to down zone had already been presented publicly so i think the hardship that like oh we didn't
know is going to be single family is i'm having a hard time connecting with that and understanding
that yes a zoning permit had been issued well then construction should have started while that
one was valid because it did happen on the property next door which was purchased first so
so so board member i don't know if something i said was unclear but 755 immediately next door
was required to secure a variance from this board a year ago so when i referenced the community
process that 755 immediately next door and let me let me bring it up in terms of the aerial so
this red star here secured a variance for the exact identical project that is before the board
today so when i'm when i'm referring to the fact that the design and the proposal went through a
community process it went through that process before it went in front of the board a year ago
So that so it very much did go through a community process. And then I agree with you that the permit that was issued for this particular proposal originally did not. But because the timing with 755 was such that a variance was needed on that, it ended up having to be.
i'm sorry i said i do understand the 70 55 is a different property so regardless of what happened
last year i'm here to look at 753 today on the natures of 753 and i'm saying i do not
understand the argument for hardship that's being made for this project under this permit at this
time so respectfully board member the the a prior board by granting a variance for an identical
project immediately next door inherently determined that the same hardships that face
this property, that face that property would face this property. So things such as the fact
that a prior permit had been issued for the development, and then there was a subsequent
code change, and just inherent in terms of the density of the surrounding neighborhood. I mean,
you can see here, this is a very dense multifamily neighborhood with most of the densities being
fairly consistent with what is proposed before this board. So there is a significant hardship
when a permit is issued for a project that then is ultimately faced with a change of zoning. So
Sean, I don't know if you want to jump in here and just address a little bit in terms of what
happened here and why uh unfortunately a a permit was not obtained in the time frame that uh you
know it it was supposed to be and so i did go through some personal hardship where my mother
um mother-in-law went through um pancreatic cancer and ultimately she passed away literally january
um which was right after i guess the expiration of this permit um i i i guess doing her treatments
Since we just mistimed it, didn't realize the actual expiration date and wasn't able to get it in in time.
But again, aside from those personal hardships, we do very much submit that the hardships facing this property in terms of the zoning being inconsistent with the context of the neighborhood.
And especially in terms of the community support for 755 and now for this project as well, very much meet the heart.
755, and now for this project as well, very much meet the hardship standards.
Okay. Questions or comments from our attorney?
Just a clarification, because I did not see listed in the description on the refusel
that there is a roof deck for this property, but it appeared that one was proposed as part of
the original land is there a roof deck that's proposed as part of this project
sean yes there is um and brahim typically does not use it as a public roof deck
it's only for mechanicals um he does he keeps the key i think separately locked
okay because if there there is a roof deck that should be listed in the
the scope of work on the refusal um so i mean depending on where the board goes with this
um we may need a corrected refusal so um hillary if i could so roof decks are are permitted by
right regardless so i'm not sure if it's even necessary to have an amended refusal here
because that is something that could just be added yeah not not amended corrected because
it should have been if it's on the plans it should have been listed on the refusal um because it
does have implications in terms of setbacks and an area and that sort of thing like for a pilot
house so it just it it's my understanding that it should it should be on there if that's being
proposed so that's just a correction not an amendment got it understood comments from the
The audience, RCO, if available.
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
District council member or their representative.
Again, no hands.
Anyone else?
Again, no hands.
Planning commission.
Amy Boyd with the planning commission.
In 2023, this property was remapped from R&B residential multifamily
to RSA 5 residential single family
in conformance to the comprehensive planned recommendation.
The refusal for yard setback was issued
for what is functionally the rear yard of the property.
The appellant proposes a nine-foot setback,
which is a requirement for a rear yard setback
in this space zoning district.
However, construction has not begun
on the expired 2021 zoning permit for three-family,
and the lot remains vacant.
While there are other multifamily uses on this block,
the majority remain single-family.
The Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant their requested variance for a setback but deny the requested variance
for multifamily uh council we're going to hold the vote on this so we can have a lengthy discussion
about it next week we'll vote on it at 2 p.m next wednesday understood thank you very much
number six
MI 2025
004386
300 Packer Avenue
Vince DeFino is the attorney
there is a letter of non-opposition
from Retina Stadium neighbors
and a letter of
support from council member
council president Johnson
I'll be back in as a panel shortly, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Tofino.
How are you, Chairman?
I'm very good.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
It's Vincent Anthony DeFino, and it's D-E, capital F, as in Frank, I-N-O.
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 relationship to the property?
My client is Keystone Outdoor Advertising, and they are a less E of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
All right. Thank you. And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed with your case.
Yeah. I have Mike Cantella here. He's a professional engineer, and he's going to share his screen. Is that okay? If he raises his hand?
Yep. And you'll still do the testimony.
Yeah, I'll do most of the test.
I'm going to do, I have three witnesses.
I have Ed Duffy.
He was a former vice president of the Food Distribution Center,
where the sign is going.
And I have Mike Tantel, who's coming on now.
He's a professional engineer.
He'll do most of the testifying.
And, of course, one of the principals, Joe Felici, who's with Keystone.
So just acknowledge the testimony.
So that'll be the lineup.
But basically, what can you start?
Yeah, I'm starting now.
So he has the computer.
He has the computer and he has a lot of is he is he coming on?
Yeah, he should.
There's your computer.
I'm on.
Here we go.
OK, so this is a proposed single poll, double face digital billboard.
36 feet height to the bottom of the sign, and it's a 14 by 48 foot standard, is 20 by 60.
This is in an I-2 industrial area with the nearest residential neighborhood,
1,898 feet away with basically no line of sight to the sign.
If we can go to the refusal, I'll just go over the refusal real fast.
It's Exhibit 5.
And the refusal, basically, there's three refusals in there, and that's the way we're going to present this.
The proposed non-accessory outdoor advertising sign is not permitted in the area bounded by the Delaware Expressway, the Schuylkill Expressway, and Darien Street.
This is the former food distribution center, so I have somebody here to testify about that.
And then the proposed non-accessory outdoor advertising sign is expressly prohibited within 660 feet of all ingress or egress ramps of the Delaware Expressway.
I have a professional engineer to testify with regard to that.
And also the maximum height, which we have a professional.
It's required 25, as proposed is 36.
So I'd like to introduce the exhibits that are not going to require testimony first.
So if we go to Exhibit 1, I'd like to introduce these.
Obviously, Mr. DeFino, we have all those.
You can go through them quick because we have them all, right?
So number one's the deed.
Exhibit 2's the lease.
We'll do Exhibit 3 later.
Exhibit four is the final application to L&I.
Exhibit five is L&I refusal.
Exhibit six is application for appeal.
Exhibit seven is the PIF form project information.
Exhibit eight, certificate of tax clearance, Keystone.
Exhibit nine, certificate of tax clearance, 300 Packer Associates is the owner.
Exhibit 10 is notices of the mailings that were sent out to the neighbors.
Exhibit 11 is photos of the posting.
exhibit 12 is the
state EMRCO letter of support
yep and
exhibit 13
is councilman
Niana Johnson's
letter of support and
just to mention in there
it states that the proposed sign is
1898 feet from the
nearest residential district this was presented
to him with I-76
serving as a buffer because of this
separation and the presence of highway the sign will be unnoticeable to nearby residents this
is the design is appropriate for the area the district already contains multiple multiple
advertising structures 20 by 60 while the applicant is proposing a smaller 14 by 48
the sign will not negatively impact the public safety so that's um the first
exhibits
and at this point in time
I'd like to
go to exhibit 27. I'd like to
introduce my first witness. It's Ed Duffy
and he's from the Food Distribution
Center.
He was an employee there.
He was an employee there.
Hi, Mr. Duffy.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Edward Duffy.
E-D-W-A-R-D.
Duffy, D-U-F-F-Y.
Do you swear or tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear to tell the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Can you give us a brief description of your education?
Very brief. Yes. I have a bachelor's degree from Los Angeles University and an MBA degree in real estate development from Temple University.
You give us your employment history with PIDC as it relates to the Food Distribution Center.
I was a part time manager of the Food Distribution Center when my predecessor was going off and on with medical leave.
And then I assumed the responsibility for the food center on behalf of PIDC.
in around 1995 until 2006.
And you heard the refusal to propose non-accessory outdoor sign
is not permitted in the area bounded by Delaware Expressway,