Yeah, recording.
Let me know when people are in, Tom.
It's not a part of an outside.
Okay, Chair Bergman, we have about 22 attendees.
We may begin as you wish.
Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman.
and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings. With me is Carol Tenere, our Vice Chair.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Ismail Shahid, our Board Secretary. Present, Mr. Chairman. Thomas Holliman,
our Board Member. Present, Mr. Chairman. And James Snell, our Board Member. Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit, and our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Before we begin, here's our virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. The video will be available by
contacting tanyasunkett at phillip.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email
address and the address of the property in question. And finally, please note the question
answer box. It's not for testimony or comments. Any comments should go to Tanya Sunkett,
our executive director. So let's look at today's list for contingencies.
Number seven, MI-2022-000-488-425 North 11th Street. Number eight, MI-2021-005,
423-4629 Wayne Avenue. Number nine, MI 2021-003-347-639 South Conestoga Street.
and number 11, MI 2021-005-422-730 East Allegheny Avenue. All those cases are
continued. Anyone have any questions or concerns about the cases I just read?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. For the Conestoga Street case, number nine, can you see if
the applicant is here? The request for continuance we received was from the RCO.
Okay. Thank you. 639 South Conestoga Street, Ashley Edwards.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. I do not see Ms. Ashley Edwards in the audience.
Okay. All right. So this case is continued, and this is the second listing.
Mark is marked must be tried the next time. Thank you.
Any other comments? Are there any other requests for continuances for the 930 list?
Mr. Leo Mulvihill has his hand raised. I have allowed to speak.
Mr. Mulvihill, could you identify yourself and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly. Good morning, everybody. Leo Mulvihill, L-E-O, last name M as in Michael, U-L-E as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Is it case number one, 1226 South 47th Street?
Okay. You're one of continuance.
Correct. We need to go back to the RCO.
Fine. Thank you, sir.
Or a full vote.
Thank you. So 1226 MI 2022, 000491, 1226 South 47th Street. That case is continued.
Are there any comments concerning that case in the virtual audience?
Are there any comments concerning that case in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Mulvihill.
Does anyone else have a request for a continuance?
I do not see any hands at this time, sir.
Going to the first case that's listed on our list, number two, MI 2022-001-932, 2001 Allott Avenue.
Neil Sklaroff is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Brian O'Neill.
Darwin Bovee has his hand raised.
I will allow him to become a panelist at this time.
We should be coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Beauvais.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Darwin Beauvais, that's B-E-A-U-V-A-I-S,
from Dilworth Paxson at 1500 Market Street.
um the niels klaroff although he filed he is my law partner and we've agreed that i would do
today's hearing thank you you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i i always do sir oh thank you very much could you identify your client please
yeah it is the philadelphia school district they are the owner of the ann frank elementary school
Thank you. Our Vice Chair has a few questions, Mr. Bovey.
Mr. Bovey, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to the reading of the refusal, but as to the accuracy, I do have a point to bring to the board.
Okay, great.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we've met with the Greater Busselton Civic League, and we do have a support letter as well as a support letter from Councilman Brian O'Neill's office.
Okay, sounds great.
You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Great.
Can everyone see this?
Great.
So Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
Again, my name is Darwin Beauvais at Dilworth Paxson.
This is a variance for signage, the size and placement.
It's, in essence, a building logo sign for a school building.
What is in front of you is an aerial view, and what is highlighted in white is the new addition to the Anne Frank Elementary School.
um we we did submit our our exhibit packet in our exhibits includes the tax certificate
the deed which the school district has owned the property since the since 1954 um we we we have
proof of notices that including the zoning notices and notices to the rco and the surrounding
neighbors our exhibit four shows additional area aerials uh exhibit five has the original zoning
permit that actually built the addition that you see here and Exhibit 6 has photographs
of this building and Exhibit 7 has renderings identifying and giving you more details of
the signage. Exhibit 8 also gives you more details of the signage and what we submitted
to L&I, and Exhibit 9, 10, and 11, and 12 shows our notice of refusal, as well as our
application and what we submitted to the RCOs and the surrounding neighborhoods, and of
course, our support letter.
So having gone through this, I want to start the board with looking at Exhibit 7.
Thank you.
So this is what we are proposing that the signage that you see is a rendering and our
refusal in essence has we were denied because we have the main entrance sign which is here
main entrance and then we also have the building logo sign that totals 96 square feet and if we
look at the refusal
the refusal says we exceed our maximum area which is 15 feet
However, Ellen and I miscalculated this at 162 square feet, when it's actually just 96 square feet.
And if I may, let me just show you what I am speaking of.
If you look at the sign dimensions, we're looking at the portion where it says main entrance,
it is eight foot zero inches by nine inches, which totals six square feet. Our signage,
which in essence, this is the sign that put us over the top and in essence is our refusal.
The building logo sign, Anne Frank Elementary, shows that we're two feet tall, 45 feet wide, for a total of 90.
So together with the six square feet, the 90 square feet, we're at 96 and not at 162, as described here.
Now, this calculation, I think I know where it came from, this miscalculation.
I think it came from our initial application, which is here.
which is here our initial application simply identified the length and width eight feet
zero inches nine inches but they miscalculated it and said it was 72 square feet the ann frank
elementary school building logo is still at 90 feet but they miscalculated this portion that
says main entrance at 72 square square feet and we're just saying no that was completely wrong
um it was clear that you're you're looking at nine inches by eight feet that was a simple
miscalculation and i think that miscalculation was compounded on our refusal which gave us 162.
Now, given this, and let me just go back to the refusal, we are still over that allowed amount.
So we are still coming to the board to seek a variance because we've exceeded the amount in our RSD1 district.
And in essence, what we're asking for is the board to grant our petition simply because this has, although this sits in a residential area, this has been a school since the 50s.
It's been known to be a school. We've actually built the addition on an as-of-right basis. Let me pull that up.
this shows for the erection of an addition as part of an existing detached structure
uh used as part of the existing educational facility we obtained that two years ago we built
the building and now that it's complete we're just looking to have a building logo signed
on the structure having said that if we did meet with the greater busselton civic
We did meet with them, and we received overwhelming support at their May 24th hearing meeting.
There were 35 attendees, so it didn't pass through the night.
Everybody was very committed to seeing the expansion of the elementary school.
It's been part of the neighborhood, again, as I mentioned, since the 50s.
And with that, we believe granting the variance has no negative impact to the surrounding community.
The community actually supports, if you can see the essence of their letter, it's not a non-opposition.
It is full support of not only the expansion, but to complete the expansion by putting a building logo sign there.
With that, we also was able to get the support of the councilperson, Brian O'Neill. He has been a long-time supporter of this elementary school and of the Busselton neighborhood.
with with that we we we open ourselves to questions um i do ask that because this is
the school district that you accept my statements as testimony um in order to make your finding
effects and and with that said i i conclude my presentation thank you hillary do we need
a copy of that letter yes mr chair i was going to make sure you copy the letter yes we did not
receive that right thank you questions questions from the board and darwin we don't take your
testimony thank no mr chair no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
Sir, one Bernard Jadak has his hand raised. I have allowed him to speak.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Bernard Jadak, J-A-D-A-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
My name is Bernard Jadak. I'm the zoning chair for Greater Bustleton.
i just want to confirm the letter that was sent okay we did send a letter uh uh supporting the
sign and it's a valid letter and everything you should have received it but maybe it's in the
email transition that's fine and we very much appreciate you calling in and telling us that
sir thank you all right have a good day thank you thank you any other comments from the virtual
audience? I see no hands at the start. Planning Commission. Good morning, Chair Bergman. Ian
Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Last name spelled H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do. Proceed, please. Thank you. Good morning, board members. The conference
plan recommends no change to the existing RSD-1 single-family zoning at this location.
This proposed sign, as we've seen, it's an accessory to a longstanding, non-conforming use,
and we feel it represents a typical identification sign for this type of use.
City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant this variance.
Thank you. MI-2022-001-932-2001, Lott Avenue, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Hallman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
thank you Mr. Bove
thank you
take care everyone
you too
number three
MI 2022
000483
2312 Germantown Avenue
Zen Jin is the attorney
letter of support
from the 37th Ward RCO
so Jin is being promoted to
Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N.
Last name is J-I-N.
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838,
Philadelphia PA 19103 here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?
So you also have case number four, which is 2334 Germantown.
Can we do it at the same time?
I was about to ask if the board would do that.
Thank you.
MI 2022-000-484-2334.
0-0-0-4-8-4-2334 Germantown Avenue. Could you identify your client and the relationship to
these two properties? Absolutely. Mr. Joseph Gitterman should be here on behalf of both of
the owners. For 21-12, I'm sorry, 23-12 Germantown, it is Glass Estates LLC. And for 23-34,
it is also partially Glass State LLC, but also Salat New York Corp is also a 50% owner of that
particular property. Thank you. Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. Jin. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter yes to all questions okay great
you may proceed and begin sharing your screen thank you I will share the exhibit we had submitted
regarding 23-12 first I will also show 23-34 shortly to the board these are very similar
applications in that both are essentially applications for use in a CMX2 commercial
district. However, we are requesting that the board entertain to allow the commercial space
to be used as residential. There are reasons for this. If we look at the area, particularly through
the photos, we do understand that Germantown Avenue is a commercial corridor by design. However,
if you look at the area, the area itself is currently very much full of vacant lots. And
there's actually a lack of supporting residential uses, which would help a small, and that is
another factor of these lots, a very small commercial space to survive in the area.
my client's property while it is on a vacant lot and will be a new construction the lot size is
relatively small and it is abutting one lot is abutting a church while the other one is further
down the block both have the issue of a small overall lot size and i'm going to go ahead and
show the plan as a way to better indicate that situation to the board
If you look at the site, the lot itself is not very deep.
The actual building with conforming open space requirements is about 46 feet deep for the larger lot, and 2334 is actually a little bit smaller, 20 foot wide in the front.
While it is about 800 square foot of space, a small business taking up a space of that size would really require local support, local residential support to really survive.
At the present, unfortunately, that area, it is very difficult to see that happening.
Because of this, when we presented it to the community, I'm going to go ahead and zoom out so it's easier to see the remaining plans.
When we presented it to the community, the community also recognized the situation. They understand that, of course, they would like to have a commercial corridor. However, given the current circumstances of the area, given the small size of these lots, it is difficult to see a viable business coming in at this point and surviving.
The residential use actually would pave the way for additional residents in the area, which would support future commercial activities.
Currently, there's unfortunately very little activity in the area from a commercial standpoint, other than the church, and I believe there's like a garage on the one corner that has some parked cars.
Other than that, really the block has no active commercial activity at all.
From a design standpoint, it is simply a standard three-unit setup where the original CMX-2 would permit the two residential units above.
We're simply adding to the first floor as a residential unit in addition.
And that is essentially the proposal here before the board.
I'm happy to answer questions relating to 2312, but I can also show 2334, which is almost identical in its overall project design and presentation.
So do you want to have your testimony adopted?
Do you want to have your testimony adopted, kid?
Yes, absolutely.
I can have...
Why don't you do that?
Thank you.
Mr. Gitterman, can you raise your hand virtually
so you can adopt my testimony?
It's been a lot to speak, sir.
Thank you.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H,
and my last name is Gitterman, G-I-T-E-R-M-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you. Mr. Gitterman, with regard to my testimony for 2312 Germantown Avenue,
have you heard my entire presentation and can you verify that it is true and correct and adopted as your own?
Yes, I did. And I heard everything. And yes, I agree to your presentation.
thank you and with regard to 2334 germantown avenue can you also verify that it is essentially
a very similar project and that my testimony is true and correct to the board yes i do thank you
questions from the board yes mr counselor yes what percentage of the buildings in the ground
um the let me let me go back to the elevation real quick i will go ahead and put that back
up as well let me i'm going to go ahead and share that once again and zoom in on
i don't know if this would help you mr holliman to see the percentage of the building in the
ground i believe uh it is a pretty substantial portion of the basement that is in the ground
Mr. Gitterman, would you be able to give us a better idea what the design is on that?
Yes. So again, what's the question?
What is the percentage of the building that is underground?
It's like, I believe the elevation is around two, three feet from the grade level
and around six feet above the grade.
it doesn't show that on the elevation it shows the reverse it's more in the ground than out of the
ground mr getterman is it correct that you mentioned six feet above ground is it did you
mean six feet six feet below gray and three feet above grade thank you thank you any other questions
from the board no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no other hands mr chair uh planning commission
thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
um members of the board in the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing cmx2 zoning
at this location. The comprehensive plan actually includes a specific recommendation
based on consultation with APM and Village of Arts and Humanities that this block of Germantown
Avenue should remain CMX2 in order to reestablish a neighborhood commercial center. However, we
agree with the appellant that the size and shape of these lots and the existing conditions of the
surrounding block present hardships for strict compliance with the ground floor commercial
requirement. And so we're going to recommend that the board grant this variance, both for 2312
Germantown Avenue and the variance for 2334 Germantown Avenue. MI 2022-000-483-2312 Germantown
Avenue and MI 2022-000-484-2334 Germantown Avenue. I vote yes to both.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes to both
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no to both
James Snell, my vote is yes to both
Thank you
Number 5
MI 2022
000486
2627 North Warnock Street
lot number one, Bern Anastasia, letter of support from coordinating RCO 37th Democratic Ward.
Anastasia has been promoted to panelists.
Morning, Mr. Chair.
Morning, Mr. Chair.
Morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Morning.
Sure. Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 939 Montrose Street, Philadelphia, 19147.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and your relationship to this property?
Sure. I represent the owner, Sam Tickreedy.
our vice chair has a few questions for you hi good morning do you agree to wait for reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof
of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
Yes to everything. Okay, great. You may proceed with your screen. Thank you. I think I already
have it up. You see it there, right? Good. Thank you. 2627 North Warnock Street, Lot 1.
It's for the construction of a six-family dwelling on a vacant lot, and we were refused twice. One is
a minimum lot area as you can see here 2550 versus 2515 so we're really close to the point
where we would consider this de minimis and the required vehicle parking spaces one space would
be required and we're offering none and we will be able to demonstrate that we should be relieved
of that requirement because of the current conditions on the block so this is what we have
here with regard to the apartments you can see there are wells at each corner and the rear
here's the first floor units one two and three
and second floor units four five and six
Here's our plot plan, our elevation, there's the stamped and approved consolidation plan,
and this is the block.
we met with the 37th ward rco on march 21st of this year
unanimous support uh not one person opposed uh overwhelming majority full support uh with two
and non-opposition so it was pretty clear that folks want to see some repopulation here
Included in my exhibit package is also the deed and the tax certification.
I'm sorry.
Sorry.
I thought someone was speaking.
Somebody was speaking, I guess.
So because of the de minimis nature of the actual variance as far as the use is concerned,
And because the parking requirement here is not addressing overdevelopment in an area that is vastly depopulated, because we've secured various support of all neighbors, a unanimous support of all neighbors in RCO, we respectfully request that this appeal be granted.
And with that, I ask Sam Ducriti to raise his virtual hand.
He's been enough to speak, sir.
would you state your name and spell for the court reporter um sam to creedy uh sam last name t-i-k-r-i-t-i
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed thank you mr chair sam did you hear my presentation to the board this morning
i did is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge it is and do you adopt it as your own
testimony. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, and I offer my exhibit up for my
exhibit packet up into evidence. I'm open for questions. Do you happen to have an overview of
the whole block? Not in this exhibit packet, no. So what's the remainder of the block look like?
Well, it's sporadic at best. There are some single family and multifamily homes on the block,
but it's also several vacant lots some garages um it's it's it needs uh the actual you know
population that the the neighbors want okay questions from the board oh that was true
Okay. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Do you know further hands, Mr. Chairman?
Planning Commission.
thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map amendment from rm1 to
rsa5 on this block um the proposed dwelling unit count variance here however is minimal
given the size of the lot and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code
the applicants also demonstrated that this is an infill development with no existing curb cut
um so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variances
m i 2022 000 486 2627 north warnock street i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
that's the vote you you got four votes that's fine thank you Mr. Chair thank you thank you
very much you're welcome have a nice day MI 2021-005-419-3729 North 15th Street
Steve Bertel is the attorney letter of support from the 13th Ward RCO
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Absolutely.
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, counsel for the applicant, 3002 Logan Square,
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, I represent the equitable owners of the property, take the brochure to break.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning, vice chair.
Carol, you're muted.
that's why i hate mute do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof
of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes okay great you may proceed and please share your screen thank you madam
okay good morning members of the board as stated my name is steve bertill i represent the equitable
owners and applicants of this property, 3729 North 15th Street. The applicants are Jacob and
Rashida Gray, husband and wife. We're here seeking the variance approval to memorialize
existing use of a property that is a three-unit multifamily structure. This is a family property
that the Grays acquired or in the process of acquiring to keep in the family and make updates
too. You'll see that the property has not only been a licensed multifamily structure for decades,
but it's metered as such for utilities. And lastly, the property wasn't as occupied as the
multifamily upon attempt to acquire it by the applicant. Seeing the gap in the zoning records,
the applicants want to ensure that the use of this property memorialized in the record
so that they don't run into hiccups when it comes to building permits for renovations.
Upon the application to LMI, we obtained a refusal because the property is currently
gone as RC5. And so, just to orient the board, the property, as I stated, is 3729 North 15th
Street. As you can see from this area, I'll zoom in a little bit. It's on the front on North 15th
The property itself is an area here in the middle of the block.
The property itself has been a multi-family structure since
The property itself has been a multifamily structure since about 1938, and that is still the current use.
As I stated, we did obtain a refusal, you'll see here, for the multifamily use because of the current zoning designation of RSA 5.
Now the property itself, although it has that designation, I frankly couldn't find any record
of it ever being utilized as a single family. You can see here with the zoning record dating back
to 1938, there was alterations, permits for alterations. It was currently, it was a three
family then um again um it was in 1949 it was established as a free family and then in uh 1991
um the property uh underweight of zoning variance to reaffirm
I can go back one to your firm, the multifamily use, and then added some provisals for garbage
disposals on the third floor apartment. And subsequent to that, there's documentation,
as you can see from this photo, of multiple utility lines being split for meters.
Historically, there was one line for what was deemed the quote-unquote owner's unit on the ground floor and another leader for the second and third floor units.
We did meet with the community group.
Let me show the board for the floor plan.
As you can see here, each floor has its own unit.
The first two floors are two-bedroom, one-bath units, and the third floor is a smaller one-bedroom,
one-bath unit.
We did meet with the community group, which is the 13th Democratic Ward.
Now the Gray's family has been a member of this community for some time, so in addition
to obtain a letter of support from the community from the coordinating community group with the
proviso that there are construction materials during the render and the material renovation
is stored in the rear yard and then the household debris would also be stored in the rear tamper
approved containers. We obtained a letter of support and a request that the board approve
the various requests from the RCL, but we also obtained over 30 signatures of support from
residents that live on the north 15th street block, supporting this various requests and
recognizing the use as a multi-family structure for over 30 years.
so conclusion the historic and existing use of the property supports the granting of our variance
request if it's squarely within the context of the area because the entire block is sort of
peppering with multi-family structures throughout both the RCO and the directly impacted neighbors
support the project and lastly the applicant does have a hardship due to the physical condition of
the property when they you know are attempting to acquire it with conditions that they did not
create because the property has existing layouts as a multi-family structure and is metered as such.
So for all these reasons, we respectfully request that the board grant our variance request.
If the board doesn't have any questions for me, I would ask if Mr. Gregg could be recognized
to adopt and affirm my testimony.
sir could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
mr gray if you just raise your hand we'll be recognized
okay mr gray has been about to speak sir thank you state your name please and spell it
for the court. Jacob Gray. Jacob, J-A-C-O-B. Gray, G-R-A-Y. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. Mr. Gray, did you hear
the testimony that I just provided to the board this morning? I did. Do you confirm the truth
in my testimony and adopt it as your own? Yes. Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Questions from
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
the board
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no answer, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commissioner.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2021, the zoning map was amended here from RM1 to RSA5, single-family zoning.
However, this proposed use, as we've seen, is consistent with the prior documented use
and with the physical configuration of this structure.
City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021-005-419-3729 North History.
I vote yes, proviso, trash stored in rear yard.
Carol Teneri, my vote is yes, proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso
James Snell, yes with proviso
Thank you, sir
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the board
Thank you
MI 2022
000485
7137 Woodland Avenue
First listing, Vern Anastasia
Mr. Attorney
if you're still in the audience please raise your virtual hand
i'm sorry mr chair um just kind of stage what does not seem to be in the virtual audience at
this time this is the first listing there are no exhibits um we we will continue this
must be tried the next time.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience
whose case has not been called
for the 9.30 a.m. hearings?
I was ready to say no.
Thank you, everyone.
We'll be back at 2 p.m.
Thank you for a good morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
mr chair we have a hand let's raise
okay i'm here you should go miss she's been left to speak
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter yeah it's misha gomez m-i-s-h-a
g-o-m-e-z um i wait a minute wait a minute wait one minute do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yep what case do you want to talk about um you know i don't
have the court number i just got a letter in the mail i was supposed to come to this meeting
what's the address uh it is on passion um it's i honestly it's like 9 26 i think so you can reach
out to the office for any questions yeah we we don't have that case you're gonna have to call
the office, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Sure. Anyone else? Ms. Catherine McShane has her hand raised.
I will have her to speak, sir. Okay. Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court
reporter? Kathleen McShane, M-C-S-H-A-N-E. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes oh it is is really a question about 7 30 uh east allegheny
did i read that correctly that that is a continuance it was it was continued by the
attorney all right thank you very much that's all thank you thank you any other hands
no other hands at this time sorry all right jason two o'clock you got it
See you later.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's ZBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Ishmael Shahid, our board secretary.
here mr chair mr chairman i'm present i was on mute again that's okay thomas holliman our board
member present mr chairman and james snell our board member present mr chairman also here is
our executive director tanya sunkett and our board attorney hillary emerson before we begin
Hillary Emerson. Before we begin, here's our virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are
here's our virtual format
being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. The video will be
available by contacting tonyasunkett at phila.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you are
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six
to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address
of the property in question. And last, please note the question answer box on the screen is
not for testimony or comments. Any comments should go to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkin.
Let's look at continuances and withdrawal for this afternoon's cases.
cases. Number six, MI 2021-004-816-600 East Luzerne Street. This is a continuance.
And we also have a withdrawal, which is number nine.
MI 2021-004-815-733-Hofnigle Street.
The first case is continued.
The second is a withdrawal.
Does anyone else have any withdrawals or continuances?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jack Hanley has his hand raised.
I will align for this time.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Hanley, please unmute yourself.
i don't think he's up i don't think he's uh okay it doesn't matter with his machine sir i'm sorry
okay is there anyone else that has any continuances
or withdrawals mr stephen pollack has his hand raised i have allowed him to speak thank you
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman, members of the board. Stephen Pollock, with regard to 934.
Mr. Pollock, could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Sure. Stephen with a P-H, Pollock, P-O-L-L-O-C-K.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
In what case?
uh 934 to 44 east pass yonk avenue mi 2021-005-410
mr chair this is hillary that's case number six on the 330 list
oh it's a three i'm sorry 330 right i'm i'm getting confused okay all right because i have
it's a mutual request for another case that's going to be on for june 21st because we are
withdrawing everything um and asking for leave to file new applications because we're so if you
want me to come back at 3 30 i will definitely do that well we have a request for withdrawal already
for that right hillary yes we do we already have the request for withdrawal so we'll withdraw that
when we call this at 3 30. okay and we're also asking for our companion there was a companion
case for signage that we had a split so that's june 21st at 9 30 a.m and we just wanted to see
if we could deal with that in one fell swoop today in front of the board um tanya can we
can we take a look for that the other one too no chair he could reach out for that all right good
good so the number six will be withdrawn at and and get a hold of the office and tell them about
your other case okay and i and i will be excused from appearing at the 330 list is that correct
that's right well all right thank you very much mr chair members of the board have a great day
right any other cases
i see no other hands raised at this time thank you we're going to go to our add-on cases
i see no other hands raised at this time
mi 2022 001 089 15 south 52nd street i vote yes with the following provisos
south facing sign illuminated only during business business hours her amended refusal
dated 3-24-22. Revised plans, two pages, stamped June 8th, 2022.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes, with proviso. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso. Israel Shaheed, yes, with proviso.
Number two, MI 2021-004-663-1513 North 6th Street. I vote yes.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
MI 2022-002-616, 1733-37 North Front Street, I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Voices.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
We're going to go to our regular list.
MI 2022-001-931-1301 Thason Street.
Letter of Opposition from HMC Squared Association.
Hi, Chair.
This is Tanya.
May I make a statement?
Please, all in the audience and attendees, if you have questions, please pose them in the Q&A.
Do not raise your hand unless you're prepared to handle a case.
Thank you, kindly, Chair.
Sure, sure.
All right.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
He's been promoted to panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, AC.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please, Mr. Nockamson?
Yes, Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Would you please identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is IRA Development LLC, which is owned by Kumats Homes.
And my client's representative is Eze, if E-N-E-Chukut.
our vice chair
has a few questions for you please
Mr. Nockmson do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
no no strike that strike it
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
I do have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, in all respects.
You may proceed, and please share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Again, Alan Ops is in PC, and I'm here to present 1301, Forreston Street.
In our presentation, we'll review the notice of refusal,
the correspondence we got from HMC Squared Community Alliance, the coordinating RCO for
this matter. Property history, which shows what we're asking for is exactly what has been the
history of this property of single family use. Nearby commercially zoned properties with
residential use only, we're a CMX2 property. And all we're looking to do is have a single family
use. By right, we're allowed, because the loss is small, we're only allowed to put a commercial
unit and a residential unit above, but we would like to just have a single-family dwelling there.
Maps of the area we'll go over, including a map showing what we're proposing is less of a variance
than what's nearby in terms of open area, as well as rear yard depth, as well as photographs of the property.
as well as rear yard depth, as well as photographs of the property we'll show in the surrounding area,
showing similarly situated properties, our plans and drawings, our meeting notice,
showing that we did meet with the community, our application for appeal that we filed with the ZBA,
our deed to the property, showing that IRA development is the owner of the property,
certificate of tax clearance, showing that we're in good standing with the City of Philadelphia.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I will have Mr. Pezzi adopt my testimony, and then we'll take any questions from the board.
So first things first, this is a notice of refusal where CMX2 property.
Here, we're actually trying to decrease the amount of density here.
where CMX2, given the size of a lot of 751 square feet,
we would be allowed to build a commercial on the first floor
and then one residential unit above.
Here, we're only looking to put single-family use.
We have three refusals.
First, because we're not trying to put any commercial
on the ground floor, we're being refused
with regards to that.
As you'll see in our presentation materials,
there is a history of only single-family use
that I can find for this property.
Also, you'll see in the presentation materials,
a picture in 2007 from Google Earth
showing this is a vacant lot.
So this has been a vacant lot for some time
and we're looking and hoping to put single-family use here.
And you'll also see pictures of surrounding properties
which are commercially zoned,
which are also fully residential in nature,
like we're proposing.
And then we have two dimensional refusals.
One is the maximum occupied area where 80% is allowed, which is 587.88 square feet, where we're proposing 84.4 lot coverage for 620.67 square feet.
Again, because it's a small size of the lot and to have a functional floor plan,
we're requesting that additional lot coverage of our building structure.
And again, it's not out of character with what's surrounding us as official see
with the blown up drawing that we received or took from the city's website.
And then also we have a rear yard setback variance request.
While nine feet is required, seven feet is proposed, again, to have a functional floor plan.
we're asking for that additional two fees
for only the single family use.
And again, it's not out of character
to surrounding properties.
So we do have a letter.
There were more people against our project
than for our project.
It was a closed vote.
It was eight to 12, so 20 people showed up.
And there were, these are the reasons why there were,
these are the things that came out in the community,
which, again, shows why we should,
this variance request should be approved.
You know, the property has been vacant since, can the board see the letter?
Yeah, make it just a little bigger if possible.
Oh, I think, I don't know how.
Okay, that's fine. That's fine.
Okay. But it says the property has been vacant since at least 2007 and the owners like to build a single family home consistent with the rest of the block.
The property is small. It would be difficult to use as part, to use part of it as a commercial unit.
Again, factual. We have a 751-square-foot lot, and it would be rather difficult to put a commercial unit there.
It's also out of character. There's really not much commercial around there.
This is the residential component of the block or the neighborhood.
Second, the manual variances are needed to make the floor plan work comfortably.
The proposed seven-foot yard is larger than their rear yard next door, which is only about five feet.
Again, we'll look at the pictures. Again, factual.
The plans for three bedrooms and three baths, you know, this had more to do with, you know,
then they mentioned the price range, which is not really a zoning consideration, but
we discussed that.
Four, oh, talks about the, you know, the level of construction and how long it's going to
take, not a zoning matter.
Now, this is the matter that where I don't understand where we're going with this, but
it says, although the owner is willing to eliminate the roof deck, they are not willing
to eliminate the third floor.
So, again, we're not asking for a height variance. We're at 38 feet. This neighborhood is a mix between three and two-story building structures. But again, something that we're being asked of is not out of character and it's not required to us with code.
uh so that was the first thing we're not willing to reduce the third floor uh parking and the
anticipated sale uh okay the community expressed concerns about the third floor parking and the
parking and the anticipated sale price and voted to oppose the project. So the sales price is not
anticipated sale price and voted to oppose the project
zoning repeated. Parking, they wanted us to actually put an off-street parking spot on the
property. And we said two things. It's too small of a lot. We can't fit off-street parking on there.
And if we did, that would require another variance with a curb cut, which would take a parking spot
other way for the streets. So, and the fact that they're trying to then encourage us to put a
mixed use property there would probably make the parking situation even worse.
And then in terms of getting rid of the third floor, they wanted us to basically have 100%
lock coverage, where we would have a two-story structure with 100% lock coverage. I indicated
to them that that would increase the intensity of our variances, where we would take away the
light and air of the property to the left of us to basically seal them. I didn't think they would
appreciate that, but it would increase the variances. It would be out of character with
the neighborhood to have full lock coverage. So it increased the lock coverage variance that
we're requesting, and it would increase the rear yard setback variance requesting. We thought that
that was out of character. So simply asking for a single family is something that was more moderate
and reasonable under the circumstances based on what we're proposing. So, but again, eight people
were for this project, 12 people were against it. A lot of them were against it for non-zoning
related issues. And the ones that were against it for zoning related issues wanted us to increase
our variances even more. So the property history. So I just pulled this from Atlas. This was a
vacant lots. So what we're requesting is simply in line with what the history of this property
has been. And then nearby commercially zoned properties that are residential in nature,
next door to us, 1303 Farson Street is also a CMX property. It's only residential. 1301 North 51st
Street, again, simply residential. 5002 and 5004 West Thompson Street, again, where the
corner of forest and west thompson street is single family same as 50 16 50 18 50 20 50 22
all nearby all single family all commercially zones and then the maps of the area as you can
see there's a decent amount of the cmx and these are all the properties we're talking about
so again this is not a commercial corridor this is residential in nature
and then this is our property from a google maps perspective and then this is what we pulled from
the state's website so this is our property right now we're a vacant lot as you can see 1303 1302
and 1300 um all would run afoul of the lot coverage requirements as well as the rare set
rear yard setback requirements of the philadelphia zoning code so what we're requesting a seven foot
setback and 84% lot coverage is more in line than what these neighborhood properties are.
But again, if we were required to do, by the way, full lot coverage here, we would completely seal
the light and air of 1303, which again, I don't think the property owner would appreciate. That
was requested by the community to get some support from some community members. And then photographs
of the property, again, we're just a vacant lot corner of Thompson and Barsink. And then this is
the property as of 2007 i can't tell how much longer that's been a vacant lot but it's been
because you know google earth only goes back as far as 2007 but you know for 15 years this has
been a vacant lot uh and we're hoping to develop it as a single family structure to fall in line
with what's surrounding us and then forest and streets are right of the property again
residential nature forest and streets are left of the property which is one which would be
Thompson Street, residential nature. And then this property is owned by Kumas Homes. Kumas Homes
has been in existence for almost 15 years. They're headquartered in Philadelphia. They're
in Point Breeze Avenue, in the Point Breeze section of Philadelphia. What they do is, you know,
take vacant lots like this, put, you know, nice single-family homes similar to this. And this
is just an example of one where you see hardwood floors, you know, nice kitchens,
you know nice bathrooms nice light in there and you know these are the floor plans we're trying
to keep the traditional philadelphia look you can see there's a cornice line you can see there's
lentils you can see that there's a flat building facade with a you know brick facades you can see
this from the front for the west thompson street side as well and then you can just look at the
And then you can just look at the floor plans, open floor plan, go up, you know, three steps, four steps, go into an open floor plan, living room, dining room, kitchen, you go downstairs, there's just a family room down there as well.
floor plans, open floor plan for it to go up or flight, you know.
You go to the second floor, there's two bedrooms, a bath, washer and dryer, go to a third floor master suite, and then there's a roof deck.
And then we did meet with the community May 12th at 6 p.m.
There were 149 addresses notified of that community meeting.
These are the list of the addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal to the CBA, along with our notice of refusal and our project information form.
our deed to the property showing that IRA development LLC is the owner of the property
and our certificate of tax clearance showing that IRA development is a good standing with
the city with respect to the real estate taxes for this property. With that being said, I'm going
to unshare my screen temporarily. I would ask that Mr. Eze virtually raise his hand so he can
about my testimony, and they will be more than happy to take any questions from the board.
Would you state your name, please, sir, and spell for the court reporter?
What is that?
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, my name is Ifai Chukueze.
it's i f e a n y i c h u k w u last name e z e right you swear affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth correct proceed counsel uh yeah mr azzy you heard
everything i stated today correct and you're true and correct yes you got this in your own testimony
i do thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
mr chair i see a miss elise young with her hand raised i have allowed her to speak
thank you could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes my name is eloise young first name e-l-o-i-s-e last name young
just for could you spell for the court reporter your last name please
y-o-u-n-g thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes i do please proceed okay on may 12th first uh good afternoon to the board and
mr chairman on may 12th hmc squared hosted a virtual meeting at which the community members
voted to oppose the variance requests initiated by the owners of 1301 Farson Street. At the
meeting, we were informed by Kumas Homes that they expect the three-story home they want to
build to sell for between $325,000 and $350,000. A two-story structure in line with the rest of
homes on the block could certainly be built and sold for less kumas homes has demonstrated no
hardship other than a desire to max out the building size to maximize its profits to say
that building a two-story home on a block of two-story homes would block the air and light
of its neighbors seems illogical the neighbor the owners purchased the lot through an entity named
IRA Development LLC in 2018 and sat on the property until now. They are unwilling to
consider a suggestion to continue to hold off on the project until the supply chain crisis
is better stabilized. Instead, they wish to build a three-story home on a block of
two-story homes now. Kumas Homes is a savvy real estate development company that has built over
100 homes. They understood the zoning and chose to buy this lot knowing that there was a chance
that a variance would not be granted. While we do appreciate their willingness to remove the
roof deck from their plans, we respectfully urge the zoning board to deny the dimensional
variance requests at this time. Thank you. Thank you for calling in. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience has. Mr. Jack Hanley has his hand raised again. Do I allow him to speak? Sure.
Mr. Hanley, please unmute yourself. I wait to be sworn in.
wait to be sworn in could you could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
Could you could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please?
could you state your name please and spell it
jason do we see him he appears to be having technical problems chair
but we have another individual
we can move on
who's the next person Jason
next individual is a number ending
in 3458 I have allowed them to speak
could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter please
yes good afternoon my name is Mark Harris
M-E-R-K-H-E-R-I-S
do you swear
You're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Proceed, sir.
Yeah, and my apologies if my voice is a little distorted.
I just came from the dentist.
Okay, fine.
The applicant wishes to build a large three-story structure of 2,482 square feet,
occupied with a complete roof deck and piled house.
This is more than twice the size of an evening structure of 1,215 square feet.
This structure will total 47 inches overall,
twerp any structure on the block of small, two-story,
mostly two-bedroom row houses.
It will, contrary to absence claims, stick out like a sore thumb.
Now, this block on both sides actually can go all the way out to
up to Kershaw on the north, 50th over to 51st Street.
They're all two-story houses.
Three-story houses are the exception around here.
The houses on this block are so small, they're mostly all two bedrooms.
The ones that have a third bedroom are an extremely small one.
This lot is also at the south end of the block, and the proposed structure being much tolerable significantly reduced the air and light to much smaller houses to the north of it.
The committee noted that the entire third story is devoted to a single-bedroom master bath.
That's suitable for upper-income housing, but it's inappropriate for this working-class neighborhood.
It's even more obvious with the estimated price of $325,000 to $350,000.
So this is a deliberate and blatant attempt to gentrify the neighborhood, which is offensive.
The community objects to the third store, the roof deck, and the powerhouse.
Applicants will report to the roof deck and powerhouse, but not the third store.
The community deserves to put the bar back-to-back at the rear of the property.
Parking will be very difficult, especially in the evening.
Often there's no parking available nearby.
So the suggestion was made that complying with the 9-foot rear yard requirement
and providing an off-street parking space would make a lot of sense
and make the property much desirable to a buyer.
The applicant wouldn't have done others.
Need to note that that spot is currently concreted.
It was long used as a parking spot by the neighbor there at 1303
until the recent construction of new sidewalks and curbs there.
In effort to compromise, the community demand to eliminate the third storage just is made to provide the off-street parking by way of a garage and allow the second floor to the rear property line, knowing make up some of the lost square footage.
Again, the items reject the other hand to the claims that air and light blockers must be thus increased.
This does not make sense.
It's losing some 38 by 10 feet of third floor does not exceed 7 by 28 feet of rear extension.
The numbers just don't make any sense.
The community is willing to forego the required commercial and reduced rear yard size if the applicant will delete the third floor roof deck process and ensure the building style facade is simple and narrowing properties.
The last design that we've seen was not compatible at all.
It had a bay window out front and on the Thompson Street side, for some reason, not a single window and they cheaped out and put in a large section of vinyl.
Vinyl is not a normal material on the front of houses in our community, and it's cheap.
It's not respectful at all, this architectural plan.
So we want to see a facade that's compatible.
Just a couple notes here.
The property is never posted, and there's a mural on the south side of 1303, which is the north side of the Spaken lot, which will be lost when anything is built here.
It's going to happen sometime, but it will be a loss to the community.
Thank you.
thank you for calling it yeah mr chair can i uh respond what uh why don't i make sure there's
nobody else in the audience and i'll give you the list anyone else can we get the the last
gentleman who spoke was he was he a neighbor was he representing the rco i was not clear
um if he's still there he my understanding is that he's uh
I don't know if he's still there.
My understanding is that he's a representative of one of the RCOs.
All right, thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, sir.
Ms. Joanne McCauley.
I have allowed her to speak, sir.
Please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Nicola, if you're there, please unmute yourself.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
J-O-A-N-N-E-M-C-C-A-U-L-E-Y.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you, if you would in your testimony, offer something different than what you've already heard, possibly?
I'm just an observer.
That's all.
Do you live in the area?
Yes, I live in Germantown.
I live at 4812 Knox Street, and I'm observing these proceedings to see how Zoom proceedings go, because I have one coming up myself at the end of the month, and I just wanted to see how they go.
All right.
Thank you very much, man.
Thanks for calling in.
You're welcome.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No one else.
Planning Commission. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you. There's two more people. Ms. Songey Correll with their hand raised. I've allowed them to speak.
Okay. Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Songey Correll, S-A-R-N-G-Y, Correll, C-O-R-R-E-L-L.
Right. Do you swear a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
um in your testimony could you offer something different than what we've heard
well i'm a resident of germantown i live between um off of west culture street and but but ma'am
why are you calling in because i would like to know with y'all building with y'all um i was
i'm a resident um in this neighborhood since um you're in germantown right right and i was given
the form saying that this is a meeting about y'all supposed to build non-story houses no no no ma'am
ma'am ma'am that case is coming up man this is a different case thank you for calling in but
that that's a different case you have is there anyone else who has testimony relative 1301
farson street all right i have mr james ed tay with his hand raised i have a lot of him to speak
hi could you state hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
my name is james ed tay uh j-a-m-e-s-e-t-t-e and i'm actually um i'm waiting for that case
So we're waiting for the call. I know. I know. But we're we're on a case. You have to wait.
We're we're working on a case. Your case will be called shortly. OK, thank you.
Planning Commission. Oh, Mr. Chair, before the Planning Commission gives a recommendation,
can I just respond to some of the input? So, first of all, in terms of dimensional variances,
it sounds like the community has no objection because they wanted us to increase the variances
by having full lot coverage of this property
and including to have parking on the actual lot itself,
which honestly makes no sense given the circumstances.
And I also think they support the fact
that we're doing a fully residential structure here.
You know, no one stated that they want us
to put a commercial with one unit.
They just want one unit in a single family.
Their issue has to do non-zoning related matters.
such as gentrification about the price of the property and whether it's two stories or three
stories. You know, but we're not seeking a variance in that respect. And as you can see
from the photos, I'm looking at the photos now, there is a mix of, you know, two to three stories
across the street on West Thompson Street. You know, and there's a history of single family use,
you know, so I think it's appropriate. And whether it's two stories or three stories,
We would need those variances for lot coverage and for rear yard depth because the lot's not that big.
It's only 751 square feet.
So for all those reasons, we respectfully request the variance.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon.
David Effecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single-family use. The proposal conforms to the recommended zoning designation.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
the comprehensive plan recommends this property
for residents.
We note that the RCO would have to request a neighborhood zoning map change if they wish to require new homes to be only two stories in height.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use variants, allowing relief from the commercial first floor provision in the zoning code.
Thank you. MI 2022-001-931-1301 Forreston Street. I vote yes. Proviso, no deck or pilothouse.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos. Thomas Hallamann, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, yes with provisos. Ishmael Shaheed, yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel. MI 2021-002-893-312 West Coulter Street. Letter of Opposition from the Coordinating RCO Faith Community Development Corporation. Letter of Opposition from Solo Germantown Civic.
Michael Phillips is the attorney.
Gus O'Neill is also working.
Yes, I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Michael Phillips, he's been brought into panels.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman, members of the board, Michael Phillips, Claire Harrison, on behalf of Freddie C. LLC, the owner of 312-314 West Coulter.
Could you spell your name just for the record, please?
Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S.
All right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. Phillips, do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes to all.
Okay, great.
You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
thank you I'm just about to share my screen
okay can everyone see my screen yes all right so again here on behalf of 312 to 14 west
Coulter Street. We are proposing it's a relocation of lot lines to change five OPA
parcels. The addresses that we have are just 312 and 314 West Coulter, but the parcels
include 5365 Alfred, 6769 through 73 Alfred Street into seven to create seven lots and erect
single-family homes with parking on each of the lots and have a shared driveway in the rear
for the parking. The only refusal we've received is for the size of the lot. Here, we are zoned
RSA 5, which normally has a 960 square foot requirement. However, since we're in the 8th
district overlay, the lot size that is required is still 1,440 square feet. And each of the
proposed lot that we have is 1,102 square feet. And that is the only refusal. I will take you
through the plans and show some zoning maps and photographs of surrounding properties to see that
the 1,102 square foot lot size is completely consistent with the surrounding area. Moreover,
I have with me Doug Bomar on behalf of the property owner, Freddie C. LLC, who will testify as to the financial hardship and the unfeasibility of either five homes or six homes.
And within our exhibit packet at tab four, we have proforma detailing how either the five or six home scenario is just unfeasible and how seven really is the least number of homes that could be constructed in this lot to make it a viable project.
I also have with me Logan Dry from KCA Design Associates, who's the project architect, and Tyler Bradley with Fox & Roach Realtors, who can testify as to the outsell figures.
Since we're really just talking about lot size, I won't belabor this too much, but I'll take you first through the plan.
These are proviso plans because we have made some changes to reflect community concerns.
And you'll see that there are seven homes that are all fronting on Alford Street.
And you'll see that there are seven homes that are all fronting on.
And sorry, my computer's been a bit slow today.
Each fronting on Alford with a shared driveway at the back off of West Coulter to provide a one car interior garage for each of these homes.
We still have enough rear yards so that that shared driveway is actually behind what is required for a rear yard, and we meet all of the dimensional requirements under the code.
Here are the home sizes.
you'll note that we all right zoomed in a lot more than I wanted but let me just
bring this out a bit so you can just see the the size of the home and then I'll
just go to the rendering and see there each three single-family homes all you
less than 38 feet again we want to keep this contextual with the surrounding neighborhood
one moment i'll be able to show you the uh
home sizes but again all under 38 feet
okay this page seems to be the most finicky so i'll leave this page and go to another one
here are the rendering
All right. So here are the renderings that show the seven homes. This is Alfred Street
and this is Coulter. We're right there at the corner property. It's currently just a
vacant, empty lot that's been that way for many years. The homes would all front on Alfred
Street. Down as you get lower, there's some PHA housing, and I'll take you around to show you some
of the other homes. This is the Coulter Street frontage. Now, we made some significant design
changes at the request of the community, preferred some more red brick. They wanted another entrance
to this first unit here, which we were able to do. Here are the prior renderings, which were a bit
different. We didn't have as many windows. We weren't showing all the red brick. We made
some changes, some design and aesthetic changes. The community also raised concerns about
traffic. You'll see at tab three, we provided a traffic study that both shows that this is
minimal impact and would not cause any jeopardy or danger to pedestrians. This was another prior
rendering. You see we added a lot of windows on the side here and really spruced this up, added
street trees along Colter Street side. This will show you some existing photographs of the property.
Currently just a vacant lot, we have homes there, and again, here's another context.
Now all of these homes up here, these are all zoned RSA 3, we're looking for context,
these are all RSA 5, again, this is PHA housing, which is denser than what we are proposing.
We have our zoning photos.
Also, at tab 5, we have a comparison of the lot near us, and you'll see that while there
are some 1744, 1240, there's 800 square foot lot. As we get down into our RSA 5 area, most
of the lots are under 1,000 square feet. And again, we're at 1,100. These are all homes within
the vicinity. We're looking at average lot size $1.011 here, bounded by Morris, Priscilla,
West Penn, and Coulter. Again, everything with the exception of $355, West Penn, which is
the same size as ours, everything is smaller, same as you get to Morris, bounded by Penn,
and Coulter. This is the zoning map to give you some context of the areas I'm talking about.
So our property is here and you'll see all of these,
you know, we have a huge, you know, apartment home here,
but all of these lots that I was just going through
that are the RSA 5 lots are all within, you know,
the size that we're talking about.
Proformas, which I'll have Mr. Bowmer come to talk about,
but again, we were in projections
We were in projections and we understood from the outset and going through community meetings that we were going to get pushed back because, you know, if you come in and say we can do seven homes, the community is going to want you to do less, thinking that we're coming in with a number higher than what was feasible.
and we understood from the outset and going through
But here we really did our homework, looked at what would five homes bring us in this neighborhood?
Is that feasible? Because five homes would be the buy right scenario.
And I'll have Doug talk through these. But basically, there's no money to be made at five homes.
You're looking at 3,600-square-foot homes on 1,500-square-foot lots that would need to outsell at 550, and still there would be a loss of money due to hard costs and cost of construction.
When you're looking at the six-home scenario, you're still at a negative 4% return, so still losing money, and that's based on 3,000-square-foot homes and a 1,250-square-foot lot size.
It's only, you know, do we get to about, you know, 8%, which is a reasonable return on investment on the seven-home scenario that we actually get a financially viable product.
And, again, this is, you know, based on over 1,000 square feet and 2,600 square foot homes that would outsell at $525.
So this is contextual with the neighborhood.
We are not, this is not a huge ask where we're trying to really, you know, pack a bunch of, you know, small homes.
And these are all going to be generous homes, three beds, three baths.
And, you know, I'll have Doug come on to it because I wanted to talk through these proformas so that you understand, you know, where we're coming from, from a financial standpoint.
because this really you know anything you know less than the seven home scenario just simply
isn't viable so I'd ask that Doug Beaumont be permitted to join. Excuse me Mr. Chairman. Yes.
We don't know if these construction costs are correct. We're not business people.
Right so I think where we need to be with this is that we
we have to listen to the testimony and then decide among ourselves whether that's reasonable or not
and that's where I think we're going
Mr. Bomar
Mr. Bomar
Hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes Doug Bomar B-O-M-A-R
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Mr. Beaumont, we've we've looked at the numbers when they're up there.
So we would appreciate if you get to the key points and go over that.
Don't don't give us the whole report because what we want is the key points.
OK, fine. I'll spare you the details. The bottom line is this.
I mean, when we looked at the site and we tried to determine what the appropriate thing to build here would be,
I mean, we looked around the neighborhood and decided that smaller houses were better than larger houses.
They were more contextual in size and also more contextual in market price as a result.
You know, based on our feedback from the RCO, we went to them with the seven homes that we're here presenting to you today.
Their feedback was, can we do five? Can we do six?
You know, five would be by right, but the numbers just don't work.
And the bottom line is because there's just sort of a hard cap on what houses will sell for in this area.
You know, we could build the houses that we're proposing are roughly twenty five, twenty six hundred square feet.
If we were to do five, it would be thirty six hundred square feet.
And though that's in the cost of building that larger house isn't recaptured on the market because the market price for something of that size is just you're just not going to be able to sell.
uh just because it's bigger for some some uh much bigger number it's you know slightly maybe
slightly higher on the market but but not much so the the seven house option just made sense both
in size and and in market size um we looked at six also the bottom line is we have a site that
that we're building that's we're going to be building the same square footage more or less
whether it's five six or seven houses uh and the fact is if we're only selling five houses
or six houses we just can't recapture the costs um doing it that way and it doesn't make any sense
doing it that way. And it doesn't make any sense.
Doug, can you just explain for the board,
how did you come up with the figures for the hard costs and your financing
costs and the design and soft costs? Where did you come up with those figures?
Well, this is just based on our, our experience and very recent experience.
When we're building similar houses,
actually houses with almost the exact same design right now and on another
of sight. And so I know what those costs are. So I just picked up those numbers and brought them
over here. Doug, how long have you been developing real estate? Nearly 20 years now. Okay. And do
you prepare proformas and projections as part of your due diligence to determine the viability of
a project? Yeah, more than I would like to admit. Okay. And with the proformas that are included
in the exhibit packet showing a five six and seven unit scheme are those uh documents that
you create in the ordinary course of business yes okay uh and can you also just talk to some
of the changes that were made uh in uh in in the design after discussions with the community
well one of the main things that we heard from the community is that they wanted um other than
the unit count which we could only uh do what we can do there again based on the economics but one
of the main things uh that we heard is that they wanted to see some a more active um culture street
facade and so because it initially it was some brick and some siding and um uh and not all not
a lot of windows so what we and then they talked about at one point putting the entrance on that
side and so um with our layout we couldn't get the front door on the culture street side but we
were able to add sort of the back door in there um we were able to redesign the facade to look
more really like a second front facade to sort of be activated on that street and then um also
at you know adding all those windows uh which you know at some expense and and all this is at some
expense but it's i think based on the feedback that we got i think it has um i think it has
improved project um that was the main i think design thing uh design excuse me excuse me
can i ask thomas one one minute so mr phillips mr bomar is part of the ownership team yeah so he
would not be your expert with this he's part of the ownership team uh correct he would be testifying
as to his knowledge of the development why thomas i like to ask what is the architectural
engineering fee for this project in your proposal
what is the i'm sorry what is the architect fee correct and engineering the the sum of all of our
design i'll call it roughly design costs is is but i think it's around 100 125 000 we have um
design architect we have our our local architect we have engineers we have other consultants um
you know in the design there i consider other other costs related to the zoning and um the
approval of the variance so you know we've been at this for 18 months so there's a lot of costs
that are involved anything planning wise applications for street trees of traffic studies
you know anything that goes into the design i would put into that category and i think i think
we've budgeted there um i'm looking here 125 000 another question does it change
does those costs change from five units to seven units um not not drastically i mean if we started
out with five units it may be slightly less i mean logan can speak to that but it may be slightly
less but at this point um it would be slightly more because we'd have to redesign everything but
the i mean but the fact is we wouldn't redesign everything because you know it just doesn't it's
just not a viable project uh with with less than seven uh units so that so there's no major change
new architecture and engineering from five units to seven units it would it again if we started
out that way maybe it's maybe it's a little bit less for less units but it's not a really it's
not a material enough cost to impact the bottom line here and again if we were to make the change
now it would actually be an increase because we would have to redesign everything
thank you thank you what's your what's your next you have another witness mr phillips
Yes, I'd like to call.
Actually, one other thing.
Doug, you've heard everything else that I testified to, notwithstanding your testimony.
So you've heard everything else that I testified to, notwithstanding, you know, your testimony on the pro formas and your communications with the neighborhood.
Is that correct? Yes. OK.
And do you agree that everything that I've stated is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?
Yes. And do you agree to adopt my testimony as your own? Yes.
Okay. I'd like to just briefly call Tyler Bradley from Boston Road to Realtors just to speak to the outsell figures that we've included.
We can do that. We'll just try to keep that short.
Yes, I was just wondering.
State your name, sir, please, and spell it.
Mr. Bradley?
What is the name of the individual again?
Tyler Bradley.
Mr. Bradley, if you're still present, please raise your virtual hand and wait to be sworn
Okay, sir.
Still allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Bradley, state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Tyler Bradley, T-Y-L-E-R-B-R-A-D-L-E-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Mr. Bradley, can you advise the board what your profession is?
uh real estate agent at berkshire hathaway home services fox and roach realtors with an office
in center city philadelphia as well as chestnut hill philadelphia okay how long have you been a
realtor september 2013 nine years okay and uh what sort of uh uh market do you focus on if any
I am a new construction specialist in Northwest Philadelphia, where I sell on average about 100 new construction houses per year.
Are you familiar with the area where these homes are proposed for?
Yes, I am.
And did you assist Mr. Bomar and the development team in coming up with outsell figures for these homes?
Yes, I did.
Can you please advise the board about whether there is a market for 3,600 square foot homes at this location?
I do not think that there's a market for 3,600 square foot attached townhouses in this location.
And why is that?
Based on the area and based on recent comparables, my own recent sales in West Germantown for new
construction, the average has been about 2,500 square feet of total living space, including
finished basements. And I have two recent sales at 228 and 230 West Haynes Street, H-A-I-N-E-S
Street, zip code 19144, with recent new construction sales at 525 and 539. I do not think that a 3,500
plus square foot attached townhouse is feasible in this urban location. And I think that the market
cap for outsale numbers in this location maximum would be in the $550,000 range. I think that the
best suited size house is about 2,500 square feet of total living space, which is what the proposed
seven attached townhouse development would be. I think there is great demand for that in an urban
location like this. I would like to say that the two buyers at 228 West Haynes Street is the new
head of the upper school, a Penn Charter school, which is obviously a local private school
in the area. So there is definitely need for the product, but no more than 2,500 square feet.
And would you characterize the projected outstail price on a 2,600 square foot home of
$525,000 as a fair and accurate estimate of what the outstail cost would be in this market?
So yes, I do. In the subject location, I think that $525,000 is a fair outsell number.
Okay. And it's fair to say that as the homes get bigger, the outsell numbers get higher?
Not necessarily. There isn't as much demand. This is not a suburban location. So I think in a suburban location, there's a big difference between a 2,500 and a 3,500 square foot house, but I don't think that it's feasible for an urban location like this for a 3,500 square foot attached townhouse. I think that there's very few buyers for that type of product.
Not necessarily. There isn't as much demand. This is not a suburban...
Thank you. I have no further questions for Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Phillips, he will eventually sell the houses. Is that what we're saying? He's not an expert witness, right? He's part of the team.
Correct, Tyler. Have you been engaged by Mr. Bomar?
I am engaged as his realtor. I would like to add that I do not have any financial. I'm not an equity partner. I have no financial stake, except I am simply a sales agent for the proposed project.
I understand that.
What I'm saying, he's not some expert witness who's not part of anything to do here, right?
He's going to wind up selling the properties.
I would offer Mr. Bradley an expert in the outsell market for Germantown for new construction
residential homes based upon his experience and testimony.
But the only thing, Thomas, I have it.
What I'm saying is he's part of it.
He's going to sell it, so we can't recognize him as an expert with this.
I mean, he's going to be part of the team.
That's what I'm saying.
You can say that he knows about the project and things like that, and I'm not saying that, but we can't recognize him as an expert with this.
Okay, I would just have a standing objection to that.
Okay, that's fine.
Thank you.
Yeah, Mr. Bradley does not have a financial interest right now, and he is knowledgeable in the area, and I don't believe he would.
But I thought he said he's going to be Mr. Beaumont's realtor, is what he said.
He's worked with Mr. Bomar as a realtor.
I think he said he's going to be the realtor here.
If there are homes to sell, yes, I guess he would be.
Okay, all right, good, good.
All right, thank you.
Do you have anybody else?
Logan Drive is available if the board has any questions from an architectural standpoint.
So your testimony has been adopted already.
So why don't I open up?
Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
go ahead thomas i like to ask council do you have any idea why city planning increased the
script for this requirement to 1440 so uh the art in the rsa 5 district uh for the entire city uh
it used to be 1440 square feet was the was the requirement um the code was was changed last year
to require uh to now only require 960 square feet however uh there were a number of councilmanic
districts um that uh included overlays for exceptions to retain the 1440 square foot
um lot size i believe the planning commission's original proposal was 960 square feet for the
entire um city but again there were certain councilmanic districts where the 1440 was
preserved it's our position that that's not contextual here and that what's on the ground
is actually more reflective of what we are proposing in the 1100 square foot lot size range
so this community supported 1440 square feet collect yes the code is at 14 uh the code requires
1440 uh due to the overlay thank you um any other questions from the board no mr chairman
questions from the virtual audience if possible i'd like to take
the coordinating rco is there a spokesman from the coordinating rco first the faith
community development group corporation
Okay, Mr. Chair, I have two people with their hands raised, Mr. James Attay and Mr. Charles Richardson.
Let me take Mr. Richardson first.
Okay, understood.
Mr. Richardson's been about to speak.
Aye, Mr. Richardson, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312, City Hall.
Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Councilwoman Bass feels that the number of houses proposed is too dense for this particular site.
I think that it was actually just mentioned by Mr. Phillips, expert, or the partner in the project, that the construction costs would be similar, whether it be five or seven units for that footprint.
that the cost construction costs would be similar whether it be five or seven units
for that footprint uh just doesn't make sense that that they not make that a consideration
the councilwoman feels that they need to reconsider and build five or six houses on
this site as opposed to the seven as such council members asking that the board deny the variance
thank you uh anyone from the coordinating rco faith community development corporation
Okay, Mr. Chair, I have a next person is Mr. James Attei.
I understand.
I state your name, sir.
My name is James Attei.
I think I swore you on the last hearing, right?
Yes, sir.
Proceed.
I'm actually the sitting city committee person for this division.
And I had a second, Mr. Richardson's request to deny this request for two reasons.
First, the near neighbors on Alfred Street, those tenants of PHA were never placed on notice about this.
I actually had to give them notice today myself about this final meeting or this vote.
So they were never placed on notice.
their notices were sent to 301 West Queen Lane, which no longer stands anymore. So the near
neighbors, I have several on the line just in listening mode, but they were never placed on
notice. There is absolutely not one property on that 5300 block of Alfred Street that is a three
story property, not one. You're saying that the front face of the property is going to be on
Alfred Street. So if that's the case, it's going to clearly change the face of Alfred Street.
It will definitely affect the air and light of the residents currently there.
um uh there is no outlet for seven homes with an exterior driveway i don't see the outlet
for seven homes um with a driveway as well there's barely even an alley back there
so three stories front facing uh to alfred street no other property first of all the people on
Alfred Street never got an opportunity the only homes on Alfred Street are all owned by the
Philadelphia Housing Authority and all of them are two-story properties so to do three stories
it would just change the face of that block what was that I said thank you you you're starting to
repeat that so you already talked about it three homes on Alfred Street so I'm saying move on and
not to repeat because we got other people want to testify hello uh there you go all right um also
when it comes to what mr bradley mentioned about 228 the other property that he worked on
228 west hayne street 228 street is actually over a mile away from this proposed site so i don't
I would really use that as a decent and honest comparable.
When it comes to the square footage, it looks like the square footage proposed is 2,500 square feet.
Is that exterior square feet?
And based on the documents that I was reviewing in this Zoom meeting, it looks like the interior square footage is going to be about 1,000 square foot.
But I go back to the fact that I second Mr. Richardson and requesting that the board deny.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for calling in.
Is there anyone here? Yes.
Hi, Chair. I'm sorry. This is Tanya.
Mr. Richardson has Inez on the phone from Faith, RCO, if you would like her to speak.
Yeah, I absolutely, I think it's, I think it's important at least to get the RCOs on.
Thank you.
Mr. Hand, could you unmute Charles Richardson again?
I just did.
Thank you.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the call?
State your name.
I can't hear you.
State your name, Inez.
Say it again.
State your name.
Oh, Inez Love, Faith Community Development Corporation, chair for the RCO.
Charles, could you spell her name, please?
Inez, I-N-E-S, love, L-O-V-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
tell them about the truth.
I do. Proceed.
Proceed.
He said, go ahead.
As I was stated in my report,
the community was totally against this project
for two reasons, well, more than two,
but the ones that stand out for me
is the fact that the, excuse me,
that there is a driveway to the property
that comes out on...
What street is that that it comes out for?
Coulter.
It doesn't come out on Coulter.
It comes out on the other street.
And it was dangerous because people aren't able to see when they come out of that driveway.
So that needed to be changed.
The community was also concerned about the amount of houses.
They said they were going to build seven.
The community asked them to build five.
We met with them twice.
Nothing changed.
the community was totally against it and and and we agree as rco with the community
thank you very much for calling in we we appreciate your testimony
is there anybody from solo germantown civic the affected rco i'm gonna have miss allison
west with her hand raised sir i will allow her to speak at this time thank you
yes hello thank you could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter
allison a double l i s o n weiss w e i s s solo germantown civic association you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed miss weiss yes uh we
also sent a letter of opposition based on the feedback from the community which has been
consistently requesting that this project not move forward as seven units. The community has
serious concerns over the traffic and the blind spot created by the driveway, and they further
didn't feel there was any physical hardship presented why five
homes could not be built with some green space around them. That is one of the characteristic
qualities of Germantown and why people enjoy living in Germantown is the green space.
And a number of children go to the Boys and Girls Club, which is just down the street.
And so traffic concerns are very high priority so that these children can safely pass to and from the recreation center.
All right. Thank you for calling in, Ms. Weiss.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience that has testimony that's different than what we've already heard?
Okay, sir, there's a Mr. Robert Mandeville with his hand raised.
I can allow him to speak at this time.
Mr. Mandeville, please unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in, sir.
All right.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Robert Mandeville, R-O-B-E-R-T-M-A-N-D-E-V-I-L-L-E.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you please proceed?
Two comments.
They made a comment about looking for something appropriate to build here.
And what we're looking at is two lots on Coulter Street, 312 and 314,
which were recently turned around to be five lots on alfred street if we look next door
very recently a twin home was built you've seen it in some of the renderings
and it was built a few years ago and both of those units sold and they front on coulter street
that would be something appropriate to build here and secondly since he's making a case for hardship
why must the community bear the burden for his poor investment that's all
thank you is there anyone who has something different they want to offer
uh one more hand raised from a number that ends in one eight one two two
if you wish i can allow them to speak at the time sure please please
hi good afternoon my name is cheryl smith and i represent the 12th ward rco
okay do you swear we'll spell your name first for the court reporter just
Okay. Do you swear? Spell your name first for the court reporter.
Cheryl, C-H-E-R-Y-L Smith, S-M-I-T-H.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I absolutely do.
Could you state your position on the project?
I basically, I really don't have anything else to add, but the neighbors were definitely against it.
There were three meetings actually held, and one they canceled at the last minute when we were actually on the meeting.
We've been trying to get some changes made, and they really have not been considerate of the neighbors or the neighborhood or the community.
It's really, none of us see a hardship.
And there's a parking issue, because even though they would have one parking space, most homes have more than one car, and it's only one side parking on Coulter Street.
The other side are garages, and they're not supposed to park in front of garages, but the neighbors do have problems with people parking all the time.
That's what I have.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for calling in.
Mr. Phillips, before I give it to planning, would you want to take a few minutes, maybe two minutes, and just respond to some of this?
Yes, thank you.
First, in terms of my client's willingness to work with the community, I mean, this is quite frankly the only project I've been involved with,
a seven-home project where a traffic study was commissioned to assuage the community's concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety.
You'll note that Robert Horner was retained and provided an expert traffic study report
that is included within our packets that note safe pedestrian passage, appropriate site
distances, and that the impact is minimal.
With respect to the height, I believe it was mentioned by the first gentleman that this
would impact light and air.
Again, we are within all dimensional requirements.
The maximum height in the RSA 5 zoning district is 38 feet.
This project was reduced to 32 feet 3 inches.
So this is not an impactful towering project.
It's a 32-foot, three-story home.
With respect to the parking, we're providing one parking space for each of these homes in a garage.
No parking is required under the code, but we knew that parking is sensitive in this area, and we provided it with a single curb cut off of Coulter Street.
And lastly, I just want to say that this really is just an economics issue.
We have a lot that's been vacant and blighted for many years.
My client purchased it with the intention of redeveloping and building single-family homes.
Five homes and six homes are not feasible due to the size of the lot, the surrounding
lots, and that there is nothing contextual for 3,600 square feet homes.
The lots do Oregon better on Alfred to meet all of our dimensional requirements.
And the alternative, as my client testified, is that the project is not viable for anything
less than seven units.
I understand there is opposition in general to development. However, development and adding
homes and taxpayers and more members of a community is a positive, should not be looked
at as a negative. And we believe that we've established the hardship based upon the existing
circumstances of the loss of the economic conditions and would ask that the board
grants the requested variances. Thank you. Planning?
Mr. Chair? Yes. I'm very sorry to interrupt you, but there was one more individual named
Mr. Gregory Palmier. I believe he was trying to... Okay, put him on. That'll be our last one.
Okay. Mr. Palmier, you've been allowed to speak. Please unmute. Hi. Could you state your name,
please and spell for the court reporter yes my name is greg g-r-e-g palmier that's p as in paul
a is an animal u is an umbrella l is in love m is in mary i is an ingersault e is an excellent
r is in radical right do you do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i affirm good could you please uh offer us something that we haven't heard
possibly the parking study the parking study that was paid for by the developer okay in my experience
i've been developing real estate in this community for 42 years i've been living in this community
for 63 years and my experience is is that the companies that do parking studies
And my experience is, is that the companies that do parking studies for developers support the developers because they get paid by the developers.
Please.
So I would just ask the board to keep that in mind when they look at this property in terms of the parking, the traffic study, because the K-Bus also runs down Coulter Street.
and that creates an issue because it adds more traffic problems to Coulter Street even though
the K-Bus today has been rerouted temporarily until the 400 block of Coulter Street Bridge
is repaired which is supposed to happen very soon and it's been out of commission for about 10 years
but it's supposed to be repaired very shortly so I would just simply say that I hope the board
would look at that and also understand that as a 42-year person that has been developing real
estate in this area and a 63-year resident of this area and a past board member of the
Wisconsin Boys Club, which is half a block away from this development and uses that sidewalk
every single day with children starting at the age of five up to the age of 18 and 19,
that this development puts them at risk if it's any more than what was appropriately it was
designated for, which was five. So I would just simply ask the board. Thank you.
thank you for your call planning commission thank you sir david fecto city planning commission
mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing
residential single family zoning at this property the applicant could have redrawn their lot lines
into fewer house lots to come further into compliance with the dimensional standards of
the zoning code in that scenario the applicant could build smaller homes but with larger yards
so we do not believe that the relief sought is the minimum required to make viable use of this
property so the city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed lot
line changes with a limit to no more than five house lots
MI 2021 002893 312 West Coulter Street. I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2022-001-492-338 West Gerrard Avenue and MI 2022-001-531-336 West Gerrard Avenue.
David Orfanides, we do now have a letter from Northern Liberties Neighbors Association.
Okay. Mr. Orphanides has been brought to Panama, sir.
Mr. Orphanides, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court report?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides. First name, D-A-V-I-D. Last name, Orphanides. O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Right. Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property, please?
Certainly. My client is Dog Days, D-A-Y-Z-Z-Z-L-L-C, and they are a tenant of the ground floor of the subject of the two properties, 336 and 338 Howard Avenue.
All right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Orphanides. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
You may proceed, and please share your screen.
Certainly.
Can you see my screen?
uh yes try to make it a little bit that's it that's it that's great yeah i'm just adjusting
the uh there you go so it takes up the full page okay um and i have with me today i have uh my
my client tim karsten uh who is um who is dog days llc uh and i have alex duller who's the
architect for the project with me as well. They should both be here on the Zoom call at some
on the zoom call at some point to adopt my statements or answer any questions so the the
point to adopt my statements or answer any questions.
subject property is i have a photo pulled up it's uh 336 and 338 uh west gerard avenue here you can
see a picture i took from across the street um it's located uh between 332 to 334 west gerard
on the left hand side you can see vacant building right now and then 330 uh 340 uh west gerard
to the right-hand side of us. You'll see in a little bit that, and you can see on the edge
of the photo here to the right, the property at the end of our block, which is an IRMX property,
zone property, is presently under construction, having been granted variances by the zoning board.
The property immediately adjacent to us across the street to the east is an ICMX property that
was also recently granted variances by the zoning board. Behind us to the south, this larger
building is a cigar factory loss, which is a condominium building that has a few rental units
in it. I saw a few rental licenses on Atlas. That was originally an industrial zone property.
Variances were granted for the residential use of that property, but it has since been remapped as
IRMX. This is a special exception case. This is not a variance case. So as such, the proposed use,
which is a dog daycare, they call it animal services on the first floor. By the way,
the owner of the property, the owners live above the unit that my client is renting. They live on
the upper floor and have for quite some time. Again, this is a referral case, special exception.
You're familiar with the criteria. I'll quickly point it out to you a little later on just to
remind you. But essentially, we don't have to meet the same, we don't have the same burden of
proof as an variance case. The uses by the zoning code is deemed to be appropriate for this location
unless this particular dog daycare, animal services, in some way is worse than dog daycares
typically are. And I'll show you that in a little bit. And so here's the referrals for both
properties, 336 and 338 at Exhibit 1 in my exhibit book. Here's just an overall site plan of the
property that the architect Alex Dollar and Fuso Design prepared. You can see you have the
two-story buildings at the front of the property running on the south side of West
Ward Avenue. There's a porch with an awning or roof over top of it to the rear and then a rear
yard. You'll see in the photographs that there's a very high masonry stone stone masonry or masonry
fence wall around the rear yard. Again, to the left of us, to the east is that vacant one-story
building, and then to the right is the two-story building. Here are floor plans that were showed
to the community. There has been an additional change or one change that's been made to the
floor plan from what was submitted to the community. We have shown in an interior storage
room is where trash will be stored and dog waste, what have you, inside of the property rather than
outside to the rear. We're going to have commercial trash pickup and that'll be picked up at times
that the neighborhood wants to see it picked up and that'll be placed out, you know, brought out
to the street for collection. Here you can see again the rear yard area, which is 560 square
feet the covered deck there is a um here's a there's act the neighbors have use of uh they
get up to the the rear of their property by a spiral staircase and the neighbors i mean the
owners upstairs uh can come down the spiral staircase here and utilize a portion of the
rear yard as well you can see the lay the layout here's the front west gerard avenue there's a
large lobby. You'll see in the photos a grooming area, the main dog play area, a small dog play
area, and then again the rear yard. Here's the elevation. There's no proposed change
to the facade of the building, no change to the height or area of the building,
and there's actually no signage included with this application. Presumably signage would be
applied for in the future and would comply with the CMX2 requirements for accessory signage or
they have to come back before the port. Here's an aerial image. Our property is right here.
Properties are right here, 336 and 338 West Reward. Here's a slight close-up picture of it.
This is a 310 to 330 Westerward, which I've mentioned you'll see is the ICMX property that's been approved for mixed use with variances.
This is 310 to 330 West Reward, which I've mentioned you'll see as the eye.
This property here that on Google's aerial or Google Maps shows up as a parking lot with the building is presently under construction.
Again, you'll see what the zoning maps, that's an IRMX property that was granted variances.
here you have the uh 330 to 30 332 to 334 west drawer which is a vacant one story to the east
of us and then to the left of us is that two-story building that has a residence above and then has
zoning approval for non-residential use of the ground floor and then to the south of us you'll
see there's a large gap here's our rear yard right here and then there's the masonry fence wall
around it. And then there's a large gap or space that's on the property to the south of us,
the cigar factory building, and then the condos and apartments at the cigar factory behind us.
Some closer up aerial images that you can see get a better view of the rear yard
and what's happening in close proximity to our properties. Again, you can see a very large setback
of the buildings to the building to the south of us in the residences.
Here you can see the zoning map that I pulled from Atlas for both 336 and 338,
shows the properties for zone CMX2, as you'll see in a short bit.
The proposed use is a use permitted by special exception in the CMX2 zoning district.
And again, you can see that you have the IRMX property behind us
and then the ICMX property to the east of us. And then I apologize, the property to the west of us
is on CMX too. Some other photographs, again, from across the street, you can see the property
that's under construction to the west of us, the lot that's to the east of us, the abutting
properties to either side, and the condos and apartment buildings to the south of us.
This is the abutting property to the east of us, or to the west of us, I mean, that's on page
page. Mr. Orphanides, I think we know where the property is. Okay, that's great. I mean,
you showed where the property is several times. So real quickly, so again, these are uses that
are proposed uses allowed by special exception, granted by the zoning board,
and as indicated earlier, the criteria for the granting of a special exception
is that so long as a special exception will not cause the following specific detrimental impacts
in the neighborhood beyond that, which normally might be expected from the proposed use,
it's to be granted. You'll see from the letter that Northern Liberties issued today that they
support the granting of the special exception. So I don't think there's any doubt that the special
exception should be granted. They have requested certain provisos, which for a variety of reasons
we have an issue with. And I think that's what we're here to discuss today, whether there should
be, uh, provisos imposed upon, um, upon the special exception use. I've included in the
exhibit book, um, of both, uh, showing other, showing dog parks with residences located around
them in the immediate area of the subject property. That's at exhibit eight. And we also went through
and did a Google search of, uh, other dog daycares in the area in Philadelphia. We Googled Philadelphia
and dog daycares. Of the 30 we came up with, about 20, almost 25 percent of them, I think it's
seven, were granted relief by the zoning board. Of those, one, two, three, four, five of those
were granted special exception relief. Only one of those had any proviso, and that was for
commercial trash pickup. One of the variance cases, which is on the 1700 block of South Street,
was a variance that had no provisos. And then one variance, which was located at 90 Rochelle Avenue,
had a proviso for commercial trash pickup and a five-year temporary. You'll see in the letter
from Northern Liberties that one of the things they've requested is a one-year temporary. I
personally have never seen a one-year temporary granted for a special exception. The letter does
state that it's a variance, and this is not a variance case. I don't know, maybe Larry, I think
Larry Friedman may be on the call, but you'll see, again, if you go back to what we show in our
exhibit book and show this, you know, what the zoning approvals that we've included, we haven't
included them all. We didn't want it to be too massive, but gave you an example that the special
Exceptions did not have any provisors with them.
Granted.
granted and the the variance again for 90 rochelle
And the.
had it but it was and that was a variance case it was a five-year temporary with commercial trash
pickup um here's another one 4805 was just to give you examples and i can you know i can assure
you that if you went through and looked at the other ones that i list in the exhibit book that
those also did not have conditions associated with the special exceptions.
Again, I referenced the abutting properties to the south of us, 1147 North 4th Street,
having variances granted for the residential use thereof when it was owned industrial,
and then spoke about the variances that were granted for the properties to the east and west
of us, 310 and 330. And those were variants. It's not special exception cases. That's a property to
the east of us. The property to the west of us is 332 to 334 West Reward Avenue. I've included
exhibit 19, the deed for the property that shows the Strokeman's as the owner. I have also included
a copy of the lease for the property, which shows my client dog, Dave's LLC, as the tenant.
we have a tax clearance um for dog days and we also included a zero tax balance for the uh for
the subject properties uh there was a hearing notice that was posted at the property in
conformance with the zoning code showing today's hearing here's copies of the photographs of the
posting the application for special exception those posting photos were exhibit 22 the application
for special exception is that exhibit 23, the 14303, I was not present at either the community
group meetings. I was retained after the community group meetings. The 14303 notice was handled by
my client, but at tab 24, we include the notice that went out, the list of addresses, and then
the certificate of first-class mailing of the same. Back to the zoning code provisions. Again,
And I could have my client testify and adopt my statements.
But it's our position that this is, and you look at the floor plan, this is a small property.
It's the floor plan.
We have not a lot of square footage inside.
It's a little over 1,000 square feet.
The rear yard's 500 square feet.
and that per the zoning code provisions, there is nothing about this application and about my
client's proposed use that would cause congestion in the public streets or transportation systems
beyond that, which would normally be expected from the proposed use. No overcrowding of the land
beyond that, which normally might be expected from the proposed use. There's no change to the
physical structure or the rear yard. So there's no impairment of adequate supply of light and air
to the adjacent properties. There's obviously no burdening of water, sewer, school park, or other
public facilities, particularly not beyond which would normally be expected from the proposed use.
In terms of impairing or impermanently injuring the use of adjacent conforming properties, again,
the properties have been granted variances that surround us. In addition, I think it's
understandable that dog daycares will have dogs in them, at them. That's understood with this
being a special exception in CMX2. It's interesting that the zoning code actually allows them as a
matter of right in CMX1, but does not allow them as a matter of right in CMX2 or 2.5.
But dog daycares, dogs obviously bark. And so it's assumed that there will be some barking
associated um with a daycare a dog daycare animal services at a cmx2 zone property and there's
nothing here to suggest that the dogs that my client is going to have are going to be barking
any more than any other type of dogwood and again we're on the we're on gerard avenue which is a
very busy four-lane street so i think there's going to be a lot of other background noise
not including the current construction projects large construction projects that are happening
to either side of us. We don't feel that the proposed use is endangering, will endanger the
public health or safety by fire or other means beyond that, which might normally be expected
from a doggy daycare. And we don't believe that it's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of
the city beyond that, which might be expected from the proposed use of dog daycare. So in terms of
the provisos that were included in Northern Liberty's letter, we have no problems with the
owner's phone number and landlord's phone number being shared with the neighbors. In terms of
weekend hours, if you go through, we again, our Google search, we pulled the hours for the other
for the other establishments right off of Google. Some of them are closed on the weekends, but many
establishments right off of Google. Some of them are closed on the weekends, but many
of them are open. I've circled those 10 to 5, 8 to 5, 7 to 6, 8 to 6. You can see 10 to 6.
So I think it's clear that dog daycares can be open on the weekends. So we think that that's
not something that's unusual not to be expected from this use uh typically uh no extension of
hours we've expressed uh an agreement to be open from 6 6 30 7 o'clock in the morning till about
eight o'clock nine o'clock at night so that people can get home from work i know personally i use one
that's open to 6 30 and it's often hard for me to get even being in center city to get there in time
to pick my dogs up. So, but we feel that that's a reasonable time. Shouldn't incur on anybody's
evening hours. We do agree to the trash pickup once a week, but not on weekends. As far as no
noise escape premises, you know, I mean, CMX2, IRMX, CMX allows all kinds of uses, which I included
in my exhibit book. We're going to comply with the noise regulations that everybody else has to
comply with in the city of philadelphia so um to that extent you know we don't feel that that's
applicable and we should be held to any higher standard than any other business or homeowner
in the city of philadelphia in terms of the number of dogs permitted outside at a time of supervision
um says eight we'll always have somebody outside supervising the dogs outside in terms of the eight
we think that's a pretty low number the rear yard is indicated in the in the floor plan is over 500
square feet, 600 square feet, probably close to, but at eight dogs, I mean, you're talking about
each dog having 70 square feet of area. It's pretty luxurious to do that. We think something
in the vicinity of 20 or 25 dogs in the back is even 30. My client had mentioned he's spoken with
the owner of Groove Hound, which is one of the establishments we outlined in our exhibit book
that I mentioned and they typically have 25 or 30 um dogs um out in the back and in fact
in our in our photos um Groove Hounds is actually my client took a picture
we're not sure that the amount of dogs is enforceable anyway okay thank you but here's
a picture of Groove Hound and you can see it's surrounded by residents I can go in and count
dog. So if you want that, can I have my clients? Yes. Great. So first, Tim Karsten.
Tim, raise your hand. I'm about to speak. Hello. Hi. Could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter? My name is Timothy Karsten, T-I-M-O-T-H-Y-K-A-R-S-T-E-N. Do you swear
for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed and tim uh
this is david orphanetes uh did you hear the statements that i made to the board today
yes are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes and would you adopt them as your own
yes okay thank you and then the other is alex duller who prepared the plans and attended one
of the or both of the meetings one in person one remotely i think or both remotely uh do you think
we don't need for him to adopt your test money do we i don't think well he i mean i spoke to the
the plans and the square footage and the layout so maybe just real quick okay all right state
your name please and spell for the court reporter hello can you hear me yes state your name please
and spell for the court reporter alex dollar alex d as in david ull er right do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you i'm sorry
beg your pardon alex uh did you hear the statements i made to the board today yes i did
are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes they are would you adopt them as
your own yes i would thank you questions from the board no mr chairman questions or comments
from the virtual audience mr chair i have a hand raised by mr larry friedman i have allowed him to
Good afternoon, Mr. Friedman. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Larry, L-A-R-R-Y, Friedman, F-R-E-E-D, M-A-N.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Proceed.
Okay. I'm the zoning chair for Northern Lundquist.
Yeah. At the beginning of every one of our presentations, I state the refusal, what type of refusal it is, the difference between a special exception and so on and so forth.
The difference between a special exception and so on and so forth. For special exception, of course, I say that we don't really oppose these, but they're sent to us, so we're going to review it, and real life kind of enters into the situation.
I'm not going to sit there and say, here's the definition of special exception, therefore we can all go home.
Basically what we got and what we do in Northern Liberties is try to figure out a compromise.
That is how to make a TIMSS project, how to make a successful operation, at the same time protect any neighbors who happen to show up and raise concerns.
In this particular case, we have two families in the cigar factory that directly overlook the backyard there.
They are home because they work at home now since COVID.
They're used to whatever it is, the sounds of the city, and they know they're not living in Gladwin.
So we all are starting from a place of a reasonable space.
Um, the idea of, uh, this rear yard, uh, open to the unlimited amounts of dogs, depending on, on what they're proposing, uh, didn't seem to work for us.
Our job, and it was very difficult, was to try to figure out a compromise, uh, and the compromise was, uh, the amount of dogs.
um and even though you just said it might not be enforceable uh look we see a lot of special
assembly assembly restaurants come through because of our overlay we work things out we
compromise and uh we're able to have successful restaurants and neighbors that aren't driven crazy
by rear yard use and things like that so we're used to doing this type of thing um if we don't
do anything here and don't have any provisos then the neighbors uh are going to you know i mean yeah
we all understand dogs bark but you know there's there's a there's a line here um and you know
what we figured out at the meeting was and again we're happy when everybody's sort of unhappy
both sides because we know we're doing well um if we one of the neighbors was there and said if
I was going to take my dog someplace I would want them to be able to go out and we said
how long do you think you would be happy if they went out they said maybe 30 minutes so we we kind
of did the math you have eight dogs going out at any one time for a half hour and come back in
over an eight hour 12 hour period of time if they're talking about seven to seven they're out
several times throughout the day which is a lot better than if you go to work and you have a dog
walk or come to your house once or maybe twice. That would work perfectly. Tim would have a
successful business. Our neighbors would be protected. And that's our job. That's what we
do. We don't get overly technical. We're trying to figure something out that would work for both
sides. So we feel our provisos make total sense. We had two meetings. We really work hard. We have
a great committee we have neighbors everybody was there to compromise i know tim wasn't totally
happy at the end but this is what we do so i'm just that that's that's our whole reason to meet
or else there wouldn't be any reason to meet there you know our job is to figure out ways
to make things work in our neighborhood and we've been really successful at that over the years
okay thank you okay this is tanya sunken yep yep if i could make a request special
um we have mr o'neill who's on the phone if we could allow him to speak next because i'm sure
he's busy mr who brian o'neill so that's councilman o'neill for what would he be for gerard avenue
he has his hand raised sir yeah but i but i'm i i don't all right put him on i i i know he's
got a couple cases coming up but i don't i don't see draw to avenue well put put him on i'll talk
to him i'm happy to speak with the council old sir councilman
you're trying to allow him to speak at this time sir all right councilman
Unless he wants to be heard sooner.
It's kind of hard to...
Councilman?
You're having trouble getting them to speak for some reason.
yeah so for some reason i'm having problems too maybe it was a mistake okay all right let's let's
Yeah, for some reason I'm having problems too.
Maybe it was a mistake.
finish this because i i know he's not for gerard avenue um um anyone else in the virtual audience
for gerard avenue i see no one else no other hands planning commission thank you mr chairman and
members of the board david effecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
changed the commercial mixed use zoning at this location the applicant has shown that the proposed
animal services will have no more of an impact than such a use would be expected to have and so
the city planning commission recommends the board grant the special exception um hillary this special
exception do we we put a timeline on this you can mr chair yes just indicate an ending date
five years you can do whatever whatever you would like as long as there's an ending date
i would suggest july 1st of whatever year since we're in june right okay
okay um mi 2022 001 492 and mi 2022 001 531 336 west rod and 338 west rod i vote yes with a
special exception. Ending 7-1-27, what commercial trash pickup?
Carol Tenere, I'm a dog lover. My vote is no on both cases.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso on both cases.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso on both cases.
my vote is no
thank you you have your three votes okay thank you
MI 2022 002 766 5843 North 2nd street
no exhibits this is the first listing is there anyone in the audience for 5843 North 2nd street
i'm sorry mr dylan maloney has his mahoney has his hand raised i can allow him to speak
um thank you mr chair dylan mahoney uh d-i-l-l-o-n-m-a-h-o-n-e-y uh for the office
of councilwoman parker um interested party sorry do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes sir okay so no one's the owner this has not came forward yet
this is the first listing okay um uh no issues with the continuance if you need to continue the
case so this is going to be continued must be tried thank you sir number seven excuse me mr
chairman i know thomas holliman i will recuse myself thank you thomas mi 2022-001-569
6215 west rod avenue melanie lacy is the attorney
letter of support with provisos from hmc squared community association
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
good afternoon members of the board melanie lacey m-e-l-a-n-i-e-l-a-c-e-y i'm with
harrison harvey in bratsburg hi do you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth? I do. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property? Yes, I'm
accompanied by Adam Singer, who is a member of the owner entity, iHeat 6215 West Howard Avenue.
Thank you. Our vice chair has a few questions. Hi, Melanie. Do you agree to wave the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership, tax compliance, photos and or plans of the property, a copy of the refusal or
referral. And have you done this five days in advance of this hearing? Have you also met with
the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes, to all of the above. Okay, great. You may proceed and share
your screen, which is already up. Great. Thank you. As mentioned, I represent the owner of 6215
West Gerard Avenue, and the applicant is seeking a variance to allow four dwelling units in an
existing multifamily building. So the applicant, as mentioned, received a letter of support.
So the applicant, as mentioned, received a letter of support from the coordinating RCO, which is HMC Squared.
We met with them on April 14th, and it was largely supported, as you can see here, and we worked through all of the issues that they raised at that time as memorialized.
So the reason why we're here is that the zoning changed and the building has been a multifamily building for quite some time, but it was, the use has been discontinued.
It's been vacant for about 10 years now, and therefore we have to seek ZBA approval.
But as you can see here, the zoning is RSA 5.
We're seeking four dwelling units.
And historically, there have been approvals for both four units and five family.
So here we have a five-family approval back in 1989, as well as a four-family approval.
some other time that year. I'll keep this very brief. There are a number of surrounding
properties with mixed use and commercial uses, as you can see here. I've listed them out.
I have approximately six here for your reference. And with that being the case, we would argue
that the property fits the character of the surrounding area and would not pose any impacts
that the board would find concerning. So here are some photos of the property. I've identified the
subject unit. It's one in the middle. There are actually two entrances on the corner,
uh near the corner as you can see here um here's a close-up of the property and i can zoom in if
need be um the one on the right with the satellite dish is also a multi-unit uh a multi-family
building that is um 6213 it's currently occupied and i believe there are five units in that
building. The one on the left, or at least my left, is currently vacant, and it has an approval for
that 11 office spaces, as you saw earlier, but to my knowledge, it was last used as a multi-family
building as well. And here are some additional views of the street for your reference, so you
can see the multi the mixed uses um that are on the street there's a church that which i'm hovering
over here with the red door um this is also a commercial property and so it's a it's a mixture
of single family with commercial and mixed use as well as some industrial which you'll see in the
next this is um actually which i'm hovering over next to the white building on the corner um a
cement factory, I believe.
And this is a garage, which I'm hovering over below.
So zoning notices were posted in compliance
with the rules 21 days before the hearing.
And here are the floor plans.
I'm happy to walk through these if need be,
but essentially there are two units on each floor.
Yeah, I'm happy to revisit any of the exhibits if you'd like to look at any of them.
But in conclusion, I will just underscore the fact that the zoning history of the property, the surrounding area and the uses that are around it.
And I also will mention the fact that the blighting conditions of the property, the fact that it's been vacant and the current owner seeks to put it back in productive use, all support the variance that we are requesting.
And it is consistent with the character of the surrounding area and would enhance the area, probably encouraging additional redevelopment in this community.
So that summarizes my testimony. I'll have my client, Adam Singer, adopt my testimony, if you would raise your hand, Adam.
Hi, Mr. Singer, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
It's Adam Singer, A-D-A-M-S-I-N-G-E-R.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Great. Adam, did you hear the testimony that I provided to the board this afternoon?
Yes, I did.
and do you affirm that my presentation was accurate absolutely and do you adopt the testimony
And do you affirm that my presentation was accurate?
Absolutely.
And do you adopt?
as your own i do great thank you questions from the board no mrs no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see a miss elise young with her hand raised i will honor to speak at this time
okay hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter yes my name is
eloise young e-l-o-i-s-e y-o-u-n-g do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do proceed i wanted to just reiterate on behalf of the r the convening
RCO HMC Squared that the property owner, Adam Singer, agreed to the following terms via email
through his attorney, Melanie Lacey. One, that one unit will be wheelchair accessible. Two,
that each unit will have an owner supplied trash container in the rear yard. And three,
that rents for all units will be consistent with market for this area. And so I just wanted to
actually articulate those three provisos that were agreed to by the owner and based on those
we agreed to support this project thank you very much thank you for calling in thank you mr chair
this is hillary i just wanted to um briefly note the the proviso um that requests the wheelchair
accessible unit that is not something that we can add because it's a building code issue and there
are multiple and there are multiple types of accessibility or there are two types of accessible
units and if we put a proviso on the the yeah permit that it may they may not be able to
enforce it based on what the building code says um with the existing building so i just want to
clarify for the rco thank you okay thank you um may i chime in um so we uh we discussed the fact
that some of the provisos that you know she was requesting aren't necessarily enforceable by the
CBA. And, you know, my client has voluntarily agreed to comply with those wishes. So I'll just
thank you very much. Anyone else in the virtual audience? Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this
location. The zoning archive shows that licenses and inspections issued a permit in 1989 for five
dwelling units. The proposed four dwelling units is consistent with the previous use of this property.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the use of variance. Thank you. MI
2022-001-569-6215 West Gerrard Avenue. I vote yes. Proviso, trash stored in rear.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes with Proviso.
Thank you very much.
We're going to jump to Case 9, MI 2021-004-815.
wait a minute
it's hoffnagel street
hillary wanted which one do we want to do
um i think um well i don't know about if um councilman o'neill is on i'm not sure about his
um time constraints if he needs to speak now that is case number 10 busson avenue
we have one other case nine too he has case nine too nine nine is withdrawn was withdrawn okay good
okay you're right i'm sorry all right kate that's fine mi 2022 002 161 9800 bustleton avenue parcel
c sean ward is the uh perney letter opposition from council member brian o'neill no no rco letter
at this point. Mr. Ward will be coming back in as a panel, sir. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergen, Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant. Hi, could you spell
your name for the court reporter, please? Certainly. Sean, S-H-A-W-N, his name Ward,
His name Ward, W-A-R-D, 331 East Street Road, Trevos, P-A-19-053.
W-A-R-D 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA.
Do you swear a firm 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?
I represent both the owner of this property for this proceeding, as well as the applicant who is a tenant of space A.
Could you identify them?
Oh, sure.
Uh, let me pull that up. Uh, the owner of the property is all capital letters. G is in Jordan.
F is in Frank. M is in Mary. Biz, B-I-Z-L-L-C is the owner. And Rafat, R-A-F-A-T. Abulaban,
A-B-U-L-A-B-A-N, doing business as Legacy Furniture as the tenant.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Ward. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
Yes, to the above.
Thank you. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Ward. Welcome back.
Yeah. Free flight cancellations, but I made it back.
It was crazy. Tropical storm.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I submit to you my typical exhibit packet, which has been submitted to the board electronically.
The property is 9800 Bustle Avenue, counter number MI 2022-002161.
This was an application.
A1 is the Notice of Refusal, application for a permit for a retail furniture store in part of an existing building.
The retail sale of consumer goods is not permitted in the district.
Accordingly, the applicant seeks a variance today.
A-2 is the ZBA application of appeal. A-3 is the project information form. A-4 is proof of ownership. A-5 is proof of tax compliance. A-6 is the site location map, complements of Google. A-7 is the zoning site plan.
A-8 is the Tenant Space A plan.
A-9 are the photographs.
A-10 was originally a letter of support from Greater Busselton.
However, upon a recount, it switched from 10 in favor, 9 opposed, to 8 in support, 9 opposed.
I'll explain that.
A-11 is Councilman Brian O'Neill's letter.
I believe he's on the call.
I just did contact his office to discuss this, but I believe he is on the call.
A-12 is the relevant zoning history.
The pertinent is that in February of 2022, there was a permit pulled for wholesale distribution and storage in the warehouse.
But in March of 2021, there was a relocation of lot lines to create two lots from one.
Ergo, the lot C, it was originally parcel A and then subdivided into parcel B and C.
And we are here today dealing with parcel C. A13 is the zoning map. A14 is the aerial photograph.
Very quickly, I'll take you through the exhibits. This is the notice of refusal.
Again, proposed sale of retail, retail sale of consumer goods is not permitted in the I-2 zoning district.
So we filed our application for appeal.
That included the project information form, my transmittal letter to the board, a copy of the applicant's, the owner's deed.
Moving right along.
This is the deed of subdivision.
uh creating uh you know the various parcels as you can see parcel b and c were created
parcel b have now having an address at 1719 fulmer street and parcel c being 9800 plus avenue
freezing through these documents i want to waste the board's time i know you had a long afternoon
here is the Google aerial parcel map or location map. As you can see, this property is bounded by
Busselton Avenue. It is diagonally across the street from the 7th District Police Station and
Firehouse at Bowler. And then there is another entrance.
at Bowler, and then there is another entrance or exit at Lott Avenue.
With regard to the subject parcel, as you can see, it is a large industrial warehouse type facility.
Space A is approximately 12,300 square feet located at the very front facing Busselton Avenue.
It is the former office space for the prior owner.
Here is an aerial photograph. Again, you can see the 7th District Police Station here on
the corner of Busselton and Balwer. And this is outlined in red is the subject portion of the
property, which we're seeking a variance for for the retail use. The remainder of the property
will remain consistent with I2 zoning and the warehouse distribution use. We have our poster
on the fence out front. Another aerial shot from Google showing the subject portion of the property.
This would be a Google street view showing the front of the parcel.
Directly across the street is two commercial strip centers. You got the smaller one to the left in
the photo and the larger one to the right of the photo. Over here towards the left, as you can see,
this two-story building that is where the police station is coincidentally that's where councilman
o'neill's office is along with the fire department and the survey district
this is just a view of bustleton avenue facing north again the seventh district police building
facing south again you'll see the you know the commercial uses to the left
These are the aforementioned zoning permits for the relocation of the lot lines.
And then again, the wholesale distribution and storage warehouse for GFMBIZ LLC,
which is owned by Letty Greenfield. Here is the zoning map. I thought this was
important for the board's view because obviously, even though there's a zone I-2 industrial,
it is surrounded pretty much by CA1 or CMX commercial. So it's relatively a commercial
corridor, not an industrial corridor. So again, we have the aerial photograph showing the pictures.
So just for the board's edification, this building was separated from this lot here.
So this is the new Parcel B, which, again, has a Fulmer Street address, which is located right here by my my hand cursor.
And then Parcel C is the existing 98 at 9800 Busselton Avenue industrial site.
OK, so with regard to the application itself, go back up to my comments.
here with me okay all right so again uh the applicant is legacy furniture uh they currently
operate at 432 west algania avenue um i've handled their zoning for that site and they've been there
for quite a few years now operating a quality retail furniture store and then again the gfm
Bizz, LLC, is the owner since August 8th of 2021.
Again, it's located at Busselton Avenue across from the 7th District in the firehouse.
It is, in fact, zoned I-2.
However, it is adjacent to CMX-2 and CA-1 commercial.
Space A is the subject.
We're looking at this vacant tenant space, 12,300 square feet for the retail sale of
furniture.
Space B is Lenny Greenfield's company, Greenfield Manufacturing.
They're a manufacturer of pipe hangers and plumbing specialties, I believe, for over 70 years.
And again, as you can see, the vast majority of the site, 600,000 square feet, is used by Greenfield Manufacturing.
There is one other vacant tenant space at 28,000 square feet, plus or minus, that I'm referring to as Space C.
Again, their other location is 432 West Allegheny Avenue in Philadelphia.
The days and hours will be Monday to Friday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Saturday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Sunday, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Pursuant to the lease agreement, there are 20 off-street parking spaces assigned for the space, which if need be, I can take you back to the aerial photo.
It shows the parking right out front.
And obviously, as always, we would provide commercial trash and recycling, and it would be stored in an enclosed area.
And it would be stored in an enclosed area with regard to this is the councilman's letter, which was submitted or dated June 6th, opposing the grant of the variance.
With regard to...
And then the Busselton Civic Summary. I know the chair said you didn't have it, but I do have a copy.
I believe it was submitted to the board, but I can make sure that Hillary gets a copy of it for the board's file, as well as RCOZBA at phila.gov.
Originally, it was 10 in support, 9 opposed.
And then, you know, somebody requested a revote.
I did speak to Jack O'Hara, who's a good man.
Spoke to him at length the other evening.
And upon recount, they discovered that I believe the realtor or broker may have voted in favor of it, as did Lenny Greenfield, who was the owner of the property.
And according to their bylaws, they don't allow people with conflicts of interest, their votes to be counted.
So it was a very close vote either way, 10 to 9 originally, 8 to 9 upon recount.
So, again, I would just submit that given the location of the property on Busselton Avenue,
let me go back to the bottom here, given the location of the property on Busselton Avenue,
it is, and I'm sure most of the board is aware, it is a viable commercial corridor,
uh despite the fact that this building is owned i2 industrial and uh with that uh if the board
wishes i could have uh rafat uh raise his hand be sworn in he can verify and adopt my representations
why don't you do that showing okay rafat if you can raise your hand if you're uh if you're hearing
If not, Mr. Chairman, as an officer, I would ask the board to stipulate that.
That's fine.
Questions from the board.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Counselor, can you show a site plan of access and egress on the site?
Yeah, Tom.
On Busselton Avenue.
Yep, I got it.
All right, Tom.
So here you have, I'll blow it up.
So on Busselton Avenue, Tom, you have a lighted intersection at Boulder by the police station.
And there's an entry right here.
And then here, again, is the 20 spaces, including the two handicaps, which should be located right in front of the store.
And then there is another entry exit at the Lot Avenue.
I believe that may be signalized as well.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I know for a fact that Bowler Street is definitely a signalized intersection.
So the idea would be, you know, they would come in, turn left, park in front of the store,
and they can either exit through lot avenue or the boulder uh the boulder street uh curb cuts
and you and you say bustling avenue is a commercial corridor uh i've been living in
northeast philly just about all my life until i moved uh you know after i got married and i'm
well familiar with bustling avenue uh over to the right if i go back to this photo
you have shopping centers across the street you have another shopping center
um to the right over here um and and you know it and then here's another shopping center here so
it's it's basically a commercial retail corridor uh with limited industrial although you know this
this is in fact zone industrial so i i i concede that i don't know what the plans are uh with the
subdivided lot that be it's you know it's quite frankly yes size of a lot with
access from Fulmer Street I don't see any plans for that on Atlas in the system
yet but I do not represent that property I am only here today with
regard to 9800 puzzle so in your opinion the furniture store fits in with buses
than having the commercials card that that is my opinion and that's what i submit thank you
thank you any other questions from the board no mr chair questions or comments
questions or comments from the virtual audience
sir mr brian o'neill had his hand raised i have allowed him
Sir, Mr. Brian O'Neill had his hand raised.
I have allowed him to speak.
Councilman, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Councilman Brian O'Neill, O-apostrophe-N-E-I-L-L, representing the 10th District, which includes this property.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Okay. I both agree with and support the opposition of the local RCO, the Greater Busselton Civic Association.
This property is, it is unique. It is a low slung building. It's attractive.
uh it it it is quiet uh operating there for a long time uh recently changed hands in the last
few years to the current owner mr greenfield uh i understand he's trying to maximize but he has
an office attached to the to the uh manufacturing distribution part of the building uh there's a
huge, very large shopping center just north. The strip centers across the street are smaller
storefronts in those strip centers. They've been there probably almost as long as this
industrial building. They're often in that large shopping center and many other shopping centers
that are true shopping centers on Busselton Avenue,
Grand Avenue, which is, this is just north of Grand Avenue.
Would another office use be okay in there?
Would a doctor's office or professional offices?
You know, that may very well be because of the business.
The one thing I'm sure of,
And I don't know how long Mr. Ward lived in Northeast Philadelphia, but I still do.
And I've represented this area for 43 years.
This is out of character with the area and with this property.
And if Mr. Greenfield, the owner, wants to find something compatible,
I'm sure the the the Civic Association and myself would be very willing to sit down and listen to them.
But but we don't need another furniture store where we have to take out an office for it.
And there are often, you know, the 12000 square feet here, there's often vacancies that come up all over the area.
And my district's very large. This kind of is in the center of it. And I have tons of shopping centers. And again, that's what they're there for, not to have an industrial property be converted in this way to a retail.
If it were something that was quieter, it didn't have as much traffic, didn't become a big store in front of a warehouse.
Yes, maybe that would be maybe that would be OK.
But this certainly is not. And I ask the board to deny the application.
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond briefly.
How about if I get the RCO one first?
See if I get the RCOs there,
then you can respond to both at the same time.
Is that okay?
Yeah, I don't think they're here, but.
Is there anyone for the RCO here?
Mr. Chair, I see
there's two people with the hand raised.
Jack Henley with the sand raised.
All right.
Bring Jack one first.
Which one?
Jack Henley or?
Yeah, please, please.
Mr. Halei, please unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in, sir.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Is he there, Jason?
He's there, but he's still muted.
Well, I see, I do see Jack O'Hara, who's the president of Greater Busselton.
Why don't we get Jack O'Hara on then?
His hand raised.
Okay, I understand.
Mr. O'Hara has been allowed to speak.
Okay, Mr. O'Hara, state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter.
yes uh jack o'hara o apostrophe h-a-r-a you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and
Yes, Jack O'Hara, O apostrophe H-A-R-A.
nothing but the truth i do proceed sorry jack i didn't know you were i didn't know you were on
the call but i was sorry i didn't i didn't mean to i didn't mean to uh you know cut you out
not a problem uh you know the the you saw my letter it was a close vote
And, you know, after the presentation, we heard, I heard a lot of feedback from the community who was opposed to that request with the fear that we were setting a precedence for this type of conversion.
And the community's opinion seems to be that they do not wish that to occur.
Thank you.
thank you for calling in too certainly sean do you want to respond uh yeah mr chairman uh you know
given the site it's on bustle avenue it is a it it is a commercial district um you know despite
the fact that it's owned uh you know industrial um you know and i know what these folks are going
through whether it be bustleton or somerton uh you know with that ups or uh whatever it is that
that facility that's going in at the old bud plant slash, uh, Island green, uh, that property
is actually zoned, uh, I, you know, industrial and, um, and, and, and they have, they have a
fight on their hands for that, but, um, you know, God forbid something like that was on bustle
matter. Um, so, um, I, you know, in, in, in the alternative, uh, we would ask the board to grant
a five-year temp or probationary, uh, variance, uh, given the fact that the first terminal lease
is five years with an option to renew and uh you know we see how it goes but uh that that that is
all we have for the board today and we you know we understand you know the concerns of the councilman
certainly who i you know i've worked i worked on his first campaign brian remember that and uh um
and uh you know and you know uh bustleton is a uh it's a very good community group and they they do
a very very good job uh in you know monitoring development in their neighborhoods so thank you
sean uh planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning the first name ron r-o-n last name
bednar b-e-d-n-a-r do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do proceed comprehensive plan recommends no change to the medium industrial zoning for this
location. The applicant has failed to show a hardship exists that would prevent the property
from being continually used for industrial. The applicant has already received permits for
industrial-related activities, including warehouse and distribution. The addition of retail sales
of commercial goods is not strictly necessary to enable the applicant to make a viable use
of the property. Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the
board deny the variance. Thank you. MI 2022-002-161-9800, Busselton Avenue. I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is no.
thank you chair as you fell off a little bit there this is the reporter i'm sorry i did not
hear that vote i know we're trying to get him back on john ish try to get back on
no okay thank you yes yes we'll hear you better now thanks okay thank you
MI 2022-001-816-6808-Lincoln-Drive.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
I understand we do have a letter from the RCO.
After this case, we're going to take a quick break,
and then we have a short list we'll go through for the 330.
What number is that, Mr. Chair?
the one i'm on now is uh eight okay gotcha mr knockamson uh yes uh good afternoon mr chair
members of the board alan office of knockinson you've already been sworn could you identify
your client and the relationship to the property uh yes alan and elissa cherny the owners of the
property okay um our vice chair has a few questions and mr nockamson do you agree to
Hi, Mr. Nockamson. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, in all respects, we actually have a letter of support.
Okay, great. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Again, my name is Alan Ockerson, PC. Along with me, I believe online is Alan Charney.
At the conclusion of my presentation, he'll adopt my testimony, and then we can take any
questions from the board. This is a pretty straightforward project. These are homeowners.
These are not developers. They live at 6808 Lincoln Drive, and all they're trying to do is
add on to their garage structure that's at the rear of their property to essentially create an
in-law suite where Jane Journey will be living because they have a growing family in Philadelphia
and they want to remain at the property in Mount Airy area. So during my presentation, we'll go
over the notice of refusal, the correspondence from West Mount Airy Neighbors, Inc., which is
the coordinating RCO for this matter. Again, the neighborhood unanimously supported this project
and that's why we have a letter of support from this group uh we do have a revised plans so we
submitted uh to counts at cba's council hillary emerson a zoning board of adjustment revised
proviso form which my understanding she did review uh if this board should grant our uh
zoning variance request we ask that they grant it with proviso including that additional page
of revised plans we also have letters to support from nearby neighbors so the property owners
to the left of us to the right of us and behind us all who would be directly impacted by the
renovation of the garage structure and the addition support this project we have letters
to support from that maps of the area photographs of the property surrounding the area our plans
and drawings, our meeting notice showing that we did meet with the community, our application
for appeal, our deed to the property showing attorneys to own the property, and our certificate
of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing with respect to real estate taxes.
Notice of refusal, this is an RSD3 property. Currently, there's a single family structure
in the front, and you'll see from the pictures, there's a garage structure in the rear. All we're
to do is renovate the garage structure uh to create again essentially an in-law suite it's
not a massive structure by any means but because of the fact that we are creating an in-law suite
we do have some technical refusals here uh first uh the garage structure uh shall not exceed uh
well here's the accessory structure for residential use shall not exceed 130 square feet and shall not
see 15 feet in height, whereas the plan is proposed 558 square feet and 23 feet in height.
We actually met with the community on multiple occasions. We received their support by agreeing
to reduce slightly the size and the height of the structure. Now our structure is going to be 509
square feet building width, excuse me, building footprint, and the height is going to be 18 feet,
eight and a half feet uh the second refusal is the accessory dwelling unit are not permitted in
rsd3 zoning district again all we're trying to do is create an accessory building as an in-law suite
on this pretty massively sized property uh which is over seven thousand one hundred nine square
feet of lot size uh third refusal uh the floor area of an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed
800 feet, whereas 1116 square feet is proposed. Again, because we're reducing the size of the
building structure footprint, we're reducing the size of the overall building size,
and now the building size is 1,018 square feet. So we're going closer to the code requirements
and getting community support in the process. And then the fourth refusal has to do with the
side yard uh 10 feet um minimum of 10 feet is required whereas proposed side yard is one feet
seven uh 1.7 feet again this is an existing uh building um where this is happening but we'll show
you that the neighboring property which actually supports us as well has it worse in terms of not
conforming with code um our letter of support from the west valley area uh neighbors you can
see unanimously supported it eight to zero and it's because of the changes we made to the project and
and it's because of the changes we made to the to the project and those changes are reflected
in the zoning board of adjustment revised proviso plans and in the one page form z1 as well which
is stamped player support from nearby neighbors 426 carpenter lane 6810 lincoln drive and 68 uh
what's called 06 Lincoln Drive, all are in support of this project, all directly adjacent to our
property, all would be directly impacted by the proposals, all in support of this project.
And then here's just a zoning map of the area. Again, we're on Lincoln Drive. We intersect
with Carpenter, and we also have McCollum, and you can see here Westview as well. But again,
Again, neighbor to the left, or to the right, to the left, and, you know, if they want to intersect us at 426 Carpenter or our own support, Google Maps perspective, and then photographs of the property.
Again, the quintessential Mount Airy house, you know, stone facades, very pretty, detached, massive lot.
This is the garage structure that which we hope to innovate and create as an in-law suite.
And you can see here, this is actually the building structure.
This is the shed that's causing the side yard exception.
And that's a pre-existing structure right there.
Existing view from the driveway,
proposed view from the driveway, as you can see,
we're just expanding out just a tiny bit,
de minimis to create an in-law suite. Existing view from the sidewalk, proposed view of the
sidewalk. And then you can see the, you know, from aerial, this is our property, but here's
the building structure that's on 426 Carpenter. They would also run afoul of that side yard
requirement as well. Then Lincoln Drive from a different angle. Again, this is the building
structure we're talking about that would run a foul of the side driver requirements
and then our plans and drawings just a rendering again simply two-story structure
uh light and air hidden in the back really not causing any issue with anyone
different view from the south neighbor view from the west neighbor uh our site plan
uh the materials i have the architect online if you want we can have uh the architect also
discuss the materials that we're using but it's just stone wood things that you would think of
in mount area section of Philadelphia and then it's just a very very simple floor plan you walk
in you have an open floor plan living room dining room kitchen half bath you go up a flight of steps
it's just a master suite it's a one bedroom one and a half bath uh unit and then we met with the
community on multiple occasions first time may 4th second time was within the past week uh where we
showed our revised drawings where they unanimously supported it 34 neighbors were notified of this
community meeting name the addresses that were notified proof of mailing
application for appeal that the attorneys followed with the zoning board of adjustment
including the notice of refusal and the project information form
deeds of the property showing that the attorneys are the owners of the property
and then a certificate of tax funds that being said i'm going to stop sharing my screen
i'm going to have uh mr cherny virtually raise his hand so he can get that my testimony
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
hi it's alissa cherny actually e-l-y-s-s-i last name cherny c-h-e-r-n-e-y
do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes proceed mrs cherny you heard everything i stated today
yes and is it true and correct correct and do you adopt it as your own testimony
yes all right thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience so mr charles richardson has his hand raised i
have allowed him to speak hi mr richardson you've already been sworn so you can testify
You can testify.
Councilwoman has no objections.
Councilwoman has no objections to granting the variance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
See Northern House, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
proposals to encourage accessory dwelling uses in the upper northwest. The dimensional variances
are related to the size and location of the existing structure. Therefore,
City Planning Commission recommends that the board approve the use variance. Thank you. MI
Stamped June 8, 2022.
Carol Tennery, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case hasn't been heard from the 2 o'clock list?
okay we're going to take a five minute break and then we'll come and do the 3 30 list we only have
a few cases okay right good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing the 3 30
scheduled meetings for the zoning board with me is carol tenere our vice chair
Present
Ismail Shahid, our board secretary
Present
Thomas Holliman, our board member
Present, Mr. Chair
James Snell, our board member
Present, Mr. Chairman
Also here is our executive director, Tanya Sunkit
And our board attorney, Hillary Emerson
Here is our virtual format
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded
By participating, acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
to an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property
in question. And lastly, the question answer box is not for testifying or comments. Any comments
should be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our executive director. So let's look at the
continuances that we have for this afternoon's meeting. Number four, MI 2021-002-585-250
Byberry Road, Continuance, Attorney Moving Party. Number five, MI 2021-005-416-3847
germantown avenue and number six is a withdrawal mi 2021-005-410-934-44 east
pashunk avenue is there anyone in the virtual audience has any comments relative to those three
cases. I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair. We're going to go to the regular list. MI 2021-005-414-100599,
Sandy Meyer Lane. Sean Ward is the attorney. No letter from the RCO at this point. Letter of
Non-opposition from Councilman O'Neill.
When Mr. Ward has been promoted to panelists, excuse me.
Hi, Mr. Ward, you've already been sworn in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
Sean Ward on behalf of Sarah Valley Construction applicant
and owner of the property at 10-059-St. Myer Lane.
Thank you. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
I missed your award.
Hi, Mr. Board. Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and share your screen.
Awesome. Mr. Chairman, I will try and be very brief on this. As I've indicated, I represent
Sarah Valley Construction. They are the owners, operators, and occupiers of, in addition,
not just 10059 Sandmeyer Lane, but the adjoining properties. This is located in Sandmeyer Lane
Industrial Park in the far northeast section of the city. We filed an application at A1 as the
notice of refusal. The application was for the documentation of an existing use for vehicle
repair and fuel dispensing stations, accessory to an existing contractor's equipment and material
storage yard and office. The application was refused because vehicle fueling stations,
commercial vehicle repair, and personal vehicle repair is prohibited in the far northeast overlay
zoning district. Accordingly, we see use variances today for various reasons. A2 is the ZBA
application of appeal. A3 is the project information form. A4 is proof of ownership.
A5 is proof of tax clearance. A6 is a site location map. A7 is a zoning site plan. A8 are
photographs. A9 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing. A10 is a RCO letter
from Southern Pacific in apparent opposition to this application. A11 is the district council
person's letter. A-12 relevant zoning and permit history. I would point out that
in 1995, after purchasing the property, Sarah Valley contractors obtained a zoning permit
for a relocation of lot lines to create one lot from two lots for use as contractor storage with
accessory office and parking. Thereafter, in 2005, an operations permit was issued by the
Philadelphia, and approved by the state EPA for three underground storage tanks and dispensers.
A13 is the zoning map. A14 is the aerial photograph. So without further delay,
we have the notice of refusal. Again, the three refusals were cited.
we have our application of appeal our project information form a copy of the deed the property
was purchased from the philadelphia authority for industrial development it is owned industrial
and used for industrial purposes we also have the tax clearance proof of tax clearance from
the revenue department indicating that taxes through 2022 are paid a google map just shows
you quickly where the property is located. It's off of Redline Road. Sandmeyer Lane comes in,
and we are in this corner around the bend of Sandmeyer Lane. The Cerro Valley family owns
one, two, three parcels in this corner. Again, there was a lot line relocation,
which consolidated 10059 and 10057. Here is another zoning site map. I outlined in red
the approximate location of the fuel dispensing pumps. It does depict the large garage that is
used for the storage and maintenance of construction equipment. This would be the
Google aerial photo. Again, on the bend of Sandmeyer Lane, you can see Sour Valley
construction has been here. They have their warehouse, garage, offices, accessory parking
for their employees, and their yard all on the site. This photo depicts in the red encircled
area, the location of the pumps. A Google measurement would indicate that these pumps
are at least 285 feet from the property line to the adjoining residential district, so
to the adjoining residential district. So they are far and not proximate to the residential uses.
they are far and not proximal.
Copy of our zoning notice posted on the fence. This is a shot from the front entrance,
the front of the building. This photo depicts the offices are to the left and in the garage areas to
the right. Again, a further photograph of the existing garages. You may recognize Sur Valley's
trucks. They have that distinctive brown and white color tones. Here's a couple pictures of
the inside of the garage. As you can see, meticulous. You know, they work on their own
equipment commercial retail repair facility limited to work and storage and work on their
own vehicles and storage of their own repair pieces and equipment here's another you know
road construction equipment piece here you have a photograph of some dispenser pumps
two of which are diesel, one of which is gasoline.
Here's two more.
Just to back up, there is a fire suppression system installed.
It's been there since they were installed back in 2005.
And again, here is another photograph.
You can see in the distance some residential properties.
Again, the closest being 285 feet in a direct line.
Here is a copy of the RCO meeting notice that was sent out to the neighbors.
It included a copy of the refusal.
It included a copy from the CBA appeals calendar as to the date, time, and location of the hearing.
Also include a copy of the affected addresses.
Our certificate of bulk mailing that was mailed on April 21st in time for the meeting.
Here is the 1995 permit for contractor storage offices.
And then again, in 1995, they did a second floor mezzanine for the offices.
Here is the Certificate of Occupancy issued back in 1995 for the business offices for the contractors' storage.
And then most specifically, this is the operations permit issued in 2005.
And you can see it's for the installation of three underground storage tanks, USTs, and dispensers, and there are three tanks, 12,000 gallons each.
Part of that permit included a site plan showing the aforementioned location of the dispenser units, which I highlighted in yellow, as well as the gas tanks.
For reference purposes, you'd be coming in from the bend of Sandmeyer Lane from the bottom right here and then turning into where the pumps are located.
We also have the DEP approval letter.
Again, here is the zoning map showing that it's located in the industrial district.
The three red dots signifying the three properties owned by Sarah Valley.
through their, you know, entities. We do acknowledge that it's adjacent to a residential
housing development. But again, it's been there operating since 1995. And specifically, the pumps
and underground storage tanks have been operating there since 2005. So for the last 17 years,
they have been operating the repair maintenance of their own vehicles and the fueling of their
own vehicles. Not to belabor the point, I would just point out that the Foreign Office overlay
was first adopted in 2015, which prohibited vehicle repair maintenance and fueling stations
in I-2. Thereafter was amended in June of 2021 that where those uses, if permitted by special
exception, would require a variance. So the vehicle repair and fueling stations are permitted.
I would submit that they're permitted accessory uses pursuant to the old code, but the FNE overlay
pursuant to the old code. But the FNE overlay requires that we get variances.
So with regard to the fueling station, it's limited to company vehicles only.
There is no retail sales. It was installed by a duly issued operations permit in 2005.
They've been operating there for 17 years without incident, using the tanks, the dispensing,
and the vehicle repair. It does include three underground fuel tanks, five fuel pumps. It's
located near the gated entrance of St. Meyer Lane. It's 285 feet from the nearest residential
property line and actually 315 feet from the nearest residential dwelling if you go to the
wall of the dwelling. And with regard to the vehicle repair, it's limited to company-owned
vehicles only. There's no retail vehicle repair here. So there is a 10,000 plus or minus square
foot maintenance and storage garage, which is used to do the repairs on their construction
equipment and vehicles and their fleet trucks. Now, with regard to the grant of the variance,
obviously, we're here for a variance request. So we could proceed under a standard variance request,
which the board's familiar with. But I would also point out there's two other doctrines. You've got
the variance by estoppel doctrine, where the evidence shows that after a long period, which
the city knew or should have known about a violation and failed to enforce the law,
Sower Valley acted in good faith and innocently relied on the validity of the use due to the
permit that was issued in 2005. Sower Valley also made substantial expenditures in reliance
upon a belief that the use was permitted. Denial of the variance would obviously impose an
unnecessary hardship. And then also with the vested rights doctrine, under that doctrine,
we have to show that due diligence was used in attempting to comply with the law. Obviously,
we did. Back in 2005, the far northeast overlay did not exist. These uses would have been
permitted as accessory uses to the contractor storage. They used good faith throughout the
proceedings. They did expend substantial funds, which at this point would be unrecoverable,
and the expiration without appeal of the period during which any appeal could have been taken
from the issuance of the permit, and that the insufficiency of the evidence to prove that the
individual property rights or public health, safety, or welfare would be adversely affected
by the use permit. So Councilman O'Neill, who was at the earlier hearings, I don't know if he's on
this one, has no objection to the grant of the variance. I think he fully understands that this
predates the foreign northeast overlay. He's well aware of the Sur Valley Company and that they've
been operating there since 1995. However, the Summer and Civic Association, in a letter penned
by their chairman does indicate that they're opposed to it.
However, they do acknowledge that five fuel pumps
with associated tanks on the property
are used by the applicant accessory to the storage yard.
And to fuel its vehicles, the property also
includes the building with garages, et cetera, et cetera.
If the board really wants me to go into further detail,
I can, but I think the board at this point gets the nature of the application and that
these uses were instituted legally back in the day, but according to the new overlay and a new
inspector that went out, discovered that there was no zoning permit for the repair or fuel
dispensing. So with that, I do have Andrew DiGiovanni on the call. Andrew, if you could
raise your hand and he'd be permitted to speak. He can verify and adopt. Andrew, could you state
your name, please, and spelled for the court stenographer? Yes, sir. Andrew Bongiovanni. That's
A-N-D-R-E-W, B as in boy, O-N-G-I-O, B as in Victor, A-N-I.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Andrew, you are in-house counsel for South Valley Contractors, correct?
And you are well familiar with this application as I have worked with you day in and day out
with the filing, the appeal, et cetera?
and you attended the Somerton Civic Association meeting with me as well?
And you attended the Somerton Civic Association meeting with me as well?
I did.
And you've heard my representations to the board?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And you adopt them as your own testimony?
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have Councilman Brian O'Neill with his hand raised.
I will allow him to speak at this time.
Mr. O'Neill?
Councilman, you've already been sworn in.
You can testify.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I totally support this application.
I believe it is legal.
It was it preexisted, it preexisted or preceded existed prior to the my overlay.
And if this were coming up for a variance as it is, but if if it were legitimately coming up, because I think it's it's not necessary, I would fully support it.
So I can't say enough about Cerevalli company.
They do everything first class.
They're a total union company doing major public and private works.
And I'm just glad to have them in the city and also in my district.
Can't speak any more highly of them.
And they follow all the rules.
And, you know, everything they do is first rate.
And I'm glad to support it.
And with with if it needed legislation, I would introduce that.
But I think I think we're good. Thank you.
We appreciate your time. Any any other comments?
Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
No, no further hands, Mr. Chair. OK, Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. Property is indicated for industrial use on the city plan.
the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or
conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used conformity with the code.
The proposed use is expressly prohibited in the adopted far northeast district overlay. Therefore,
we recommend the quest for variance not be granted. Thank you. MI 2021-005-414-10-0599,
Sandy Meyer Lane, I vote yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
okay all right have a good day good mi 2021 002 916 1113 hedgegrove lane john and mercy
amati listed as the owners pro se no exhibits second listing
see no hands sir mi 2021-002-916-1113 hedge grow lane i vote to dismiss
harold tenary dismiss thomas holloman dismiss
James Snell dismissed
okay here we go so
MI 2021
003 344
Stanwood Street
Douglas and Margaret
owners pro se
for the erection of a rear deck
at the first rural level of an existing single family dwelling, size and location as shown in
the application plans. Two use refusals. Decks are prohibited in the required side yard, whereas
plans propose a deck that encroaches in the required side yard, therefore prohibited in the
RSA 3 zoning district. Two, whereas the proposed deck is not constructed with vertical support
elements with minimum distance of 18 inches from all lot lines, therefore prohibited in the RSA 3
district. Letter of support from Fox Chase homeowners, letter of non-opposition from
Councilman Brian O'Neill. Mr. Beyer has promoted to panelists, sir. Hi, Mr. Beyer, could you state
Hi, Mr. Beyer, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
your name and spell for the court reporter.
Mr. Beyer, can you unmute yourself and put on your video, please, as your presentation sign?
Okay, is that better?
We hear you. Could you state your name and spell?
Yeah, my name is Thomas Beyer.
spell your name for the please spell it for the courts to knock it yeah d-o-u-g-l-a-s
last name is byer b-y-e-r right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do our vice chair has a few questions for you i'm sorry i hate to interrupt
carol mr byer please turn on your video at this time how do you turn the video on hit your camera
look at the bottom of the screen beside the microphone you see a camera got it there we go
thank you sir thank you very much hi mr byer have you emailed the exhibit packet with the
required documents consisting of proof of ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of
the refusal or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO
and do you have a letter?
Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed and share your screen
which is already up.
Thank you.
Yes, my wife and I are looking to add a deck
to the rear of the house.
As most of the people in the neighborhood
that have decks have broken out the back wall
to have access to the deck.
We just installed recently
energy efficient doors on in the entire house there's three of them living room dining room
living room kitchen and basement um we would like to use the rear door out off the kitchen
that would go out to a small walkway i think it's three and a half feet wide um out to the deck
um that's number one and number two on the uh refusal is uh actually a mistake the uh l and i
i have a letter or an email copy of an email from them from the uh l and i saying that it was a
mistake so i can i have i have that on this i can bring that up on the screen also um that's
pretty much it um we we really don't want to put another hole in the back of the wall
excuse me sir do you have pictures i'm sorry you have pictures yes yes i have pictures
one he shows the pictures and if you have like drawings what you're going to do too
or is this already done did you already do it all right we'll start with number
there's the letter of from the homeowner association
there's a picture of the house our house
um we want to come out that the middle door there's one in the front one in the middle
and one in the basement we want to come out the middle door out to the deck behind the house
um we already have plans
there's the plans there's one page
the first the first one says alley it's uh that's the driveway that's that's existing
the second one is the i think it's the
that's the one with the deck that's the first floor
uh excuse me the deck has not been built no it has not no thank you
um so we want to excuse me it's a deck has not been built why can't you build it according to
the code well we again we don't want to knock a hole in the back wall and since we've already
had energy efficient doors put in uh and it would be convenient just to go out the door and out the
side and down a walkway to the deck.
I don't get the relationship with the energy efficient doors.
This is Margaret Breyer. We're interested in doing this because
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
So if your wife wants to testify, I just have to swear right now.
Okay. So why don't you just state your name,
and spell it for the court stenographer
and I'll swear again.
Margaret Byer, M-A-R-G-A-R-E-T
capital B-Y-E-R.
Right.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
We don't want to break through the wall because we have a huge window that's actually we'd have to take out at great expense and then make a bigger hole in the wall.
So we're trying to eliminate doing that by just going out the back door, making a small walkway and go onto the patio.
The back window that we have put in our house previously is five feet by five feet, and what we're doing is overlooking Pennypack Park, our home backs into Pennypack Park, and we would like to be able to enjoy the park that we have access to.
all right if i excuse me if i understand correctly
decks are not allowed inside yards so you'll be using your side yard
technically if you look at the picture of the house the side yard it's it's just a walkway
we want and you see where the steps are we want to come out the back door have a small walkway
over the steps that are already there
on to the deck above the
garage and the back door.
So we're not
technically I know what you're saying
but there is no real
backyard. We just want to
expand
over the steps.
Excuse me.
But that back door is your exit.
We have another exit.
If you look further down
there's another exit.
but you should but you should have two exits i didn't know our architects felt that this was
appropriate so yeah but you have an exit in the front too right okay okay so so let let me ask
you one question um hillary do we need an updated tax balance document too
no that's no that's that's fine i just checked that because one had been
okay good it's fine thank you all right so what what you're saying is you want to build out that
back door with a walkway that'll take you to the deck and the real reason you're doing it like that
is because you don't want to take that new window out that you put in okay all right questions from
the board nodded off no no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands mr chair planning commission uh ron benton our city planning
uh the property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given the physical
circumstances of the site and surrounding neighborhood context we recommend the
request of variance for granted. Thank you. MI 2021-003-344-1217 Stanwood Street. I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Howell, my vote is no. James Snow, my vote is yes.
So you have your votes. You're okay. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience
from the 3.30 list whose case has not been heard? I see. No hands, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everybody.
Thank you. Good day, a lot of work, and thanks everybody for their help, and
thank you for running everything today, Jason. Appreciate it. No problem, Captain. All right,
Have a good night, everyone.
Good job, Jason.
Thank you, Jill, from IT. We appreciate your help.
Good night, everybody.
Bye, everybody.
Good night.
Good night.