and its owner.
In looking at the proposal, it would seem reasonable
that the lower level is maintained as a commercial space.
The property is located on the corner of Conrad and Ainslie.
and Conrad Street has a number of destination storefronts that are thriving and operating.
storefronts that are thriving and operating and provide destinations to the neighborhood.
There's probably 9, 10 to 12 operating storefronts, and Conrad Street does not seem to have any
trouble leasing those commercial spaces.
It would seem reasonable to us that four units over the two remaining floors would seem a
reasonable um number of units um the neighbors would like even less they would prefer three
um but i would also like to note that um we had no facade review we don't actually know what the
intent is um with the windows uh we don't know if there's still going to be pokey little windows
that are going to be shoved into those old storefront openings.
We just don't know.
And I apologize, I was not aware of that scope.
Maybe I missed it in an email, that scope of work,
but I had not previously seen that.
And I would also like to note that
um justin mr crick related certain actions that have been taken by the owner absolutely
um contact number was posted on the building however the trash was never moved the backyard
was cut once and those weeds are now three or four feet high once again um so you know it can't
be a one-time little dab. Maintenance has got to be an ongoing weekly issue, especially with five
units. So the bottom line is, as an RCO, we would approve a business on the lower level, reflecting
the nature of Conrad Street now, and that four units above would be more than enough
units squeezed into the remaining two floors.
Thank you, Mr. Langer. Mr. Crick, I'll give you a chance to respond. I just want to see if there's
anyone else in the virtual audience. Okay. Yes, thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience? No, sir, I do not see anyone else.
And Hillary, we have a total of four letters, three of which from that locate that block.
Sorry, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct.
Okay. And they're all in opposition?
They are.
Okay. Mr. Gregg, do you want to respond?
Yeah, I'll just reiterate that while we did appreciate the idea or the notion of the commercial,
The owner did not feel that it was the best use and that some of the parking concerns might even be exaggerated, not overnight necessarily, but just during the day and traffic flow.
And as far as upkeep goes, there's very little that you can say other than the proofs in the pudding kind of thing.
I know that this this owner as being a member of the community and having ownership for a long time and intending to do so longer would would not be opposed to any sort of a temporary proviso for for any approval for multiple units that would be revisited if the work was not up to standard.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
the property is indicated as commercial mixed use on a city plan or adopted district plan
recommends no change existing zoning at this location it's near a existing commercial corridor
nearby predominantly single-family residential homes the appellant's hardship is not supported
with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent
it from being used in conformity with the code but we recommend the request for variance not be
Brandon. What I want to do, Mr. Crick, is sit and talk to my our board about where we stand with
this. We will we will have this back in two weeks. We're off next week. The final week,
we'll do it on a Wednesday and we'll vote at 2 p.m. Very good. Thank you very much.
All right. Thank you. All right. Number four. MI 2022 007 638 1163 South Broad Street. Brandon Saffron is the attorney. South Broad Street Neighbor Association has a letter of non-opposition.
South Broad Street Neighbor Association has a letter of non-opposition.
Coming back in as a panelist, sir.
Saverin, how are you, sir?
I'm well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
State your name and spell, please, for the court reporter.
Brandon Saverin, B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N as in Nancy.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation.
They are the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, vice chair.
Okay. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen. Okay. Thank you.
okay good afternoon members of the board I am here on a referral for a special exception so
this is an application for a special exception not for a variance for group practitioner use
on the third floor of an existing building at 1163 South Broad Street. That is the address as
OPA and the city have it. I think there are some other addresses used for mailing purposes,
but that's irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. And I'll show you the building
in one moment. So what we are applying to do is take the third floor of this building,
which I believe is currently vacant. And this is an office building. There's no residential use in
here. And bring in a new tenant called Helping Hands Children's Services, which is basically a
clinic that provides treatment and support services for autistic children. So this is something that
would be very beneficial to the community. Because this use does not require a variance,
the legal standard for a special exception is easier. And the question before you for the case
law is essentially, is our proposed use of this part of this office building more negatively
impactful on the public than what would be expected from a typical group practitioner
use, which is to say, are we more negative than a typical doctor's office practice,
dental practice, et cetera, with multiple practitioners?
Because that's what group practitioner use is under the code.
So just to get you oriented as to where we are here, this is our parcel.
It is located on the northeast corner of Federal and Broad Streets in the heart of South Philadelphia, right on top of a Broad Street Line subway stop.
I will go down to the next page and show you an aerial image right there.
So this is a large office building that consists of an older building that was sort of combined with, I believe, some newer additions over the years.
So this is the older piece of the complex, and we are talking about the third floor within this piece.
This is on the same property legally, this newer piece.
And that's what I meant by sort of the newer addition. But there's no construction that is proposed before you today. This is purely to enable a new tenant to use part of the existing space, no addition, just a tenant fit out and then the tenant would move in.
So we have a letter of non-opposition from the coordinating RCO. That's the South Broad Street Neighborhood Association. And you can see in their vote count here that all of the attendees decided to vote in non-opposition.
We ended up also entering into a, I guess you would call it a community benefits agreement, and I'll show you what that looks like in a moment.
This is a detail letter that accompanied the RCO's vote report.
This is a detail letter that accompanied the RCO's vote report.
And by the way, I'm not naming these exhibits, but they're all in our submitted exhibit binder and numbered with a table of contents, if you have to reference it after today for any reason.
So this is that letter that accompanied the RCO's vote tally.
It says, I'll just read a sentence or two, quote,
quote, SBSNA felt this was a comfortable fit for this building. SBSNA had some non-zoning issues
where the parties formulated a community benefits agreement that has been signed by SBSNA,
I believe it means, and the building owner and the third floor tenant, end quote.
So with that being said, here is that agreement.
And as they said, these are not really zoning issues, but I'll share them with you just to demonstrate that my client, as the building owner, who's been there a while and will continue to be, has nothing but the intent to reassure and cooperate with the community.
So really, the core issues in this letter, and I'm not going to read them, I'll just summarize them.
are that the use of the practice is specifically for therapy for children with autism,
that the staffing relative to the number of clients' children there at any one time will be appropriate.
And it says typically that would be about 20 clients and 24 staff members,
so more than a one-to-one ratio in favor of staff.
It speaks about hours of operation here at point three, with weekends being by appointment only, the main operation happening during the week.
And then four and five are about things that we promised not to do in this space.
So we're not operating a safe injection site and we're not operating a drug or alcohol addiction clinic.
And clearly, I can assure you, those things are not remotely related to what this tenant does as part of its business in their other existing facilities elsewhere.
Beyond that, and I won't go through them in detail, but we did have floor plans made of that third floor space.
and I just wanted to speak for one moment about the history of the building and the requirements
for a special exception. So my firm, Rachel and I submitted a memorandum of law to the board that
goes through the special exception standards. Real quickly, those standards are before you
on the screen numbered little a to little g. And here's why I believe we meet these standards.
We're not causing congestion in public streets or on transportation systems because we're on
Broad Street. This is an arterial roadway with great on-street parking and a subway station
right below us. We're not causing overcrowding to the land because we're using an existing
building without physically expanding it. And similarly, we're not impairing an adequate supply
of light or air to our neighbors or impairing our neighbors' use of their buildings because, again,
we're avoiding any additions to this building. We're not burdening water, sewer, school,
or park facilities, any public facilities, because this has been an office building in
operation for many years. And what we're putting in there in terms of this clinic is no more
intensive than other uses have been on those systems. So this is probably net neutral in
comparison to how this property has been used in the past in terms of impact on public systems.
That's also why I would say we're not negatively affecting the public health or safety.
And finally, in terms of consistency with the Planning Commission's comprehensive plan, Mr. Bednar or the Planning Commission's representative will testify if there's been any change.
But in the most recent public district plan, which is basically what what I as an attorney can access, this property was proposed to be up zoned to CMX three or four.
If that had occurred, which it is not, but it's what the Planning Commission recommended at the time, this would not require a special exception.
This would not require a special exception. I believe it would have been a by right use, but it basically goes to show you that I believe you'll hear that the Planning Commission found that, you know, a medical use or a clinic is appropriate for this location.
I believe it was.
We certainly believe so, at least based on that most recent published comprehensive plan for this district.
Beyond that, and these will be my final exhibits, I just wanted to give you a sense using some official record here of what's been in the building in the past.
So this is a permit issued 12 years ago, a zoning permit that allowed an adult daycare in the first floor of the building.
And here is a permit from 11 years ago that allowed a social service agency to locate on the second floor of the building.
So just to say that, you know, this is this is kind of what this building is.
It provides, I would say, public facing commercial services.
And this application just continues on that path forward.
I am going to stop sharing my screen and I have John Peruto from the property owning company to adopt my testimony.
And he and I are happy to take questions.
Thank you. Mr. Peruto, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
It's been enough to speak.
Thank you. State your name and spell for the court reporter.
John Peruto, J-O-H-N-P-E-R-U-T-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
John, were you able to hear the full extent of my testimony in your case this afternoon?
Yes, I was.
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, it was.
Would you therefore adopt it as if it had been your own testimony?
Yes, I would.
Okay, thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just had a quick question for Mr. Saverin.
On the refusal, it notes there was a three-year temporary variance for the same use in 2017.
Was that a different tenet or is that the current tenet?
That was not the current tenant. I don't know if John is still on, but my understanding is this tenant is new to this space and it intends to stay longer than that. So we would ask for a non-temporary special exception.
Understood. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the virtual audience?
um yes mr chair i have mr peter zutter with his hand raised i have allowed him to speak
sure uh yes hello my name is peter uh zutter z-u-t-t-e-r mr zutter could you spell your
name for the court reporter please sure it's peter p-e-t-e-r zutter z-u-t-t-e-r right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed um i'm president
of the South Broad Street Neighborhood Association and just we like to sit on
these hearings. We very much appreciate the building
owner's agreement with some of the restrictions
here. We're a little sensitive about some of these issues right now
and we think this is a good fit for the building and
agree with everything that was presented. So it has our support.
Thank you, Mr. Zutter. Thank you for taking the time to call in. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience. I see no further hands Mr. Chair. Planning Commission. This is Ron Bednar
City Planning. Property is indicated for commercial and the city plan. Top of the district plan
recommends no changes to existing zoning at this location. Proposed use should have no more of a
negative impact than would be expected given its commercial location. Therefore we recommend the
granting of the special exception. Thank you. MI 2022 007-638-1163 South Broad Street. I vote yes.
Tom Solomon, my first guest.
Ishmael Shaheem, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheem, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel, and please stay on.
All right.
MI number five, MI 2022-007-288-4223 Palton Avenue.
Mr. Saverin, it's the attorney.
Just for the record, mention your name.