You want to ask questions to her?
Just one, Mr. Chair.
Okay, go ahead, proceed.
Good morning, Ms. Weber.
Are you, you mentioned earlier
you own several restaurants in Philadelphia?
And are those also BYOB restaurants?
No, but Ambrosia has an active liquor license.
Okay, so you would consider yourself
a competitor of Ambrosia's?
No, not at all.
Okay, thank you.
and by the way the the restaurant there's no saturation in restaurants all right right thank
you very much for calling it is there anyone else in the council mr chairman yes uh thank you for
accommodating could you state your name please william mafucci m as in michael a ffu cci right
do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do do you live in
area, sir? I live in the Philadelphia area. I'm not in Center City. I'm the attorney. I'm the
attorney for Megan, for Jill and her husband, Evan. Right. Okay. Proceed. All right. I'm also
the attorney for Megan Robb and Terry Scott, who own the property at 2322 Locust Street. That's
the lot that is immediately continuous to the existing Ambrosia restaurant, as well as the
outdoor rear courtyard portion of 233 South Locust Street. Likewise, I represent Claire
and Claire Welty and Axel Zielinski, other users of that courtyard space. Now, my clients have been
joined. It's not just a few neighbors who oppose this. My clients have been joined by dozens of
people who oppose this. We submitted a petition to the Center City Residents Association. Many of
the other objectors may be participating. This is not everyone against just the two neighbors.
We have two categorical objections, one of which is general and one of which is specific.
The general objection is, as Jill began to explain, and as you'll hear some more,
is that Ambrosia's restaurant activities in its existing location have already caused
numerous serious problems, problems about which current management has been cavalier
and unresponsive. And any expansion of the restaurant into the residential space
next door would exacerbate those problems. The specific objection is that Ambrosia's
management is insistent on having outdoor eating space, even though only during seven or eight
months of the year in the rear courtyard of the residential property that shares, that would
immediately completely destroy the residential atmosphere and ambient beauty of that courtyard,
which constitutes literally half of the footprint of the other four lots that share.
Now, before I address some of the specific objections that my clients have, I want to
address the question of hardship. Hardship is not and cannot be the presence of a restaurant
next door. To suggest that the property, 233 South 24th Street, that there's a hardship that
warrants its use, that makes it impossible or impractical to use the property as a residence,
is patently absurd. It's been used as a residence, adored as a residence,
including by some people who may be on this call for decades. During the last year it was listed
as a residence and we've spoken with the realtor there was lots of interest. Yes it was purchased
through a short ceiling because the prior owners were wearing a divorce. There is no hardship.
There cannot be any hardship and excuse me Mr. Chairman excuse me council I think we need to
I think we need to move on. We have a lot of cases today.
move on we have a lot of cases today all right that's that's
All right. That's that's fine. All right.
All right. Allow me to address the devastating impact that the outdoor dining would have on the ability of my clients.
Megan Scott. Megan. Are they are they here?
They are. Yes, they are present. Megan Robb and Terry Scott.
You're testifying for them.
Well, no, actually, I'm going to I'm going to just introduce them and they will and they will testify.
uh so terry terry scott megan is a professor uh terry is available he will testify i'm just
introducing who they are uh if this uh claire welty who happens also to be a professor
you're confused who do you want to testify now first it will be terry terry scott okay cool
Call, have her raise her hand.
No, Terry is a man.
Terry has his hand raised now.
Okay, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Excellent.
Yeah, my name is Terry Scott, T-E-R-R-Y-S-C-O-T-T.
Right, do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Yeah, well, thank you for this opportunity for letting me speak on behalf of the residents around us and my wife, Megan, as well, who live at 2322 Locust Street, which abuts both the Ambrosia restaurant currently and the 233 South 24th Street for the proposed expansion.
Are you for the expansion, sir?
I am against the expansion. And the reason is because of the immediacy of the neighboring property and the direct harm it would cause to the use of enjoyment of our of our home.
All right. All right. So, Mr. Weber, do you have any questions?
No, I don't have any questions for Mr. Scott.
okay all right so maybe maybe just to uh elucidate more of the points i'm not sure if i'm able to
do a screen share or anything like that um but our our backyard is is shed essentially shed by the
the space of the 233 lot and this is a space that we enjoy regularly um we're already contending
with the front and so yeah okay so do you have anyone else to testify uh we we don't but we
what we'd like to do one of the things that that terry couldn't present is a video a very short
it's a half a minute video that will give you a a much better sense as to as terry puts it
the immediacy where's the video sorry where's sorry where's the video it's we're gonna put it
right now. Put it up right now. Thank you.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS VIDEO MEANS, REALLY, SIR.
THANK YOU FOR THE VIDEO.
SIR, YOU'RE STILL MUTE.
Yes, I just wanted to explain that the video brings you into the courtyard space, and it shows you, it's a shared space.
I understand.
All right.
Okay, is there anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to testify?
able to join us she i see no hands thank you um planning commission
good morning chair bergman good morning board members ian hegarty here on behalf of the
philadelphia city planning commission my last name is spelled h-e-g-a-r-t-y right do you swear
from tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do proceed sir thank you
very much good morning board members um the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RM1 multi-family zoning at this location.
existing rm1 multi-fail
The appellant here is proposing to expand an existing restaurant at 231 South 24th to the subject property.
As council has cited, the earliest record of eating and drinking use at 231 dates to 1959.
And we consider this proposal to be akin to an expansion of an existing non-conforming use.
We further believe that the appellant has demonstrated that the subject property has limited value in residential use.
Ian, you're freezing up.
He fell out here.
Okay, he'll get back on. Ian, David?
Good morning, Chair Bergman. David, F-E-C-T.
Spell your name, please, David. I'm sorry.
Yes, F-E-C-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Why don't you proceed?
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think as Mr. Hegarty was saying, we further believe that the appellant has demonstrated that the subject property has limited value in residential use.
We believe that the appellant has shown that the proposed variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties.
And so the City Planning Commission will recommend that the board grant the variance with the condition that outdoor seating be required to close by 10 p.m.
mi2022002205233 south 24th street i vote yes proviso outdoor seating closed by 10 p.m
thomas holloman my vote is yes we're proviso
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
it's no shaheed my vote is yes supervisor jim
okay council that's three votes
next case everyone
thank you council
Number four, MI-2022-000477-228-North 63rd Street, Parcel A.
Brandon Savarin is the attorney.
Letter of support from Chief Ability.
Also letters of support from 24 neighbors,
Chevrolet and the 200th block of Grove Street.
is coming in as a panel
good morning mr chairman good morning council could you state your name and spell it please for the
court reporter? Yes. Brandon Saverin, B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is the owner of the property. It's an LLC called BSDWAY5LLC, and one of its principles, Lionel Love, is here to adopt my testimony.
Okay. Ishmael Shahid, our board secretary, has a few questions.
One second, Chair.
Thank you.
good morning can you hear me yes go ahead do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy um i agree to waive the reading but um i uh i don't step to
its accuracy i'll explain in one second we've we've eliminated one of the refusals uh thanks
to the revised design okay did you email all the exhibits and documents as required such
Okay. Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required, such as proof of ownership, tax clearance, copy of refusal or referral, pictures or drawings of the property, five days, in advance of this hearing? And did you meet with an RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above, Mr. Sheed.
All right. Thank you. Please share your screen and proceed.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board. Thank you for your time in advance today. So this is
the refusal that we're here to discuss. I will actually be allowing the architect to walk you
through the plan. So in literally under a minute, I'll stop sharing my screen and allow you to call
him and he'll begin his presentation. But allow me to just walk through the refusal real quickly.
There are two refusals at issue here. One is a use refusal. One is a dimensional refusal.
We submitted proviso plans in our exhibit packet that eliminate the dimensional refusal, which
I'll highlight here, really came down to this issue, that bicycle storage was within the required
front setback and that was not permitted. We eliminated that bicycle storage facility from
that location by moving it into the building. So that refusal is no longer an issue under the
proviso plans. The use refusal for multifamily use in the RSA 5 district is really what we're here
for a variance on. And just to address the address for a second, the property I'm going to show you
on Atlas. This highlighted is actually 228 North 63rd Street, which is not the property at issue.
The subject property is here. This used to be known as 228 North 63rd A. OPA, through the actions of
my client before this matter, obtained a new address, which for whatever reason was not
reflected on the refusal. That is 247 North Gross Street, as this property is a flag lot with frontage
on Gross Street. Just to give you a little background on these parcels, this is a 5,000
square foot vacant lot. I believe it's gravel with a small storage shed, which would be taken
away if this project were to go forward. There is no history of single family use on this parcel
shown by my cursor here. And we would be looking to essentially try and use this large space
by erecting a building that is mostly here, but, you know, reaches forward for access to the street
through the flagpole as it were. It's a difficult property to construct multiple single family homes
on given the layout. The access would be a serious issue so an apartment building is
sort of the more natural format here. With that and I will stop sharing my screen
James Hare or Jimmy Hare is the architect.
Do we see his hand raised?
Mr. Harrah, can you raise your hand?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
James Harrah, H-A-R-R-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hey, Jimmy. So, Jimmy, you should have the ability to share your screen. If you could walk the board briefly through the zoning plan and or floor plans, that would be great.
Now, I'll make a couple additional comments after that.
Yeah, I just want to make sure everyone can see my screen clearly right now.
Yeah, we can see you.
Awesome. So, as Brandon pointed out, 228 North 63rd Street, Lot A slash 247 North Grove Street is the address we're looking at right now.
And here is the current site plan of the project. You can kind of see the red outline of the site, forming the flagpole lot that Brandon alluded to in his comments.
Just a quick little street view perspective of it right here. You can see the adjacent properties all have porches and ours is at a slab on grade level.
The primary reason for the slab on grade is to accommodate ADA and type B accessible units on this ground floor that you'll see as we go through.
So, no basement on this project, full slab on grade, but one interesting characteristic
of the site is that it does rise about six to seven feet from the front of the property
I believe six to seven feet from the front of the property to the rear. And so to accommodate
to the rear.
that, we have a ramp going in here to two type B units in the rear. And then as you enter the
building, we have an office space and mail storage, utility closet, indoor trash storage that will be
ventilated to the exterior, and then all of our bike storage, as Brandon mentioned, we move that
indoors. Again, just in the rear here, we have two two-bedroom, one-bath units that are again
accessible units and then two staircases that lead to the public right away moving on up to
our second floor here we have one unit in the front that's a one bedroom one bath
has its own mechanical and laundry and unit enter into the kitchen living room with windows through
a light where will excuse me light well that peek out into the alleyway between us and 243
North Grove Street, and then the bedroom off the front of the property, and then in the rear here
you can see we have one two-bedroom, two-bath unit in the middle, and then one one-bedroom,
one-bath unit on the end. Moving up to the third and fourth floor, this unit or this level is
duplicated up. We have the compliant eight-foot setback for a three-story building adjacent to
two two-story buildings, so this first floor unit is a little bit smaller but still pretty good
walking into a kitchen, living room area,