one lot
so as to avoid impact on the street
and to neighbors while he's constructing the home.
So that is an empty lot
and is not proposed to be developed with the proposal.
Well, does that give you 12 lots to be developed?
I mean, 11 lots.
Presently, there are 11 lots, yes.
So my point is, if F doesn't get developed, that's 11 lots?
I'm sorry.
That's right.
On the application, you have 12 lots.
Well, if lot F is part of the subdivision, that would be the 12th lot.
We're not planning on developing it.
But not developed.
All right.
Mr. Chairman, we have dimensional refusals for the lot sizes,
but they are consistent with neighboring lots.
I just want to make sure.
So it'll be 11 duplexes as opposed to 12.
Correct.
I think you can move along rather quickly.
Yeah, Sonia?
Oh, okay.
We will.
We'll truncate if we will.
I will mention that there's a diagonal lot,
which is on the corner of Moore and Moyamensing,
which is also open,
but can be used for a future use
that Mr. Milano is in touch with the neighbors and will develop with their involvement at a future
date. So there's no structure proposed for that line as well. Do you want to get Mr. Milano or
whoever? Yes. Brian, we may come back to you. I think we're okay for now. Let me get Mr. Milano
on. Tanya, if you don't mind promoting. No problem. Sure, but I wanted to, Brian, if you could
maximize your screen by hitting a square to the right by the x okay um it was fine and then it
was moved that's fine i work on two screens i'm sorry so it went across two of my screens right
so can you maximize that so that it's on the full screen yes um for purposes of those who are
participating? Yep. Thank you. Is that better? No. The one that you
the one you're touching on, that's the one we need up the
site plan. Yes. And it's not the full screen. And it's not
because we do have people who wish to testify. So I would love
for them to be able to see the actual. Sure. I don't know why
we are having trouble here. You have two monitors? I do have two monitors. Yeah, that's what the IT
representative is saying. It's on your other monitor. So can you drag it over? Over there?
Drag it over to the first monitor, I believe it is. Is that it? There we go.
Okay. Thank you kindly. I am sorry. Sorry. Before we get to Matt, Brian, can you show that
diagonal lot which would be the future there you go that would be that lot here right and then lot
f is the uh the staging area correct all right okay matt milano please if you could promote him
uh does he need to be promoted or just audio oh he he cannot no he doesn't need to be a panelist
i can do okay so he could actually unmute himself and wait to be sworn in hello my name is matthew
Milano. Mr. Milano, please spell your last name for the record. M-I-L-A-N-O. Do you swear in the
firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please proceed. Mr. Milano,
did you hear all my testimony so far? Do you agree with it and adopt it as your own? Yes, I do.
Okay. You're a realtor, right? Yes, I am. You've been a realtor for 10 years? Yes. And you're
under agreement to purchase the property, right? Yes, I am. And it's taken you over a year to get
here due to COVID and other, and you revised your plan due to neighborhood opposition to your
original proposal, correct? Yes, I have. Okay. And this new plan was developed through input.
Okay. And this new plan was developed through input, you know, substantial input from the
community, correct? Yes, it was. All right. And we met with the neighbors a few weeks ago via a
Zoom hearing and you responded to concerns and we do have a letter of non-opposition from Penn
Sports Civic, correct? Yes. All right. Do you agree that you're unable to reuse the current
structure due to development costs involved with that yes okay um as a realtor uh mr milano what
explain to the board why single family dwelling units would be difficult at this site um because
of the market that's going on in this neighborhood and because of the price that we're paying for
this land or this building it's just not feasible to do single family homes they would be much more
expensive um and we would probably attract a small group of buyers in this neighborhood
we're trying to make it more affordable for young couples and young families to move into this
neighborhood with a lower price point and we've done that very successfully in this neighborhood
i've done that very successfully in this neighborhood in the past and we'd like to
continue doing that in the future um i do a lot of fundraising and in the neighborhood and i've
going around and spoke to a lot of neighbors um to make sure everyone was okay with the proposal
before we'd move forward with anything and we had a lot of community support and i'm very happy
with uh what's what's going on now and you've met personally with the immediate neighbors uh that
abut uh the property and you've had you've had conversations with them and you've offered
yourself uh available to them for questions and concerns right yes i have on multiple occasions
And the corner lot at the corner of Moore and Moyamensing will be developed with their input, correct, in the future?
Yes, it will.
And as a realtor, the units that will not have parking, first of all, you're prohibited from, you would need additional variances to put parking along Moyamensing, correct?
Correct.
And it's a very walkable street along Moyamensing.
We didn't want to go for parking on that avenue because it's such a nice avenue where it's walkable.
You have a farmer's market and a park a block away.
We just wanted to keep it very walkable for the community where you don't have a driveway on a major street like that.
Right. And you're putting back some on-street parking because there's an existing curb hut there presently, correct?
Yes, we are.
Right. And this is the most credible development proposal that you've had since the property's been vacant. Would you agree?
That's correct, yes.
Okay. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman, and that's our proposal.
Unless you have any questions of my witnesses, I would say that, oh, we do have the Penn Support letter.
Yeah, and a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squillip.
There you go.
okay any any questions from the board any questions from no no what else would like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand and i'll swear you in chair i have ryan
boland ryan you can omit yourself and wait to be sworn good afternoon mr boland please
identify yourselves by your name and provide us with your address
ryan you have to unmute yourself
he may be on my other case
oh he's with you well he's a he's an attorney for the 2000 spring garden matter all right
we'll move on uh anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
here i have samantha drake samantha you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn
good afternoon ma'am please identify yourself spell your name and provide us with your address
good afternoon chairman my name is samantha drake i just recently um your last name please
D-R-A-K-E.
And your address?
1822 East Moya Mensing Avenue.
Thank you.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
I am very new to this issue.
I just recently purchased the property at 1822, which is immediately adjacent to the
eModa building and I wanted to request an opportunity to review the site plan
and the exhibits and materials that have been provided today. I haven't had any contact
with the owner or the buyer or the architect and
I'm sort of especially interested because we share a wall with the eModa building.
uh rich would you yeah i would say as follows uh i do want to inform the board that this
particular developer has been delayed uh due to the covet crisis he has revised his plan he is
asking for a vote today it would be yeah we're going to do that well i would appreciate we're
happy to work with miss drake provide she could let me let me get there okay asking you to provide
miss drake with all the necessary materials she needs we can move forward with the vote if there's
a concern she can always ask for a rehearing that's not to suggest it would be granted but
there is another mechanism should there be any issues so please provide her with all the
information that she requests all she has to do is email me or call me i'll email her everything or
Brian. Let her know how to contact you. We'd appreciate it. All right. Okay. Anyone else
testify in this case? Here I have a Patrick Fitzmaurice. You're going to mute yourself and
wait to be sworn in. Good afternoon, Patrick. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell
your last name. Good afternoon. This is Pat Fitzmaurice. I'm the president of the Penn
support civic association my last name is spelled f-i-t-z-m-a-u-r-i-c-e you swearing for him to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed uh good afternoon uh i apologize
for getting our letter uh out on friday morning um you know any delay was my fault not due to
anything on the part of the applicant so i hope you'll excuse the the small delay no worries no
I appreciate that. And again, in the interest of full disclosure, you know, as Mr. Neuswanger noted, he is the chairman of the Civic Association Zoning Board.
He played no role in the consideration or voting on this or in drafting our letter.
I meant to say that.
I just want to put that out there. And that's in our letter as well.
The immediate neighbor who owned the property prior to this was heavily involved in this process.
You know, I appreciate her concerns. And barring her request and exception, I would just like to add the following.
You know, as far as the dimensional variances that are requested, in our opinion, they're reasonable, and our letter more fully explains.
We don't ordinarily oppose reasonable requests.
As far as the multifamily use, again, our letter more fully explains, but our RCO remains concerned about density generally.
Our letter more fully explains, but our RCO remains concerned about density generally, particularly related to parking and quality of life.
We have opposed multifamily requests in the past when these concerns exist or are otherwise raised by the neighbors.
However, in this instance, we feel that the applicant has reasonably addressed these concerns.
While there are a number of units that will add to density and parking, because of the on-site parking provided,
our understanding based on the representations made at the meeting is that this project should put as many cars on the street
as building the same number of single-family structures would.
Furthermore, these are owner-occupied units which can address some potential quality-of-life issues.
Unlike prior applications which we have opposed, this is not a current in-use single-family structure
in which the applicant seeks to double occupancy,
contributing to the issues I just mentioned with no demonstrable benefit to the community.
Rather, this is an out-of-use warehouse that's had vacant for many, many years.
I believe that some neighbors may favor single-family use,
but we are aware that over the years a number of potential owners have been unable to find a
suitable use for this parcel accordingly the proposed project may contribute to benefiting
the community by finding some use for this parcel therefore increasing the quality of life
accordingly we are not opposed to this this application thank you thank you for your
testimony if you wouldn't mind maybe you can reach out to miss drake as well introduce yourself to her
and make you familiar with the pensport civic uh having said that any other any other individuals
would like to testify in this case no chair you can proceed thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
these properties are designated for single family residential use in the comprehensive plan
we feel the proposal represents an overuse of the site and recommend the number of units be reduced
additionally we would note that the price of land is not a hardship accordingly we object
to the granting of the variance.
Understood. Thank you.
MI 2020-0015851800
East Des Moines and Metzing Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Professor, what I'm going to do is number six.
Since it's going to be their third hearing,
I'm going to move that to the back as well
because that usually takes a lot of time.
So we'll move on to number seven is continued.
We'll move on to number eight, MI 2020,
that's 001565211 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Soletti,
Michael Marrione
Yes, I was just going to say
if you could check your
text messages, there is another add-on
for 3818 Aspen
This is just a
follow-up report hearing from
Mr. Mulvihill to report on the
further communications with the
community. Yeah, all I saw when
you sent me was 909
North 26
and 7519
9 Ridge Avenue. Okay, I'll resend this. Okay, thank you. Okay, Mr. Mattione. Good afternoon,
Mr. Chairman. Please identify yourself. Sure, Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve
Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. I have with me today Alfred Hornick, who is the principal.
Mr. Marioni, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack her?
It is a referral, and yes.
Yes. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the referral,
photos, and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
So please proceed.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
This is Sharon interrupting you again.
I apologize.
But we also have a letter from a non-opposition from Councilman Squilla with certain provisos.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sharon.
Yes, we received the letter from the RCO yesterday and also the letter from Councilmember Squilla yesterday.
Councilmember Squilla's conditions are the same ones that the RCO asked us that we agreed to work with.
I also have Avram Hornick today with me. He's the Principal of the Tenant, who's my client,
and Michael Flynn, who is the Executive Director of the Independent Seaport Museum.
They are the landlord, and he is also on today.
They are the landlord, and he is also on today.
And I also believe that Paul Bonney
And I also believe that Paul Bonney is on.
He is from the RCO, but they are in support.
Mr. Hornick, I'm going to share my screen.
Excuse me.
Are we up?
Yes, sir, we are.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just want to make sure.
Okay, and there is the application and referral.
This involves the Independent Seaport Museum, a longstanding museum.
First here is our letter of support from the Society Health Civic Association.
We met with them on the 26th of October, and they support the application as long as we agreed to the eight provisos, and the provisos were mainly dealing with types of use, specific types of use, noise, light, kitchen odors, et cetera, and we agreed to all of their conditions.
And that was, again, followed up by the letter from Councilmember Sculler in non-opposition based upon our meeting with the Society Hill Civic.
Now, the Independent Seaport Museum, the museum itself is staying.
What we were talking about is Avram Hornet coming in.
He is a successful operator of restaurants and entertainment venues in Philadelphia, including Morgan's Pier, Kraft Hole, Rizzo Taco, Parks on Tap, and many others.
and we provided again all the required exhibits and he's got a signed agreement to operate
the restaurant concessions at the independent seaport museum with indoors and outdoors this
is a cmx4 zone property so the restaurant use itself is a permitted use by right what is not
permitted or permitted as a special exception is an outdoor use of the decks at the museum.
So Mr. Hornick is going to place a restaurant. This used to be the theater. He's going to place
a restaurant in the theater at the ground floor and also on the second floor, and that will be
indoors and also on the roof of that. You will also have on the second floor that I'm pointing
out. This is an outdoor area, and he's going to have dining here. He will have dining on
the roof, and then I have to go down to the next plan, which is also at the ground floor
You will have seating outside, this is a patio area, and this is the seating at the second floor level, and also seating on the roof of the restaurant at the second floor level, and there is also seating on the third floor level as well.
There's a further deck up here and that is used by private catering that is not used by Mr. Hornick,
but these areas are all what he's talking about, having the outdoor dining,
lectures, boat building, educational performances, and live music on these outdoor areas.
And if I show you a couple photos, it will help make it a little bit easier to understand as well.
Here's looking at the museum from the south, and you can see this area here, and this area
you can't see at all on the second floor level, and then this area, the U-shaped area here
the third floor level and there's another photo that shows as well okay
again this shows the outdoor area right here and right over here that are also going to
be part of the seating so you have seating area here all the way around seating area on top here
they're going to take down this parapet wall so you're going to have great views of the river
Fortuitously, for us, the noise issues are really not issues because you have the hotel
and the parking garage, so any noise is really buffered by this.
And then there is another photo as well that shows the L-shaped seating area here, the U-shaped seating area on this deck, this outdoor area, this outdoor area, and this outdoor area.
And then there is another photo as well.
Again, we're required to have a special exception solely due to the outdoor area uses.
The inside restaurant is permitted.
We have the full support of the RCO, and we believe we meet the requirements for special exception, which is a conditionally permitted use.
We're not going to cause congestions in the public streets.
this is a restaurant that's been operating from time to time and a museum that's it's operating
for many years we're not going to overcrowd the land we operate consistently with the zoning issues
we don't impair any lighter air to neighboring properties we're not doing any new construction
we're not burdening public facilities we have an existing building doesn't injure neighboring
properties they're going to probably benefit by having the outdoor areas occupied more eyes and
years in the area, more activity, more people down there, and it's consistent with the mixed
use zoning and the master plan for the Central Delaware.
So we believe we've met the requirements for a special exception with the specific and
the under 0.1 and the no detrimental impact on the neighborhood under 0.2 of 143037E of
the zoning code.
I'd like to have Mr. Auburn Hornick unmuted if possible.
yes i'm here good afternoon sir would you please identify yourself for the record spell your last
name and then i'll swear you in yes avram uh a-d-r-a-m hornet h-o-r-n-i-k we're in the firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and you're interested in this prop in
this application? I'm the Managing Member of the Tenant Entity. Thank you. Mr. Matteoni?
And Avram, did you hear my statements? I did. And were they true and correct? Yes. And do you
adopt them as your testimony? I do. And I would like to call on briefly, Mr. Chairman, Michael
Flynn, the Executive Director of the Independent Seaport Museum as well. Please do. Mr. Flynn?
Is he unmuted, Mr. Flynn?
Mr. Flynn?
Michael Flynn?
I mean, did he raise his hand?
Independent Seaport Museum?
I mean, if he's not here, it's fine.
I was just going to have him testify that he is representative of the Independent Seaport
Museum.
He's available.
Okay. Mr. Flynn. Hello. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with the record,
spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in. Michael Flynn, F-L-Y-N-N. We're going to affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Medellin. Mr. Flynn,
now do you have a written agreement with 2C Port 11 LLC, Mr. Hornick's company, to have them operate
the restaurant concession
at the Independent Seaport Museum?
And what is your position
at the Seaport Museum?
I'm the Executive Vice President
and Chief Operating Officer.
You're authorized to testify
on our behalf?
All right.
I know further questions, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted him to confirm
the relationship
between the landlord.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, I have Paul Bonney, who is available to police coordinator.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Bonney. Please identify yourself with the record and I'll
swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Bonney. My last name is spelled B-O-N-I.
I'm the chair of the Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee
for Society Hill Civic Association, the RCO, in this matter.
Thank you.
You're swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
We're the RCO in this matter,
and we wholeheartedly support this application,
and so we hope that the request is granted.
I want to thank Mr. Hornick and Mr. Flynn and Mr. Mattione for, you know, meeting with us and being so helpful to help us understand this project that we're really thrilled to have on the waterfront.
project that we're really thrilled to have on the waterfront. There is a letter that we submitted
that the applicant has countersigned. So we have, you know, his obligation to comply with these
provisions. Thank you, Mr. Mattione. And we think that these meet the parameters for, you know,
being included as a proviso in your decision because all of them relate to the permission
being granted. The permission being granted here is not the restaurant, which is allowed by Wright,
but is really the outdoor entertainment uses, performances, and including live music.
So the first one says that this is going to be that type of facility. The second one
is that they you know Mr. Hornick's company will always have a manager on site even if it's a
private event like a rehearsal dinner or something like that and then three and four is really about
noise not carrying over Christopher Columbus Boulevard and number four is you know any
lighting that they have not carrying over the ballpark. Paul pardon the interruption what I'm
want to do is I'm going to ask Sharon Saletta to read off the provisos, those of which were
obviously are enforceable by the CBA. So if you don't mind, we'll move on. Mr. Chairman, if I
might add, we're not really looking for the city to enforce these things. We can do that. And in
fact, if the board would like to say expressly on the record that these are being read off just
to make reference to them so that if future operators that that's what i was that's what
i are on notice of them and we have no problem with the city expressly saying that this is a
private agreement i would like to see it in there for future reference thank you all right i mean
to cut you off but yes sharon this is sharon um as i think mr bonnie acknowledged these are not
for the most part not enforceable or specific enough to um be added as provisos you can however
note on the record that the parties have agreed to these conditions there is one proviso that i
believe can be added and that is um that the trash is stored inside and let's see so give me some
just give me a a sentence or two i just want to memorialize this again for future uh you know
hopefully Mr. Hornig stays there forever, but if ownership changes or the vendor changes,
we want to make sure that whatever was agreed upon by the RCO remains in effect going forward.
If that is legal, I don't know. You can do that. It would not be
enforceable. They would have to enter into, and they would have to record the agreement,
i imagine but you can note that they have um that the parties have agreed to conditions
as stated in a letter mr bonnie do you want to give me i have councilman schooler's letter in
front of me but not yours so if you could specifically identify the letter note that
Thank you. MI 2020-001565, 211 South Columbus Boulevard. My vote is yes. Again, do we need
to put any language in, Sharon? And if so, you can add trash stored in inside, indoors.
With the proviso of trash to be stored inside.
Yes, we'll provide them.
Yes, we'll provide them.
Yes, we'll provide them.
Tom, do you have another place to eat, sir?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You're welcome.
For those of you who don't know, Tom, I won't give it away,
but he lives in close proximity to the Seaport Museum.
All right.
Number nine was continued.
Number 10?
Number 10. Yep.
And did you receive the add-on, the third add-on that I saw?
Hold on.
I both texted and emailed it to you.
had it on mute so uh i'm sure yeah 3818 aspen right yeah we'll do that at the end with the
other two uh the other add-on and the continued hearing thank you 10. mi 2020-000055 1526 manton
street
i have aristo four plus r uv tanya you're breaking up
tanya you're breaking up
Go out
Give Tanya a cup
Give her a minute or two
Go back on
uh strongly opposed
my name is john puka excuse me sir tanya yes i'm back how i sound
all right um let's start again 20 mi 2020 that's zero zero zero zero five five
one five two six manton street and i was questioning this um individual that is unmuted
are you the applicant attorney owner uh my name is john puka i own the adjacent property at one
five two eight man street okay so no you're just here to testify in this behalf
uh excuse me this is sharon saleta we received at 202 a continuance request
from the applicant saying that he had a family emergency
okay mi 2020 that's zero zero zero zero five five one five two six manton street is continued
Thank you, sir. Thank you. I think that gets, yeah. I'm sorry. Pauline,
could you make me a co-host, please?
so chair you could proceed um i would ask that zba staff um do the promoting while i'm waiting
to be promoted as a cause thank you so sharon correct me if i'm wrong we have three add-ons
uh ridge avenue aspen and uh well not an add-on we got the spring garden street the last three
correct that's right i'm not sure which one might be the easiest to start with but we'll take a shot
am i 20 yep yes sorry i'm sorry chair i would just ask if we can do those
um ones that you have add-ons since they're just resumptions
and then go forward afterward with the other cases so the resumption is ridge avenue
And what was the other one, Aspen's not a resumption, is it?
yes yes it is and aspen is probably the um simplest of the three all right we'll do aspen
Yes, yes it is. And Aspen is probably the symposium.
and correct me if i'm wrong along the way mi 2020 that's zero zero one zero seven seven three eight
one eight aspen
okay chair I'm promoting Leo Mulvihill good afternoon Mr. Mulvihill please identify
yourself for the record and then I will swear you in good afternoon chairman members of the board
Leo Mulvihill m-u-l-v-i-h-i-l-l address is 2424 east york street suite 111 Philadelphia
Philadelphia 19125. I just apologize in advance. My dogs are going a little nuts right now,
so forgive any barking. No problem. You're swearing the firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Maybe the dog doesn't recognize you without
a customer. Okay, please proceed. Yeah, this is just a resumption, correct? Yes, members of the
board, we were here previously for my client's proposal at 3818 Aspen Street. I'm now sharing
copies of the site plan uh to the members of the board uh this was held for additional comment
and i understand that there may be people in the line who wish to make those comments
so i'd cede my time like them to make those comments and then respond if necessary thank you
anyone who would like to testify in this case please raise your hand chair we have miss lindsay
miss lindsay you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in good afternoon miss lindsay please
identify yourself for the record and spell your name and provide us with your address
rakia lindsay r-i-k-e-y-a-h last name lindsay l-i-n-d-s-a-y 38 34 astin street
we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed okay so we are in the mantua section of west philadelphia and we have been
rezoned as single family. Aspen Street is one of the very few blocks that is not being taken over
with over development and apartment buildings, multi-family units, whatever you want to call them.
This project goes directly against that. Chairman, for purpose of the record, I object
to the use of we if she may only speak for herself speak speak speak on your behalf okay so speaking
You have to speak on your behalf.
Speak on your behalf.
Okay, so speaking on my behalf, I oppose it because the block is or the neighborhood is zoned as single family.
This street is zoned for a single family home usage, and so the property goes against that.
the balconies would obscure the view for neighbors, you know, close by. It also would
increase the property cost for residents who already live here. There was no contact made
with, you know, the community outside of the letter. But, you know, to say that there was
the RCO meeting, but I don't, you know, there was no property, no contact me with myself as a
resident to, I'm sorry, from, I guess, the lawyer or the developer to find out what it is that the
community would have liked to see in this space. And then it just, it completely goes against the
integrity of you know what everything already looks like it changes the nature of our street
my street since i have to speak for myself um so i'm just i'm strongly opposed to this again
we are zone single family the street is zone single family and i would like to see it stay
that way appreciate your testimony thank you ma'am and cross-examine chair please great miss lindsey
will you please state your address again for the record? 3834 Edsman Street. Okay, Ms. Lindsay,
energy conservation workshop at the same time. And so I could not be in attendance for that
meeting. Okay. Members of the board, I'm just referring to page 17 of the packet that I
previously submitted, which is the reverse side of the zoning notice that was sent out to all
affected properties. So Ms. Lindsay, you're in the list of affected properties, fair to say,
since you live essentially right next door? Basically. Okay. You say you have no recollection
of receiving a zoning notice from my law office stating that you can contact me with any questions
you know members of the board just for purpose of the record i'm referring to page 18 or 30 of my
zoning packet that was previously sent to the neighborhood showing that we have a certificate
of mailing dated october 13 2020 for 104 mail pieces for the property of 3818 aspen street
uh miss lindsey are you aware that otherwise this is going to be built as a three-story
single family dwelling single family correct okay so your objection is only to the fact that
this is a multi-family dwelling correct
right okay and the extensions in the back uh anything that goes against the like what
we already look like like if you stay within you know your height variant well no variances you
know like i think it's zoned so that you can go three stories and that's fine but as long as it
states a single family dwelling i'm not opposed okay miss lindsey you're aware that the civic
association sent a letter to the zoning board correct i'm also aware that that um was supposed
to be retracted from what I like from what I understood it was a misunderstanding on some part
but nothing to do with the civic right have you have you had conversations with Mr. Dwayne Drummond
the chair of the local civic association in what capacity have you had any conversations
with him regarding this application I had a conversation with him on Saturday okay
regarding this application uh yes uh we just i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt you miss
it's just difficult because of the slight delay due to the uh audio visual nature of the hearing
please continue yeah so i had a discussion with him and the discussion was that this was the space
for us because we didn't, well, I'm sorry, me, and there are other people from my block that are
also on this call so that we can be sure that it's not just me. However,
the discussion was that this was the space, the ZBA was the space because we weren't able to make
the RCO meeting, that the ZBA was the space for us to come and voice our concerns and our
grievances. I also sent a packet of letters from myself and other members of the 3800 Block of
Aspen Street, all in opposition to the proposal. Miss, I do have a question about that. You typed
those up yourself based on text messages you received? I did not type all of them. No, I did
not type all of them. And as a matter of fact, I didn't type anything. The text messages were just
forwarded and then resent okay who transferred my each whatever name is on the the letter that's
the person that sent the text message okay i don't have any other questions for you miss thank you
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
No, Chair, you can proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Mueller, I just refreshed my memory.
Is this a duplex or a triplex?
It's a duplex, members of the board, referring to page 17 or 30 of the packet, which is currently on your screen.
You'll see we received two refusals.
One was for two-family living.
My recollection is that the City Planning Commission had no objection.
And after conversations with Mr. Dwayne Drummond, the chair of Mantua Civic, who I believe may have sent a letter to the board as well, which unfortunately I never received a copy of, the Mantua Civic Association, which is the coordinating RCO, did not oppose this application.
The other refusal we received, members of the board, was for rear yard depth.
Our rear yard depth, I can attest based on aerial photographs, is similar to other homes on the block.
Thank you.
uh chair i'm sorry to interrupt we have two hands that just came up it's your call
Okay, before we get to them, Sharon, do we have anything from Dwayne?
okay before we get to them uh sherman do we have anything from
I do not have anything. I just checked.
Okay. All right. Whoever else would like to testify, please raise your hand at this time.
And if you could speak to something new and different, that would be helpful.
Chair, I am Patricia Rozier.
Good afternoon, ma'am.
Hello.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Please identify yourself.
Spell your first and last name and provide us with your address.
Patricia Rosea, R-O-Z-I-E-R.
Address is 3856 Aspen Street.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
So as far as getting a letter, people are moving in and out.
and we didn't see this letter um that went out not until a couple days afterwards because of
the letter and everything what letter are you referring to the one that was sent out the first
letter that was sent out in reference to like uh making this a three-story dwelling from the
from the applicant no it came in the mail i guess in reference to the um this meeting the first time
pertaining to the property that they want to make a three-story dwelling okay
we didn't it's a lot of people that were at work at the time and a lot of people didn't receive it
so we were complaining to the male people also as far as people didn't receive it on time and it's
not you know it's not fair to us because we had ones who are we were complaining to the male people
as far as like not getting milked late so is there any way that you know we people are willing to
come on and speak as far as keeping it as a two-story dwelling opposed to a three because
the single parents and stuff like kids and stuff on the block they can build but so i'm gonna
interrupt you ma'am uh they can build the three-story within as long as it's no it doesn't
exceed 38 feet it's a buy right the only issue before us is whether to maintain it as a single
family or a duplex well we would rather keep it as a single family then i would as i'm speaking
for myself. Yeah, understood. Okay. Anyone else? Chair, I have Corinne Sapp, who's been unmuted
and waiting to be sworn in. Again, I'll ask your full name and address. I'll swear you
in and please provide us with something new and different. My name is Corinne Sapp. My
my address is 514 north 34th street however i'm on the ma'am ma'am slow down please okay
spell your name for the record d-o-r-i-n-e last name is sap s is in sam a p is in paul p is in
paul we're in firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do there before
miss that begins please let me preliminary preliminarily object as an officer of the court
I'll submit to this board that based on my conversations with Dwayne Drummond I believe
that Ms. Sapp is going to attempt to speak as if she is a member of the board of Mantua Civic
Association and based on my conversations with Mr. Drummond I understand that she does not have
the authority to do so. That said if she wishes to testify and her address is within the affected
area which I'm happy to pull up a copy of the addresses which are in the affected area I do
not object to her testifying in her individual capacity, but it's my understanding that she
has no authority to speak on behalf of the Civic Association. Okay, ma'am, are you within the
affected area? I am not within the affected area, but I am not on the board, but I am a member of
the Mantua Civic Association Zoning Committee, and I was appointed by Dwayne Drummond to speak
on behalf of the Mantua Civic Association on the ZBA and the Civic Design Review and that's why
I'm here. I talked to the and that's that's why my name is on all of the rosters. I am not on the
board. He is correct but I am appointed by Dwayne Drummond as a zoning member of the Mantua Civic
Association. He's correct. I'm not on the board but I do have authority. Chair I renew my objection
as an officer of the court based on conversations I've had with Mr. Drummond, I understand that this
may have been a recurring problem with respect to Ms. Sapp. So again, because she does not live in
the affected neighborhood, because there is no letter of authorization from the Mantua Civic
Association, I ask that she not be allowed to speak as a member of the Mantua Civic Association.
And on top of that, as she is not in the affected area, she may speak, but I ask that the board
but I ask that the board consider whether her testimony be relevant as somebody who is not
consider whether her testimony be relevant as somebody who is not within
within the affected area. Understood, and we'll move on to the next
person to watch her testify. Thank you. Tanya, the next person. Here we have the last one is
Angela Lindsey. You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in. Lindsey?
maybe not sure you can move on okay um i'd like to know where mr duane is uh he's not on i assume
correct that's my understanding numbers of the board i i mean his name's been thrown around
half a dozen times uh anyway questions from the board no no
planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single-family use in the comprehensive plan
this is an existing single-family block and was part of the 2017 mantua single-family
neighborhood-wide remapping. We feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property.
Accordingly, we object to the granting of the variance. Thank you. Do we have anything from
Councilwoman Gautier's office? Do you have any letters? Chairman, we had had previous correspondence
from Mr. Goodman from the councilperson's office, but Mr. Goodman was incorrect in that his email
to the board suggested that there was a vote against this proposal by the civic when that
is not the case uh if i recall correctly it was either a vote slightly in favor by one vote or a
complete tie i think you're correct in that yeah councilwoman gauthier or mr goodman did say that
the councilwoman is still opposed but um i'm not sure what that's based on mr chairman mr chairman
Do we have a letter from anyone concerning this appeal?
We had the testimony, I believe, of Mr. Goodman when we first heard this case.
Again, Sharon, is there a letter in that file?
Mr. Goodman sent an email to members of the board.
Mr. Drummond, with whom I spoke, explained to me that he had sent a letter to the board as well.
perhaps it was sent or misdirected to an incorrect email address but it's not a letter that I
personally ever received a copy of. If the board would like I can follow up with Mr. Drummond and
see perhaps if he can resend it to me and I can forward it to the board just in the purpose of
clarity. And this is Sharon I can only say that I wasn't copied on it not that the board did not
receive it. Also I don't see anything and I did want to just mention on record that we did receive
an email from Mr. Goodman for just the screenshots of text messages, which I told him was not going
to be accepted because we take letters only and not actual text messages. All right. We're going
to move on. We want to close the record on this and we'll make a decision at our next Wednesday's
executive session thank you so am i yep members of the board in the meantime if i am able to secure
a letter from mr drummond i would ask that the record be kept open for the limited purposes of
accepting that written correspondence from manchua civic okay all right we'll do it that way
in the interest of fairness all the way around so mi 2020-001077 3818 aspen street this hearing will
be resumed on do we have a date is it december 2nd again or something else oh no we can do
december 2nd for this one number second at two um i'm sorry you know what we could actually do
it next week since it's just i'm open for the letter correct so next week would be uh the
the 17th um if what we could i would love to do it on wednesday 18th the 18th correct okay
MI 2020-001077, 3818 Aspen Street.
This hearing will be resumed on Wednesday, November the 18th at 9.30 a.m.,
at which time we will consider any feedback related to the RCO
and Councilwoman Gautier's office.
Thank you.
Members of the board, do you require my presence of that hearing,
or may I simply submit the letter if I receive a copy of it from Mr. Trummins?
not necessary unless you find you believe you need to be here other than that no
great thank you members of the board have a good afternoon
great thank you members of the board have a good afternoon
okay we'll move
okay we'll move on to one that may not be as easy uh let's see
mi00-1458 7519 ridge avenue
uh chair we have attorney mr demarco marco good afternoon please identify yourself you're still
on the oath from earlier today right uh good afternoon members of board richard demarco d-e-m-a-r-c-o
i'm here for the applicant um if i could do a uh a clarification statement there was some
interesting testimony from the planning commission at the last hearing that i wanted to
because we are are going to update our argument uh today but before you begin i believe there
was opposing counsel was it mr whalen or no paul toner is paul toner i'm sorry mr toner
mr toner are you on yes chair i have promoted attorney paul turner yeah let me swear him in
and then we'll proceed mr toner please identify yourself with a record and i'll swear you in
mr toner you have to unmute yourself and start my video there we go
thank you mr chairman um for the record my name is paul toner with orphanese and toner
We're counsel for the Protestant, the Upper Roxborough Civic Association.
You're swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. DeMarco.
Yeah, I just want to do a housekeeping item.
Mr. Toner is going to continue with cross-examination of David Plant would be where we're at in the case.
I wanted to alert the board to the testimony of the Planning Commission last week,
which uh our experts have reviewed with with with me and it it's clear that the planning
commission relied on the additional impervious coverage sections of the code of the whistahick
and watershed so the argument that the applicant is making is somewhat updated from that testimony
and specifically what i mean is as follows while part of the most of the property has a 45 percent
impervious coverage limitation i'll bring it up on my screen if i if i may there is a provision in the
code it's going to take a while to load for some odd reason there it is can you see my screen mr
chairman yes so the planning commission is authorized by the zoning code to approve
additional impervious coverage under the wissahick and watershed overlay district
if we meet the five criteria which you see on your screen paula brumbelow testified
that the planning commission approved our plan based on those five sections and she read that
into the record last tuesday so your argument excuse me respectfully object to the characterization
mr uh miss brumbauer's test no no with all due respect miss brumbelow read those criteria into
the record herself rich she was very clearly she was not involved she was very good she was not
involved gentlemen gentlemen gentlemen please one more time please sorry so our argument is as
follows after i was interrupted we do not request a variance unless the board deems it necessary
because the planning commission has approved our plan based on the section that you have on the
screen so if the board does not accept that then in the alternative we are requesting the variance
that's all i have and you can continue with the hearing
uh could you just go over that one more time paul uh richard certainly
this section of the wissahickham watershed that you see on your screen
is a section which allows the planning commission authorization to approve additional impervious
coverage you can see it in section c it says additional impervious coverage in excess of
the coverage permitted by 14 510 may be permitted by the commission after review and comment by the
law department and other appropriate city agencies according to the following criteria
If you remember, Paula read these criteria into the record and stated,
If you remember, Paula read these criteria into the record and stated very clearly, and if we need to order the transcripts that Mr. Toner can see, she read those five criteria into the record and stated unequivocally that the Planning Commission approved the additional coverage based on that criteria.
So we would have been approved by the Planning Commission based on that.
So we are allowed to go over the 45%.
If the board does not accept that, we will continue with the hearing and present evidence that we are also entitled to a hardship because to comply literally with the 45% results in an unfeasible development in light of the fact that we've been approved by the Commonwealth Court for 16 units.
So that is what I wanted to update, make sure the board understood that.
Thank you.
Hey, Tom, do you have any comments on this so far?
I don't want to put you on the spot, but it's more about you.
I'm wondering, did you get approval from the water department?
With these things that the city planning support you with?
No, the city, the planning commission said that on Tuesday, but Mr.
Holloman, we have full support from the water department, not only preliminary
approval which is in the record that was submitted to the court when we had the appellate review but
we actually have recent approval from the water department which david plant can speak to
if you need to we actually went because we move we were moving forward before we got the remand
order we were moving forward with this project for final approval and we have full support from
the water department not support but approval excuse me not thank you you're welcome mr toner
thank you i'll try to be brief um in terms of full support of the philadelphia water department
uh mr plant did not present a stamp plan other than the original uh fourth proposal that was
subject of the 2017 uh zoning board hearing and recent commonwealth court remand decision
there's no written statement from the water department no representative from the water
department was called to testify and in terms of uh miss brumbelow's involvement in this case
while she did reference these five uh elements for additional impervious coverage she was also
unequivocal that she was not involved with the review of the fourth proposal, that she did not
have personal knowledge of the plans, and that she was only assuming that the people at the planning
commission who did actually review the plans would have applied these. But that type of
equivocal testimony on what other people may have without even knowing for certain whether they did
did not that that's simply not enough to establish that all these five elements have been met with
certainty and where we are where we are at procedurally is they need a variance to go from
45 impervious lock coverage new impervious lock coverage to 77 77 impervious lock coverage which
is what mr plant testified was the total precise calculation of new impervious ground coverage
and based upon the plans that were submitted to the board they also need to establish how
the 77 percent is the minimum variance from the wisconsin watershed provisions that will
afford relief they presented this board with a plan that showed a fully compliant
16 unit development that had no more than 45 percent new impervious ground cover so the burden
certainly on them to present evidence that that plan is not it is not a viable feasible plan
mark you have no nothing in writing from the water department is that accurate
uh we do when we can't submit it we we we didn't have it as i believe we do i'll ask david in a
minute david's going to be cross-examined in a moment uh but i believe we very very recently did
get uh but that that has not been shared with the we haven't had the time i mean i didn't think it
would be an issue i'm not criticizing just curious right we can certainly submit it um that could be
helpful we we'd be happy to and of course if you believe david plant who is a very credible
individual and an expert if you certainly can accept his testimony as true as well but we'll
got the written documents as well. So I would only respond, Mr. Chairman, to say it's a
shame we don't have the transcript. We can't get it in time, but I'm really disturbed by
I'm really disturbed by Mr. Toner's characterization of Ms. Brumbler's testimony, and maybe the planning commission individual on the call might be able to verify it, but it seemed there was absolutely no way to interpret it differently, that the commission relied on the five criteria to approve additional coverage, and that's what occurred in this case.
Mr. Toner's characterization.
otherwise they wouldn't have stamped the plan okay so it's getting to be frustrating for me to hear
double speak like that when it was so obvious why Ms. Brumbelow was referring to these criteria
because it was clear that the Planning Commission approved this plan not only back in 2018 but again
on Tuesday so it gets forgive me for being a little upset about it but I just don't when
something is black and white you can't try to say differently but we'll get the transcript and we'll
make sure that you see it in black and white as well is paula on this call by any chance sometimes
she's on as an observer no chair no okay uh mr toner in terms of what the commonwealth court
found after reviewing the transcript and reviewing miss brumbalow's testimony the commonwealth court
found that the only reason the planning commission approved the fourth proposal was because it viewed
permeable pavers as being outside the definition of new impervious ground coverage which under the
definition of impervious ground coverage applicable at the time of this application was not the case
the commonwealth court decision could not be any clearer we're not stretching facts or doing
anything other than just reading the record mr demarco is there anything you need to have on
the record today that we already may not have covered well yeah first of all mr toner has
the right to cross-examine david plant uh for for one but number two i do have very brief testimony
from my client and uh our realtor who testified at the hearing below who will say state the very
obvious that the homes in the rear if you were to to comply strictly with the uh impervious
coverage requirements and ignore miss brumbalow's testimony from tuesday the rear uh homes which
lack access will be i'm going to interrupt you is that what the realtor is going to testify to
yes then we'll wait to hear from him if you don't mind sure rather than repeat okay offer
so mr mr toner i understand you want to cross-examine mr plant i just have a few
more questions for mr plant let's get mr plant on i'll swear i'm in
He's available, Chair.
Okay, Mr. Plant, please again identify yourself with the records by your last name, and I'll swear you in.
Certainly.
David Plant, P-L-A-N-T-E.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Toner, I'm sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
mr plant we left off last week uh discussing the countermeasures and permeable pavers that were
being proposed as part of the the fourth proposal so my next question is you'll agree with me that
the planning commission does not have any written standards governing permeable pavers and their
makeup isn't that right correct okay and you were not able to identify any specific material brand
design of permeable pavers or countermeasures proposed for with the fourth proposal
that's correct right that's not really correct as i mentioned it's not the planning commission
that has that publishes the standards it's the water department and as i testify the water
department has specific standards for permeable pavers and primarily it's an entire cross section
that makes the stormwater management system or bmp best management practice work correctly
but as far as the surface area that directly relates to the size and shape of of the pavers
that requires that the pavers have a 10 void opening in the surface so my question was actually
different my question was last week you couldn't identify any specific material brand or design of
Last week, you couldn't identify any specific material, brand, or design of the permeable pavers.
of the perm.
Well, I guess what I'm saying is that the standard isn't for a...
I understand the water department has...
One at a time, excuse me, excuse me, gentlemen.
Let's go back to Mr. Plant.
Let Mr. Plant answer the question, please, and then we'll go...
Yeah, there is no, as with virtually any standard, there is no proprietary brand that's specified.
The criteria is what's specified.
And does the criteria identify maintenance schedules for these permeable pavers?
There is a maintenance schedule in the BMP manual, the Water Department manual, as well as a site-specific maintenance schedule that is issued with the operation and maintenance agreement for this specific property, and that is recorded at the recorders of Deeds Office.
And was an operation and maintenance agreement issued for this proposal?
That is a waiting signature at this moment. It was issued maybe yesterday or the day before, I believe.
And was that issued based upon the fourth proposal or some new proposal?
No, it's the same proposal.
and mr plant the the line separating the weston watershed overlay district from areas outside the
weston watershed district and mr demarco's um second alternative plan the line was marked
running through the property rich can you put that second alternative plan up on the screen
i'll try if not tanya i can do it
this one yes
can you highlight to the the line separating the wassican watershed from
areas you believe are outside of a second watershed can you just zoom in on that yes
That's right, David. That's correct. Who told you, or strike that,
what city record shows that line running through this? Well, that is what is sometimes referred
to as the secret map. That is a map that is hanging in the back, in the filing area at the
planning commission staff office okay and normally the plan and and to the best of my knowledge the
planning commission has never published that and put that into a public forum so the typical way
that we determine exactly what category it affects a property is email the planning commission or
in prior to COVID restrictions, stop into the Planning Commission office and ask one of the
review staff to check the map and let us know what category we're located in.
And on occasion, they invite consultants or owners or architects in to take a look at the map
themselves if there's you know any kind of confusion or anything like that so mr plant
have you personally seen the secret map i i have in the past not necessarily for this project
okay in in the past year have you or past two years have you personally seen a secret map
i have not and have you held up this alternative site plan next to any kind of picture or depiction
of the secret map to see if these lines actually line up i i have not that the line is um located
as described to us by a planning commission staff member so the planning commission didn't even
actually show you a picture of the secret map they just kind of told you where it was correct
and did you ask to see a picture of the secret map i did not at at the time and normally this
is handled by survey staff or design staff okay and at the time of the last hearing um
you weren't in possession or anyone in your design team was not in possession of
any kind of depiction of the secret map right correct
tony can i uh share a screen i think rich needs to get out
Sure, you can go forward.
Sure, you can go forward.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Plank, can you see this map?
I'm not seeing anything yet.
I'll give you a quick second.
Here we go.
Mr. Plain, you're familiar with this map, right?
And this is the Wistic and Watershed overlay district map that's actually included within
the Wistic and Watershed overlay ordinance, correct?
And you've looked at this map to see if 7519 Bridge Avenue was within the Wissick and Worship Overlay District, correct?
Correct.
And by looking at this map that's part of the actual ordinance, the entirety of 7519 is included within the Wissick and Worship Overlay District, correct?
Rich, if we, I can put the alternative plan back up.
I can do it.
Yeah, if we put the alternative plan back up, what I think was marked as your remand
exhibit two.
Oh, I'm blocked because you are.
Oh, she just, she just, okay, Tanya just gave me.
This one?
Or the other one?
This one.
mr plant from a design vantage point there's nothing infeasible about building this design
correct well it would obviously reduce the amount of parking available for the buildings okay so
So if you take the issue of not having off-street dedicated parking for two of the units.
That would be three of the units.
Three of the units.
The structures are all feasible, right?
I mean, these are all by-right structures.
Correct.
And they're all accessible by this common driveway?
they would be accessible um by vehicle to that up to that um single townhouse in the in the rear and
by pedestrians and there's not there's no part of the landscaping and green elements that any way
impedes someone's ability to actually use one of these single family residences for the intended
purpose that being someone's home right they they would be townhomes without parking space without
the garages the garages obviously would not be functional wouldn't be couldn't be designed as
garages but my question really was to the green elements there's nothing about these green
elements that in any way impacts the use of these 16 residential uses for their intended purpose
being single family residential uses correct as i said only in as much as there's there's
insufficient parking so you just want so your sole position is this is a hundred percent
feasible plan objection nobody said with the exception of you would like to have
dedicated off-street parking to three more units?
I mean, objection, if he can answer,
but he's really not, he's not a real-
He's a design professional, Rich.
He's not a market, he's an engineer,
and these are, if he can answer.
I think, I understand.
All right, if he can answer.
I mean, like anything, yes, they can be built.
Are they useful this way?
That's, you know, that's another question.
they're useful without i mean there are many houses that are built without garages
you know there's just simply an insufficient insufficient parking spaces the what you can
see just to put the common put it in context is um the residents of the three homes at the rear
would have to park somewhere out on the street and walk back to those homes and the walk and
Could someone show me with a cursor or whatever
the three properties
that we're talking about, right?
And they would have to walk.
And they would have to walk.
They would have to walk to where to get out?
Straight out the driveway to Ridge Avenue.
All right.
Was there any, and I don't know if it could be done,
was there any consideration about creating an area of pedestrian ingress
and egress down, I don't know if, my cursor doesn't work on yours,
uh where the three properties are out onto i'm not sure what street that out into the parking lot
area down you would lose i mean you would lose impervious you would lose pervious coverage and
you would have to find up you'd have to it has to be grass it has to be i'm talking about a walkway
what three foot wide by whatever the length of that those three homes are do you understand
the question i i do i i think yes that could be done and the the likely to do that and to strictly
comply with the 45 percent over the entire lot would likely um or the category four
potentially, and we haven't studied this specifically, but potentially that would reduce
the ability to provide vehicular access even to the one townhouse at the rear of the site.
We probably would lose that bit of pavement in order to provide for the walkway.
But that would take you down from 77% impervious coverage, a few points, not down to 45, right?
Correct. That's correct.
And there are actually two surface parking spaces already proposed next to the central green area, correct?
Well, I'm not sure. I think it was about 10 spaces right there.
But where the curse is right now, there's two.
There's two additional parking spaces, yes.
That could be used by the two units at the end, right?
They could be or by the triplex units at the front.
And between the fourth proposal and this alternative proposal, I mean, a lesser variance would be simply adding another surface parking spot, right?
Well, I guess that would still leave the triplexes inadequately parked in the front as well.
the fourth proposal includes triplexes quad i mean duplexes these are duplexes i'm sorry
and mr plant you're familiar with development in the rocksboro community correct i am
Tanya, if I could share a screen again.
And Mr. Plante, you're aware that there are numerous new construction, single-family and duplexes.
under development, under contract, or have been sold within the past 180 days
that do not include parking, including these units on Fountain Street?
Objection. Is this not within his expertise?
Well, he's familiar with development, and we're talking about single-family development
in Roxborough without front-loading parking.
I'm looking at numerous...
It's a simple question. Either he is or he isn't familiar with it. Yes or no?
go ahead david mr planter are you familiar that 4577 boone street is for sale without
dedicated off-street parking i don't know that specific address now
what about 246 fountain street in this entire development of new single-family homes without
dedicated off-street parking. Are you familiar that these are currently on the market or have
recently been sold? Same objection. Same objection. Go ahead. I'm familiar with, I think it's 246 and
248 Mountain Street. I think it's two different developers. One I know has parking at
parking at somewhere between one and two parking spaces per unit and the other one I'm not familiar
somewhere between one and two parking
with. And listen, Mr. Plant, everyone understands that you're hired by Mr. Brannigan as his design
professional, his engineer for his project. And my question relates solely to your competency
in development, design, and engineering. Is there anything from an engineering perspective
that differentiates these units on Fountain Street or Boone Street
that are being sold without dedicated off-street parking
from the units on Ridge Avenue at 7519?
Objection.
Is there anything that differentiates from an engineering design perspective
I'm waiting for Mr. DeMarco to instruct.
You can answer the question.
Let me just state my objection for the record.
This is out of the realm of both your testimony and your expertise.
But if you can answer, go ahead.
I'm not familiar with all of those.
I'm familiar with one of them.
And from an engineering standpoint, there certainly are different issues.
But the off-street parking was provided anyway.
um because for really for all the same reasons that we've discussed here to improve the the
character of the of the homes and to reduce the burden on the surrounding neighborhood of having
additional on-street parking were you ever asked strike that question were you ever shown a
financial study that guided your design of this development at 7519 bridge avenue
no no and so your design was based solely upon the instructions of your client mr brownigan right
correct and his attorney mr demarco
i i have no further questions i have redirect mr chairman
uh tanya can i have screen share again
thank you
i don't know why it does that try this again
it's coming up there we go
Mr. Plant, can you see my screen?
Not yet.
Nothing yet.
Oh, it says sharing is paused.
I'm going to stop and re-enter, okay?
Sorry for this.
Hold on.
How about now?
All right.
All right. So, Mr. Plant, you heard Paula Brumbelow's testimony by the Planning Commission at the Tuesday hearing, right?
And you heard her discuss these five criteria in the Wissahick and Watershed Ordinance. Agreed?
Okay. And in your opinion, why did Ms. Brumbelow go through those five criteria?
Objection.
This would have been an opportunity to testify as to why Ms. Brumbelow testified to anything.
Just saying. Just saying.
He's an engineer. All right. Well, I was just, he's an engineer, so he can.
Yeah, but you can't speak for him.
Well, all right. Let's go to, so was it, so is it your opinion that the Planning Commission has approved the, I'll get this off the screen.
Is it your opinion that the Planning Commission approved additional impervious coverage as laid out in the Wissenheck and Watershed Ordinance?
Yes. Well, I think that was obvious from Ms. Brombeleau's testimony.
I think she came out and stated that.
And, you know, the criteria is laid out here in the code.
The experts to review that are at the Water Department.
Consequently, the practice in Philadelphia is to have the applicant submit a conceptual stormwater management plan to the water department for review and approval prior to making a zoning application.
And that's true. It's normally required when stormwater management is required for the project.
when stormwater management is is required for the project and it's always required
And it's...
in certain cases for example this in the whittaken watershed or for a green roof
density bonus certain conditions where the stormwater management approval takes on particular
significance and thank you uh so i got a little ahead of myself uh let me clarify for mr holloman's
question. I think I misstated the status of the Water Department currently, but let me ask you
this. When you go through the zoning process, the only thing that the Water Department does is
provide a preliminary approval. Is that right? I'm sorry. Can you restate that? Sorry. When you're
in the zoning process, when we were in the zoning process in the case before the
board earlier we did receive um preliminary water department approval correct that conceptual storm
water management plan approval correct that's right conceptual and nothing more than that is
required during the zoning process would you agree with that that's correct all right so what you're
doing now is you're going forward on a more on a building uh process is that a way fair way to
characterize it correct the second step is the final storm water management plan application
that approval. So what the Planning Commission would require in order to, since the Planning
Commission does consider, first of all, does the Planning Commission consider stormwater management
in their reviews? Well, yes, they do in the way that I described a few moments ago, but also
normally if they believe that more than 15,000 square feet of ground would be disturbed,
triggering the requirements, or if there's any question of that happening, and that could
have slightly different criteria in different situations, then they normally require the
applicant to have a stormwater management plan approved by the water department first for an
exemption, obtain an exemption from the water department before proceeding with the zoning
application. So to address the question by Mr. Holloman, this plan, not the plan on
the screen I'm going to get to that in a minute but our final plan that was approved by the board
back in 2018 had all of the necessary approval for that time frame by the water department right
that's correct all right so let's get to this uh let's talk about the secret plan the secret
plan that you referred to is excuse me counselor sure where is the plan that the water department
to prove i'm gonna i think it's i think it's here i oh that's the wrong that's the wrong one sorry
Forgive me, I have the wrong exhibit teed up.
Can I come back to you on that, Mr. Holland?
No problem. No problem.
I'm sorry.
No problem.
It looks like I got my exhibit packets mixed up, but I'll find it.
You mind if I move on with Mr. Plant? I'll be done with him very quickly.
No problem.
All right. Mr. Plant, the category, the secret map that it was talked about when Mr. Tony was cross-examining you,
um that is the map that shows the where the category four category five and all the five
categories lay out right correct and that's not published in the zoning code it's not publicly
available right it is not right so you have to rely on what you see firsthand when you're at
the planning commission to determine that right or more frequently simply request the information
from Planning Commission staff.
Right.
So this is not the line that I'm marking on my with my Courser is as best from what you've
seen at the Planning Commission.
This is where you think the line would be, right?
That's correct, and it makes sense as it's described because the Category 5 generally relates to areas that were previously developed, and there's evidence of some previous development along Ridge Avenue.
That's correct.
And it makes sense as it's described.
And then typically areas that are heavily wooded or generally maybe not undisturbed but undeveloped have the more restrictive categories.
So the way this was described, the way it lays out on the plan, makes sense with the intent of the code.
All right. So getting to some of the other questions, I'm almost done.
The green area is earth or grass, right?
Correct.
And you are very specifically attempting to meet the impervious coverage requirements, right?
so any removal of grass or earth would have to be made up elsewhere right that's right all right so
if you were to create a pedestrian walkway you would have to lose to the homes in the rear you
would have to lose other uh grass elsewhere i mean um you would have to replace grass elsewhere that's
right we would lose have to move some of the pavement within that category four area to be
used for a long life so um but this is grass so these this does not really the plan you're showing
here has no pedestrian access right that that's right this this plan has obviously not been fully
designed and engineered this was a sketch for general evaluation the luster tip right all right
let me pull up the other plan and if i could just um quickly interrupt chair we do have um miss
Paula Brumbelow available since her name was mentioned quite a few times that's great that'll
be helpful thank you so I'll finish with I'd love to hear from Paula so let me let me finish here
with David this plan is one where you where you don't uh give yourself credit for the
line that would be up here for the category five where no requirement exists correct
That's right.
So because you have certain, do you agree that because you have certain minimum driveway widths,
there really is no way to get not only car access, but pedestrian access as well to the rear homes. Agreed?
That's right. Potentially, there would be more parking lost as we did a final design of this plan and provided for all the pedestrian access.
So this plan that's on my screen is where you have strict compliance with the 45% impervious coverage, assuming that we're wrong about what the Planning Commission said at the last hearing, correct?
All right. And so this is earth. So this would also become wet. So going to Mr. Toner's point, even though this could feasibly be built feasibly, how would somebody get their groceries to these homes?
They'd have to go over earth, right?
objection relevance your honor this is just wild speculation now people walk across ground all the
time with my witness at the enduring cross if he's qualified to answer those questions he's
qualified to answer mine all right get my point though i mean i'd like i i know where you're
going they're gonna they'd have to walk people walk but people do walk across grass all the time
but i'll ask suggesting it's the ideal thing to do and you know you get heavy rains and whatever
I get that. I was just I raised that issue earlier because I thought that there might be some compromise here to figure out a way in which we can make those three houses more accessible, not having to walk all the way out to Ridge Avenue.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we are done compromising with these people.
This is this is this is the plan, not the one you have on your screen, but the one you approved was a compromise plan.
anyway one last question for david plain are these rear homes handicapped accessible
well without a paved walkway of course they would not be
i have no further questions okay do we need paula
and i'm not mr demarco uh we have 2000 spring garden street right after this
mr chair i'll do whatever the board wants i do have i do have two more witnesses
i'd love for the board to question paula about our discussion earlier about the five
criteria um whatever the board needs to do i'm happy to do it if you need me to call i have
david branigan and our our realtor jamie firetag um it won't be a long amount of time but there's
got to be crossed so whatever the board wants to do
Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that, you know, for the sake of the record, Ms. Brumbo has already testified under oath two separate times in this case.
Mr. Chairman I would just ask that
you know for the sake
And to have recollection over recollection over recollection, I mean, we have a clean transcript now.
Her testimony is the record.
I don't think there's a need to have her come back and again testify what her recollection was from a recollection from a recollection.
understood but her name was mentioned i just thought if she was around that we we could
if she was in the area we could have gotten her on but let's move on
all right well i'll call uh i mean i would love that love to see i i think it's appropriate that
mr toner's objective because i would agree i think i think mr holliman is the one who may
have raised that as well so i don't know if tom if you need to speak to hear from paula again
No, I don't need to hear from Paul again, but Mr. Chairman, my concern is if we can see the site plan that was approved by the Water Department, and also see the comments from the Water Department, what is the specification to exceed the 45 percent?
What did the developer propose or the site planner propose for exceeding the 45%?
That's it.
So the answer is as follows.
The Planning Commission approved, and I just emailed me, I just sent the final plan that you want to look at.
It should come into my email in a moment, Mr. Holloman.
I'll put it up for you.
The Planning Commission approved our final 16-unit plan, as did the Water Department gave us preliminary approval, which is all that is required during a zoning process.
And that's where we are.
We have not fully moved to the building code process because we got a remand by the Commonwealth Court.
Excuse me, Counselor.
Did you submit, I think it's required, to the water department, specifications on the material you're using for impervious pavers?
David Plant would know the answer to that.
I don't know the answer specifically to that question.
I'm not the engineer.
Mr. Hallman, Mr. Plante testified that he did not present specific materials with any specific spec sheets, but he's generally following recommendations to the Word Department.
Can I clarify that?
So how did you determine the additional percentage if you don't have the specification of the materials?
If I can clarify that?
this is so the the material specifications are on the plan
i think mr toner asked me to recite those last time
um and as i said there are specifications for the pavers there are specifications stated
directly on the plan and i could read those to you right now um for the paving material
on this plan read them to me on the final stormwater management plan which is the construction document
i think what's happening if i may mr holliman just for a port of clarification you're getting
into the building code i think aspect of this which is not yet we are stopped in our tracks
because of the commonwealth court remand um this is the zoning aspect of it but if don't let me
let me get ahead of david if david wants to add to that but that's what i think
is happening right now by the way can you see the my screen with the plan yes that's the final plan
for mr chairman if i could make one point what this is not a standard rear yard setback variance
application this is not a normal zoning case they are seeking to apply these additional impervious
coverage requirements once they seek this relief they can't rely upon conceptual and preliminary
data without any specifications if they're seeking this additional impervious additional
impervious coverage the burden is shipped to them to then present the actual detailed plans
material specifications to substantiate compliance with these five elements absolutely incorrect
We're at the zoning portion of this.
And you're seeking relief under Section...
That is absolutely wrong.
The Planning Commission testified that their approval back in 2018 was to grant additional...
That their approval back in 2018 was to grant additional storm impervious coverage under the section that Paula read into the code.
That is all that we're talking about.
He's trying to confuse you by distracting you by getting into highly technical data that is not necessary yet in this process.
And it's not fair, it's wrong.
I'm objecting.
That is that is absolutely incorrect. That's why I would love to hear from Paula about this, because obviously the Planning Commission was fine with this and the Commonwealth Court was unaware that there was a possibility to add to approve additional impervious coverage under the zoning code.
we heard in the testimony on tuesday that's that's why they approved it so end of story
end of story that we did everything we were supposed to do with the water department and
mr toner is distracting you with highly technical arguments that are not necessary
in a zoning process i don't think the zoning code should distract anyone here and the zoning code
pretty plain section 14 510 we got approval it is big state we were approved by the planning
commission gentlemen gentlemen gentlemen please i'm sorry chair i hate to interrupt again but
this is the 50 minute yep on this particular case and we still have others yep i i mentioned that a
few minutes ago um who was uh who was last to speak uh i think it was mr demarco i have two
more witnesses mr chairman if you don't want to hear from paul okay let's move with uh your
witnesses please david brannigan please if you could promote him or make him a unmute him
so whoever you are with me you would have to ask them to raise their hand so i can see them
david uh david branigan please raise your hand
good afternoon mr branigan please identify yourself with the record spell your first
and last name and i'll swear you in good afternoon chairman david branigan d-a-v-i-d-b-r-a-n
i g and where to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
i'll get i'll get right to the point i know you're you're you're strapped for time uh you're
the developer in this matter mr brannigan and uh you have seen the drafts of the uh the illustrative
plans by ritter by uh david plant would show what a plan would look like with strict compliance with
45 percent impervious coverage requirement i've seen both oh let me bring them up on my screen
or all three i've seen the plan and then i've seen you've seen both uh both versions right
do you see my my screen mr brannigan or yes okay tell the board and you you've developed
hundreds of residential units in the city of philadelphia right correct all right uh what is
your opinion as a developer of the marketability of the units in the back that have no pedestrian
or uh car access as far as being able to market construct market and sell these properties
what is your opinion in my opinion they would not be marketable ridge avenue is a tough enough
Ridge Avenue is tough enough without
creating additional
obstacles
without access to those properties
and Ridge Avenue
is a highway
you know
you break up
do you happen to have a different device on
yeah shut one of them off please
if you don't mind we're breaking up
um bridge avenue was a tough enough case in the cell property on to begin with
um this property was not developed over many many years um and to to to not have access to
those properties my opinion would make those not marketable and uh what happens as far as
the loss of the visitor parking what what what affects that well i think you answered the
question. That's all I have of Mr. Brannigan, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Toner. Mr. Brannigan,
did you rely on any written studies in determining the market analysis you just testified to?
The studies I've relied on are my own personal experience in buying and selling real estate.
But you didn't look at actual recent sales within a mile?
But you didn't look at actual recent sales within a mile.
I always look at recent sales.
Let me ask the question.
Mr. Brannigan, you're familiar with this neighborhood?
Have you sold or marketed any homes in this neighborhood in the past?
Yes, many, many homes, yes.
We'll stipulate that Mr. Brannigan is familiar with the development in this community.
And I also rely on my real estate experts when I need out.
Understood.
Thank you.
Mr. Brannigan, of all the houses you've sold, you've sold houses and built houses without dedicated all-street parking, haven't you?
I've not built any houses without dedicated parking.
Never?
We're losing you.
I've not done new construction without dedicated parking.
And how much of a reduction in fair market value have you determined would be realized by not having a dedicated all-street parking space?
those those houses in the back i wouldn't i wouldn't i wouldn't build those without the
parking you're breaking up again sir does someone else
mr bragan this is going to be developed as a homeowners association right
it's going to have
to have an association. Yeah and the two surface parking spots that are located next to the green
area in this alternate plan, those could easily be assigned to two of the units, correct?
This is a hypothetical plan. This isn't a plan that I would move forward with. This is a
hypothetical plan to show what the coverage would be based on getting under the requirement. I
thought that that was my understanding correctly if i'm wrong we were looking at the amount of
homes is already decided by the court in pennsylvania what we're what we're just hiding
now is the amount coverage or clarifying what amount was approved by the planning commission
am i incorrect on that objection it's a legal conclusion mr brannigan i understand you just
testify to reviewing plans have you seen the secret plan that was referenced in this case
i've relied on my professionals for that i have no further questions thank you all right i would
call uh jamie firetag if i could add one thing rich before i could yeah go ahead all right so
i have a copy of the there there is an award department approval that needs to be sent in
And along, just so the board knows, along with that, there is a stipulation that this agreement, this agreement will connect to the land.
Mr. Brannigan, Mr. Brannigan, again, you're fading out.
You can break it up on us.
Rating and maintenance agreement that will be signed and recorded on the deed.
Mr. Brannigan, unfortunately, we're losing your, we're not able to hear.
Rich, do you happen to know what he was showing us?
He's talking about that there's an agreement that when I misspoke, I got a little ahead of myself when I responded to Tom Holloman.
We are getting final approval from the Water Department, but we are still within that process.
We're not fully approved.
But again, I want to clarify, because there's been a lot of distraction at this hearing.
That is not part of the zoning process.
That's part of the building process.
We started to build before we got remanded by the Commonwealth Court.
Thank you.
So we have, we're on the way to getting final Water Department approval to actually build the homes.
But the Commonwealth Court wanted us to get back to the zoning aspect of this.
And then are you familiar with market data and the Roxborough area as far as real estate market?
Yes, I am. I've lived in Manioc and Roxborough since 2005, and I primarily specialize in this market area and do over 80 transactions a year in the area.
Okay, perfect. And have you seen the two plans that show strict compliance with impervious coverage requirements that we've been talking about?
I have.
And I have one on my screen.
I'm going to go to the other one, which is the even more stringent plan.
Can you see the screen, by the way?
I'm just seeing you right now.
I don't see the screen right the second.
Oh, okay.
The screen was up before it switched to you.
Sorry, hold on.
How about now? I see. I see a computer screen and the plan. Yeah, the plan's up now.
OK, good. Tell the board, in your opinion, as a realtor with the experience that you've described, how marketable are these units in the rear here, which lack both pedestrian and car access?
It would be very unmarketable and I would not be able to sell them.
Ridge Avenue is a very, very busy street.
And what you have to understand about the neighborhood in that area is most of those houses, I know you said before that some houses don't have parking in front of them and they have to walk.
But this is more of like a suburb feeling neighborhood behind there on Valley Avenue.
Those are all twins and they all have driveways and they have garages.
And then on Wiggert on the corner, most of them are single family and they have a garage or driveway.
and then across the street on Flamingo and all those new construction,
most of them, I would say 95% of the houses have a driveway or a garage.
So for a new person to buy a house, to have to walk from Ridge Avenue all the way back,
especially if they have kids or whatever, it's going to be very hard to sell.
And I also wanted to mention that Mr. Toner mentioned 246 Fountain Street and 248 Fountain Street,
and they do have one dated parking spot.
They do not show on the MLS, and I personally did call Stephanie Whitlock,
who is the listing agent and also part owner of the houses and she did confirm what is the i have
a question what's the distance from uh to out from these out from these houses out to ridge avenue
so i know the footage over this is the this is greater than the length of a football field
mr chairman it's more than 100 yards yes it's 360 feet i believe but i would
okay that's close enough thank you yeah so how about how about just last question for jamie
uh how about have you ever had an instance where you lack where you have to market a home that has
no pedestrian access i have never heard of that before that's all i have thank you mr chairman
for your time thank you mr toner very briefly um
ms freitag every one of these units will be accessed via a driveway isn't that correct
or a driveway um i believe so if it goes with what was what mr bryanigan was planning on doing
yes i'm very confused by your testimony that these units will front onto ridge avenue
In fact, all the parking is going to be accessed by a private driveway.
So none of these units will actually have parking that's accessed via Ridge Avenue exclusively.
Isn't that right?
I'm confused by that question.
Objection.
Let's see.
Maybe she understands it.
Let's see.
I don't understand.
But what I can say is from other developments that have been there, you have guests that come over and where are they going to park?
and what if they take a spot and then someone can't get into their own personal spot if there
is one that's designated i mean it's very far back and i don't see how you're going to sell
it without having a parking spot attached to the house or in front of the house and when you
testify that units will be unmarkable without a parking spot you're aware that alternative plant
two has two surface parking spaces that can be assigned to any unit correct yes but there's not
enough parking for the rest of those units most people have two cars when they're moving into a
place and you'll agree with me that a lesser variation from um this current plan would be
simply adding two or three more surface parking spots and keeping all the other green area right
no okay i have no further questions
that was it right mr demarco uh yes but i would love the opportunity to address the board but
whatever the board needs yeah any questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
in this case
If so, please raise your hand.
No hand.
The Protestants would like to quickly present the testimony of Mr. Richard Giordano.
Pass. No hands are up.
Any hands up?
No hands.
Mr. Giordano, he was.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon.
I'm here.
I'm here.
I am here.
Took me a minute.
All right, Mr. Giordano, please identify yourselves by your name for the record.
Richard, R-I-C-H-A-R-D, Giordano, G-I-O-R-D-A-N-O.
I'm the president of Upper Roxborough Civic Association.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Toner.
Mr. Girdenow, as president of the Upper Roxborough Civic Association, this is an unpaid position, correct?
It is.
And you have no financial interest in this development or any other developments that take place in that community, correct?
I do not.
And the testimony from the listing agent and from Mr. Brannigan about the unmarketability of these units,
Can you tell me about the existence of single-family homes without dedicated off-street parking in this community?
There's certainly...
Excuse me for interrupting.
Mr. Turner, I think it's been established a few times today, if not before, that there are no...
We'll all agree.
We'll stipulate that there are other homes in this community that do not have off-street parking.
I don't want to cut you short, but I mean, we already know that.
And Mr. Giordano, he just permitted to testify that these homes are sold and used in a normal manner as with any other real estate in the community.
I certainly know that we have had homes sold in that fashion, yes.
I'm done with this with this.
Thank you.
I'll try to be as quick as possible, if you don't mind.
I'm going to ask the question.
Mr. Giordano, if you can't answer this, it's fine.
Are you aware of any other homes that have been developed in that community that are 100 yards away, the walkways are 100 yards away from the access onto the street from the front of their homes?
Nothing comes to mind immediately, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that there could be, but nothing comes to mind immediately.
Okay, thank you. Mr. DeMarco, please.
I understand. I'll make it quick. Mr. Giordano, you were present at the RCO meeting.
that occurred for this project, weren't you?
The several RCO meetings that occurred, yes.
And your residents demanded, is it fair to say demanded
that my client have greater than one-for-one parking
to include overflow parking and visitor parking.
Do you agree with that?
I think there was a number of issues
that were involved in potentially being traded off.
Mr. Giugano, that's not my question.
I know that, but the question doesn't really have a yes or no answer.
Mr. Chairman, I object to any testimony or questions involving settlement negotiations and attempts to come to a reasonable resolution in this matter.
I don't think that's where he was going, but let's finish it off, please.
Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'll rephrase the question, Mirjano. The RCO meeting on this project that you chaired, do you recall that meeting that I was present for?
i believe there was more than one all right i recall one in february of 2018
didn't your residents i don't believe it was february 2018 it's probably probably 2017 i
believe i'm not going to quibble with the date that's okay i just didn't didn't your residents
demand that my client provide at least one for one parking in fact didn't many of them demand
greater than one-for-one parking for these units?
Again, I'm just going to go back to the nature of your question,
which is that people were interested in the footprint of the development
and parking as an ancillary question.
All right, so your testimony is you don't remember a number of residents
demand that my client provide greater than one-for-one parking for his units.
Is that what you're saying?
That's not my testimony.
all right let's okay we'll move i i'll move on please move on all right we all finished guys
that's fine i'm done all right no questions from the board no planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
Good afternoon Board, Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Thank you for asking for our comment.
We have testified on the record last Tuesday and have no further comment.
Thank you.
Let that fire truck go by, ambulance rather.
Okay, MI 2020-001458, 7519 Ridge Avenue.
The record will be closed.
the board will render a decision at its executive session on Wednesday the 18th. Is that correct,
Sharon? Is it December 2nd? Oh, December. I'm sorry. December 2nd at 9 30 a.m. Thank you.
The record's closed. We'll render a decision at our executive session on December the 2nd, 9.30 a.m.
Thank you.
Thank you for your patience, members of the board. I appreciate it.
Before we go any further, I know we have Spring Garden Street, which traditionally has been taking up a lot of time.
So I think we might need to take a break.
The court stenographer, would you like to have a break now?
Because after this next case, we will then go into the 4 o'clock case.
okay yes i'm sorry so we'll take a 10 minute break okay all right thank you we'll be back
here at it's 20 of 10 of
we're good i'm ready chair okay uh for the benefit of anyone who's out in the audience
we're going to read off the continuance list for the 330 cases. MI 2020-000232-2404 West
East Lehigh Avenue, MI 2020-000121-4290 North Penn Street, MI 2020-000108-5000 North 12th
Street, MI 2020-000196-5400 Grays Avenue, MI 2020-001129-6134 Carpenter Street.
And I believe that is it.
If anyone has any objection to those continuances.
excuse me chair i think there may be one more um the last or number eight on your list
6606 yes the applicant i believe is here and prepared to go forward however um craig meladosia
may be requesting a continuance in order to hold another rco meeting could we see if either of them
if either yeah both of them are here it's mr meladosian or the applicant for 6606 woodland
avenue available if so please raise your hand and the applicant's name is i believe karen gleason
uh so we have unmuted karen gleason yes i'm here this morning good good evening ma'am please
identify yourself with a record. Spell your first and last name. Karen Gleason, G-L-E-A-S-O-N.
And you are the owner? Yes. Are you swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? Yes. I believe, are you aware that Mr. Melodosian was going to request a continuance?
No, I'm not. Mr. Melodosian available?
Yes, I'm going to unmute him, but Chair, if I could put on the record, this case has
been on our books since September the 3rd, 2019.
What is going on in Center City now?
Helicopters all over the place.
Mr. Melodosian?
Please identify yourself for the record and I'll swear you in.
Craig, C-R-A-I-G, Melidosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N, Ward 40, Republican RCO, coordinator.
Ward 40, Republican RCO, Coordinating RCO, P.O. Box 33355, Philadelphia PA, 19142.
Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I don't know if you heard. The applicant is on the phone. She was not aware of a request for continuance.
Could you speak to that, please?
uh one we had a informal meeting with her on 12 16 2019 there was never a formal uh community
meeting i'm not aware nor was i copied of a template one or two ever been sent out
and i received a note from her on november the 4th which i was not aware of as i was in the
convention center all day for the canvas so we've not had a community meeting as well as during the
informal meeting one of the RCOs was in opposition of the conversion of the triple of the single
family to a triple so I'd like to go through the process where there's a community meeting
personally I'd like to see the building saved I believe it's currently vacant and it's probably
antiquated as a single-family location on the commercial corridor, but I certainly would not
like this to be an exercise on autocracy when I know that at least one other RCO was in opposition.
And there are a total of six RCOs involved in this. Okay. Ms. Gleason, you heard Mr. Melodosian.
I would suggest that we continue this. We'll try to give you a date as soon as possible,
but you need to reach out and have a conversation with the RCO or RCOs in this case.
Tanya, do we have a date?
This would be in February.
All right. Well, why don't we do this? We'll continue.
February the 18th. I'm sorry. February the 17th at 3.30.
Okay. MI 2020-000086-6606 Woodland Avenue is continued until February the 17th at 3.30 p.m.?
Yes. And can we make this a must-be-heard?
And a must-be-heard. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any other objections to continuances that have been read into the records?
we have hillary emerson hillary you can unmute yourself
good afternoon you're still on the oath from this morning just please identify yourself
sure hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker um i'm here um i'm not sure
exactly where it is on the list um but it's mi-2020-000-324-7180 north 20th street um i understand
that um exhibits were were not submitted and um i i don't believe that the the community meeting has
um been held i haven't i haven't heard anything from the applicant in the last i spoke with the
RCO, they weren't aware of any communication from the applicants. So I think it's the first
But I'm here and I, yes, I understand how much time you, because of the time you took in the
last hearing. Oh, it worked. Okay. Yes. I understand I'm on the road.
Mr. Boland, you want to get, I'll swear you in. Please. Ryan Boland, R-Y-A-N-B-O-L-A-N-D,
1801 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Please proceed, gentlemen. Oh, there you go. I was looking. Okay. Please identify yourself
with the record. Good afternoon. Andrew Miller for the appellant.
Miller, you're swearing to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Hey, gentlemen, I don't remember where we left off. Who was the last one to
I believe at the last hearing, we were either finished or at the very end of Ms. Woodcock's
testimony on direct. At the last hearing, Mr. DeMarco said that he would be brief.
And we understood that we would reach a vote at the next hearing. That would be today,
the fourth hearing in this matter. On Thursday and then again on Friday, Mr. DeMarco added new
witnesses and new exhibits to this matter. We don't object to those new witnesses nor exhibits,
but we do ask the board to please reach a vote today.
Understood. So I would say this. Make every effort to hear and vote today.
Yeah, I would say this. I added one witness, actually. I did mention other witnesses, but there's only one additional witness. But look, the applicant took a long time to go through his case. There was a lot of cross-examination by Mr. Miller. We're not saying we have to have equal 50-50% time, but we should be given the time to present our case.
But what I'll do is, I believe there was a tiny bit of direct testimony left for Janice Woodcock, but I'll let Mr. Miller begin his cross-examination of Janice Woodcock, and I will just redirect as necessary.
Thank you. Mr. Miller? Thank you. Do we have the witness?
Yeah, you have to... Janice.
Is Janice with us?
I'm here.
Hi, Janice.
It's Frank.
Please identify yourself, Janice.
Spell your last name for the record.
This is Janice Woodcock.
W-O-O-D-C-O-C-K.
And you're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And your involvement with this matter is?
I am working for Mooring Properties.
She's our planning expert and zoning expert.
Thank you.
mr miller thank you thank you mr chairman ms woodcock this property is in the rm1 district
is that right that's right and this property is on the corner of 20th and spring garden streets
right that's right now rm1 permits a corner project to fill 80 of the total area right it does
and the plan before the board is for less than 80 percent isn't it yes now this property is also
in a historic district isn't it it is historic commission approval is required prior to
the issuance of any building permit for this property right
and the historical commission is composed of recognized and highly regarded experts isn't it
it is preservationists right it is yes indeed architects yes planners yes
and the zoning code establishes six criteria there is only one preservationist on on the commission
okay now the zoning code establishes six criteria for the historical commission to apply
on review of a plan for development in a historic district isn't that right
i don't have the criteria for the historic district in front of me because this is a zoning hearing
yeah i mean i'll i won't object yet i i thought he was going towards a zoning issue but uh i mean
I mean, I'll just object, but go ahead.
I'll just object, but go ahead, you continue on.
You continue on.
But this is a zoning issue, not historical commission.
And the recognized experts on the historical commission approved the plan that's before the ZBA, didn't they?
They did.
And you were hired by Mr. DeMarco or by his client to oppose the historical commission approval, weren't you?
Yes, I did do that.
Objections.
Sistine, I think that's kind of a leading question there.
Well, okay.
She made an opinion.
I think she was hired for her expert opinion.
Right.
Right.
And your expert opinion is counter to the Historical Commission, isn't it?
It is.
I researched in detail the requirements of the Spring Garden Historic District,
and I'd be happy to discuss those criteria with you.
But again, this is a zoning hearing.
Right.
And your opinion is that the Historical Commission
should not have granted the approval in this case.
Isn't that right?
That is correct.
Object to relevance at this point, Mr. Chairman.
I got the answer.
And you're aware that your client participated intensely in the process before the Historical Commission, aren't you?
I was not present at those Historic Commission hearings.
Well, you know for a fact that through the historical commission process, which involved meeting with staff, meeting with committees, and ultimately presenting to the board, your client, represented by Mr. DeMarco, participated, right?
I was not involved in the project during that time.
That wasn't my question. My question is, you're aware that your client, represented by Mr. DeMarco, participated in that process, right?
If you say no, I don't know. I did not experience it.
Are you telling me if she answers, she doesn't know.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I'd like to ask a follow-up question.
Is it your testimony that you're entirely unaware of Mr. DeMarco's vehement opposition on behalf of Mooring Properties and the owner of Mooring Properties before the Historical Commission?
Objection. I don't oppose anything. I represent a client.
Is this about me or the case?
my question is are you aware of their participation in that lengthy process that
took six months objection asked and answered
let her let janice answer i'm aware of it right
and you're coming before the zoning board making the same arguments about my client's proposed
project here aren't you no no no i'm not at all the zoning criteria
hold on janice go ahead mr chairman yep yeah janice
you know my objection is you have an objection yeah okay what's your objection
he's cross-examining on the historical commission's all different standards we're here for zoning
and whether the property suffers from unnecessary hardship
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I'm cross-examining this witness on statements that this witness has made in other filed pleadings.
I have her exhibit. I have her, which contains her opinions and her conclusions.
This is fair cross-examination.
If it's...
All right, let's proceed.
We're wasting time, but go ahead.
whatever now because you disagree with the decision of the historical commission
you're before the zoning board suggesting that the historical commission made a mistake right
objection no that's that's not a question or a statement it's a it's a cross it's
cross-examination and it can be answered yes or no
she's here to okay go ahead jess if you can i'm here for a zoning hearing if that's what
i'm here for a zoning hearing if that's what your question is i'm sorry i'm not quite understanding it
your question is i'm sorry i'm not quite understanding it
okay now you presented a shadow study in this matter didn't you
i presented a shadow study in the zoning hearing yes in this matter before this zoning
board of adjustment right yes
yes said yes okay now that shadow study did not show any shadow cast by the property across 20th
street did it no i did not include that particular building right but you agree that shadow is cast
by the building across 20th street in the early a.m don't you i didn't include that building and
so i haven't studied enough to answer that well you saw you saw our exhibit didn't you you saw
i don't disagree with your exhibit but my i think my zip exhibit was more to the point
well you saw our shadow study and it was after you saw that that you prepared your own right
we had back and forth a shadow study several times
Ms. Woodcock isn't it a fact that you saw our shadow study and then you prepared your own
shadow study I wanted to make mine clearer yes but you also did one in response if we want to go
there all i'm asking ms woodcock is if you saw ours before you prepared yours i don't recall okay
now our shadow study showed the impact of the property across the street didn't it that's what
you said and i saw that yes and your shadow study didn't i did not again i did not revise
mine because again my study showed things that I felt had a bigger impact on the site.
Now your shadow study didn't show the difference between the shadow cast by a 38-foot building,
which could be built as of right, and the shadow cast by a 50-foot building, did it?
no it did not so the viewer of your shadow study doesn't know the difference between the shadow
cast by a 38-foot building and a 50-foot building right but if we use your study we clearly saw that
there was a difference between the two and there was more shadows on the 50-foot building
do you remember my question objection argumentative question she answered his question
don't argue she didn't mr chairman i asked does your shadow study differentiate does your shadow
study does your shadow i said no okay does your shadow study inform the viewer
where the 38 foot shadow ends and the 50 foot shadow begins it does not right yeah
does your shadow study show the full impact of the shadow cast by the city view
condominium garage behind the subject properties
yes does your shadow study show the full impact of the shadow cast by the city view
apartment towers on subject properties does anything my clients are doing at 2000 spring
garden street have any impact whatsoever on the existing shadows from the city view project
the purpose of that uh is to show that of the remaining shadow or sunlight left
that your project does in fact take some of that sunlight
Ma'am, my question was, does my client's construction at 2000 Spring Garden Street
affect the existing shadow signature of City View?
It does not. It has nothing to do with it.
Can I please pause for a second? On behalf of the court reporter, please ask the questions
and let the person answer
so we can get a full complete record.
Thank you kindly.
Now, you were hired by your client
in the historical commission appeal?
You were hired by your client
in this appeal before the ZBA?
Yes, this is not a volunteer job.
Right.
And you were hired by Mr. DeMarco in the matter pending at 418 South 20th Street?
no objection what's what what's that have to do with it what what it goes to bias it goes to bias
Objection.
What's that have to do with it?
it goes to this network working with well you're attacking her credibility i think that i wasn't
hired by mr demarco i was i was gonna say i don't hire anyone hold on hold on one at a time
please i'm a i'm objecting because i don't hire anybody my clients hire experts so the question
itself is improper, but it's also irrelevant. Go ahead. How many other matters are you working on
at this time with Mr. DeMarco? What is the relevance of that, Mr. Miller? It shows bias.
No, I mean, if that were the case, I don't think we would have any hearings.
There are attorneys who have multiple clients and bring in some expert witnesses.
Sometimes they're the same that they've used in some cases.
Sometimes they're not.
I think that's an improper question.
And let's move on, please.
And there's very few of them, Mr. Chairman.
Please.
That's it.
Those are all my questions to this witness.
Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Thank you.
very brief redirect uh mr chairman uh miss woodcock uh you were hired to render an expert
opinion in both the historical commission process and the zoning board process in this matter
correct it was you were hired by molly gallagher to render an opinion that you felt was correct
right i was and if you you were asked to reach an opinion which we didn't but if if you were to be
asked to reach in a certain opinion if you didn't agree with it you would not take the case right
right all right and the standards for variance involve unnecessary hardship which are completely
irrelevant to the historical commission case would you agree that's true all right yes you would
agree um so mr chairman i have a a few additional questions because i'm realizing that there were
three or four questions that i did not ask during my original direct because that's when you stopped
us. I'll get them in and then we'll be done. All right. Ms. Woodcock, where we were in your
direct testimony, I had a few additional questions. One was, in your opinion as an
architect, because you are an architect as well, right? Correct. Is it possible physically to build
a structure which would not require variances on this site, in your expert opinion? Very possible.
And is it also possible that even if you sought a height variance for 2000 Spring Garden,
you could still reduce the impact on the structure by keeping the height variance towards the front of the property, correct?
If you did that, yes, that would be consistent with the other buildings on the block.
Okay. And that could be done physically, right?
There's nothing to stop a developer from seeking a smaller height variance.
Isn't that right?
That is correct.
All right.
And in your expert opinion, has the applicant during his case presented sufficient evidence that there is an unnecessary hardship to the property, which necessitates the variances?
Objection. That's the ultimate question for the board to decide, not for this witness to testify to.
Right. I agree.
Sustained.
Mr. Chairman, she's an expert, and that's why we hired her, to render an expert opinion.
she is an expert in zoning that's what she's you don't have to you don't have to take the objection
the objection was sustained that's what her opinion is we yeah but i have to object we
need a record here that's what we hired her for to render that opinion
mr chairman i just cross-examined the witness based on her direct testimony
All right. Well, it's in a report. I mean, okay. I'm done. I have no further questions.
Mr. Bowen. I have nothing, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have one follow-up,
following, recross following the redirect. Please proceed. Thank you.
Ms. Woodcock, isn't it a fact that the plan that's before the board has already been vetted,
reviewed, and approved by the Historical Commission? Yes, it has. Thank you.
anyone else
you guys rest
uh no no
No, no.
I'm Molly Gallagher.
you said you had no one else
Oh, okay.
You said you had no one else.
I thought you were resting
I thought you were arresting.
I'm sorry
I'm sorry.
Oh, no.
I was done with Janice is what I meant.
Molly Gallagher.
Let me tell you so you know.
I'm Molly Gallagher, Bob Sutton, Lisa Hastings, and Kathleen Harleman.
Are these experts or are these neighbors?
Neighbors.
Near neighbors.
Are they all going to tell us the same thing?
I would say no.
All right.
Let's go.
Molly Gallagher, please.
Molly, can you hear us?
Write it down here.
Mr. Miller, you may want to mute yourself.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, Ms. Gallagher, good afternoon.
Please identify yourself for the record, spell your first and last name,
and provide us with your address.
Molly Gallagher, that's Molly with a Y, Gallagher, G-A-L-L-A-G-H-E-R.
My address is 2002 Spring Garden Street.
Thank you.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I will.
And I did leave out John Gooden.
I'm sorry.
He's also a new neighbor.
We'll get to him.
Molly, what's your relationship with 2002 Spring Garden?
Well, I own Mooring Properties, and it is my personal residence.
okay and what's what what is the use there it's all residential apartments how many apartments
six okay and explain to the board uh the resources that you your process in trying to rehab your own
property um and explain if you can the scaffolding i'm going to try to truncate our testimony so we
can move sure yeah so i have and the rehab yeah so there's been a lot about the scaffolding um
I have permits which have been approved by the Historical Commission for work on the exterior of the building, the rear facade that faces onto 20th Street, original materials, historical rehab with popper and all kinds of requirements.
I also have two decks that have been approved by the Historical Commission for construction, both on the rear of the property and on the roof.
And, you know, that's why we have scaffolding.
We have open permits.
And why has the scaffolding been up for a long period of time? You've heard some testimony about it. Explain to the board why the scaffolding is still there.
Well, I mean, just the uncertainty of this situation that, you know, we have been constrained in what we're allowed to do with the building on the rear facade because it's visible from 20th Street.
um and we just don't know what is going to happen and why should we put you know tens and tens of
thousands of more money into the rear facade and the decks when you know this huge building could
be going up around us and as far as the impact on your decks from this potential uh construction
on two or three thousand well you know they'll be in like in a box i mean the the deck on the
lower level is my personal residence and i do have a photograph that you have rich that shows
what happens to my uh personal residence um it's that thing that we talked about earlier um do you
want me to hey rich yeah excuse me for interrupting miss gallard rich if you have a some of the
photographs that would i think helpful to refresh the board's memory if you have them uh what she's
asking me to put i think is this what you want me to show yeah that's exactly show show the one
with the scaffolding well can i just address this one since it's on screen in the interest of time
yes please this is my personal residence i live on the rear third floor and fourth floor of the
building this is the third floor there will be a deck constructed on this section this is the
rebuilt copper historical um bay but you see that i look directly to the um uh parking garage for
for city view towers that is my direct view now there is a time swipe that shows if the proposed
structure goes in that it will completely box me in it will cover all of this open light to to 20th
street um with a building i'll be sitting in a box um rich do you have that that gif it's not
okay well we'll we'll get it back for you later but envision that this open space which is the
only open space I have, is now blocked by a building with a sliver, sliver of visibility.
Now, the reason this is so important to understand, Mr. Chair, is that this is a party wall building.
There's no alley in between my building and the adjacent property. These buildings will share a
party wall. So it's like putting, building a wall right in front of my face. And I have expressed
this numerous times to the developer with zero, zero empathy from him about the
situation. So explain to the board
so explain to the board uh you've already said a little bit about it but explain to the board
the impact uh the adverse impact that if the massing and the height variance is granted
what it will do to your property well apart from kind of ruining my personal enjoyment of my own
residence um you know it will deny the property of um the little bit of light that it gets
after the shading from the city view towers um you know it just is going to dwarf it it's so
oversized for the parcel it's oversized for the neighborhood everyone agrees that it's too big
um the out of con in context it just makes no sense um to the neighborhood or to my property
as a party property i mean i don't know what technical words to use that's why we have janice
But, you know, the light and the air is definitely impacted, and it's just kind of ruining it for me.
It's just, I've invested years in this building.
Can you see that, members?
So, Molly, how tall is your building at the Cornish Line as far as you know?
I believe it's just under 38 feet.
Now, let's talk about Spring Garden versus 20th Street.
On Spring Garden, there is, you know, a narrow part of the facade of the proposed structure, only 21 feet wide, I believe.
And at that point, my cornice is, that is, that total height is more like 49.3 inches.
The cornice line of the building is at 37 and 11.
I'm going to put up another.
do you know how tall your building is at the cornice line well at the cornice line it's 37
feet 11 inches but there's another story a mansard story above the cornice that's what i'm at that's
what i'm asking yes so the overall height is 49 feet 3 inches all right and but does that height
of your property extend all the way back no it's less than a third of the building all right and
the structure that's being constructed is going to have at least 75 or 80 percent of the structure
will be over the height limit through the remainder of the structure, right?
I believe that's correct, but Janice has the exact measurements.
All right.
And how are you – there's been talk about the City View Tower
and the impact of City View on your property.
Does that impact the sunlight on your property?
Yes, of course, because it's at the southern exposure.
So the sun in the sky, except at the highest point of the summer
when it's high in the sky, is behind the City View Towers,
both Tower 1 and Tower 2, which means my only light,
is out to 20th street which i showed you in the photograph and what will if you if you have the
your current situation where you're impacted by city view a 29 story or whatever it is tower
what will happen if this property is constructed to your light and air
well you know again it will cut it off it will shade my both decks it will shade all the windows
in the rear facade which get very limited light as it is um you know and will ruin the view scape
from inside each of the rooms you know which will now be looking at the concrete block box of the
city view garage and a concrete box of the proposed structure uh you're familiar with
2000 spring garden uh prior to this application correct yes i am it when this property was
purchased, was the 2000 Spring Garden structure occupied? Oh, yes. And do you have an idea of
what kind of tenants were in there? Oh, there was a yoga studio, a Shabbat. There was
residential apartments. I knew some of the people there. Yes. So the 2000 Spring Garden
existing use was fully occupied and operating at the time of its purchase, right? I cannot state
whether that is true. I do not know about fully occupied, but it was occupied and it was active.
You've seen tenants going in and out, right? Yes. And I see them in and out now. Okay.
What happened to the poster that was posted on this property, the orange poster back in April,
to your knowledge? Well, there was, I guess, somebody came and put up a poster. They took
a photograph of the poster as posted and then he removed it and walked away with it.
And that was reported to the Spring Garden Civic Association I believe as well.
Has a developer ever reached out to you, other than our conversation today, has the developer
reached out to you to discuss a potential resolution of this matter?
Have you had a conversation with a developer prior to today?
Have you had a conversation with the developer prior to today?
Tell the board what happened during that conversation.
Well, you know, there has been more than one conversation.
But, I mean, very early I asked to meet him, and we met at the property.
Soon after he purchased it from my next-door neighbor, we sold it to him.
And, you know, he described his plans were to demolish the existing building
and to build the biggest building he could get approved.
and he spoke about the car elevator he was going to put in for his cars and the great architect
in Spain who's working on the plans for him and he said it was for his family you know but
kind of discounted that because you know I knew he was a developer of rental units in
University City. You know I shared my views about the historic district about the work I had been
doing approved by the historical commission you know I told him I'd like to see a structure that
would live harmoniously with me as a party wall neighbor and the surrounding buildings as well
but you know it was very clear very early that he viewed me simply as an obstacle to overcome
you know not as a future objection mr chairman i've allowed sustain sustain sustain and what
and what what happened when he discussed that when you were opposed to him what happened in
the conversation that you have with him about that well you know i called him in february right
before the lni review board hearing um and it was very combative and he berated me and he threatened
me then mr chairman yeah i i understand i respect uh where mr demarco was trying to go with this i
mean it's a personal feud between two property owners i'd rather stick to the issue of what the
develop proposed development would do in terms of uh impeding sunlight and changing the nature of
what Ms. Gallagher has been used to living with.
Last question, Mr. Chairman.
Let's not get into the person.
Last question.
That's fine.
Last question, Molly.
What will happen to your proposed decks
if this property, if these variances were granted?
They will be blocked.
They will be shaded and denied light.
They will lose the effect of being an amenity
of the units that they are attached to.
They will be sitting in concrete boxes.
How pleasant is that?
And how about your rear windows for each of the units in the rear?
Again, same thing.
Concrete wall straight back.
Concrete wall from the new building.
No further questions, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Gallagher.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Chairman, could I just...
Mr. DeMarco chose not to show all of the photos that he identified as exhibits.
I don't I don't know if he chose not to I asked for the one with the scaffolding so
I did have that up I mean I can certainly do that I don't think I don't think we saw that one
at least I didn't see it um if if Mr. DeMarco doesn't want to show it I will
that's the one right there right no well that shows the scaffolding but um that's the one
That's the photo I asked for. If you want something else, fine.
I'm sorry. Okay. Well, actually, that was a helpful one.
Yeah, one was yours. I mean, this shows the scaffolding if that's what you want.
No, there's no scaffolding on there.
This is Mr. Miller's exhibit.
No, Mr. Miller shows the scaffolding. That's not his exhibit. Okay, there it is on the right.
Right. So, Ms. Gallagher, let's start with that one. If Mr. DeMarco, if you could favor
us to use that. That was an exhibit that showed how your expert showed a different perspective
that exaggerated the size of my client's building. Do you remember that?
Objection.
I disagree with your characterization.
Well, do you remember that the board looked for themselves and concluded that your exhibit to the left exaggerated the pilot house on the building?
Hold on. Objection. We already had cross-examination of Janice Woodcock on this issue, Mr. Chairman.
We're wasting time. If you're going to rush me, I want to have cross-examination that's relevant.
We've been down this road, yeah?
I didn't. I didn't. He asked me to put it on. Mr. Miller. Okay, no problem. I'll move on. Ms. Gallagher,
I didn't, I didn't. He asked me to put it on.
No, no, I'm talking. Mr. Miller.
Okay, no problem. I'll move on.
you were heavily involved in the process before the historical commission, weren't you?
Not to my satisfaction. I understand you don't like what happened, but I was not permitted to
meet with the staff. I made a request. You came to the meetings, didn't you? I was limited to
speak to two minutes. You came to the meetings and as a result of your input the plan changed
didn't it? No that is not true. Okay as a result of your input the size of the building wasn't
the height of the building wasn't reduced? I am not the only person objecting there are numerous
people including the RCO. Ms. Gallagher questions posed to you. I don't understand that characterization
why do you say I'm the person who did this? Ms. Gallagher, as a result of your input and the
input of your community, the plan that was presented to the historical commission changed,
didn't it? Objection. How could she know? How could she speak to the commission and what
their process? Mr. Chairman, it's an open process. My client started with a big project,
it got smaller and it got smaller and if the witness won't admit the facts then I ask you
to take judicial notice of the fact that she won't give us the obvious truth. Mr. Chairman with all
due respect the commission speaks for itself if he wants to call the commission and speak about
that process again we're way over what is relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Chairman our hardship is
that we've already been through this very process
and we've been through it with the people
who oppose our variance.
The variance is necessary
to approve a historically approved project.
And let's call it what it is.
This is a second bite at the apple.
So if this witness,
if this witness,
I would just ask for answers to my questions
without objections i allowed the direct of this witness to go on without objection i was very
courteous and i'm asking for the same courtesy please proceed i'll put it i'll put my objection
on and i won't say it again all questions related to the historical commission are irrelevant this
is a zoning process and i'll refrain from objection but note my running objection to questions
about the commission it's not a part of this process thank you ms gallagher the initial
proposal that my client submitted to the historical commission was taller wasn't it which one are you
talking about do you mean the one that he was required to withdraw what ma'am i'm talking about
i'm talking about are you aware of miss gallagher are you aware of any adjustments to the original
plan yes i am aware i'm aware that there were adjustments to the plan and that and height was
height one of those adjustments? Yes. And was massing another? That sounds like a technical
architectural term. I don't know if I can address that. Isn't it true? Excuse me, this is Sharon
Saleta. I'm not seeing the relevance of this. These are two independent processes. You have an
appeal of the historical commission approval. This should relate only to zoning. And Mr. Chairman,
I'm asking, and Ms. Saleta respectfully, my client has been through this process and has come to you
with the results of that process and that's our hardship and this board I respectfully submit
should consider the fact that this neighbor in particular and some of the other neighbors as
well are using this as a second opportunity to diminish the project. Excuse me Mr. Fisher I
disagree. That's what zoning is about. The historical commission is a quasi-legislative
body. The ability to have input is different. The criteria are different. I'm just not seeing
irrelevance and cheer i hate to interrupt as usual but i'm calling the 45 minute mark
has already passed for this case good thank you
i mean we spent a considerable amount of time with about talking about the historical commission
very little time on the zoning issue and mr chairman the i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt
no no good okay mr chairman this witness talked about the imperatives of the historical commission
and the impact on her property and i'm not faulting you mr miller i'm saying
And I'm not faulting you, Mr. Miller. I'm saying all the way around.
Everyone is, we've been spending a lot of time on this historical commission issue.
Not that it's not important, but it's really not relevant to what we should be talking about.
Right. Well, you're, Ms. Gallagher, you're aware that my client is entitled to 80% lot coverage on this property, right?
We'll stipulate.
we'll stipulate to that okay and will you also agree miss gallagher that our plan is for less
than 80 percent no also that was no no i'm not aware of that in fact your plan is to go 120 feet
on 150 foot lot which is an 80 exactly that's when the first gallagher that even miss woodcock
agreed to that right well he said less than 80 she's saying it is 80 to be clear well it's less
than 80 I was in there somebody interrupted me all right okay not less than 80 I do not agree with
that now isn't it a fact I'm sorry why don't you tell the panel the height of each of your decks
I do not have that data readily available well on which floors are your decks located
my the lower deck is on the third floor and the upper deck is uh on the roof okay so on the third
floor that's the third story right correct and there's two stories below it right yes that's
well below 38 feet isn't it what what is well below the the level of her third floor
well they just 20th street slopes down so are you talking about from grade level or from
the front facade level i'm measuring it from the front well it could be more than 38 then
couldn't it because this 20th street slopes down no i'm talking about measuring it from the front
so i think it would be less but the my my client has the right to build to 38 feet on this street
right i believe the legal counsel stipulating okay and if my client builds to 38 feet
Ms. Gallagher, do you recognize these photos?
So, Mr. DeMarco showed us the top one, which was your third floor view, right?
Correct.
And if I scroll down, is that a fair and accurate depiction of your view from the second floor?
Correct.
And if I scroll down further, is that a fair and accurate view from your first floor?
That is?
Okay. Now, isn't it true that each of these rear views will be lost if there's a buy-write development to 38 feet, 80% on my client's property?
I believe on the first and second floor. That's true.
okay and is it your testimony that your third floor is more than 38 feet high i do not know
right so if it's not then you would lose your view on the third floor as well right
yes okay and that's the scaffolding that's been there for how many years
that is the scaffolding right and that's been there for coming on four years now
that's not true please let's stop with the scaffolding ms gallagher could you could you
answer that i don't know how long well you're saying approximately approximately two and a
half years thank you well ms gallagher my client began his efforts concerning this property
in the first half of 2019 right
we'll stipulate to that yes and yet you blame my client for the presence of that scaffolding
ever since objection that's that's not what she said i don't think she blamed him for the
scaffolding no i see i don't i don't remember hearing anything it's it's your testimony that
it's your uncertainty as to what's going to happen on my client's property that forces you
to leave scaffolding on the back of your property for coming up on what you admit to be three years
no action that was she said
this thing
now my client's original proposal for this property uh had more units didn't it
The one that he had to withdraw?
My client's initial proposal for the use and development of this property
consisted of more units than is before the board today, right?
I guess I'll trust you for that.
All right. And let's be fair.
Shortly after your first conversation with my client,
my client then allowed you to park at no charge on his property.
didn't he that is not true let's what is what's wrong with you no no and please let's be respectful
sorry i don't see the relevance of that okay it was suggested to be a good neighbor we'll accept
that but mr chairman why maybe the suggestion was that my client was somehow surly and and and
disagreeable and the fact that my client allowed his next door neighbor to park free of charge on
his property demonstrates something to the contrary are you object you sustained the objection
i why is it i don't the relevance of that to zoning i i don't i don't understand it okay
may i just have one moment please
thank you those are all my questions of this witness thank you mr demarco
i don't have any redirect okay if you have anyone else we implore you to give us someone who's going
to say speak to something new and different i do i guess we'll do uh if bob sutton is still on the
call Bob are you can we get Bob Sutton on on board for those who are waiting on the phone it's not
that the board doesn't appreciate you're taking the time to be here but redundancy doesn't help
but redundancy doesn't help any of us.
to help any of us we have other cases still to be
We have other cases still to be heard.
Do we have Bob?
Bob, are you there?
Bob Sutton.
That's three times, so next one.
Okay, I'll move on to next.
Lisa Hastings, please, if Lisa is available.
Tanya, do we have Lisa Hastings?
I have no hands up.
Do we have Kathleen Harleman?
No hands are up.
Yeah, but I think they're on.
They just don't know to raise their hands.
I did tell them.
Kathleen, are you with us?
We have Kathleen, Tanya.
Kathleen.
No, Kathleen.
Tanya, no.
my other witness would be john jonathan goodman
did all them leave i can't believe all them left that mr goodman from uh councilwoman got the a's
office no no this is mr goodman's 2004 spring garden oh john i'm sorry the other one's andrew
i'm sorry my mistake i mean look if they left they left i mean uh it's a shame because i guess
we went late but well it's only our fourth hearing i know bob sutton lisa hastings kathleen harleman
and john goodman all wanted to testify mr chairman all right we'll stipulate that they were here in
opposition okay whatever reason okay all right well then it's just the rco and then i i mean
you know i would have argument and i would i do i do want to have you to hear from those four
witnesses but oh here's john texting me oh he's not being they're saying they're not being
acknowledged mr chairman at least john goodman is tanya do we have john goodman you have his hand
up you said he had his hand up and he's he and he says he has his hand raised and he's in the chat
and then she's they say kathleen's raising her hand as well did tanya leave us
oh she's still there
i also see bob sutton's hand raised are still there
i just had a text message from tanya that her system froze oh
excuse me bob sutton is on as well mr chairman um excuse me chair this is pauline from the it
yes pauline could um i'm sorry i don't remember your name but can you please um
I'm going to share your screen for a minute and I can put those people and promote those
panelists.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
All right.
So let's do Bob.
Can I do Bob Sutton first, please?
Thank you.
Good evening, Mr. Sutton.
please identify yourself with a record spell your name and give us your address
Mr. Sutton you just need to unmute yourself please
okay now I see how I can unmute myself thank you very much
I have been trying to raise my hand I have been trying to
okay we got it please identify yourself
my name is Robert Sutton
what are your last name?
S-U-T-T-O-N
and your address?
2001 Hamilton Street, PHP 508.
I live at City View.
Mr. Stein.
You're swearing if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Bob, you're here in opposition to this matter?
Yes, I am.
And you're in the City View Towers?
Yes, I am.
And did the City View Towers conduct any type of process
in terms of reaching a decision on whether to agree, oppose, or stay neutral in this case?
I am not aware of any such process.
I did talk with the board member, one of the board members for my condominium association,
and was told that it was never an issue that was raised during the board meetings.
Objection.
I am just saying that there was no discussion that I was aware of, and I tried to find out about one and found that there was nothing.
I am just saying that there was no discussion that I was aware of.
Objection.
Do you have to speak on your behalf?
I am not aware of any effort to identify the opinions of City View residents about the proposed plan.
I know of some city residents who are opposed, and I have also heard that there are some in favor.
Tell the board why you're here and why you do not agree with the variances in this case.
Well, I have been active with neighborhood issues for many years, even before I moved to City View five years ago.
I've been active with the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.
um the the association has always been um considering the views of near neighbors when
there is our development proposals uh i've been interested in the historic aspects of the
neighborhood and i think that this is a building that is over scaled and inappropriate as it's
currently planned i understand that it has been modified to some extent but basically i would say
that zoning variances should be granted as a matter of hardship. And I see only self-imposed
hardship here. I do not see any hardship case. This is something that could have been a well-designed
building in accord with the neighbors, could have been cooperatively developed, could have been
done within the current zoning there is no reason why there should be any relief given to this
developer from the provisions of the zoning code if there is no hardship and you're in you're you're
you're abutting basically you're an unit owner of the abutting property right i am i can see it from
my my apartment that's all i have mr chairman of bob miller i have no questions thank you
appreciate that mr demarco uh new and different well kathleen is an immediate neighbor that wanted
to testify she's been on my list from the beginning okay hold on a minute please sure okay kathleen
Harleman. Okay, Kathleen has been promoted. She just needs to unmute herself.
Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself, the records by your last name, and provide us
with your address. Kathleen Harleman, H-A-R-L-E-M-A-N, 2012 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. DeMarco.
Okay, you're a few doors down from this project, right, Kathleen?
Yes, six doors west of 2000 Spring Garden.
And you are the author of a letter that you pieced together and we sent to the board last week, right?
That is correct. I'm one of 20 neighbors who wrote that letter expressing strong opposition.
Okay. And you personally saw to it that the people who are signatories of the letter agreed with the letter, right?
I did.
Briefly, because the board is pressed for time, can you tell the board why you're opposed and why you're here today?
Yes, I believe that 2000 Spring Garden represents an overbuild of the parcel.
18 out of 20 buildings on this block are significant in contributing historical structures built between 1875 and 86 with similar heights, setbacks, and lot coverages.
In contrast, 2000 Spring Garden covered 40% more lot depth than the block's historic footprint and
would significantly exceed the cross-lot height of its neighbors. The height and massing of the
building would have a decidedly adverse impact on access to light and air for near neighbors.
This is a major issue. 2000 Spring Garden includes decks and other structures that
are highly visible from 20th street and creating parking for three cars is unworkable and
inappropriate for the site in the block in closing i would like to bring up the current development
at 2026 28 spring garden street just down the block that is the only other assault to our
historic block and a precedent definitely not to be followed with an oversized l-shaped plan it
represents an overbuild of the site that cuts off light and air to neighbors objection we have
nothing to do with this other site you're absolutely right sustained kathleen anything
Kathleen, anything else you want to add?
else you want to add just to say that in the best interest of the neighbor
Just to say that in the best interest of the neighborhood, I hope that significant
variance is sought by 2000 Spring Garden will be denied.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
So there's just Lisa Hastings.
I have a couple of questions for this witness.
Thank you.
Ms. Harleman?
Did you participate in the historical commission process?
I did.
Did you attend the hearings?
I did.
Did you testify?
I did.
You're aware that the project changed dramatically as a result of the historical commission process and the input of you and your neighbors?
Objection? Relevance?
I thought we stipulated to this earlier that...
All right, finish Mr. Miller, please.
Go ahead, Captain.
I'm aware that changes were made as a result of the historical commission meetings.
How tall is your house?
It matches the cornice line of all the other houses on my block, and then it steps back.
So your house is 50 feet tall?
Yes, and I have no objection to that because I think matching the cornice line was part of what the, I mean, I have no objection to that.
Thank you.
I have to redirect because I think that's confusing the issue.
Kathleen, does your property have 50-foot height all the way back?
Absolutely not.
How does your height of your property match the proposal before the board?
It does not match.
It only matches at the cornice line.
Nothing further.
Thank you, ma'am.
Anyone else, Richard?
John Goodman, and then I don't think Lisa is with us.
So John Goodman is my final witness, assuming lease is not on.
Okay, Mr. Goodman, please identify yourself with a record, name and address.
Can everybody hear me?
Yes, please.
All right, Jonathan Goodman, last name G-O-O-D-M-A-N.
Your address?
2004 Spring Garden Street.
Thank you.
So we're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
uh john you're involved with the management of 2004 spring garden is that right that is correct
your father owns it that is correct well you manage it right yeah we both we both do but uh
lately i've been carrying more of the brunt work of it for sure tell the board uh so you're you're
you're next to molly gallagher you're two doors down from this correct that is correct and you've
seen the shadow study that shows the shadow studies from the prior hearings that shows an
impact on your property right yes tell the board why you're here and uh why you're opposed yeah so
you know the proposal is extra length and height for me you know substantially impacts um you know
we're in we're in the rental business right i'm opposed to this because several of our units
will be directly impacted they have whether it's a shared outdoor space from all six of the units
or three individual units that have their own private outdoor space, those command about 20 to
25 percent more than their oppositions on the front of the unit. Having sunlight go away will
directly affect that and negatively impact, you know, subsequent rental income. It's obviously a
very, very complicated and competitive rental market. So we just try to make sure that we're
positioned as best as possible. And this negatively affects us with no upside.
um that's all i have if there unless there's cross and lisa hastings does is here and says
she has her hand up but i'm done with the no further questions of mr goodman there but across
of course mr goodman your building's 50 feet tall too my my building is i don't the exact
specs in front of me but is um comparable with the with the with the rest of the block
including where it drops off at the corners line in the same depth.
So I'll just get ahead of some of those other questions.
Did you see the shadow study?
I did. I saw both shadow studies and both showed that there was impact.
Mr. Goodman, you would agree that the shadow cast by the 38-foot building
would be detrimental to your business also right objection i didn't hear that testimony
i rephrase the question my question is if you saw the shadow studies
and you think the shadow study excuse me if you think the shadow cast by the proposed
excuse me, if you think the shadow cast by the proposed development on my client's property
is detrimental to your business, is it your testimony that only the 50-foot shadow is
detrimental or the 38-foot shadow is detrimental as well? So, you know, for me, I'm not, there's
obviously various specifics on where that 50-foot continues. Based on the shadow studies from what
the plan is today it casts a significantly larger shadow that impacts from a larger shadow from a
perspective of actual length of shadow as well as time of that shadow i i don't have the studies in
front of me but i i do recall particularly at eight in the morning was the time that um there
was significant uh impact is that correct uh mr milner was that eight o'clock if i'm remembered
correctly thank you very much mr goodman you're welcome thank you uh lisa i'll be very brief
can you hear us can you hear me yes good evening please identify yourself for the records by your
name and and provide us with your address my name is lisa hastings h-a-s-t-i-n-g-s i reside at city
view condos at 2001 hamilton street we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth yes i do mr mrs hastings uh tell the board you're a member of city view
yes i am and was were you aware of any process where the towers uh considered this project
and rent to render an opinion on it were you part of that process no um no there was no
communication even with those of us who are the most active members in the association
the board is pressed for time so tell the board why you're here and why uh you you're opposed to
this project okay i'm mostly concerned about the negative impacts that this over large building
will have on my entire neighborhood especially 20th street there's been a lot of discussion
about the impacts on spring garden I understand that but the height and length of this building
is completely out of character with the neighborhood and it um it darkens a long
it darkens a long long portion of 20th street uh pretty much all day but especially in the
afternoon creating dreariness without even leaving space on the property for future greenery or
stormwater stuff and truthfully there's been a lot of discussion about well 38 feet will hurt
well a shorter 38 feet high development I don't think would have the same negative impact
on 20th street it would certainly be less overwhelming I also think that objection
objection lack of foundation well I think it's reasonable to suggest that 50 foot the 12 foot
difference would be the massing of it's going to have some even if nothing for the sunlight it's
going to have a visual yes the feeling this this building feels overwhelming also the um keeping it
in character with the neighborhood in spring garden the other houses in spring garden for
the most part have a backyard and a backyard would shorten this building but it would also
relieve the overwhelmingness of it, it would keep it consistent, and it would allow for some necessary
green and stormwater relief. I very much object to this current iteration.
the okay that's pretty much it I basically a right-sized building which could be built
you know without as billed by right that would be consistent with the spring garden historical
neighborhoods on all sides the top and the back and would you know would not adversely impact
Spring Garden or 20th Street I see 20th Street from like Bob from my my room and I go up and
down it all the time and this is like driving into a tunnel looking for that picture thank you thank
you thank you for your time I have no that's my last witness Mr. Chairman thank you Mr. Miller
yeah if I could just have a moment please I'm looking for the photo across the street
do you have anything to add
Mr. Bowen, do you have anything to add?
you have the councilman's
You have the councilman's letter and the RCO is also present.
Council president, excuse me.
Council president.
Can I share screen, please?
Ms. Hastings yes are you able to see the screen yes is that the building on the other side
of 20th street yes it is do you object to that building okay the building is already there
um do you object to it do i object to it i mean i objection to the to the yeah it's
it's built it exists i mean if you want to ask her if it wasn't built would she object to that
being a building put it being no excuse me i've had enough today would you object to a building
being erected in that i'm sorry i cannot object to a building that's already built okay miss
hastings does that does that building cover a hundred percent of the lot i do actually how
does she know do you see any portion of the lot at the ground at the first floor level it does
Right.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
I have no more questions for this witness.
Mr. Bolin, are you trying to speak?
Because if you are, I can't hear you.
I was waiting to see if Rich was going to move everything into evidence.
Yeah, we can move our exhibits into evidence at this point, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to make a brief statement.
I know you're pressed for time, though.
I know you keep saying brief, but somehow your brief is totally different than my brief.
Chairman, you know, the applicant had long hearings.
I mean, I thought I was pretty brief.
I have had limited time.
I have not.
OK, come on.
Go ahead, Ryan.
Yeah, I'll move my evidence and rest as far as testimony.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You? No other witnesses? No other witnesses?
I have one of the witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
I have one witness. I'd like to call. I'd like to call.
I have one document that I need to have Valeska Stonkey introduce.
Well, can I say it? I mean, yeah, sure.
It's a pretty good about late submittals.
Let's let's let's hear what he has to say.
yeah sure it's a it's it's a rendering of our building at 38 feet it just chops it at 38 feet
what's the purpose of it to show that all of the complaints
would exist with a by right development okay understood thank you i mean i'll just look i'll
jack because i'm going to see it for the first time right now i've been pretty good about letting
late exhibits come in this is as late as it gets she ready i also i'm here yeah i i this is rather
late and i'll stipulate look i'll stipulate a 38 will have some impact i understand that
if stipulated to that of several times yes but if ms stanky can can uh please be recognized she
can show the exhibit and i'm sorry chair but here i go again with the call of time for the people
who have been waiting yeah yeah this is getting out of control i think yeah i mean i don't know
about the rest of the board but we're going to actually continue this or no no we're not going
to continue this this is done we're going to we're going to vote it today anyone else
questions from the board no
planning commission no
good evening board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for multi-family residential use in the city's comprehensive plan
while the proposed use complies with the comprehensive plan we feel that there is
while the proposed use complies with the comprehensive plan we feel that there is
no hardship to the height requested we would recommend that 38 feet in height or we would
recommend that it be 38 feet in height or match the existing abutting twin whichever is highest
accordingly we object to the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-000695
2000 Spring Garden Street my vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
Thank you and I apologize for the stuttering earlier. This completes the two o'clock list.
we read off a list of continuances that were requested we're on the 330 list if anybody
still objects please raise your hand and of the two remaining cases does anyone is anyone excuse
me requesting a continuance or withdrawal and those cases are 212 robin street and 2523 waverly
street no hands at this time okay calendar number mi 2020 that's 000745212 robin street
anyone here for 212 robin street mr anastasio
I have Anna Garrido. Anna, you can unmute. Are you the owner?
Hello. Yes, I'm the owner.
Are you presenting?
I'm not. I'm waiting for Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio?
All right, why don't we do this? We'll go to Waverly Street and then come back.
MI 2020-000857-2523 Waverly Street.
Is the attorney or owner applicant for Waverly?
Anyone here for 2523 Waverly Street?
I believe it's Gutierrez. I'm promoting them. Are you the owner, attorney, applicant for Waverly?
I'm the architect. I represent my client, the owner.
No, we need them to come forward. Are they here? Because you can't represent them.
Okay, I just texted Dr. Landis that we're on soon.
So if they're not here, we're going to have to continue it.
Mind if I just give them a quick call. I spoke to him 10 minutes ago.
Yeah, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but there has been a long proceeding,
so give you a couple of minutes. Is Mr. Anastasio available?
I am calling him now. I know that he was in the room earlier.
you have to unmute can you unmute
yes hi mr chairman sorry i was late okay please identify yourself for the record name and address
spell your name it's verne anastasio 1315 walnut street philadelphia pennsylvania
suite uh 1006 philadelphia uh and i'm representing uh miss guerrero on this uh on this zoning matter
and you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
i most certainly do okay just one hold on one minute verne for the applicant for 25 23 waverly
street we will get back to you as soon as this case is heard so please proceed
Brian, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack her?
Yes, I do, confessor.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I did, confessor.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I most certainly do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
First, I want to apologize for running a couple minutes late.
I took the liberty of getting away from the screen.
I wasn't quite sure how long the last hearing would take.
So my apologies.
I just want to bring it to 212 Robbins Street.
We initially put in an application for an accessory dwelling one story storage shed in the rear yard of a two family household property.
At the beginning of our presentation, initially, we had a minimum rear yard death of a minimum 20 feet.
We were proposing two.
Minimum sard yard width, eight feet was required, and two feet were, in fact, proposed.
We met with the community group on several occasions.
And I would like to tell you that we've come to an accord where we would have a much smaller proposed storage shed.
It's now just two linear feet beyond what is required.
15 by 10 will allow for ample outdoor space, not only in the rear, but on the side yards as well.
15 by 10 will allow for ample outreach.
We met with the community group, and they've given us, as you can see here, a letter dated November 10th of this year.
They've given us a letter of support, non-opposition.
and here's the uh 28 to 1 in support
and i can uh we have a revised plan so i've already submitted the revised plans to uh
one page one page one page
and i'm showing you the photos as we go
proof of posting
I think you can
summarize because everybody
you have no opposition from anyone
none whatsoever
and of course in the
packet we have the
the flyer
proof of mailing
tax certification
and all
of that so with that
I'd like to ask
my client to raise her hand
to be acknowledged if she's available. Ms. Garrido?
Hello? Yes, I'm here.
Ms. Garrido, please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name for us.
Yes, it's Anna Garrido. A-N-A-G-A-R-R-I-D-O.
we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do
thank you chairman
ms garrito did you hear my presentation to the board today
yes i've been here the last three hours
you and i both and did you uh believe that to it to be uh accurate and true to your the best
your knowledge yes okay and do you adopt it as your own testimony if need be yes thank you very
much thank you mr chairman with that i rest my case thank you questions from the board no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand you have hillary emerson
good evening good evening um hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker
um the councilman is not opposed um to the revised plan in this case which um includes
significantly reduced square footage for um the shed as well as um greater width and depth in the
side and rear yards um the community did support the updated proposal in a follow-up meeting
Previously, they were okay with the setbacks, but not the size of the shed.
But now they're okay with some setback variances, as well as a slight variance for the shed.
I do want to note, I was looking over the revised plans, Mr. Anastasio sent them to me this morning.
The table, it doesn't have the revised numbers in it under proposed for what the revised setbacks are going to be.
So, I just want to make sure that the revised setbacks are reflected in the permit and variance that's granted for this.
So, it looks like they're correcting the drawing, but they're not correcting the table.
So, I don't know if something needs to be corrected and re-stamped or if the drawing is sufficient.
Sharon, is the drawing sufficient?
Can we this once just agree that Mr. Anastasio will give me a plan with a revised table?
I will. And I think document S1 that I'm presenting right now that is on the screen
is in fact the revised plan. And I'll make sure that that gets to Attorney Soletta in a timely
matter we can consider it some no we can consider it submitted today thank you all right thank you
okay uh miss emerson yeah that's that's fine yeah and verne if you could just you know send me a
copy too for our records once the table is adjusted thank you of course when the board goes in front
of city council for a raise you're going to be i'm going to subpoena you as an expert witness
all right all right
all right all right question i know i know you're talking about hillary and not me frank
i said hillary yeah that's right all right um questions from the board no no thank you planning
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission.
In the meantime, I forgot to ask, is there anyone else who would like to testify in this
Please raise your hand.
There are no other hands.
Did you lose the Planning Commission?
good afternoon good evening uh this is nicole ozdem here for the planning commission staff
hi nicole please spell your full name for the sonographer and then of course nicole n-i-c-o-l-e
ozdemir o z as in zebra d as in david e as in edward m as in michael i r as in richard
thank you so we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan giving the
existing site contacts we have no objection to the granting of this variance thank you
mi 2020-000745-212 robin street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
oh i'm sorry i apologize my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan one page approved tonight
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso okay mi 2020-0008572523 waverly street
i know we had someone on a few minutes ago yes i'm here are you the owner i am the architect
the my client who's the owner is trying to uh he's got he's in on the zoom but he can't
mute or unmute time you have any advice for him i'm sorry i'm just uh you said what's going on
with the...
He's having a hard time on muting himself.
What is the individual's name?
Dr. Richard Landis.
I think he posted a question on the Q&A.
So, Chair, I promoted him.
Mr. Gutierrez, you're going to be muted
because you cannot present at all.
Oh, thank you very much.
but will you stick around in case we have a question for you doctor good evening please
identify yourself for the record your full name and address can you hear me now yes we can good
thank you please identify yourself your full name and address hello
Dr. Landis can you hear us? I can hear you thank you. Okay so you're supposed to put your name
and address on the record. I when I registered I put everything in there. Oh you have to verbally
give it to us please. Oh I'm sorry. No problem. My address is 821 South 48th Street and the zip is
19143. And your full name, spell your full name, please. John, first name, Richard Landis.
Spell your last name, please. L-A-N-D-I-S. And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay, sir, please tell us,
present us with your testimony. Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or
referral photos and plans five days prior to this, Aaron?
Hello? Dr. Landis. Yes.
I was assuming that Jerry would present the case first, but I'm happy to introduce myself and what
we're proposing.
You were asked the question, did you confess or repeat it for him, please?
Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this area?
See you next time.
I'm sorry, I'm turning up the volume. I didn't hear your question.
And I'm sorry, it might not be clear to Dr. Landis.
the architect can discuss the plans, but they cannot present the case.
So you present the case, and then we can let him show the plans on the screen.
That's fine.
So I'm a resident of Philadelphia since 1997, moving here as professor of biostatistics at Penn.
And I'm now moving towards retirement. The house here on 48th Street that I live on is three-story Victorian, 3,300 square feet. So I'm looking to downsize. And my daughter is the co-owner of this house on Waverly Street. She took a new position in Washington, D.C.
Could you just let us, excuse me for interrupting, Doctor, could you provide us with testimony as to what it is you'd like to do with 2523 Waverly?
Yes. So I would like to add the third story that you'll see in the drawings and then move into that as a retirement home from the place I'm currently living.
Okay, so do we have any drawings or photographs of what you're proposing to do?
And if so, please share them with us.
Jerry has those.
Okay, Jerry, the architect, you can put those up for us.
Thank you.
I'd like to share my screen, if I may.
Yes, that's fine.
We did never, never got an answer. Do we have a letter from the RCO?
There is a letter in the package I sent to the zoning board, sir.
Is that a letter of opposition or non-opposition?
It's a letter of non-opposition. It's from the Center City Residence Association.
Thank you.
So let me begin.
And we did receive that letter.
Thank you.
And then, Chairman, did you get this revised plan?
I have the revised plans form.
I was going to ask if the plans were submitted showing these changes.
Next question to the architect.
The plans haven't been formally submitted via the Eclipse system.
They don't need to be submitted to Eclipse.
they need to be submitted to us.
I'm seeing plans that have revision number one
and revision number two marked.
Are these the revised plans?
The revised plans that we had two meetings
with the Residence Association and the community.
The plans that are shown on the screen right now,
these represent these plans represent the plans as revised based on the community meetings and
these are the plans that were voted on by the community okay the original plans that were
submitted which we were then refused are also included at the end of the package which is
how you see it on the screen. That's fine. And it appears that three pages of the plans that
you submitted show revisions. Is that correct? That's correct. I have notated
each of the drawings, the revised drawings, to show how the design has changed to accommodate
the many comments that we heard from community as well as adjacent neighbors.
thank you that's very helpful i think that answers most of our questions uh
do we have any questions from the board no
no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands thank you planning commission
Good evening. This is Nicole Ostomir with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission staff.
this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given that site context we have
This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
no objection to the granting of the variance thank you mi 2020 that's 0008572523 waverly street my
vote is yes with proviso revised plan three pages approved today yes with proviso yes with proviso
yes with proviso this is sharon saletta just one minute mr gutierrez before you leave um you have
to email me the revised plans form and the three pages that need to be stamped as two separate
pdfs so that i can stamp them and return them to you stand that sir
hello i will do so thank you thank you okay any unfinished any unfinished business
I apologize to everyone.
I appreciate your hanging in.
I apologize.
The only, my reason for allowing a little bit longer was the fact that the residents
have been waiting for what, it was our fourth time I think we heard this case.
It was more about them than anything else, so.
Much better than continuing it again.
Yeah, yeah, that's why I figured let's get it over with, so I appreciate that.
Good night, everyone.
Good luck.