the required mailings for. So these were all above board. Different folks attended the different
meetings as the project was revised. This is pretty normal stuff. At the end of the third
meeting, I believe that on the call, the RCO had announced that they were going to oppose the
project, whereas they had actually supported it at the outset. Their first letter was of support
way back when. They then reversed course having counted the votes from that meeting, and I have
documentation in the packet, exhibit packet, explaining what happened there. Okay, thank you
very much. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City
Planning Commission. Board members, in 2018, the zoning map was amended on this block in accord
of the recommendations from the comprehensive plan. This block was changed from RM1 multifamily
to RSA5. The intent of this amendment was to recognize the predominantly single-family context
on this narrow street that was described by the first witness, Ms. Booker-Jones.
With regard to the multifamily use, we recognize the unique shape of this lot. However, given the
total lot size, we do not believe that this variance is the minimum necessary to afford
relief. As a point of reference for the board, if this were a regularly shaped lot of equal size,
it could be subdivided into three single-family lots, whereas the appellant is proposing 11
dwelling units. And we further believe the appellant has not met the burden of demonstrating
that the proposed use will not permanently impair conforming use on adjacent property
by building in the backyards. And so we recommend that the board deny the variances.
Mr. Chair, I'll simply say you have to take the lot as it is. I mean, I think arguments about what would work here if it was regularly shaped are very dubious. The shape is what it is. We didn't make the shape. That's all I have to say on that.
Thank you. We've had quite a bit of testimony about this. What I want to do is take this back
to an executive session and talk to the board members about it. So we're going to continue
So we're going to continue this. I don't believe we meet next week, right? Am I right, Hillary?
this. I don't believe we meet next week, right?
That is correct, Mr. Chair. We don't have any hearings next week. So the following Wednesday.
Right. We'll take this to executive session and then we will vote in public.
Thank you, everyone, for your testimony. And thank you, Brandon.
You're welcome. Thank you.
All right. Number five, MI 2022-002-683-417 East Worcester, Unit 103.
Von Haskins is the attorney. This was a continuance. I believe we have an RCO position
that we're going to hear from and also possibly the council person's office am i right hillary
yes that is correct mr chair um we did we did receive um letters from um two rcos um in support
the coordinating rco the 12th democratic committee 12th war democratic committee
um as well as the wakefield 49ers um and councilman bass has taken a non a position
of non-opposition in this case um if if mr richardson in the audience
and i believe miss haskins is here as well i see her in here hi miss haskins
miss haskins
so i do see mr richardson miss haskins you hello could you unmute yourself please yes i'm here
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yvonne, Y-V-O-N-N-E, Haskins, H-A-S-K-I-N-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So I'm trying to get, I'm looking to get the RCO testimony in.
And Mr. Richardson?
I'm here, Mr. Chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Do you swear, firm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
I guess the question was whether the Councilwoman is in favor or not in favor.
She is not opposed to granting the variance on this property.
It is a small portion of a huge property that is being subdivided off. It's been encroached upon by the neighbor that lives on the opposite street.
And, you know, so we wanted to make sure that WCRP has the opportunity to handle whatever business they need to handle with this individual.
All right. Thank you. It's the RCO here. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. RCO?
Hillary, do we have a letter?
Yes, we have a letter. We can just read into the record then from the 12th Ward Democratic
Committee. Do you have that, Mr. Chair?
Do you have the letter right there, Hillary? Could you read it in?
Yes. Give me one moment, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
All right, this is from a letter of explanation and support of variance for 417 East Worcester
Street. This is from the 12th Ward Democratic Committee. The meeting was held via Zoom by the
12th Ward Democratic Committee coordinating RCO on November 1st at 6 p.m. There were eight
number eight near neighbors in attendance and two overlapping RCOs Faith CDC RCO and Wakefield
49ers. The property listed on the refusal is 417 East Worcester Street Unit 103 which is a
discrepancy with the attached Column Street address and will be clarified at the ZBA hearing by the
developers. The lot is a triangular piece of property that was not developed with the Nicole
Hines development and the applicant is requesting a variance to transfer the undeveloped area to the
private homeowner attached to the property. The hardship that has been created for the applicant
is a clouded title on their property and they want to subdivide the undeveloped parcel giving
the 1,313 square feet to the Column Street address homeowner. The homeowner has been
contacted by 12th Ward Democratic RCO and has stated claim to the unused parcel as their own.
Ward Democratic RCO and has stated claim to the unused parcel as their own. The vote from the
community based on the information presented was in support of the variants. The coordinating RCO
and the overlapping RCOs were in agreement with the community and support the variants requested
by the applicant. Thank you. Cheryl Smith, 12th Ward Democratic RCO. And we've already heard from
Planning Commission, so now we'll vote myself, Aja and Thomas Holliman. Am I correct? Yeah, and I
know if Ms. Haskins has a response or anything that that she would like to add. Ms. Haskins?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are just very happy that we are able to receive the support and we
assume that the material that we presented is on the record and a part of your deliberation.
Thank you very much, Ms. Haskins. So MI-2022-002-683-417, Worcester, Unit 103, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Hige, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you. You have your votes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Everybody have a happy Thanksgiving.
Number eight, MI 2021-003-524-321-47, North 16th Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
letter of support from swamp poodle neighborhood parcels association with provisos
and hillary i think we have a few other yes mr chair we've also received letters of support
from the north central philadelphia cdc which was the coordinating rco as well as tayoga united
Those letters were support based on a community benefits agreement that was signed and included some provisos.
Thank you very much. Mr. Clinton.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Henry Clinton for the applicant, 3221 North 16th Street, LLC, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, and my client who is a principal of this LLC, Rafi, R-A-F-I, B-A-L-K, is on the call.
Right. Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Shahid has a few questions for you.
good afternoon council good afternoon mr heave you agree to waive the refuse the refuse or
referral to stipulate to his accuracy i do did you email all the exhibits and documents as required
such as the proof of ownership tax clearance copy of refusal or referral pictures were drawings of
the property five days in advance of this hearing? And did you meet with an RCO?
Yes, all to the above. In terms of the tax clearance, we have a tax record which will
serve as a clearance. Understood. Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Is that visible? Yes, it is.
All right. So, again, I'm Henry Clinton on behalf of the LLC, which owns this property, 3221 to 49 North 16th Street. And this proposal is for 43 dwelling units on a site that was formerly an institutional use on a block that's surrounded by several large apartment buildings.
One apartment building that was approved by this board in December of this year, a multifamily use, as well as some vacant lots.
So I'm going to walk through the proposal.
This is my table of contents, AA through A11, which I asked to be admitted into evidence.
My appearance statement and the refusal.
So this is an RSA 3 zoning district, but from the testimony that you'll hear today, you'll see that it's really not a single family block at all. It's multidimensional, both institutional uses as well as multifamily.
So we have three use refusals. The two are really one, which is multifamily is not permitted in a zoning district.
And the third use refusal is accessory parking spaces. At the outset of this project, the request was for 48 units.
The request was for 48 units, and we've downsized this to 43 units, and the parking spaces initially were only at 33, and we upsized the parking spaces so that the unit count and the parking count are exactly the same.
So that use has gone away, that refusal rather has gone away.
So there's three-dimensional refusals that now warrant consideration by the board.
The open space is de minimis as it's under 10%.
And as the architect, Russell Nohler, will explain when I had him testify,
explaining why the height is a little bit beyond the code requirements,
why the parking at the rear serves as the rear yard,
and why the front yard is at the same distance from the curb as is the buildings to the south of it.
But again, I think you'll be able to see from the pictures that I show,
what we're trying to explain. The RCO letters of support didn't come in in time for me to put in
this package, but as Ms. Emerson mentioned, we do have several letters of support. So this is a
pretty significant photograph. I wanted to spend a little bit of time on this to give the board
some orientation as to what's going on on the block. So this is our parcel right here where
my cursor is just north of this large building, which is on Allegheny Avenue. So my cursor
at the south part is Allegheny Avenue. This large building is formerly the St. Joseph's Home for
Boys. We believe that this parcel that my client has acquired and wants to develop was once part
of St. Joseph's Home for Boys. It's been very difficult to get aerial photographs to show that,
but I'm going to walk you through some historical photographs to show you that there was a large
building on this plot of ground over 20 years ago which has since been demolished. So currently the
St. Joseph's Home for Boys this is now 62 single bedroom housing units. The rear of the building
has been used as Calvary Chapel for many decades as I understand it. Directly across the street
and this is 16th Street here. Directly across the street to the west of the St. Joseph's Home
for boys is a 82 unit, excuse me, 87 unit apartment complex known as Allegheny Apartments.
And then behind the apartments is a parking lot that's owned by Mount Sinai. Now, this photograph
is from 2020. And that's important because Mount Sinai Church, which is right here, has been
demolished. And Mount Sinai, and I believe the attorney for Mount Sinai is on the call and will
you know kind of support what i'm what i'm saying about the church but mount sinai owns this lot
this lot this lot this lot and then three or four lots on 17th street and the idea is that mount
sinai has combined and consolidated all these lots and is going to build a church with parking in the
rear so on 16th street we're not going to have a church we're going to have parking if it's if the
the proposal is successful and everyone hopes that it is,
we'll have parking facing our project.
In addition, I understand that church will also propose
parking on this vacant lot, which they own.
The church tried to acquire this building
where my cursor is,
which is between the Allegheny Apartments and the church.
They were unsuccessful,
but the developer before this board in October
was able to obtain approval for 27 units
with 11 parking spaces.
So right now, the church is not there
and this structure is not there
because the structure is gonna be developed
into 27 apartments and then the church
is going to build a new church for themselves.
And then further to the north is a multi-use building.
I think it's five to seven units.
We actually met and talked to the owner
and he's been operating that with his father
for a number of years.
So far into the block, we have three residential properties, one of which is a triplex, and I believe there's two single-family.
So if you look at this block, which stretches from Allegheny to Westmoreland, about 90% or more is non-single-family residential use, apartment use, institutional use with the church, and a proposed apartment building.
So we believe that our project fits within context of the block as it exists now, and as it will exist when there's further development as the years progress.
So now this is 2022. Don't forget, this is a photograph from 2020. The next photograph is from 2022.
Again, this is our parcel outlined in black. And across the street, you can see that the church that I referenced, as well as the large building where the church is.
that the church that I referenced, as well as the large building where the 27 units will be,
have now been demolished. So basically, this whole area to the west of our project will be
developed in the coming years. And then I wanted to walk the board back in time of other photographs.
This is the photograph from 2021. This is the 2020 photograph I showed you, again, showing you
St. Joseph's Home for Boys, Allegheny Apartments, 27 units, Mount Sinai Church, and the consolidation
of all these lots for Mount Sinai Church.
So now I take it back to 2004, because you're trying to determine when the building that
was located on our property, when it was demolished.
So I was able to find an aerial photograph from 2004, showing that the one building that
was here was demolished.
We think it was a mile or sometime between 1996 and 2004.
And you can see that the other buildings I referenced, you know, the church and what's going to be the apartment building are still in existence or were still in existence in 2004.
Another photograph from 2004.
And I had to go back to 1999.
Again, here is the building.
You can see it's one large institutional building that is on our site.
And this almost mimics the footprint of our building. Our building goes a little bit further to the north, but in terms of depth, it's just about the same as what was there. I don't want to, you know, indicate to this board it's an exact footprint match. All I'm saying is that it's close and it approximates it.
and then I went back and got a photograph from 1996 again this is not a great photograph but
this is what I was able to find from aerial photographs to give a board a taste of what's
going on on the block again you can see St. Joseph's home for boys here and again you can
see the outline of the building that was once there same thing with 95 but again the photograph
is not so great. So before I get to the plans, I just wanted to talk a little bit about some
of the changes that we've made to the original submission. And when Mr. Orr testifies, he'll
get into some of these areas more minutely than I will. But basically, we reduced the number of
units. We increased the open area. We increased the parking stalls from 33 to 44. The bike racks,
We had to decrease by one because we increased the trashy area internal to the building.
We added some projected bays and awning and arch envelopments, again, because we had three