Okay, we're public.
Okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. We have a quorum. I'm officially calling this session to order. In attendance
is our vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, our board secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza, and our board
member, Mr. Thomas Holloman. In addition, our legal counsel, Sharon Saleta, is joining in
today's hearings. As you know, today's the first day. We're doing this virtually, so
we'll ask everyone for your patience. Bear with us. There's a lot of work that went behind getting
this day in order, and we can't thank staff, our legal counsel, and the other members of the
Planning Commission for your hard work to get us here today. As you're probably aware, and I just
mentioned that, so I'm ad -libbing a little bit of this. While we may have to make adjustments along
the way, our plan is to call each case and basically proceed as we would have in a live
hearing. We ask that attorneys for applicants or other interested parties identify themselves for
the record, please spell your name for the stenographer, when the case you will be participating
in is called. We will then hear the appellant's presentation, followed by any presentation by
attorneys representing other parties. Interested parties and members of the public not represented
by counsel will then be given a three -minute opportunity to testify. We will finally hear
the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's conclusion, the board will either
vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session. Any case held
in discussion will be voted on the record at the scheduled July 21st morning session.
A couple of changes related to the virtual format. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony rather than to the room as a whole,
obviously because we don't have a room second for the benefit of anyone participating by phone
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying
third we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
i just want to also recognize we have our board member board members uh tanya sunkett and her
staff and representing the planning commission is um paula brumbello uh is representing the
planning commission with that said we can begin but before calling our first case we'd like to
announce that the following matters listed on today's agenda are being continued. 7158
Toursdale Avenue, calendar number 37545, calendar number 39231, 106 Sparks Street,
3114 by Berry Road, calendar number 384447 are being continued and the participants or the
interested parties will be notified by the Zoning Board staff, by the Board Administrator on the day
on which those cases will have been rescheduled to. And if I missed anything, would Sharon or
Tanya, please weigh in at this time.
Sounds good
to me.
We're ready?
Please call the first case.
Calendar number 39232.
The address is 1027
North Front Street.
The attorney is Adam Laver.
Can you hear me?
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, Adam.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Adam, can you hear us?
Yes, I can hear you now.
I apologize.
Technical difficulties.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, Mrs. Tenere, I do.
Thank you. Can you put your name and address on the record?
Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Adam Laver of Blank Room, 1 Logan Square, on behalf of 1025 North Front Street, LP.
on behalf of 1025 North Front Street, L .P.
Please proceed, Mr. Laver, with your testimony.
Mr. Laver, I'm sorry, you said 1025?
Yes, 1025 North Front Street, L .P.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
That goes through to 31, right?
Yes, it does, Mrs. Tanarin.
It's very good to see everyone in these difficult times.
Thank you to the staff, the professional team, for making this happen.
I'll proceed at this point.
I've shared with Council for the Zoning Board,
and hopefully all members of the Board have an exhibit package with Exhibits 1 through 12.
The 8 ,500 approximately square foot unimproved subject property is located in the shadow of I -95 with frontage along both Front and Allen Streets. The parcel is owned CMX3.
The proposal before you, members of the board, which to my knowledge has extensive 100 % support
from all parties, is to stripe this otherwise practically unusable parcel for off -site parking
for the Fillmore Theater to accommodate 16 cars with access off of Front Street.
You can see the proposed site plan at Tab 12. The project has been reviewed by Councilman Mark
Squilla, is unanimously supported by the Fishtown Neighbors Association. The community meeting with
FNA preceded the stay -at -home orders and was an in -person meeting with numerous neighbors. You
can see that support at Tab 5. This is not a variance case. It is a referral case. You can
see at tab nine the referral the use requires special exception review the proposed use members
of the board is in keeping with goals previously discussed with the community surrounding the
development of the Fillmore to accommodate parking needs at appropriate locations surrounding the
venue this particular spot as you'll see in the photographs is truly unsuitable for very much
unfortunately, due to the shadows cast by I -95 and the nature of the infrastructure surrounding
it. And that, I would submit to you, is why we have the support of FNA. In this instance,
this will provide needed parking, upgraded landscaping and lighting, as noted in the RCO
support letter. The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the
extensive support, and this all speaks to the granting of relief being of benefit to the public
and within the spirit of the zoning code. Amanda Bennett, on behalf of the ownership, is here today
to answer the board's questions and, if given the opportunity, to adopt and affirm the testimony
that I've offered as her own. At this point, I'll pause in case the members of the board have any
question I should note one additional piece of information that some months
ago we had come before you the same ownership for a case at 25 Richmond
Street the same type of issue same type of support and we were pleased in that
instance that the board granted that referral as well thank you any questions
from the board. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter?
Okay, please raise their hand.
As I mentioned, if the board wishes, Amanda Bennett is available to adopt and affirm at
the appropriate time. Do we need to have that, Amanda?
all right yes for the record if she can do that that would be helpful
okay amanda please yes i i good uh would you please state your name and address for the record
amanda amanda bennett b -e -n -n -e -t -t 319 portsmouth p -o -r -t -s -m -o -u -t -h road cherry hill
New Jersey 08. Thank you. And you're here on behalf of the owner of the subject property,
is that correct? You're here on behalf of the owner of the property, correct? Correct. Thank
you. And were you able to hear the testimony, Ms. Bennett, that I offered today? Yes. Would
yes would you adopt and affirm that as your own yes thank you miss better
you adopt and affirm that as your own? Yes.
thank you miss bennett um questions from the board anyone else wish to testify planning commission
we have no objection to the granting of the variance at this location or special exception
thank you calendar number 39232 1025 -31 north front street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck thank you thank you mr labor thank you
members of the board uh i hope everyone stay as well stay safe everyone thank you thank you
next calendar number three seven nine four eight thirteen twenty eight south 9th street
this case is a reconsideration I believe the attorney for this case is
Stephanie Boggs it says yes Claire Harrison and yes the attorney is Stephanie
Boggs good morning Stephanie good morning how are you well we received
notice for this hearing that it was scheduled for next Tuesday on the 21st
of July at 930 so our posting was submitted in connection with that date
as you said it's just simply a reconsideration of the vote a limited
hearing particularly to consider the most recent letter that was submitted
by Passing Square Civic Association
Karen will nothing seems that doesn't appear that anything will change if but are we bound to pull
this next week since that's what the notice indicated my only concern is because this is
a reconsideration is there a representative of the RCO that requested the reconsideration here
anyone here from peshunk square yes i think to go forward they would have to
have someone here someone is here from peshunk i believe suzanne is on the call
um and she is able to be unmuted i think she is logged into this call suzanne tavani
Tavani. Suzanne, good morning. It's Suzanne Tavani for the Passion Square Civic Association.
Suzanne, before you begin, just please spell your name for the stenographer.
Sure. Tavani is T -A -V -A -N -I. First name is Suzanne, S -U -Z -A -N -N -E.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes I do thank you so because of the note do you have any problem with us
having a reconsideration hearing today well I don't have a problem I'm ready
for today because I saw on the notice that was sent out with all the dates of
all the cases that today was our date I made my my time I'm not at work I other
people have made time to participate and um just hope that you know we should be we should have
this consideration so were there others on this call who uh from passing square beside yourself
i believe angel dippolito was on or will try to be on and john de julia sarah anton i think
has all also been on but i'm not too sure if they're if they stayed on or they've jumped off
i'm not too sure but i i am here and i'm ready to present our our case uh maybe what we could do
and i guess this is a question for uh sharon and tanya uh we can proceed uh with the today's
hearing and maybe hold a week before we vote it just in case someone raises the issue about the
notification not being as accurate as it should have been because some people may think it's next
week as opposed to today. Does that make sense? Stephanie, are you prepared to go forward?
Stephanie, are you prepared to go forward?
No, we were prepared to present next week in accordance with the notice that was circulated.
So as I said, it's a limited scope of this hearing, and we welcome the participation of the RCO.
But the notice and the posting were both scheduled for next week.
So if the board chooses to proceed, we can certainly honor that.
But we were intending to present this hearing and address their concerns at next week's meeting.
If we were to split the hearing into two parts, could we take the testimony of the
representatives of the RCO who are here today?
Would you object to that, Stephanie?
How long does it take to get in?
Hello?
Suzanne?
that's john julia john de julius attempting to speak yes i mean i'm not sure i understand
exactly what's going on it said something about the posting and that's why they're not ready to
proceed because the posting was not correct or there was some failure in posting with notice
but the notice that we received from the zoning board scheduled the hearing for july 21st at 9 30
am and everybody else received one that said it was today I don't I don't know
how that probably about two weeks on both the front and back wall you know as
far as the actual posting and we communicated you know with Suzanne she
sent the information out and we went back and forth on it so it's been out
there for a couple weeks, I think. We've also been in communication with Suzanne, including sending
her the notice that we received from the zoning board. You know, if possible, we would request
that this can be heard next week, so as not to prejudice our client, who was prepared to present
in accordance with the notice we received from the zoning board. This is like, this is like
attempt number five or six, between the zoning, between the DBA, and the meetings that we had
locally john john that's not unusual i mean
there are some revisions that's how you got to the revisions because there's
been interaction between the rco and the applicant
uh again today's our first day that we're doing this virtually
uh we expected there will be some issues but we're trying to get cases that have
been sitting on the docket for the last four months
as a result result of the code so we ask everyone to
the understanding of the situation that we're in what we're trying to find out
is if we can proceed today hold off on any vote apparently it sounds like the
RCO is ready but not being disrespectful but the attorney for the applicant is
concerned I think that because the notification said the 21st you wouldn't
want something to come up later on and say you had a hearing on a day that it
wasn't posted but something to that mr. chairman I would support splitting it in
two because I have neighbors here who have made the time I will make the time
next week to to jump on again but this has been going on for quite some time as
you know we weren't advised of the July the January 8th hearing which is not
lost on us uh so we're a little bit you know taken aback but i'm i'm ready to proceed now
and i will present my testimony and i will jump back on next week when uh the applicant's law firm
is um able to do so also today we'll just be taking testimony sharon is that you suggested
splitting into does that make sense um it does stephanie do you object to
that that the yes yes i do we would like the
ability to respond in real time to their concerns
and to their comments and because of the posting date that was originally sent
out we are not prepared to do that today
so in accordance with the date that was sent out on the poster and the notice
that we received from the zoning board we would request that all testimony can
be heard next week and we have the opportunity to respond
at that hearing. I think, given the objection, it will have to be continued.
Question for Tanya. Will we be able to have this on the calendar for next week? Is there
anything that would prevent us from doing that? No. We can hear whatever you wish. Okay. All right.
Just want to make sure. Thank you. Suzanne, unfortunately, and John, we appreciate,
and whoever else is on the call but the notice was for the 21st and we have to adhere to that
well you know what it's it's very upsetting because this is the second time something like
well you know what it's it's very upsetting because this is the
this has happened where oops i forgot and that's not lost to me mr chairman it just isn't so but
i'll be here next week if i could interject it could have been a mistake on the zoning board's
part i'll take that and we're going to go as it was scheduled with the notice to the attorney
I apologize for any inconsistencies or inconveniences.
Thank you, Tanya.
Yes, certainly this is not a situation where we forgot the hearing date.
And the reason for our objection and our request to move this to next week
is specifically so that everyone who has received notice of this
can participate in next week's meeting.
Okay, Tanya, if you could please send to the RCO the notices.
I would appreciate it.
So that's not how we operate.
If you wish to put in a parent statement,
you can put an appearance statement with the phone number the chair called out in the beginning
and then all appearances will be recorded and we'll send it to those who put an appearance
statement no i i meant may perhaps we're talking about two different things um and if i'm confused
i apologize but no i would like to see a copy of what claire uh harrison harvey received that says
the date is the 21st, and I would like to have confirmation that we will be heard on the 21st.
So everybody from the RCO who has made the time to take off from work and other activities can
once again do so. I mean, time is money. We're all volunteers. I realize that members of the ZBA are
also, you know, kind of giving the time, but we need to have some guarantee that we are going to
be heard on the 21st the 10 o 'clock session the two o 'clock session whatever whatever it is and
I would like to have you can email me Suzanne I can also email you the notices received I believe
I included that in my last email to you earlier this week but I'm happy to resend that to you
and I want but I want it's I want something from Tanya that tells me we are going to be heard on
the 21st and which session I want some level of confirmation of that so Suzanne yes what you can
do is email me your requests the chair runs the meeting if he states at this moment he will allow
your testimony then he will allow your testimony so please email me your direct concerns and i'll
take care of them but thank you i apologize for all the inconveniences look we just everybody's
apologizing we're going to be doing this for a long time today and god knows how long and we all
understand. It is unprecedented times. It's not an excuse. It's a reality. So we do appreciate
everyone's patience. We will get these hearings done. We've been trying the board with the help
of staff for three months to try to get these hearings up and running. And we're finally here
today. And again, we knew we were going to have some bumps in the road, if you will.
We're going to do our best to get this straightened out. And Suzanne, we appreciate you and
the other neighbors for taking the time to be with us today but thank you these are things that
are sometimes are beyond our control and thank you stephanie how about you're welcome thank you
very much how about the postings on the property can we get new updated postings so that people
know that it's scheduled for next week as well the postings do indicate that the meeting is next
week on the 21st that was the reason for our objection yeah i actually i actually read the
poster when I was on my way to Dr. Volpe's
office across the street, but I didn't remember
the date on it, so
if it's the 21st, we don't need
to repost.
As long as it's still, if you check it out,
John, if we're wrong, call us
back and let us know, but I think it does say
the 21st. Okay, thank you.
All right, thank you again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations
on the birth of your granddaughter.
Thank you, you just made my day.
Who I've only seen
twice in a month.
Well, thanks to COVID -19.
Thanks to COVID -19.
Thank you.
Bye -bye, everyone.
Thank you.
Next case, calendar number 38727, 1520 North Hancock Street.
Is there anyone here on North Hancock Street?
The attorney is John Rooney.
Yes, I'm here.
Hello. Hello. Mr. Rooney, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, we do. Name an address for the record, please.
This is Attorney John Rooney on behalf of the building owner, Brian Reese. It's for 1520 Hancock Street.
And Mr. Reese should be on the line as well. Brian, are you there?
I guess we're not hearing him. Is he there as well. Hello, and I'm having some technical
I guess we're not hearing him is he there as well
difficulties. Can you hear me? There you go. Are you Brian? How about now? Yes. Okay. There we go.
name and address on the record
Brian Reese
322 West Thompson Street
Philadelphia Pennsylvania
Brian spelled B -R -Y -A -N
R -E -E -S -E
I'm going to ask
both you gentlemen
you swear for them to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you.
Carol?
They have to now present their case.
Did you ask about they stipulate?
Yes, they stipulate.
And Mr. Reese will be presenting as the building owner.
Thank you.
Please proceed, Mr. Reese.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is for reallocation of lot lines between two parcels of property located at 1520 North
Hancock Street, 1522 North Hancock Street.
It's approximately 1225 by 40 long.
There wasn't a great...
We lost you, Mr. Reese.
It was an agreement between myself and the property next door for the purchase of this
sliver of land.
Now we're just attempting to reallocate the lot lines and make it official.
Have you met with the RCO?
Yes, ma 'am.
We got their approval.
Thank you.
just wanted to question chair do we have supporting documentation
frankie on me on me yourself do we have on uh documentation we do supporting this application
we do yes we do okay is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this matter
see none uh any questions from the board planning commission chairman and members of the board this
property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan we have no objection to the
lot line adjustment thank you calendar number 38727 1520 hancock street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck thank you thank you thank you thank you
all thank you very much have a great day you too next case is calendar number 38163
2009 abigail street the attorney is richard slaven are you here
no actually the attorney is um claire harrison gussie o 'neill
why do i have richard slavin is that was on the original i believe they changed attorneys
yes that was the original applicant
is gussie o 'neill here
anyone here from Claire Harris on this case
Darren did you get correspondence from them because we have not had a change in attorney
if that's not done on record we cannot notify the change
Gussie is here she was in contact with me and she submitted all of the documents
I'm looking at the refusal sheet that I got and it does say
Claire Harris, Gussie O 'Neill.
We're on the calendar, I'm sorry, the list.
I'm promoting you as panelists.
Hello.
Actually, I think that Herc Grigos may be presenting.
Is that the case, Gussie?
Yes, Herc is going to be presenting.
And he should be on the line.
Gregos are you on the line I just promoted you as panelists
I just promoted you as panelist.
Hercules, are you there?
There he goes.
He's on.
I'm here.
Everyone see me and hear me.
Raising hands and texting frantically.
My apologies.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Name and address, please.
Good afternoon, members of the board. Good morning. Hercules Griegos, 1835 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA. Here representing CCD 105 LLC, owner of the property located at 2009 Abigail
Street. We're here today with an application for construction of nine single -family homes,
five of which have parking with rear -loaded garages and a shared driveway. Also here is
Tyler McNeil, owner and developer, and Gabriel Deck, the project architect.
This property is currently configured to six lots. It's approximately an 8 ,000 square foot
area that's a vacant parking lot. This is in the East Kensington section at Abigail and Coral
Street. It's directly adjacent to the former Harvest and Dairy building, which is being
which is being redeveloped, as you're aware. The site is owned RSA 5, and the plan has always been
to redesign this as a townhome project that fits into the RSA 5 parameters, but also allows the
project to fit into the context of the neighborhood. And just as the slides go through, this is the
photos and get a context of the surrounding area next slide you'll see
the Harbison Dairy building adjacent and then the adjacent townhomes and then we
if we get to the site plan I'll just lay it out for everyone this is great be
nine townhomes facing Abigail Street entered from a rear drive for parking
for five of the homes. Originally, the project was taken to the RCO and configured as a eight
project with front -loading garages. This was rejected by the community. My clients were able
to acquire an additional piece of property to reconfigure the project to a nine -home concept
with the rear drive and we're able to offer varying housing types various sizes. We returned
the project with the additional design back to the RCO where we received overwhelming support.
You'll see from the record there was a vote of 38 to 2 in support of the project
and that should be in your packet. Additionally we have a letter of support and non -opposition
from Councilman Squillow. As I said, the houses range in size. There's three different housing
types. The smaller houses are three -story homes. As you walk the way toward Abigail Street,
the houses are a little larger, four -story homes. We think the varying housing stop
are consistent with the context of the neighborhood. I'll quickly go through the refusal.
four of the lots are a smaller width or 14 foot wide lots and some of the lots are smaller in
size but ultimately you know nine houses on the 8 ,000 square foot lot we think is
appropriate for the context of East Kensington and if you look on the site plan you know directly
adjacent on Susquehanna there's a number of lots that are more narrow and equally narrow so we
think it fits into the context and I'll just say the architect Gabriel Deck is here to answer
questions as well as Tyler McNeil owner and developer and I'll ask Mr. McNeil if he heard
my testimony and to adopt it as his own and I'll turn it over to the board for any questions
could we the witness who just adopted your testimony could be sworn in yep i'm just about
to do that uh this is tyler mcneil can you hear me mr mcnail it's frank to chico do you swear
from the tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do and please spell
your name first and last name for the stenographer please tyler t -y -l -e -r mc -n -e -i -l uh business
address 2400 market street number 200 philadelphia pa 19103
thank you mr you've heard my testimony do you adopt it as your own i do
Mr. McNeil, you've heard my testimony. Do you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
Do you have anyone else, Hercules?
I think that's it.
All right. Is there anyone else here? Anyone else here to wish to testify on this matter?
You were about to say something, Hercules?
No, I'm just here to answer any questions that the board may have.
Are there any questions from the board?
Is this a revised plan?
We had a revised refusal, so we do not need, I don't believe we need a revised plan to provide
planning commission.
Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the
comprehensive plan and looking at the development pattern on the surrounding blocks, the eight
lots are in character with the lot width. We do feel that, oh, sorry, excuse me. Accordingly,
we ask that the request for I'm sorry I wrote this recommendation without the packet so let me
start over again and I'm sorry to the court reporter this property is indicated for residential
use on the comprehensive plan and looking at the development pattern on the surrounding blocks
the eight lots are in character with a lot with accordingly we have no objection to the granting
of the variance thank you I'm sorry well somebody have something I'll share I just wanted to if we
could I see names up and I wanted to see if there were people who wanted to comment on this because
I have names up Robert Vanstone is it I had asked I didn't hear anyone but we just need a little
time because we got a whole list of people all right very good all right so whoever is testifying
please identify yourself for the record spell your name for the stenographer and then I will
swear you in. Can I be heard? Yes. My name is Robert Vanstone, 2053 East Susquehanna
Avenue sorry I'm having please spell your name for the stenographer r -o -b -e -r -t v as in Victor
a -n -s -t -o -n -e thank you mr. vanstone do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed uh i object to the rezoning of this i
wanted to put it on the record uh my belief is that in redrawing the lot lines for multiple
for extra housing that it would really be quite easy to fall within the current rules for lot sizes
as well as open space it seems like an overcrowding situation and I don't understand why if you're
redrawing the rot lines that you couldn't do it in a manner where you can maintain 16 feet and
also maintain your 25 uh lots and give give some of the people a yard there's no yards on
on a couple of those as it appeared on the as it scrolled
if i can respond i mean i think it's not a regular shaped property number one um number two um it's
certainly consistent with what's in the neighborhood and number three I believe
that the desire of the community and part of the desire was to have parking
access to the rear so we said there's not a rear yard the rear yard area open
areas there it's it's taken by a rear loading driveway which I think is the
preference of how this is to be drawn I believe you know the original plan was
was for eight with front -loading parking
because it was a desire for parking,
even though there's no parking on Abigail Street.
We met with the community.
We had at least two or three meetings
and the near neighbors and got 38 to two local support.
This was the desired configuration
and responded best to the context of the community,
offered a diverse housing stock of different size units
and also addressed some parking concerns.
Thank you.
Anyone else have any comment?
Anyone else speaking on this case?
Chair, if you could ask that anyone who wishes to speak on any case, please raise
please raise their hands so we can identify them and unmute them thank you very kindly
a hand so we can identify them and unmute them.
Thank you very kindly.
i think you just told them thank you
one last time is there anyone else who wishes to uh comment on this case
questions we do have another person's hand up and i am unmuting them now okay thank you
i apologize tony because i don't see that so i'll rely on you
tyler mcneil what's that for you to speak or no i don't have anything else to indicate
all righty no more hands up chair you can continue thank you any questions from the board
Planning Commission
They gave their testimony
We already are on the record
With no objection
Frank, unmute yourself
Thank you, Confessor
Calendar number 38163
2009 Abigail Street
My vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes
Tom my vote is yes good luck my vote is yes good luck
thank you very much I appreciate everybody's efforts
stay safe everyone thank you thank you
calendar number 38149 I'm hoping 2300 North Bevere Street
Leo Mulvihill is the attorney.
Leo, are you there?
And Leo expects to be calling four witnesses.
Thanks, Sharon.
Members of the board, are you able to hear me at this point?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
see. The refusal appears to be missing a notice of refusal for two family dwelling in an RSA 5
district, but otherwise we're prepared to proceed with this matter. Name and address for the record.
Leo Mulvihill, M -U -L, V as in Victor, I -H -I -L -L. Address is 2424 East York Street, Suite 111,
Philadelphia, 19125.
Members of the board with me today, I do have my client, Robert Minor, joining us over the telephone, and two witnesses.
In addition, our architect, Giovanni Ramos, R -A -M, as in Mary, O -S, is on the line as well, joining via Zoom as far as I understand.
Now, members of the board, for purposes of the record, I just reviewed the packet that I've submitted.
I have the refusal appeal and project information form at page one.
The area zoning maps for this property are page seven.
The deed for the property is at page eight.
My client's tax information is at page 13.
Zoning notification letter for the appeal in the meetings is at page 16.
The letter from the RCO is at page 19.
We have photographs of multiple postings of the property at page 20.
Attached separately is 11 by 17s electronically or the floor plans for the property.
My members of the board, this property is located at the corner of Dauphin and Bouvier
Streets.
It is 18 feet wide and 50 feet deep, about 900 square feet.
Currently, it is a vacant lot.
It's fenced in, it's overgrown, and unfortunately, what it seems to be used as by passers -by
in the area is more or less a place to throw their trash, and my client's been doing their
best to keep the area clean.
What we're proposing today is new construction, two family dwelling, two units. Each of them will
be two bedrooms, one bath. Unit number one on the ground floor is 646 square feet. Unit number two
from the second story is 681 square feet. There is access to a roof deck. This is a two -story
structure. It is slab on grade. Mr. Ramos, the architect, and Mr. Minor, my client, spoke
extensively about this design and the reason we're looking to do this is to limit one the impact on
the adjacent neighboring property and two try to keep this building in character with what's already
on the block which is looking to the photos you can see is a two -story row home block for most of
the block itself why are we seeking to have a two -family dwelling here well members of the board
this is new construction members the board you're aware of the cost of new construction and what
we're seeking to do with this property, considering its location, considering that this is a developing
with this property considering its location considering that this is developing neighborhood
neighborhood, is allow.
is allow more access to new construction for somebody who'd like to live here there is rear
yard storage for all the trash the two units will allow the affordability to be increased rather
than a new 400 some thousand dollar home and more or less that's essentially our presentation
members of the board. I will note that the two witnesses I have to speak today who are also
joining us by phone, Mr. Blake Davis, that's B as in Bravo, L -A -K -E, D as in Delta, A -V as in Victor,
I -S, and Larry Russell, R -U -S -S -E -L. We're both present at our RCO meeting that was held back on
March 6th. You do have an RCO meeting letter in your packet, members of the board, but it's my
understanding there were some voting irregularities that occurred at that meeting that both Mr. Davis
and Mr. Russell would like to address, namely that multiple votes were taken, the ultimate vote count
that was submitted to the zoning board did not match their recollection of what occurred that
evening, and that certain members of the community were allowed to vote while others were not,
even when those members, including Mr. Davis and Mr. Russell,
had identification cards notifying the RCO
that they were in the affected area.
At this point, I'm happy to take any other questions at this time.
Mr. Ramos, do you have anything to add at this point?
Mr. Ramos, please identify.
Are they on by phone?
i believe mr ramos has joined us by zoom can he raise his hand okay
mr ramos you're mute you're muted you're muted okay yeah please please mr ramos identify
yourself with the record spell your first and last name for the sonographer jovani uh j -o -v -a -n -n -y
Ramos, R -A -M -O -S.
Address, please.
3421 Richmond Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19149.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Mulvihill?
Yes, Mr. Ramos, you're familiar with the site at 2300 North Bouvier Street?
Yes, I am.
Can you explain to the board why you designed this building the way you did?
Yes. Given my conversations with my client, he wanted to make it a two -family dwelling,
but yet not cause a major impact on the community in terms of size and design. So indeed,
it's a slab on grade to avoid any digging past three to four feet in the ground.
it is two stories which is matches what's in the area and floor number one is unit number one which
is a two -bedroom and floor number two is unit number two which is a two -bedroom the base of
the building is brick so it continues on with the area and up above will be a similar monotone metal
mr ramos with respect to the adjacent building at 2302 north bovier street
is it about the same height yes and was that a consideration that you took into account when you
were designing this building that was the most consideration for the height of the building yes
mr ramos at this point are you able to see the plans that have been put on the screen by ms sunk
get the floor plans for the property? I do. Okay. And just for purpose of the record for the board
and for anybody else, the blue area, that's living space, correct? Yes. The blue area is living space.
The pink area is sleeping space. The gray area is like common space, like hallways at the roof deck.
And then the brown area is bathroom. All right. I don't have any other questions for me, Mr. Ramos.
thank you thank you mr milner or pardon me mr minor are you on the line as well robert minor
i believe mr minor is joining us by telephone today as he was unable to get zoom to work minor
are you on
mr minor
tanya do you see anything
she's unmuted
Mr. Miner, your hand is up and you're available if you wish to speak.
Mr. Miner, are you able to hear me at this time?
Mr. Mulvihill, do you have anyone else?
Mr. Davis are you still on the line sir
Yes I'm still on the line
Mr. Davis will you please state your name
Spell your last name and give your address for the zoning board
My name is Blake Davis
B -L -E -K -E
B -A -B -I -S
I live 2348 North Louvert Street
Philadelphia PA 19132
Mr. Davis
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes sir
Thank you.
Mr. Davis, you live in the neighborhood, is it fair to say?
No, go ahead.
You live in the neighborhood, that's fair to say?
And you're familiar with this property, yes?
Can you describe the condition of the property today and how it's used in the neighborhood?
As a trash dump, dilapidated, overgrown.
We do as much as we can to keep it beautified.
But when he decided to develop on his property, people came into agreement and had no quarrels or they had plenty of questions.
So when questions came about, he answered the best as he could.
When the community meeting came about, we had more questions, answered the best as he could.
But when it came time to vote, some votes were taken, some votes weren't.
And I felt, though, that was, how can I say without speaking ill, unfair.
When you say that some votes were taken and some votes were not taken,
can you explain more clearly to the members of the board what happened?
People, well, maybe I think it was, if I'm not mistaken, about 12 to 15 people showed up.
And out of the people who showed up, many of us had concerns.
some concerns weighed
more than others and some had
pros and their pros weighed more than others
but at the time
of voting
proper voting bouts were not issued
some people were allowed to vote because
their ID said they lived in the neighborhood
and some people weren't allowed to vote because
the lady said they didn't live in the neighborhood
when they issued the ID
that said they live in the neighborhood
proper identification and everything
she still did not allow them to vote
mr davis are you in support of this project overall yes sir and you actually live on the
subject block right yes thank you i don't have any other questions for you mr davis
so chair i do recognize that there's a shirl with her hand raised and we do have mary jones
also who wishes to speak okay um miss jones yes can you hear me yes uh please uh don't
yourself with a record? My name is Mary Jones. I represent Darryl Clark, the
Council President of the 5th District. Yes, good morning. And my address is City Hall.
Okay, you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Good to hear from you. Now, please proceed. Yes, it's good to see
everyone and be here as well um i can't uh comment on what happened at the meeting i was able to speak
to the leader of the rco briefly and i guess the main one thing is i don't know how many people in
the neighborhood knew that this was happening today i don't know that they were notified about
the new time for the meeting I was just seeing the just from conversations with
the RCO leader who conducted the meeting so I just wanted to put on the record
that they did have some concerns about the density and adding the two -family
home on that block and that's all I have. Mr. Mulvihill could you speak to the
issue about notification signs are posted on the property members of the board uh we had a community
meeting back on march 6th i believe that and this is the third or fourth listing of this case it's
the best i can say members of the board thank you miss jones uh cheryl i don't have a last name are
you there yes i'm here please uh cheryl identify yourself for the record and spell your name for
the stenographer?
C -H -E -R -Y -L
What's name?
W -O -M -A -C -K, your address, 110 Spark Street, in relationship to the 2300 North
W -O -M -A -C -K
Your address.
Bovair, how close are you? I apologize, I came in on the wrong property, but I just
wanted to know did you you already hear 106 spark street not yet i don't think right we haven't
heard that yet you have to talk to johnny about that that was number two it was continued this
morning yeah that case was continued and miss sunkett uh will let you know when that case is
being uh scheduled for for a hearing it was it was continued yes oh okay thank you thank you
all right uh anyone else mr mobile hill do you have any other witnesses uh mr russell if he's
still on the line members of the board does he not erase his hand or what is his cell phone number
Does it end in 368 or 232?
One moment, please.
Mr. Russell's phone number ends in 232.
Now you're allowed to talk, Mr. Russell.
Hello?
Yes, Mr. Russell, this is attorney Leo Mulvihill for Mr. Minor.
How are you doing today?
All right, you?
Mr. Russell, you've heard the prior test.
testimony in this case with respect to the community meeting yes is there anything you'd
like to add before you go any further leo just let me mr where'd he go right here yeah could
you please identify identify yourself with the record yes my name is larry russell l -a -r -r -y
r -u -s -s -e -l -l 2451 north 18th street thank you do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you sir please proceed mr mobile mr russell it's
fair to say you live in the neighborhood yes and you're familiar with this property yes i am
you heard mr davis's testimony about the community meeting yes do you have anything
you'd like to add to that testimony no he was just about right well he was just about right on it
just about everything he was right on.
Okay, and you agree with this testimony?
Pardon me?
You agree with this testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
I don't have any other questions for you, Mr. Russell.
All right.
Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on this case?
Before I call for a vote,
on the advice of our counsel, Ms. Saleta,
let me see if I can get this going suggestion by Sharon if mr. mobile if we
approve this case that we do without a proviso stating that the board
recognizes it is also granting a use variance for a two -family dwelling no
objection to that members of the board all right Sharon anything else
sharon no i'm sorry no that's it questions from the board again anyone else wish to testify on
this case who has not already been heard planning commission
i didn't hear you there are no more hands up you can okay thank you planning commission
chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential use on the
comprehensive plan. While this is a single family neighborhood, this project will
give an opportunity to provide workforce housing units that fit in with the
existing building height surrounding the neighborhood. Accordingly, we have no
objection to the granting of the variance. Thank you. Calendar number 381492300
North Brevere Street. My vote is yes. With what proviso? With proviso. Thank you.
Thank you confession. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Tom. Tom. Yes with proviso. Thank you. Thank you. Yes with proviso. I'm sorry Mr. Mulvihill I didn't hear you. Thank you members of the board. It's good to see everybody again. Look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you everyone. Stay safe. Thank you.
next case is calendar number three eight one three nine thirty five twenty one Ainsley Street
next case is calendar number three eight one three
would that be unit number one and the attorney is William a bill McLaughlin
Mr. McLaughlin, are you there?
Give me a couple minutes.
We got to find them and then promote them.
Oh, I promoted him.
good morning uh members of the board bill mclaughlin here on behalf of the applicants
peg shaw and alan mr mclaughlin do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy yes i do name and address for the record please my name is william r mclaughlin
William Common Spelling. McLaughlin is M -C -L -A -U -G -H -L -I -N. My address is 6701 Germantown Avenue,
Suite No. 2107, Philadelphia, PA, 19119. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. McLaughlin. Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is our application to legalize a long -standing existing use of this property as a multifamily dwelling. We do have a letter of support from the RCO, East Falls Community Council. We met with them on March 9th, received that letter of support on March 14th, and of course, soon thereafter, things changed greatly.
um very briefly there are two grounds for the uh refusal one is this is an rsa3 district and we
are proposing a two -family dwelling with respect to that at our rco meeting we uh the rco meeting
is very well attended we had a neighbor who said that she's lived there since 1961 always remembered
the dwelling as multifamily. Someone else remembered it since 1985 when she moved into
the neighborhood. And in our packet, my clients went back and looked up phone records and they
got back as far as 1977. This is exhibit K page next to the last page in my packet where you see
there are two individuals, two separate names, two separate phone numbers at 3521 Ainsley Street.
Second ground for the refusal was parking. There is a small yard with a retaining wall on the side
of the house. There's also a very large, I believe it's an oak tree, estimated to be about 100 years
old. Neighbors specifically asked us not to cut down the tree. That's where the parking would have
to go it would be nose in you would lose at least one on street parking spot by having a curb cut
for we could probably squeeze two in there given that this is east falls it's a very green
community people take a lot of pride in the uh in the trees as a matter of fact east falls tree
tenders a community group presented before us and they were talking in general about maintenance of
the trees in east falls so we're asking for a variance on both of those grounds again we have
a rco letter of support and with that i have both my clients on the call and i'll ask them to adopt
and affirm my testimony but if the board has any questions i'd be happy to answer those
thank you
are the witnesses ready to speak yes okay please state your name and address for the records by
your name for the stenographer sure it's anita allen it's a -n -i -t -a -a -l -l -y -n
and the address is 3521 ainsley miss allen do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Anita, this is
Bill McLaughlin. You heard what I just said before the board, correct? Yes. And do you adopt and affirm
that testimony as if it were your own? Yes, I do. Okay. I have nothing further.
Ms. McLaughlin, do you have any, Alan, do you have anything to add?
it's okay if you don't just asking uh is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this case
It's okay if you don't. Just asking.
can i can i just add one point um in the chat ainsley is spelled incorrectly
and i just want to make sure um it's not with a y spell it for us it's a -i -n -s -l -i -e
okay correct thank you and it is otherwise correct on the refusal and all the other
uh zoning paperwork for the record um is is there a revised plan it went from three to
two units i believe i heard you say that's correct um mr chair we had two rco meetings
one in september and after extensive discussion with the community my clients decided to uh
amend their application from three units to two units
based on conversations.
I understand that, but has the plan been revised?
There's actually no need that the plan be revised
because he submitted an amended application.
Okay, all right.
The recent refusal is accurate.
Thank you.
Okay, anyone else who wishes to testify on this case?
Questions from the board?
Planning commission.
Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive
plan. The surrounding neighborhood was built and remained single family in makeup. We feel
that this application represents an overuse of the property. Accordingly, we recommend
that the variance not be granted.
Thank you. Calendar number 38139.
I lost my place yet. 3521 Ansell Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Tom? Tom? My vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin. My vote is yes.
safe everyone we got it vote is yeah that's three times tom that's three votes you got three yes
votes you you reached your limit thank you mclaughlin rocks stay care thank you
oh Carol we're done right I don't know are we Tanya yes you are that's it
yes thank you all right then we'll see everybody back here at two o 'clock don't drink
All right, see you guys at two, okay?
Thank you.
Thank you, Tanya, everybody.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Bye, Tanya.
Bye -bye.
All ready?
Tanya ready okay yeah all right members slow me down can I one second first I've
had calls from two lawyers telling me that they aren't able to sign on on
because only it's only available for the 10 a .m. hearings I don't know they're
they're doing something wrong or if it's everyone it was Alan Ockamson and
Roger Perry both called
This is Abby. There's only one login for it. So when they hit the registration it'll
ask about 10 a .m. and 2 a .m. They just have to click none for 10 a .m. and then they should
sign it for 2 p .m. You can send them. They said that when they tried to do the option
that 10 a .m. was the only option that there was no two o 'clock.
Um, you want to send them my way? Just give them my email address. Okay. Thank you, Abby. Yeah, no problem.
Karen, it should be a drop down. I tried it yesterday and it worked for me.
Yeah, I have no idea how it works. I only mention it because two of them told me the same thing.
Give them a few minutes.
yes they should be presenting i'm not sure where they are on the list
so we can go maybe a little well allen's number one and two
yeah so we can hold a minute
well you know what what i can do is in the meantime
um i want to i know i missed a few people this morning i'll continue to miss people i wanted to
thank for uh getting us to where we are today and one in particular is councilwoman
for uh getting us to where we are today and one in particular is councilwoman maria sanchez
and her assistant eric bodzin uh who really put some weeks of time into these things by giving
us an opportunity to talk through some of the issues over the last couple of months so
i apologize if any of them are listening in we do appreciate uh all of your efforts
so they're not on yet I don't think I don't think we broadcast yet so if you want to repeat it when
the attendees come in okay yeah it's just us Frank and I just wanted to say thank you to all of you
for this morning was pretty awesome I appreciate working with the professional group it went well
all things considered the one thing the one thing and I shared this with Carol
all. I don't know if we'll ever, if we do these Zoom, continue to Zoom hearings, if we'll ever
get to be able to handle those 40, 50 cases that we have on the morning. I think this takes a lot,
a lot more time. If anyone disagrees, you know, please jump in. It just appears that way.
Maybe until we get... Everyone knows this is live, right? The public can hear you right now?
we're not okay yeah that's fine i'm just saying i don't know if we'll be able to handle the volume
uh that we were able to handle and when we did these things in person i could be wrong
maybe as time goes by uh we'll be able to move more quickly but i'd rather get them right than
rush these cases uh as many as we want to get done but just just my thought and maybe we can
think about that over the next over you know this evening and maybe talk more about it tomorrow
Okay, understood.
That would be a discussion because they're scheduled in advance.
So we would need to come up with a proper plan.
We started, we got done, it took us about an hour and a half to get through, what, five or six cases?
Yeah, because we had a lot of continuances.
Well, we had three continuances of the, I think there were six cases.
and only one the 9th street case had you know any if you would call it lengthy comments about
the rest were pretty easy and it still took us an hour and a half but right but we had a lot
scheduled it's just you didn't see it because they were removed prior to you submitting the
hearing list so that's why i agree i'm just saying that i didn't typically when we're in
when we do these things in person the morning list has 30 40 cases something like that we don't get
to do them all because there are a number of continuances that are requested but we still
wind up on average 20 or 30 i believe maybe a little bit more on a morning list i just don't
know if we're going to be able to get through a morning list um the way we were able to in the
passed i'm not saying you can't i just think we should be a little cognizant of that over the
next week or two understood and just because this was the first week of sessions i didn't put a lot
on the calendar yeah and i appreciate we appreciate that certainly yeah so do we know if alan and uh
the other attorney got on yet i just emailed them abigail's email address and said they should
contact her I also her text texted me to say that they just needed to scroll
down I told them both that they said it didn't work I am NOT the one who should
be giving technical advice you're doing a good job Sharon
So it is the call of the chair.
If you wish to take another case first, it's always your call, Frank.
Yeah. I was just thinking that. Thank you. Maybe we'll do that. We'll go to.
Frank, if you could push Dolly Street back one or two cases because Alice emailed me and said
she would be sending a letter. That's the second case on the list. So just so you know, I see that
1330 West Silver Street appears to be present and waiting. If you wish to go that route,
So Edmundo Goris is available here.
Edmundo, are you there?
Hey, how are you?
Hey, how are you?
Okay, before you begin, Armando, I just need to open up this hearing.
Okay, before you...
So let me start by saying good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
We have a quorum.
I'm officially calling this session to order.
Ms. Carol Tenere, our vice chair, is present, as is Confessor Plaza, our secretary.
Mr. Holloman will not be participating at the moment, or maybe he will on this.
Tom, if you're there, if not, we'll catch up with you later.
Also, our city solicitor, Sharon Saleta, is in attendance.
As you're probably aware, today is our first day of holding virtual hearings.
While we may have to make some adjustments along the way, our plan is to call each case and basically proceed as we would have in a live hearing.
We ask that attorneys for applicants or other interested parties identify themselves for the record, spell their name for the stenographer, when the case you'll be participating is called.
We will then hear the applicant's presentation, followed by any presentation, by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public not represented by counsel will be given an opportunity to testify.
We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's conclusion, the board will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session.
Any case held for discussion will be voted on the record at the next July 21st morning session.
a couple of changes to the virtual format. First, we will be administering oaths to participants
prior to their testimony rather than to the room as we did in the past because we obviously had
no room. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys,
witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded, and that by participating, you acknowledge your
agreement to be recorded. Again, I thank everyone for getting us to this place and time. It's been
a struggle for a few months. But with that, last, the Vice Chair, Ms. Tenere, to call up our first
case. I'm sorry. Can I interrupt for one second, please? I just wanted to mention that all those
who are participating by phone, there is a call -in number for you to register your appearance
before the board so that you can get correspondence and be connected to the case.
That number for anyone who needs to can call. Make sure I'll call it up.
What I'll do is I'll, um, it should be 267.
Sorry, I got a lot of screens open here.
Does any of the staff have the number up?
Tanya, this is Martha.
I have it.
it's thanks Martha sure it's 267 -270 -5548 and there are instructions in the voicemail on that
line to let you know what information you need to leave for us to get the correspondence on
each case thank you so the first case being called is West Silver is that correct Mike
tanya is that correct yes if you wish to move forward with them first yes tanya also
remind everyone if they want to speak to raise their hand that way we go acknowledge them
yes thank you okay calendar number one three three zero west silver street
did i just say that wrong yes i did strike that calendar number three nine six eight nine
1330 West Silver Street is there an attorney with this case no there's no
attorney okay let me read this is an application for a two -family dwelling in
an existing structure the proposed use is refused for the following the
minimum lot area requirement is 720 square feet proposed is 714 square feet
Proposed is 714 square feet.
This application does not require civic design review.
Okay, sir, we can proceed.
Again, please identify yourself with the record.
Spell your first and last name for the stenographer.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Edmundo Gores.
Spelling E -D -M -U -N -D -O, Gores, G -O -R -I -S.
I am the owner of 1330 West Silver Street.
We're having this meeting today here in order to get the variance and exception because as it was, as Ms. Carol said, the minimum square footage for a duplex by the city is 720 square feet and the property only have 714 square feet.
and we were hoping being this the case that the difference is only six square feet we wanted to
see if we can get a uh uh maybe if we can get this passed and just oversee this square feet
the six square feet of difference on the on the property thank you uh tanya whoever
Robert, is there anything in a file that we need to be aware of?
I can tell you that the community supports it, that the use is permitted, and the only variance is for being four feet, six feet short of the required minimum.
Six foot, thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter?
see none uh any questions from the board no planning commission
uh good afternoon chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential
use on the comprehensive plan this property is six square feet short of meeting the lot size
requirement of the zoning district accordingly due to the de minimis nature of the request we
have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you okay calendar number three nine six
eight nine one three three zero west silver street my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck good luck
you thank you everyone finally good luck to you um do we have alan yet knock us him on the uh
now and on yet no no and he's here for you yes he is on yes i see you
i'm sorry whoever's talking you're breaking up
and Tom's on. We don't know what case we're going to hear yet. Who has the number? Okay, thank you.
Alan, you're unmuted.
I see you. I see you, but we don't hear you, Alan. You have to unmute, mute.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yep, we got you now. Okay.
Okay, calendar number 1652. Why do I keep doing this? Calendar numbers, strike that. Calendar numbers 39672 and 39669, 1652 and 1654 North.
6th street um mr knockamson do you agree to win the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do name and address for the record good afternoon my name is alan knockamson of
knockamson one knockamson pc 123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 and i
would like to say I'm happy to be back. We are too. Oh, it's awesome. All right. I represent
BCB. Okay, we're going to pause. What? I believe Frank. Frank, can you swear him in? Yeah, I'm
sorry. Allen, and if you have anyone else, do you have anyone else testifying? Well, I did give
the owner, Charles Murphy, the information. Mr. Murphy, are you on the line?
I appreciate it.
okay so why don't we do this uh alan you know you gave your name i think already but do it
again if you don't mind and mr murphy uh give us your name spell for the stenographer
and then i'll swear you both in alan occamson
murphy paul's murphy do you swear affirm do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? I do. Yes, I do. Thank you. Yes, good afternoon board. This is the proposed
project are two single -family homes. One is 1652 and one is 1654 North 6th Street. You have a packet
of exhibits. I don't know how to maneuver this, but I did create a PDF so that you can tab each
one separately for your own benefit. I don't see it on my screen but I have a
physical copy of it. So I assume you have that in front of yourself yourselves.
Alright so the first exhibits the deeds to the property showing that BCB home
contracting and NOVA contracting are the owners of 1652 and 1654 North 6th
Street. After that are the certificates of tax clearance for both entities for
both properties. After that are the notices of refusal, one for 1652 and one for 1654
North 6th Street. Both the properties are RSA 5 properties. We're looking to put single -family
homes so there's no use variances. The dimensional variances are due to configuration of the property
as well as side and rear alleys. So for 1652, the one refusal has to do with the fact that we're
basically putting a wet bar on the upper level in the pilot house. It says, whereas the roof
deck access structure may only serve to enclose the access stairs, the proposed roof deck access
structure includes a wet bar. The second refusal, which are similar to 1654, are open area issues
as well as rear yard issues, and then particular to 1652, because the property to the left of us
has a porch, they're looking to have us put a setback there as well. Again, these properties
are only 700 square feet in size each. The width of each property is 14 feet wide,
and the length is 50 feet wide. And that will go to a lot of our hardship here.
The fourth exhibit is the application for appeal or the applications for appeal,
which include also the project information, completed project information form for both.
Fifth exhibit is the zoning and Google Maps in the aerial view. I would point you to attention
to the exhibit number one, excuse me, page number one of this exhibit. You'll see that there's a
side yard for 1652 and there's rear yards for 52 and 54. And then I also
point you to your attention to the last page of Exhibit 5. This is the scenario
view that I obtained from atlas .phila .gov for these properties. As you can see,
there are no structures on 56 or 58 and then if you look at 1650, that
structure actually goes deeper than ours so in actuality even though we're like seeking a you
know a smaller uh rear yard and uh a small and we have where we're not meeting the standard for open
area we're not impacting the actual air and light of the pre -existing structures there uh and given
as you can see also the rear and side yards for 52 and 54 that's some of the reasons that's why
we're not meeting the rear yard setback you know we have a three foot rear yard excuse me a three
foot rear alley which if we included that as part of our dimensions we would be closer to meeting
the actual zoning codes and as the side yard as well if you put that into 52 we would be closer
to meeting the open area after that i gave you on exhibit seven are the architectural plans and
drawings. And exhibit eight is a correspondence from APM, the coordinating RCO. We met with them
on March 12th. This was just before everything shut down with the city regarding COVID -19.
There are only three individuals there. So there are two people against the project and one person
for the project. I actually gave you the first letter is the original letter that was sent by
APM, and I highlighted that in red saying original letter. The difference between the original letter
and then the letter that they, I think, ultimately sent you, I noticed there was an error in the
original letter. One of the reasons why they refused the project according to the original
One of the reasons why they refused the project, according to the original letter, was because we were seeking multifamily use, which was not the case.
letter was because we're seeking.
These are two separate zoning matters, 1652 and 1654.
So there are two units, but one for each property, and they're both single families.
So there were not any use variances seeking.
And then I would also point your attention to the fact of why they stated that two people were against it and only one person was for it.
had nothing to do with zoning, like the only issue that they had, but basically the issue
they had with it was that they wanted us to do construction work for neighboring properties,
in particular 1650 is in pretty bad shape. During the meeting, a big part of the meeting was like
they wanted us to do work on it because someone lives there as a renter, and we indicated to them
that we could not do that because that's someone else's property, and we don't have the right to do
that. But there were no zoning related issues as to this property. So, you know, as to all of the
foregoing, you know, given the size of the lot, 700 square feet, given the length of the lot,
50 feet, all of the variances we're seeking dimensional are de minimis in nature. If we
were to have to comply with the zoning codes, we would not have a functional single family house,
given the short width of the property and the short length of the property.
um uh mr murphy you heard everything i stated today oh yes i did okay and and you and you and
you are a member of of of the of the owner of the corporate owner of these properties right
that's correct bcb homes okay and everything i stated today is true and correct right
yes it is and you would adopt it as your own testimony i will okay
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter?
Tanya, do you have anybody on hold?
No, I only had Charles Murphy. That was everyone.
Okay, I'll just check with you. That way I don't get ahead of you.
Questions from the board? Planning Commission.
Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
The applicant is removing the existing homes, which met the setback requirements.
We feel that if the applicant meets either the rear yard or their open space, that it would be a functional home still and would not represent an overbuilding.
Currently, we recommend the plan as submitted not be granted.
yeah oh mr chair the one thing i do i do want to add is that if you look at the pictures um
of six um you know the first the first page it shows actually 16 of 1654 it was originally
not set back it was to the street so like all we're doing is and if you look at the pictures
that are the photographs all over the place it's typical other than this block to have
no porches you know and three -story structures i i am at a loss because i don't have those
pictures i don't know about the rest of my colleagues on the board um but i have to take
your word for it does he have pictures he can share i do i do um i actually but it was with
my materials you know Sharon I can share them if I'm able to do that or can I
email them to you Tanya well let me not to belabor it I mean it's consistent I
assume with with mr. Knottlinson is saying right yes the other properties
are Jason okay all right then any other questions from the board I do have
someone with their hand raised Kayla
You can speak. Yeah, this is Brian Tate. I'm actually the owner of Nova Contracting, who is a partial owner with BCB Homes, Charlie Murphy. I was just playing with the computer because I don't do the Zoom and my daughter has it under her name. So I'm on a computer. And I guess that's why it's coming up as Kayla. But I didn't realize I had my hand raised. I've just been listening. But I am one of the owners of these two lines.
Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. I asked any questions from the board. Calendar numbers 39672 and 39669 for 1652 and 1654 North 6th Street. My vote is yes on both.
Carol, unmute yourself. Yes to both.
Unmute.
still can't hear you
this is crazy okay now you got we got you my vote is yes on both thank you thank you everyone
thank you thank you have a great week guys sure good luck stay safe
Frank, do we go to Schur's Lane next, 132, since we have Alan?
I don't see why not, yeah.
Okay, calendar number 39665, 132 Schur's Lane.
Mr. Nockmson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Name and address for the record.
Alan, I'm trying to put my video on
It's not letting me do it, but that's fine
You can see this bad headshot of me
Alan Ockamson of Ockamson, PC
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA, 19109
Okay, there we go
I think I look bad
Alan, before we begin
I just want the record to show that
Our board member, Thomas Holloman
Is back on
thank thank you all right so I'm sorry can I just do a quick question um this
is a check -in with the court reporter I just wanted to make sure you there yeah
I'm here but my video is not coming on it says it's uh it has a line through it
like it's paused or something okay no problem the board just asked to make
sure you were there I just wanted to check thank you kindly okay you're
You're welcome.
Okay, Alan.
Okay, so present should be David Ross, the owner's representative.
Mr. Ross, are you on?
He was texting me.
He actually got on before me.
Yes, I am here.
Hello.
And then, additionally, should be Scott Woodruff and Corey Kirk, the architects.
uh okay so all it's going to identify themselves and uh all three would you
swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is true and the best of your knowledge
i do i do could alan figure it out how we you get them to give us their names and addresses
and get for the record uh mr ross can you state your uh address for the record
David, you have to unmute yourself.
Hello, David Ross, 3112 West Master Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19121.
And you're the member of 132 Shurer's Lane LLC, right?
Correct.
And it owns 132 Shurer's Lane, right?
Correct.
Scott, are you there?
Can you state your name and address for the record?
Scott Woodruff, 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Oh, and you're the architect for this project, right, Scott?
Correct.
So I gave you a packet of materials which include eight exhibits.
The first exhibit is the deed to the property, showing that 132 Shores Lane LLC owns the property.
The second exhibit is the Certificate of Tax Clearance, showing that 132 Shores Lane LLC is in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
The third exhibit is the Notice of Refusal that we received on January 6th of 2020 for 132 Schurers Lane.
Currently, and you'll see from the pictures, which is Exhibit 6, this is a 2881 square foot lot and it has a building structure on what is known as 132 Schurers Lane with a significant side yard of almost 1 ,500 square feet.
And what we're trying to do is subdivide this property into two. Keep the pre -existing structure, renovate it. And then on the other lot, we're looking to put a single family home on this RSA 5 property.
so where the single family home that we're trying to put on their erect on what would be known as
130 surest lane that meets the code requirements of 1440 square feet we fall a little bit short
with this the pre -existing home of 1286 .78 square feet and that's the first refusal right and it's
not and it's typical of this you know part of the neighborhoods to have properties around this size
um the second refusal we're in maniunk so we have a steep slope refusal as to that right so again
it's not atypical to have a steep slope refusal in maniunk so we filed an appeal our application
in Manioc. So we filed an appeal. Our application for appeal is Exhibit 4. And then you also see
for appeal is uh exhibit
as Exhibit 5, zoning and Google Maps. We're basically two blocks away from Main Street.
We're, you know, in basically the heart of Manioc. As you can see from Exhibit 5,
you know, zoning and Google Maps. Exhibit 6, you'll see the photographs. So you'll see with
the first photograph, which is labeled 130 and 132 Shores Lane, you'll see this, you'll see our
property as the brown stucco structure with uh on the first story there's like a side
addition and then you'll see behind it you'll see new construction right uh the you know the
the brick the you know the the red brick and and the grade facades that you would typically see
and then if you look at the second picture of sure's lane to to the left of the property you'll
see across the streets you'll see the same type of structures and then to the right of the property
the same sort of structures. And then, you know, you'll see more pictures.
Exhibit seven are plans and drawings, right? So what I would note, and Tanya should have this,
we have a proviso plan form completed for revised plans, which I signed, and we gave
indication as to what we're changing. The third floor balcony on Shurst Lane has been removed.
The front facade has been reworked.
Roof over third -story facade has been reworked.
Four is front third -story bay extrusion has been removed.
Five, planter box added to front of structure along shores.
And six, rear curb cut widths have been changed.
They have been reduced.
They have not been increased.
The reason why we had such significant changes in our plans is
because we met with the Maniont Neighborhood Council.
They had a pre -community meeting, and we took some of their input in terms of how to, like, make it look more in tune with what they believe Manning Unc should be.
And, you know, unfortunately, based, you know, on the community meeting, we didn't go far enough.
And all of their, if you look at their letter, which is Exhibit A, Correspondence for Manning Unc Neighborhood Council, has nothing to do with any zoning -related issues.
They didn't care the fact of the size of the current building, where the building structure is.
They didn't care about the steep slope.
In fact, they actually indicated how ugly the other pre -existing structures, new construction around them was.
But we worked diligently to actually improve what the property and the new construction property looked like.
But they weren't satisfied.
so none of their none of their objections has anything to do with zoning related issues so
we've worked diligently with them we try to really work in good faith with them and unfortunately
that they were not satisfied I will say that you know we reached out to Councilman Jones's office
to find out what their position would be and they stated they would leave it up to the board to
decide so uh david you never change yeah exactly um david you heard everything i stated today
yes and is it true and correct yes and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes okay
all right is there anyone uh ellen that needs that would like to testify in this matter i'll
wait for Tanya to give me the go -ahead. I have Roger Perry's hand up. Did you want to testify
for this project? Perry? No, I'm on another case. Yeah, no problem. Yes, so could you lower your
hand please thanks all right so is there anyone who wishes to be heard regarding this case
hearing none uh questions from the board tom you have any questions
no okay uh planning commissioner
I'm sorry. I'm just finishing reading the Manny Young's letter.
Hold on for just one second. I'm sorry.
Take your time. Take your time.
Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
the applicant is creating an undersized lot and we do see no hardship to the
existing property for to create an undersized lot because they are able to
to create an undersized lot because they are able to use the property as is.
use the property as is. Accordingly we recommend the
Accordingly, we recommend the requested variance not be granted.
So there's the size of a lot, nothing to do with the steep slope or anything that we normally get pushback from Manny Young, correct?
I don't have the letter in front of me.
I did not see that in the letter.
The reason with the steep slope, from what I believe, it's because it's a retaining wall.
the attorney didn't cover this but it's a retaining wall and in order to connect
services to the street they would have to do a split of the retaining wall but it looks like
they're still going to keep a retaining wall on the plan it also seems as if they don't like the
design that's right mr chair i can actually read the basis for their letter it's just two sentences
The basic proposition, members felt that the design was manifestly out of place and inappropriate for the immediate surrounding and for the neighborhood in general.
Therefore, the project did not warrant the support of the community or a variance.
It has nothing to do with the size of the lot.
And if you look at that block of Shure's Lane, you would see that there are similarly situated properties with equal size to what we're offering.
and if you and again it again if as part of the redesign they were even looking
for us to eliminate that side structure on the pre -existing structure so again
they were trying to be architects not the only actually the zoning related
subjects understood thank you any other comments questions from the board they
did get a steep slope refusal somebody's talking who they did get it okay all right calendar number
i'm sorry i was just saying that the refusals they did get a slip slope refusal
calendar number three nine six six five one three two sure is lane my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you thank you all may i be excused yes you may
thank you
be safe
you too
Mr. Chair
do we go to
is Hurt
did we get Hurt
is Hurt back
or not
is he on
I do see him
on the list
we'll promote him
hold on
before we go
I'm sorry Tanya
we've skipped over
number two
correct
and Sharon
and where go with that you get the letter we needed from uh councilman o 'neill's office no
i got an email saying she was sending it but i haven't received it yet
all right uh if you don't mind mr perry we're going to just skip over and then we'll get back
to you uh how about case number three hirk are you on i'm here i'm sorry okay so we'll go with
Carol number three. Okay. Calendar number 39716, 1222 North 2nd Street. Mr. Griegos,
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Name and address for the record, please. Good afternoon. Hercules Griegos, 1835
Market Street. I'm here today representing 1222 Holdings LLC, owner of 1222 North
Second Street. I have with me today Michael Petrikowski and Bill Katz from
1222 Holdings. Additionally, Jeff Watson from Harman Deutsch Architects should be
on. Just to give you a history, this is the corner of 2nd Thompson through to
American Street. This project was originally approved in 2016 where the
ZVA granted a variance for a multi -family building, 64 units with
ground floor retail, as well as ground floor live work units.
Subsequently, oh, and 52 parking spaces.
Subsequently, in 2018, an administrative review was granted to reconfigure the ground floor and
increase some of the retail space. Fast forward to 2020, HBO began to design
the building for the clients and the client, the owners built the adjacent apartment buildings
and they were seeing an increased demand for
and they were seeing an increased demand for commercial space at the ground floor and parking.
As such, we're here today with essentially a plan to reconfigure the ground floor,
increase the number of parking spaces from a previously approved 52 to 57 spaces.
This is accomplished via mechanical parking, increase and reconfigure the ground floor retail to add for additional retail, and take the previously approved live work units that were on the ground floor and move them up to the second floor.
um additionally um just to give everybody some history we met with the rco i believe it was in
january um we have a letter of support i believe the vote was um 11 nothing in support of the
project the only refusals that were generated were once again for the electronic uh i'm sorry
It was the refusal generated for the CMX2 for the ground floor use that was previously
approved in our original project.
Subsequently, when we are increasing the size of that ground floor retail, that triggers
that variance.
Additionally, there is a refusal generated for electronic vehicle charging stations.
We have looked at this.
we have a mechanical parking system that essentially moves the cars around, and
my video is not on, sorry, moves the cars around, and
as a result, placing the electric electrical charging stations is not possible. We even
looked at putting in adjacent spaces, but that's really our stacking, so that's not going to work.
And then, finally, there is a refusal for a setback requirement.
We are set back off the street two feet of the portion of the building.
This carried over from the original approval, and because the adjacent property comes to
the street, they wrote this technical refusal.
In your packet, there should be a letter of support from the RCO, and I'm happy to
if the screen is shared to walk everyone through the plans
or turn it over to Harman Deutsch to respond to any questions.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter?
Anyone on, Tanya?
um no one has
is that me so bill i keep muting you because you have feedback
but do you wish to testify regardless and i can unmute you i think bill bill katz uh
bill if you just want to affirm my testimony adopted as your own um
Bill Katz is Katz C -A -T -T -S
Mr. Katz I didn't swear in you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes all right thank you Herc
Bill have you heard my testimony and do you adopt it as your own
yes thank you all right I'll ask again is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this matter
Planning hands I'm sorry somebody up no no other hands you're fine okay thank you I will just say
that you know from from when we submitted the application through the construction design
there were some minor changes and we've submitted those to Sharon and the revised plan so this will
be a revised plan essentially you know when we went to design construction we reduced the size
of the building by a couple inches we had to reconfigure some gfa but really all structurally
driven and does not increase any of the refusals thank you uh questions from the board
planning commission chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential
use on the comprehensive plan. We have no objection to the minor modifications of the plan that was
previously approved. Thank you. Calendar number 397161222 North 2nd Street. My vote is yes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon, reading your notes. A revised plan proviso will be required.
yes revised plans three pages submitted to and approved by the zoning board today yes
Yes. Revised plan is three pages. Submitted to and approved by the zoning board.
thank you sonographer did you get that yes i got it thank you you're welcome my vote is yes with
proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you thank you very much i appreciate everyone's
time stay safe thank you i said we do have the letter we do have the letter on sully street now
if you'd like to go forward with that that's the next one in succession right number number two
yeah let's go with number two calendar number 39225 1869 sally avenue mr perry
uh i just promoted him as panelists he should be here in a minute okay
Thank you.
Mr. Perry are you there you are available if you want to unmute yourself you can go
ahead and speak okay I'm trying on what we can we can hear you okay great I am
hear. I'm on Zoom. I don't know if you can see me on your video. We can hear you. Mr. Perry, do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Now we can
see you. Now we see you. Thank you very much. And you can see I'm in my office. This is an application
for two surface off -street
parkings. Mr. Perry, stop.
Name and address.
Oh, my name and address.
Okay, it's Roger Perry,
734 South 4th Street,
Philadelphia, PA,
19147.
This is an application
to the board for a variance
from a refusal for two
off -street surface parkings.
Helena Worthington is the owner of the property.
i'm sorry i'm sorry chair could you swear him in i'm sorry my mistake i need to swear you in
they swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you thank you tanya thanks all set
all set yes sir
uh 1869 Solly Avenue single -family house is a request for two off -street surface parking
the entrance would be off of Loretta Avenue which is the side street from Solly Avenue it's a corner
property the documents and the photographs have been submitted to the board it's noted that in
this particular block and neighborhood all the other adjacent houses do have off -street parking
some with surface parking some with both surface parking and garages this uh proposal and refusal
was heard by the ronhurst civic association in january and it was supported without objection
by the members of the community so what we're asking for is mr perry can i interrupt you for
minute and let you know that I did just send you a letter from Alice Udovich
saying that the Ron Hurst Civic Association has no objection. Thank you.
So in conjunction with the submissions and the photographs on this appeal, we're
asking the board to approve the use of two off -street surface parking. There
will be a gate on Loretta Avenue and it'll have the appropriate curb cut and
and be available with a concrete pad
pursuant to appropriate building scenarios.
Thank you.
There also is a letter from Councilman O 'Neill
in non -opposition.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify
in this matter?
There are currently no hands up.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Planning Commission.
planning commission chairman and members of the board this property is
Chairman and members of the Board, this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
We feel that due to the placement of the driveway on a corner lot that only one space should be approved to accommodate some of the setback.
It also appears that there is ample on -street parking to alleviate the request for only one parking space.
Accordingly, we recommend that only one space be approved.
all right uh just a question again sharon ron her said they're not opposed to it correct
that's correct and the councilman's okay all right uh calendar number three nine two two five
one eight six nine solely avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
Tom unmute yourself
Tom unmute
you got to unmute yourself
why is Alan there
my vote is yes
thank you Tom
thank you
thank you
yes you go
stay safe
Alan you're back on
can't hear you got on mute yeah i'm trying can you hear me now yes we can you know what i don't
think you actually granted sure's lane with the proviso with the with the uh revised drawings
you did not did
so i just thought about that so i just wanted to want yeah we said revised plans three pages
time today was it that was uh oh that was second that was second street all right so yep just yeah
how many pages did you have that one alan did you submit those in advance i did it's actually
sharon if you look at you actually asked me a question about it it was okay
it's a second page in it's one page one page yeah i can't read my eyesight's going um
I can't see the
I can't see the date.
Hold on a second.
Well, if it's one page, we'll revote it.
That's all.
Yeah, okay.
All right.
Calendar number 39665.
132 Schurz Lane.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
One page stamped today.
Not stamped.
Submitted to and approved by the board today.
One page submitted to and approved by the board today.
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you all thank you all right have a great day
you too
moving on to the next case calendar number 39600 10 west gravers lane
and mr gumbel tanya is the attorney yes can you hear me
hello are you there yes we can thank you okay sir do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes we do um sorry it's a referral can you put your name
and address on the record please yes good afternoon mr chair members of the board my name is mike
gumbel g -u -m -b -e -l my address is 850 south 2nd street philadelphia one nine
one four seven I'm gonna swear you in sir do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you please proceed
in one second i promoted him to panelists
he's muted also
yes mike you have to unmute yourself and you're promoted to panelists
in case you want to use your video am i back now yes you are thank you
okay um i'm joined on the line today by dr jacob arasco he's the managing member
of the owning entity tommy holdings llc for 10 west gravers lane in case you have any questions
for mr dr arasco and if you want to swear him in mr chairman we'll wait to hear from you and then
we'll ask okay uh the subject property itself is up in the chestnut hill section of the city
it's approximately 7 ,500 square feet and currently zoned CMX 2 .5. This is a use
This is a use application seeking a special exception for a group practitioner office.
application seeking a special exception for a group practitioner office.
Dr. Roscoe and his wife have been operating their pediatric dentistry and orthodontics practice several blocks away on Germantown Avenue.
And as their lease expired, they sought an opportunity to purchase the building and cement their practice in the community.
Unfortunately, the code only permits a solo practitioner medical office by right, thus resulting in the current appeal.
uh we previously met with the several times with the chestnut hill community association and
overlapping rcos which submitted a letter of support prior to the shutdown uh in addition
we have submitted to zbi i believe all the requested supporting documents
anyone else wish to testify on this case
i do have charles richardson's name uh hand up mr richardson i am going to allow you to speak
you can richardson mr richardson please identify yourself spell your name for the stenographer
charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass r -i -c -h -a -r -d -s -o -n uh since we had no letter
to submit at the moment before you go I just want to ask you swear for him to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God thank you Charles uh we weren't able to
submit a letter but uh just wanted to let you know the councilwoman has no opposition to the uh
to the request of the variant thank you give our best to the councilwoman I shall
Anyone else wish to testify on this matter?
Questions from the board? Am I going too fast, Tanya?
No, you're fine. Okay, questions from the board? Can we pause for one second, please? Yep.
Bear with us two more minutes, please.
Thank you.
Chair, I'm going to just have to make a quick phone call to legal counsel, if you can give
me a minute, please.
No problem.
Hi, Chair.
thank you for um the pause we are going to request that um another planning commission
representative give their opinion or recommendation thank you so much
thank you who will that be
Martha Cross
All right, Ms. Cross
And if we can give her just one second
We'll be brought up to speed
Hi, good afternoon
I believe Ron Bednar is also prepared to give testimony
Martha, Martha, could you identify yourself, please?
Sure. Martha Cross, M -A -R -T -H -A -C -R -O -S -S, as in SAM, representing the Planning Commission.
Okay, please proceed.
Sure. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Zoning Board. The Planning Commission has no objection to this application.
Thank you very much. All right. Any questions from the Board I asked and the Planning Commission gave its opinion?
calendar number i'm sorry chair yeah i could intervene we do have a hand up from celeste
yeah I could intervene we do have a hand up from Celeste Hardister I'm going to
harderster
allow you to speak you can unmute yourself and give your testimony I also
did just text the chair the letter from the community organization good
Good afternoon. This is Celeste Hardister, C -E -L -E -S -T -E -H -A -R -D -E -S -T -E -R, address 368 Green Lane, 19128.
Ms. Hardister, we swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed with his testimony.
The Chesson Hill Community Association is very much in support of this application.
We did provide three provisos in our letter of support, one of which is certainly pertinent
to the ZBA function, which is hours of operation can be any two nights of the week until 7 p .m.
and until 5 .30 p .m. on the other three weekdays.
no weekend hours emergencies can be outside of standard hours we request that proviso
mr. chairman if i may yes please um so we we understand the community association's concerns
however we did voice strong opposition to them and objections at the meetings themselves
ourselves are feeling being several fold one that the restrictions themselves are
arbitrary unjustified and that other businesses in the area do not have to abide by these types
of our restrictions secondly and one of the major concerns was that basically the owners can't
predict for things that might happen in the future which would cause them to have to change their
hours and as we've all seen in the last several months the pandemic occurred and they've been
shut down for effectively four months now. So they now have a backlog of patients that they need to
take care of. And we're just not sure that those hours are going to allow them to do that moving
forward. Understood. Anyone else wish to testify on this matter?
uh i have no more hands up you can proceed chair okay so calendar number three nine six zero zero
10 west gravers lane my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
good luck thank you very much good luck the last case i believe
i believe any unfit tanya any unfinished business no not at all we're all done and
see you all tomorrow yes thank you if you okay thank everyone again
Thank you
Everybody stay safe, please
Therese Court Reporter
Thank you so much
Same time tomorrow with the same organ
Okay, thank you, Ty
Bye, Carol
Bye, Paula
Hi, I miss you
I love it
Confessor, you need something?
Confessor
Hold on
I didn't get the memo
What do we have tomorrow?
Confessor.
Tomorrow, what do we have?
I didn't get the memo.
What do you mean?
The cases?
We have another hearing tomorrow?
Yeah, yeah.
Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
Okay, I didn't get tomorrow.
I didn't know about tomorrow.
Aren't you available?
Yeah, same time?
Yeah, same station.
Tomorrow, though, we're doing a 9 o 'clock.
I mean, excuse me, a 10 o 'clock.
A 2 o 'clock and a 3 .30, I believe.
Is that correct?
And Tom, are you here tomorrow?
I made myself up.
Yes, thanks.
We have a quorum.
If we have any other questions, if we could talk offline on sharing Zoom.
Thank you kindly all.
Thank you.
Bye -bye.