Minutes for all.
We're live.
Tanya, we're going to go.
As you wish, sir.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present.
Ishmael Shahid, our board secretary.
Present.
Thomas Holman, a board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, a board member.
It looks like Mr. Snell fell out, Chair.
But we know he's here.
Also, our board administrator, Tanya Sunkit, is here.
Our board attorney, Sharon Saleta, and also Sherman Toppin.
Before we begin, let me talk about our virtual format.
One, be advised these proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting our board administrator, tonyasunkett at phila .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
Three, if you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to mute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, please note the question and answer box is not for comments.
Any comments should be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our board administrator.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for that.
No, no, no.
I am present.
I hit the wrong button.
I'm sorry about that.
It cut me off.
I'd like to call case number five, MI 2021 -005828, 224 -30 West Top on Hawkins Street.
And could both attorneys be admitted, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Masters?
And they're both coming in now as panelists.
Thank you.
good morning uh mr chairman members of the board morning good morning mr chair members of the board
okay i'd like to swear both of you please do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do i do okay we're going to move this case to uh february 15th
and Sharon's letter will lay out some legal issues we'd like to clarify. Sharon?
Yes, because the case involves a motion to dismiss as well as an appeal against you and I,
we're asking that Mr. Phillips that you submit a brief in support of your motion to dismiss by
January 28th and Mr. Masters that you submit a reply to that brief by February 11th on the 15th
board will begin by hearing the motion to dismiss and on that because this is an appeal against
O &I there won't be any additional posting required I believe this was agreeable to both of you is
Is that correct?
Yes, it is.
Great, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And will that be the 9 .30 a .m. listing on the 15th?
Yes, there is only a 9 .30 listing that day.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman Bergman and members of the board.
Thank you as well.
Go ahead, go ahead, sir.
Oh, I have more business before you later today, I believe.
All right, great.
Good to see you then.
all right um are there any continuances requested
All right.
Are there any continuances requested?
yes chair i do have a hand okay
mr knockamson you can unmute yourself uh good morning mr chair members of the board
Alan Nockmson of Nockmson, PC.
Alan, A -L -A -N, last name Nockmson, N -O -C -H -U -M -S -O -N,
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir. Proceed.
Mr. Chair, I have two continuance requests at the behest of the community,
the first of which is 2246 North 21st Street
under MI -2021 -001278.
That's number four.
Okay, thank you.
And then the second continuance request, Mr. Chair,
is 1317 North 49th Street, MI -2021 -002165.
I believe that's number one on your list.
Okay, thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any other continuances?
Chair, we also have Mr. Jarrett.
Mr. Jarrett, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Jared Klein, it's K -L -E -I -N from Blank Rome,
130 North 18th Street in Philadelphia.
You swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
yes I do okay proceed sir um requesting a continuance for 5000 Warrington Avenue
that's a MI 2021 -003182
we are uh engaged in an active dialogue with the council office and the uh surrounding RCOs and
we'd like to continue those conversations before presenting the case to the board
thank you very much sir thank you mr chair any other continuances yes chair we have a mr andrew
stoll good evening mr chair members of the board uh my name is andrew stoll i represent uh lisa
johannings meyer and that's j -o -h -a -n -n -i -n -g -s -m -e -i -e -r um and she is actually an interested
resident in um the the application that was just um asked for continuance so we would just join in
that request thank you very much sir thank you okay any other contingencies
no more hands here okay i'm going to go to the add -ons
mi 2021 003859 2202 lehigh avenue this request for a reconsideration
rehearing I vote no. Carol Tenere my vote is no. Thomas Hollinger my vote is no. James Snell my
vote is no. Thank you. MI 2021 -003952 -6237 -45 Germantown Avenue. My vote is yes with proviso.
and that's with revised plans one page yes carol tenere my vote is yes with proviso
thomas halliman my vote is yes with proviso game snell my vote is yes with proviso
excuse me yes okay mr chairman yes sir
Mr. Chairman, I think I am signing on you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Holloman.
Tom Holloman, correct. Thank you.
Thank you.
And Mr. Holloman, I will let you know when to sign back on. Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2021 000 242 1720 North 22nd Street. Attorney is Steve Masters.
And he's coming back in as a panelist now.
good morning again mr chair members of the board okay you you you were sworn yes and if i remember
correctly this was a result of hearing from before and you were in the process of presenting
witnesses am i right i'm sorry that is correct this is the third um the third hearing of on this
matter. Right. Yep. At the second hearing, Mr. Chair, we had requested a copy of the exhibit
binder from the applicant and we have not received that. So we have not been able to
fully review and evaluate the exhibits that the board was given at the first hearing.
Right. Is the other attorney here? Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt.
No, I'm sure. Sure. Just, yep. State your name, please. And I'll swear you.
R -A -C -H -A -E -L, Pritzker, P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R, 1521 Locust Street, Suite 605, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So, Chairman, I'm actually the attorney for this matter, not Steve.
Yeah, I remember.
Steve represents the opposition.
So, our exhibit packet has not changed from the first hearing.
So, Steve does have that information.
this is now the third hearing for this matter. So I'm happy to go back through and explain where
we are, but essentially we're just looking to provide parking. None of Steve's clients actually
live on this block. They live behind the property. And we have two witnesses today that actually own
property on the block. Nobody who actually owns property on the block is in opposition. It is
just steve's client who lives behind the property um and as you probably heard from the recordings
that went on that you listened to um there's a concern about parking in general in the city
there's a concern about parking congestion on this block given the new developments coming on
and so it's again still confusing to me why we would not be supporting accessory off -street
parking when we're going to have hundreds of units on a block that have no parking available
to them. So our office and our client remains in the same position that all we hear about from
people is complaints about parking or providing parking. And we could not agree to any of the
provisos brought by Steve, as I know Ms. Saletta reviewed as well, and they essentially would
eliminate our ability to provide parking. Ms. Pritzker, could we reserve this until any more
argument until the end? Sure. A couple of things we'd like to thank you. Mr. Masters, I'm not sure
if you have done this before, but could you please, on the record, identify the clients
who are representing and state their addresses? Yes. I am now displaying our exhibit binder
and my client is listed on the top of the exhibit binder, Kayla Franks Jenkins. And that is your
only client? That is correct. Okay, thank you. Yes. She resides at, or owns property at 1741 North
Crosskey Street, which is directly behind the developments that we're here about. Okay, thank
you. And again, this is the third hearing, as the chair mentioned. There were, I believe it was
continued because there were witnesses we did not have time to um call if they could um if anyone
of those witnesses if first if you are if you wish to testify if you were here for the prior
hearing and were unable to testify could you please raise your hand
we we also have a traffic engineer um the and a report that we have submitted to the board and we
are looking for his testimony this morning as well. Did you, did you mention that at the last
hearing? Did you say that you would be doing? No. No. We have, we've, we submitted, we, we
contracted with the traffic engineer. We submitted the report last week with five days notice to the
board. That's unfortunate because this is the third hearing. It was continued only to hear
testimony from the witnesses who were present at the last hearing, but cut off. They were,
there was not enough time to allow them to testify not for the addition of a traffic report at this
stage well that is not i do not believe that the record shows that there was a limitation it was
it was to present the testimony of the community and and um and the rcos who did not testify and
we have we have uh supplemented that with a with a traffic engineer that i know i'm sorry that does
uh supplemented that with a with the traffic engineer that i know i'm sorry that does not
It's not natural.
naturally get that will not be included so just move on let's call the witnesses again
these are witnesses who were present at the last hearing and were unable to testify
i'm going to call um kayla franks jenkins i'm gonna object she has already testified at the
last two hearings and i unless it's something new and it is something new for her testimony
it it is something all due respect to the board that's now heard this same thing three times steve
um unless she has something new and different i don't i i don't think it's appropriate to continue
to allow the same person to testify it's supposed to be for new people who didn't get a chance to
testify exactly mr masters wait wait steve does she have something new she does all right mr
masters was it not only something new but something that she could not have known about
at the prior hearing yes okay limited to that yeah i got it but we're going to swear her and
she'll testify to that and we'll we'll try to move this okay thank you thanks would you have her raise
her hand please and ms jacques you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
she's available chair could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
Kayla, K -A -L -A, last name is F -R -A -N -K -S, dash J -E -N -K -I -N -S.
All right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right.
Mr. Masters, proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to share my screen again.
um miss franks um jenkins did you um did you happen to take um any videos recently of some
of the properties um that we are that we are talking about today yes okay i'm gonna show you
i'm gonna object to entering new evidence at this point
excuse me let me interrupt for one minute if this is something that she could have presented
in her prior testimony unless something drastic has changed about this location
in the since the last hearing um what has changed that she now needs to add to a record
not a video that she could have taken previously i'm i'm sorry mr chair members of the board but
this is not what what is happening here is not legally permissible for proceeding before the
zoning board it is not permissible to restrict to restrict our testimony in in certain parameters
without also restricting the applicant's testimony in the in the same way we are presenting our case
and now we are being told that evidence that we have um that we have produced that we want to show
the board to help the board understand why the community is so opposed to this, why this is such
a terrible idea to have front -loaded driveways on this very busy street, and why this is going to
present a tremendous public health and public safety risk, why there are so many people opposed
to it, why the council president has written a second letter in opposition to this, why are we
Mr. Masters, Mr. Masters, Mr. Masters, Mr. Masters, I understand all that.
I understand the council president.
We want to move this case on.
And we understand what you're trying to do here today, but we think this could have been done before.
So let's move to the next one.
And we understand all your, all your objections.
Mr. Bergman?
Can you hear me?
I can, but I can.
Can I make a general question?
No, listen to me.
i'm i'm talking to your attorney mr masters if there's not something that could have not been
done before we want to move on and we understand your objection okay so your ruling is that we
cannot show you these videos my ruling is that we're going to move on and please what other
witnesses you have just just list them for to call them so are am i allowed to present the
testimony of Kayla Franks Jenkins about what she has witnessed in terms of cars backing out of
these parking, of these driveways. Is there a reason she could not have testified on this in
the two prior hearings in which she testified? Yeah, there were no cars backing out of driveways
that she was able to see until she did a demonstration. So this is a new phenomenon
that has only happened in the time period. It didn't exist before. It has only happened.
Mr. Mancers, just, I mean, move on. If there are other witnesses
who were not given an opportunity to testify, can they be called now?
who were not given an opportunity to testify and they be called now.
Yes. Are you are you saying that you do not want to hear any more from move on and I'm not speaking.
We want to move on. OK, just one moment, because I have to find my my list of witnesses.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair, as he calls these witnesses, I would suggest that the board confirm first that they were present at the last hearing and unable to testify.
Right, right.
The first witness is Donnie Moore from the Friends of the 47th Board.
Mr. Moore, if you're here, can you raise your hand?
Mr. Moore, you can unmute yourself.
Mr. Moore, you can unmute yourself.
Can you hear me?
I can.
No, we can, yes.
Mr. Moore, state your name and spell for the court reporter.
My name is Donnie, D -O -N -N -I -E Moore, M -O -O -R -E.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Moore, proceed with your testimony.
Mr. Moore, can you tell the members of the board what your position is in the community?
My name is Donnie Moore. I'm the chairman of the Democratic Committee for the 47th Ward where these houses are being built.
and are you familiar with the block of 1700 north 22nd street yes i am and um have you been um part
of the rco process and the community meetings with the developer on this project no i haven't
okay have you um taken a look at the block and developed an opinion um as to whether
these front loaded driveways are um as to whether they're whether they should be granted by the
zoning board i'm gonna object he's not an expert so he can give his personal opinion but i don't
know uh further than that he's not an expert and he's not attended any meetings regarding this
project yes i have you just had said you did not attend any of the meetings i said i attend the
last i was in the last zoom meeting and i wasn't i apologize i was in the last zoom meeting and i
was in a prior meeting prior okay right but not the rco meetings to discuss this project oh yes
oh yes oh yes i was in the rco meetings okay you and you might want to correct your testimony you
okay so mr moore so you so you were at the rco meetings where where this project was was discussed
Yes. As the 47th Ward is where it is in. And as a chairman of the 47th Ward, yes, I was at the meetings.
OK. Can you can you tell the board why it is that you are opposed to to these to these front loaded driveways?
Well, first place, the area is very congested. The area on 22nd Street is all kind as a wide street with cars come constantly up there.
But the dangerous part is that there's the King Center, where all our kids are playing at the activities in the King Center.
Right next to the King Center is a wellness place.
A wellness place where there's heavy, heavy traffic, pedestrian traffic.
22nd Street, the buses are hard.
They both run down there and the traffic is speeding down there.
I think backing out of that driveway is a danger because I live on 19th Street.
Well, we have driveways.
We have horrible time with these traffic going by.
And this is a bigger street.
This is a whole street.
I'm on 19th Street, the 1700 block.
That is a 1700 block of 27th Street.
The street itself is half the side.
But the congestion between the kids, the King Center, the kids, and everything that goes on down there, the activities going on down there, the Ridge Avenue corridor.
is to it's you know i think it's a danger that's what i did um mr moore when you say you live on
the 1700 block and 19th street and they have driveways on your block what's specifically
about the cars coming in or out of those driveways is um have you observed personally to be a danger
i'm gonna object we're not talking about the 1900 but 17 talking about 1700 block and north 22nd
We're not talking about the block that Mr. Moore lives on.
Right. No, the purpose of the question is to
Right. No, the question, the purpose, the purpose of the question is to have the board understand why Mr. Moore believes it would be a danger to have these driveways on the north 22nd.
He's seen something on his block and I want him to testify as to what he's seen so that he what he thinks is going to happen also on the 22nd block.
With all your respect, it's speculative. It's speculative. He's not an expert.
And I want it's not speculative. It's what he's actually saying.
All right. So, Mr. Masters, we understand. I understand what he's saying. So, could we please move on?
Mr. Moore, when you talk about the King Rec Center across the street from these properties, have you seen children and young people crossing 22nd Street to get to and from the rec center?
Yes, I have.
do they always cross at the crosswalk or do they cross at other parts of the street
oh no they don't they're kids no they don't they don't always cross at the corners
so they cross basically all over all over the 22nd the north 20 the 1700 block and north 22nd
is that what you're saying yes they did well the opening gate is probably in the middle of the
block period in the middle of the block and they cross over by there too in the kings within the
king center but also even the fitness center on the corner and the and the the the middle of the
block where the gate is is um would i be correct in saying that that is also where some of the
properties are that we're talking about with these driveways the property covers the property itself
covers the black it comes from one end to another only a little those the four properties that they
have cover the block all right um are there other um are there other things that you want us to
share with the board this morning? No, not. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Can I, Chairman,
do you mind if I ask Mr. Moore? Sure, go ahead. Thank you. Mr. Moore, could you just clarify
your address and if you're within 250 feet of the property? I'm objecting. He's testifying as
the head of the RCO and the RCO has jurisdiction here. I'm testifying because I represent
the 1700 block of 19th Street as a chairman of the Democratic Committee. That's what I'm telling.
Okay. Could he also, excuse me, this is Sharon. Can he also put his address on the record and
state how far it is from the property? 1715 North 19th Street. I'm exactly five blocks away.
thank you mr moore rachel any other questions no chairman all right thank you uh mr masters do you
have any other witnesses yes wait wait one minute just for a point of information i do remember i
sat through the last hearing i do remember there was testimony about the rec center so is there
anything any other new and different testimony you want to get on the record yeah well i have
there has been like test that that testimony about that rec center we i heard that the last
There is. And we were hoping to have someone from the rec center this morning that my client was reaching out to the rec center, but they were closed yesterday. I'm not sure if she was able to reach out to somebody this morning. I wanted to check with her on that. But we do have the two RCO leaders that we wanted to have testify also. Priscilla Bennett, the leader of the RCO St. Elizabeth, and Darnell Deans, who is the ward chair of the 32nd ward.
And let me ask you this. Would your testimony be different?
I believe that I understand the point you're trying to make the issue here, Mr.
Chair, is that this project is overwhelmingly opposed by by a huge number of people.
I understand your position. I understand it.
And and the RCOs are entitled to put on the record, not just a petition, not just a letter, but to but to give you actual testimony to show why this is such a priority for them to stop.
I understand. But what I'm saying is, I just want to get something different. That's what I'm saying. And if you could put them on the record, but move it on. I mean, I don't need testimony about the rec center again, is what I'm saying. And I understand all the issues.
Oh, I thought you wanted, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted more amplification on the rec center issues.
No, no.
Oh, okay.
I think I understand the rec center.
All right, got it, got it, got it.
Who do you want to put on them?
i'm sorry mr crow can i add one point just mr masters for each witness that you call
could you begin by having them confirm that they were present at the last hearing and unable to
testify okay sure um so the next one is priscilla bennett okay
if you're in the audience ma 'am um can you please raise your hand
i'm not saying um anybody by their hand mr masters do you have the other person
i have a diane maybe um i have uh darnell deans is the other person on my list
mr deans if you're in the audience can you please raise your hand
I'm not seeing anybody by that name.
If you are not either of the people mentioned, please put your hands down.
Well, if there are community members who are interested, who were here last time and not able to testify, I think this would be the time for them to be given that opportunity.
Yeah, we have two individuals on our end who are not able to testify at the last hearing, but were present who would like to put a brief statement on the record.
I believe that the applicant's case was rested and that would be improper.
Steve, that's not correct.
Your case was presented in full and then it was our turn to present and there was no indication that you were reserving any time for additional witnesses.
Steve, you spoke for the majority of it, so I don't even know how it would have gotten to be with him.
May I interrupt for one minute? This is Sharon. Ms. Pritzker, are these community members?
These are people who actually own real estate on this block.
Okay. Mr. Masters, as you know, the parties present their cases. And after that, the board
calls generally for witnesses from the community. I don't think that it was restricted to
witnesses in support or in opposition. So it would seem to, if these are nearby property
owners and they were present for the last hearing and unable to testify, I think they should
be prepared to, they should be permitted. I don't, I've looked at the video transcripts
of both of the hearings. There were letters presented by Ms. Pritzker for some developers.
None of them actually live anywhere near the community, but they do intend to develop property on this block.
None of those, some of them weren't even provided, the names were illegible on the letters.
There was never an indication from Ms. Pritzker that they were present and interested in testifying at all.
So, excuse me, Mr. Masters, they can't really be classified as her witnesses exclusively if they're community members. So they'll be required, like your witnesses, to testify that they are neighbors, that they want to testify, that they were present at the last hearing, and that they were unable to. So can we move on from there?
Okay, but I disagree with the classification of them as neighbors. They were listed in her experience as their developers.
cross -examine them yeah okay all right good so if uh rider calic or emmanuel uh lagadakis could be
allowed to speak that would be appreciated mr rider is available he can unmute so
thank you can you hear me yes could you do me sir could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter. Sorry, it's Ryder Kallick, spelled R -I -D -E -R -K -A -L -E -C -K. You swear for him to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. So I actually own real
estate on this exact block. I heard some of the testimonies of other neighbors that were either
in opposition or in favor, but they actually, from what I was hearing, don't actually live
on the block. They just live in the surrounding area. As an owner of real estate on the block,
I understand what's being built here, which is, I believe to be 175 new construction units,
residential units. With that is going to come a major parking problem. And if precautions aren't
taken to build spaces now for cars to be parked in, then it's going to become a disaster in the
future. And the permits that are already pulled and the development that is already underway
is inevitable. So these units and people are coming to this block. And now would be the time
to approve the spots for people to park in.
Otherwise, there's going to be, in theory, 175 units with upwards of 300 new residents
upwards of 300 new residents living on one block with no parking created for any of them
living on one block with no.
and i think the rm1 zoning that is prevalent on a lot of this block is restrictive in its nature
and it creates a hardship because it allows for a dense area for multi -dwelling um the witness is
not qualify to testify on the legal issues of what constitutes hardship. Yeah, Ryder, just keep it to
no legal arguments. Also, could you please address of your property that you own on the record so
that the board is aware? Sure. So I own 1724 North 22nd Street. And I apologize for that. I really
was just trying to get at the fact that there will be a lot of new residents in this area with
no designated parking for that uh so for that uh standpoint i'm strongly in favor of of parking and
allowing uh spaces to be designated so that residents have somewhere to park otherwise i
really do believe this will be a huge problem uh once these units are completed okay excuse me i'm
sorry this is sharon again um could you just clarify you are not an owner or partial owner
of any of the properties that are before the board today correct correct yes that's correct
okay and your home address did you give that i did not i don't know if i have to um if if i do
need to i'm welcome i'm happy to i believe it's irrelevant yeah he owns 1724 north 22nd street
And does he reside there? No. Where does he reside?
I'd prefer to leave my exact address off the record, but I reside in the South Philadelphia area.
Thank you.
and correct me if i'm wrong sharon but just because someone
someone who owns property is that still has standing in a case whether or not they live
at that property if they own property and they develop it they still have we're not going to go
into standing here just he has been permitted to testify to get any relevant information on the
records fair enough any other questions for him rachel no chairman okay steve do you have any
questions um i do um mr um calick have you developed any other properties in this neighborhood
um i don't know what you would define as the exact neighborhood do you mean on this block
no i mean in the surrounding neighborhood why is that relevant
you'll find out in a second um can you answer the question mr mr kayla sure sure i do have
the relevance is is um is going to be um i'm going to develop some questions whether if he
has developed properties i don't know if he has then i'm going to ask him questions about those
those properties well that's not relevant we're here for 17 the 1700 it is relevant in terms of
the design and in terms of the issues that he's testified to i'm i think you need to give me a
little a little latitude here mr kelly have you have you dealt with any other properties in this
in this immediate area in the immediate area i would say no i have a current project under
development on the 2700 block of ridge avenue okay um in the the the the project that you're
going to be developing on this block is um is it a multi -family project it is how many units
uh i believe seven units we're still in the process of plans and do you have that as of right
yes and when you applied for it so you have a zoning um permit issued for this for this project
already? I do believe we just got the zoning permit issued. And did you request parking as
part of that project? We have not. Did you design the project in a way to bring parking into it
in terms of a front -loaded driveway at some later time? Front -loaded, I don't believe. I do believe
our architect left the rear as a possibility for future parking. And where would be the access
and the access to your property for that rear parking? It would be on the street that's behind
22nd Street. The name of the street is escaping me. Krosky. Krosky, correct. Right. So do you
understand that what the applicant, what Mr. Logan is asking for the zoning board today,
Um, it's not parking in general, it's parking with a front driveway off of 22nd street.
it's not parking in general. It's parking with a front driveway.
What you're talking about is something that I believe the community actually supports,
which is if you can have parking in the rear of your property and not impact, um, not have
cars back out, um, basically with a blind, with a blindness to how to black out into
22nd street, you're talking about parking.
you're saying you need parking for this block and parking for all these developments but you
understand that what we're talking about here is a specific kind of parking it's front -loaded
parking on the driveway on 22nd street you're not even proposing that for your property right
yeah so hold on so uh what what we are proposing for our development is vastly different than this
because our lot goes from street to street.
So we're not restricted in only having parking on 22nd Street.
We have the option to consider parking on the rear street.
Now, the testimony that I'm providing really has nothing to do with which street the parking is on.
It's more so the fact that there is a large amount of people coming to this block,
whether it be 22nd Street or Crosskey.
They're all going to need to park their cars somewhere.
I don't think a half a block or a half a street is,
is devaluing the importance of parking in the surrounding area.
I understand. I understand your testimony, Mr. Kahlik, but,
but just to be clear,
you are thinking that the parking that you're going to put into your property
is going to be on a small, it's going to be, it's going to be.
Mr. Masters, Mr. Masters, Mr. Masters, I think you've made your point.
We understand it. We'd like to move on.
uh miss pritzker do you have anybody else you want to testify yes uh chairman emmanuel lagu
dacus is also uh an owner on the block he's had his hand raised okay and chair it doesn't
necessarily have to be a witness called by if we could just open it up when it's announced again
to any community member thank you morning everyone could you could you spell your name
please for the court reporter absolutely e -m -m -a -n -o -u -i -l l -a -g -o -u -d -a -k -i -s
it's emmanuel lagodakis right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but
the truth i do proceed okay so i own several properties uh 22nd street and the 21st street
I also own next to the properties that we're discussing about the 1726 North 22nd Street.
I'm currently building 11 units over there.
I also own 1800 North 22nd Street.
It's under starting the construction plans right now for rehab.
I also own 1725 North 22nd Street, Triplex.
1751 North 21st Street and other several properties within a proximity of the subject property.
All right, thank you. Ms. Pritzker, questions?
He just didn't get a chance to testify, so whatever his testimony is.
Yes, he does not need to be questioned by the witnesses. If he can just put a brief
statement on the record as to why he opposes this and confirm that he was present at the
last hearing and unable to testify.
Yes. So as we all know, parking will be very critical in the next few years for the whole
Philadelphia as a whole. Because there's so much developments happening and not so much
parking provided. So this parking is essential for this block itself. Just because we're
going to have so many units within a very near time within a year or two completed and all these
residents they want to have a parking all the cars all over the place i don't know where they're
going to park it so parking for for every unit that somebody applies for it i think is essential
and i'm up for it i support that unfortunately i did not apply for a parking on my own i decided
to go with 11 units okay we only need to know your position on this property this proposal thank you
my position is you've made that clear thank you we understand it
ms pritzker anything else from your witness um mr masters sure yeah mr um lukadakis so you're
Yeah, Mr. Lugodakis, so you're, you have, it sounds like you have a few different properties that you've purchased on this block?
you have um it sounds like you have a
And you have received zoning permits for those developments already?
The 1726 is underway. It's under construction right now.
Okay. And also you said 1725?
1725 north 22nd street uh north 21st ah okay yeah yeah because i was wondering because that
sounds like that would be in the rec center and that would not be a very unusual way of
having a project in the middle of the rec center um so the 1720 masters yes he is testifying he
testified that he owns property in the area he faced he testified as to the reasons for his
objections i don't see that going into the specifics of his properties other than that he
owns them it's relevant well it is in terms of hardship because um this is another example
um of a of a developer on this block who has built and constructed um multi -family housing
without parking and while he would like that to be part of your case you could have submitted
plans for development in the area right now he is only testifying as to the reasons for his
opposition can you please stick to his his reason he actually supports the project not he's not
opposed to it um yeah i'm sorry yes yeah whatever his position is i think it's important i think
it's important to to emphasize that mr lagudakis you you applied for and you're building your
multi -family buildings on this block without any part cut this off okay steve we we understand
the point you're making so so i think where we need to go now is the witnesses are done we'll
see if there's anybody in the virtual audience that has anything different that we want to
testify is there anyone in the virtual audience that has testimony that would be different than
what we've already heard. And that would be any witness who can confirm they were present at the
past hearing and unable to put their testimony on the record. There is no hands, Chair. Thank you.
Board have any questions? Mr. Chair, I do want to put the Council President's second letter
into the record. And I know that Mary Jones was not able to be here today. Steve, we have the record.
and we have i'd just like to make note for the record that i did not receive a copy of that
letter so i'm not sure sharon will send it to you sharon it was submitted to you last week with our
exhibit binder i didn't receive it from their office here we do have um a hand up that just
went up miss venice uh good morning uh venice whitaker i am here on behalf of council president
daryl clark okay uh city hall room 313 215 -686 -3442 mary jones is unable to attend so
council president daryl clark did ask me to attend miss whittaker please do my favor spell your name
for the court reporter sure it's venice v -e -n -i -s -e last name whitaker w -h -i -t -a -k -e -r
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
always yes thank you thank you and if i can interrupt for one minute miss whitaker you know
that mary jones did testify at the last hearing the reasons for the councilman's opposition
we also received and i forwarded to the board copies of the recent letter uh yes i just wanted
to make sure that it was noted that i am here attending also on behalf of council president
daryl clark and in supportive with mary jones has stated at the last meeting thank you very much
thank you
planning commission morning chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
Commission, H -E -G -A -R -T -Y. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. Members of the board, on behalf of the Planning Commission,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing residential multifamily zoning for
these properties. We feel the applicant has not demonstrated any physical hardship associated
with these sites that would necessitate front -loaded parking, which is otherwise
is prohibited in this district. In addition, this block has several facilities that generate a large
amount of pedestrian traffic, as have been noted by the opponents, especially senior citizens and
children. These include the Martin Luther King Jr. Recreation Center, the Cecil B. Moore Senior
The CECA will be Moore Senior Citizen Center and the Stephen Klein Health Center.
Citizen Center, and the Stephen Klein Health Center. This street is also served by
The street is also served by a scepter route, and many of the patrons of these facilities arrive via transit.
The proposed series of wide curb cuts will adversely affect pedestrian transportation by interrupting the route to these facilities.
The city has an interest in preserving a pedestrian -friendly environment on this street,
and so we're going to recommend that the board deny the requested variances for all three properties.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -00242 -1720 North 22nd Street. MI 2021 -00784 -1744 North 22nd Street. I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no.
Excuse me, Chair, did you read out three appeal numbers? I'm sorry, I may have just missed it.
I have 1720 North 22nd Street, 1744 North 22nd Street, and 1750 North 22nd Street is under 242.
Okay, thank you.
Right?
Thank you.
And I vote no on all three.
Carol Tenere, no on all three.
James Snell, no on all three.
Ishmael Shaheed no on all three.
Thank you. Thank you very much. I believe that Mr. Holloman was now going to sign back on
if we could confirm that he's here before starting the next case.
Not yet, Chair.
no questions are asked of the virtual audience all please put your hands down
let me call the case and get the attorney ready mi 2021 004631 1431 east montgomery avenue
Byrne Anastasio, RCO, Fishtown Neighbor Association, letter of support.
He's coming back in now as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
How are you?
State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Yes, sir. Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
it appears that you've submitted everything required is that correct i have you may proceed
thank you um mr chair before i started before i start i did want to just point as a matter of
order that i had two cases today 1431 east montgomery and 939 north 40th which was a case
scheduled to hear last week but the board right uh closed up shop prior and i was advised that
that 939 north 40th would be heard first today i just wanted to make sure that it was still on your
docket it's number 13 okay thank you chair since mr um mr anastasio is starting with this case and
And we have moved things around so that Chestnut Street is at the end of the case.
Maybe you could call the 40th Street after this.
Thank you.
I'll proceed with Montgomery Avenue for now.
Thank you.
This is fairly straightforward.
This is an application for personal services hair salon.
And I'll zoom in for you.
Yep, this is a RSA -5, the applications for the use of a personal services in an existing structure with other previously approved uses.
Yep, this is a RSA file.
This is the property in and of itself.
It's a long tradition of being a hair salon prior to my client taking over the space.
As you can see, obviously, it is of commercial nature.
The interior layout is rather straightforward.
We've got a waiting area, three barbershop chairs, some storage space, a sink, and a bathroom.
This is the interior as it exists.
We met with the neighbors and mailed out 132 individual pieces of notification, and we received a Fishtown neighbor's letter of support for the requested variance dated 15th December of last year.
because of the history of this property long being hair and personal services because of the
makeup of the property itself exterior you know is obvious that it's not a single family
residential home and due to its history and the support of the community we respectfully request
the granting of this variance and with that I'd like to call my client to raise his hand
of Vinnie Cripello, who will be the owner and operator of Vinnie's Barbershop in Fishtown.
Vincent Cripello, sorry.
Do we see the hand?
he did plan to be here i did speak to him last evening yes and he can unmute himself
i'm here please state your name and spell for the court reporter
my name is vincent v -i -n -c -e -n -t crapello c -r -a -p -e -l -l -o
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do. Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Crippello, did you hear my presentation to the
board this morning? I did. Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? It is. Do you adopt
it as your own testimony? I do. What's the number of employees you're going to have here, sir?
At the very most four alongside myself. Okay. And what are your hours of operation and days?
At least to start would be Tuesday through Friday, 11 a .m. to 7 p .m.
Saturday is 10 a .m. to 3 p .m. at the latest.
Very good. And you do have a comprehensive trash plan set in place. Is that right?
Yes. The majority of my trash is actually compostable.
So I'll be working with a composting organization.
Very good. And you were in attendance with me at both of these RCO meetings with the Fishtown Neighbors Association. Is that correct?
I was.
And it was overwhelmingly supportive of our presentation and our project. Is that correct?
Dare I say almost too much. I got suspicious.
Thank you very much. Nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
no hands at this time planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission members of the board in 2015 this property was remapped
from cmx1 to rsa5 in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan however the proposed
use is consistent with prior documented uses and with the physical configuration of this building
city planning commission therefore recommends that the board grant the variance
thank you mi 2021 chairman thomas homiland i'm back on yes oh very good thank you thomas
mi 2021 004631 1431 east montgomery avenue i vote yes carol tenere my vote is yes
thomas holland my vote is yes jane snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you all.
thank you all thank you
Thank you.
Mr. Anastasio, stay on, please.
Yes, sir.
MI 2021 -003486 -929 -North 40th Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Central Parkside Community Development.
If this is a yes, there's two pages of provisos.
Mr. Anastasia, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate its accuracy?
Based on the notes I'm reading, you've submitted everything required?
I have.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
This is an application for the erection of a three -story structure on vacant land.
For the use of commercial space on the first floor with a five family dwelling above and in the rear size and location on the plan.
It is zone CMX one. However, because it's RSA five adjacent, we are here today seeking a variance.
I'm going to bring you down to. This is our corner right here, CMX one.
All the other corners in proximity are all RM1.
And here is the proposed property.
As you can see, it's in excess of about 80 feet deep.
It's on its corner property.
As you can see here, there's a mural above it.
which I'm going to get to in a moment.
Let me show you the plans.
The plans are for the commercial space on the first floor.
My client is opening a barbershop.
So that's what I guess my theme today is hair.
So we're going to have a barbershop on the first floor with a 600 square foot
bi -level apartment in the rear.
and it's a two -bedroom 600 square feet and then on the second and third floor we have two units
per floor just under 500 square feet a piece all open sort of layout with a nice size kitchen
ample bathroom and bedroom and some nice living space this property would be completely compliant
it with height. And let me take it down to this neighborhood is in desperate need of some
population. It has been grossly depopulated over the last 30 years. Here's our property on the
corner. On the block itself, we have three lots that are empty. These two properties to the left
the 941, 943, completely boarded up and vacant. We have 14 vacant lots, separate lots directly
across the street on Penns Grove. This is a transit -oriented development as we have 40th
Street and the trolley just at the front door. So to have this number of units is not unusual
given the fact that there's so much depopulation
and it's right along mass transit.
We met with the community
and this is what we're proposing.
The front of the property would be the commercial space
for the barber shop.
The rear would be the bi -level two -bedroom
and then two units per floor
both one bedroom apiece on the second and third floor as you can see what we also are planning
to do what we've already started doing is communicating with the mural arts program
to somehow incorporate a new mural on this property which the immediate neighbors were very
fond of the idea so this is what we're planning to do with the exterior of the property as well
we do have the designer here if there's any sort of design questions that you might have
the architects are present from jko architecture
otherwise here's the letter that went to the to the neighbors dated 17th november
I'm inviting them both to the public meeting and to the zoning hearing, which was supposed to be heard January 12th.
inviting them both to the public meeting and to the zoning hearing
I believe we were at the end of your list and the board adjourned unknowingly.
So that's why the staff was kind enough to put us on this morning.
Here's the letter dated January 3rd Centennial Parkside CDC in support of the applicant's
variance for the above reference case.
This property historically has been a three or four family dwelling throughout history.
There has been also times when the three or four family dwelling shared the first floor
with the church, shared it with other commercial space.
Given the history of a multifamily dwelling and mixed use, given the significant depopulation of the immediate area, and given the fact that we've worked closely with not only the RCO, but the mural arts program to bring a project that everyone can really get behind and support, thus the RCO letter, we respectfully request the granting of this variance.
And with that, I'd like Mr. William Taylor to raise his hand and be recognized.
Mr. Taylor, you can unmute yourself.
Morning, everyone.
Please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
William Taylor, W -I -L -L -I -A -M -T -A -Y -L -O -R.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes proceed thank you mr chairman mr taylor did you hear my presentation to the board this morning
yes and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and would you adopt it as
your own testimony yes thank you very much i have nothing further questions from the board
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman comments from the virtual
audience no handshare planning commission mr chair i just wanted to just offer the opportunity for
the architect to uh be given the opportunity to speak on the design if uh if if the board would
just indulge just they may not have anything to add but just the opportunity i think your
your description of the property was was appropriate we understand it thank you but
thank you for the offer. Yes, sir. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman, Ian Hegarty
for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Members of the board, in 2017, the zoning map was
amended from CMX2 to CMX1 here in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
A little background on that. The intent of the recommendation was to consolidate commercial
activity and development closer to the intersection of 40th and Girard. The applicant's hardship claim
here we don't feel is supported with evidence of any unique physical circumstances since this is a
vacant cleared corner lot the zoning is intentional here to be a cmx1 and so the city planning
commission recommends that the board deny the variance mi 2020 mi 2021 003486 929 north 40
Street. I vote yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Excuse me, Chair, I believe this is with
proviso. With proviso. Two pages of proviso. Thank you. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell, yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes with proviso. Thank you all and I've already supplied
attorney Soletta with those revised plans and the proviso sheet. So thank you.
Thank you. One, two, three, four, five. Okay. Now our number six, MI 2021 -004741 -2700
Caster Avenue, Sean Ward. No RCO letter from ProPAC at this point.
and he's coming in down as a panelist here.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Sean Ward, on behalf of the applicant.
Sean, spell your name for the court reporter, please.
S -H -A -W -N, last name Ward, W -A -R -D, address 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA -19053.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Vice Chair Tenere has a few questions for you.
Good morning, Mr. Ward. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you submitted all of the required documents?
Yes, and my exhibit packet did include a copy of ProPax's letter, and I will share that at the time I share my screen.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Mr. Chair, just for the board's knowledge, it's a unanimous set in support pro fax letter.
So thank you share my screen.
I submitted my exhibit packet. It's my typical exhibit packet.
The owner of the property is 2730 Caster Avenue LLC.
Is that Caster Avenue that we're looking at or Key West?
Oh, that's my screen shaper.
Let me try that again.
Where'd it go?
Got it now?
There we go.
I represent 2730 Caster Avenue, LLC. They are the owners of 2700 Caster Avenue.
In my exhibit packet, A1 is the notice of refusal. This is an application for a permit for vehicle repair and maintenance, including auto body and a paint finishing shop.
It spaces 101, 102, and 103 of the subject property.
There is one other space, number 104, which is not the subject of this application, and
that has another use registered for it.
The referral to the board is for vehicle repair that requires a special exception approval,
and there's one refusal for the paint finishing shop, which is not permitted in the ICMX district.
Accordingly, we seek both the special exception approval today as well as a use variance.
A -2 is our application of appeal. A -3, the project information form. A -4, proof of ownership. A -5, proof of tax clearance. A -6 is the site and floor plan, which I'll walk the board through. A -7 are photographs of a subject property, some aerial views and some street views. A -8 is the RCO, letter of support. I apologize for the typo. This is not Councilman Squill's district. It's Councilman Heenan's district.
Councilman Heenan generally only sends letters of opposition when such is the case.
And to my knowledge, there is no opposition from his office in this matter.
As far as relevant zoning history goes, in 2021, there was for Space 104, a wholesale sales and distribution and storage use was registered.
That's an auto parts distributor.
uh this building in and of itself from pre -1946 up through 2020 i would give or take it was a
machine shop known as crystal metal products a11 is the zoning map 812 is the aerial photograph
so just very quickly here's our notice of refusal application of appeal
PIF, my transmittal letter to the board, the deed.
Proof of tax clearance. Taxes are due for 2022, but they're not due until March.
This is the floor plan. The upper portion is not the subject of this application.
That's another property owned by the client. But let me load this up. Basically, what we're
looking for is to have wholly within the building a auto body and paint finishing business.
The plan does call for a paint booth. All work would be done inside the building. There's
access to the property from Edgemont Street where vehicles would be brought in. They'd be
repaired and then painted. There's a prep deck over here, office space. There's several bathrooms
in the facility for the employees and customers. There is an adjacent parking lot which can hold
20 vehicle parking spaces. So all vehicles would be stored within the property line on the site,
not on the street. And all work again would be conducted within the building.
Real quick, we have some photographs. This is the front of the building. As you can see,
Crystal Metal Products. This is the side entrance from the parking lot. Again, this would be the
Edgemont Street side of the property. Here's an aerial photograph. We're talking about this
building right here. This building has been separated from this property. And this is the
And this is the Space 104. As you can see, it's an auto value, auto parts store.
Space 104. As you can see, it's an auto value, auto parts store.
Again, just another aerial shot of the property.
You can see the bay doors that bring you into the building here on the Edsman Street side.
Again, some aerials.
Here is Propac's letter of support, as you can see.
By a vote of 21 to nothing, they voted in support of the application following our meeting with them.
last month or back, I'm sorry, yeah, December. So, and then we have the zoning permit history.
I don't think we need to dwell on those too much, but they basically are as summarized in my
exhibit list. And then again, we have the zoning map. So I believe I have in the virtual audience,
It's at least George Groves.
George, if you could raise your hand, I would appreciate that.
There he is.
Mr. Groves, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning.
Would you please state your name and spell for the court reporter, sir?
George Groves, G -R -O -V -E -S.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Okay, proceed.
Hey, George, you're here on behalf of the property owner today, is that correct?
And have you heard my representations to the board?
Are they true and correct, to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, sir.
And would you adopt them as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Go ahead.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
question or comments from the virtual audience
no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission members of the board in 2018 this property was remapped from
i2 general industrial to icmx industrial commercial mixed use in accord with a community
plan. The intent of the reclassification at that time was to limit the negative impacts of medium
industrial uses, including emissions of VOCs associated with the proposed painting use.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variants, but we'd like to propose
a proviso condition that the spraying exhaust be treated by an oxidizer that neutralizes the VOC
emissions to the atmosphere. We have no objection to the special exception for general auto repair
use. Mr. Chair, if I can address that, we would submit that we will comply with all applicable
Philadelphia codes with regard to the paint booth and any emissions generated therefrom.
and by 2021 zero zero four seven four one twenty seven hundred caster i vote yes with
provisors from planning commission excuse me chair no we're going to have to make that much
more specific um mr ward are you saying that the um the condition that mr haggerty described
that that is already required by code um i'm just saying i i don't know if it's required by code
and if it is not required by code then we should not be held to that standard uh given the you know
so we will comply with all applicable codes regarding so sharon sharon just so you know
my proviso was what mr haggerty said and and not what the what what the appellant said so
what i'm saying is it has to be enforceable chair and that was much too general right okay
we've had that proviso could we hold the decision so that i can get the language right
sure thank you
and sharon you'll share that you'll share that language with me prior to it
i will yes thank you thank you mr chairman okay sure number seven mi 2021 005052
3469 crystal street leo mobahill letter from councilwoman sanchez in non -opposition
And he's coming in now as a panelist.
There we go.
there we go good morning chairman members of the board
mr moldahill state your name and spell for the court reporter certainly it's leo l -e -o last
name moldahill it's m and michael u -l v as in victor i h -i -l -l address 315 green street
philadelphia 19123 all right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do. Vice Chair Tenere has a few questions. Hi, Mr. Melvin, do you agree to waive
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Based on the notes I have in front
of me, you have submitted everything required? Yes, that's correct. Unfortunately, what happened
with this case, though, Madam Chair, pardon me, Madam Secretary, I was essentially hired late
in the game and i only received my posters uh in mid middle of last week for the reposting of this
hearing as there's already been a community meeting held and we have a letter of non -opposition i would
ask that we continue and proceed with today's hearing irrespective you want it continued no
continue with the hearing today rather than oh okay i'm sorry mr chairman there's also
a petition and support from the near neighbor.
This is Tanya. I did have a quick question
for Mr. Mulvihill, if it's allowable, Chair.
This was a continued case
that you jumped in on?
This case was originally dismissed
because prior counsel failed to appear.
I filed a petition
to reopen the case.
It was reopened,
but I only received my posters
for this for this rescheduled hearing today i believe wednesday or thursday last week
miss sunkett this is sharon it's a hearing on reconsideration reconsideration was previously
granted by the board but i was just questioning the posting it's your all's call
well we were here let's move on to hear the case all right thank you members of the board so again
Leo Mulvihill here today on behalf of IB as in Bravo Realty Services LLC for the following
application. We have the refusal appeal and project information form at page one, area zoning maps at
seven, the deed is at nine, client's commercial activity license at 14, tax clearance at 15,
the letter from a council person is at 16, we have neighbor support petition signatures at 17,
and they proceed through to page 31, and I have photographs of the property at page 32.
so members of the board what essentially we're petitioning for today is for a grocery store
in the existing structure it is zoned rsa5 but this is one of those corner properties
which very clearly at some point in the past had been a some sort of commercial use on the ground
floor it was since remapped so this use was refused um there's also uh proposing to have
one apartment above which is existing so we received refusal for multiple principal uses
on one zoning lot if this was on cmx2 this would essentially be a buy right proposal
this property is more or less a cmx2 property my client's application for appeal in the project
information form here's the area zoning map members of the board so you can see right here
on the corner of tayoga crystal this is the subject property moving to page a to my presentation
we can see one moment and i'll zoom in that along tayoga you have a number of other commercial uses
on the street. Pizza shop, there's a Chinese store here as well. Down the block a little bit,
there's a grocery and a deli. And these are all on corner properties, just like my clients.
You have to forgive me, members of the board, some of these pages are a little strangely sized,
so they might come up very large. This is the deed for the property, showing my client does own it.
Most of my client's commercial activity license, which is valid.
taxes for 2022 are due shortly but you can see that otherwise no taxes are outstanding on the
property it's a letter from councilwoman sanchez's office oh pardon me indicating that we've met with
the rco and garnered the letter of non -opposition and she also then submitted this letter of
non -opposition i will just quickly page through the other properties in the area which signed a
efficient in support. As I mentioned, there's quite a few of them, pages and pages. And then
what we have here are pictures of the property that were taken. So you can see this was at some
point, obviously a commercial storefront. There is one apartment above. We're actually, we're just
asking to have that use reinstated more or less. You see the large windows with the roll downs.
And then these are shots that were taken from Google Maps to show a little bit more of the
property again. It's corner position, prominent on the block, more or less looking exactly like
more or less looking exactly like what we might expect the CMX2 property or perhaps CMX1 to look
what we might expect the CMX2 property, or perhaps CMX2.
like. And you can see previously there actually was a market within the property, whether or not
that was legally zoned, another matter altogether. We're seeking to have that taken care of today
though. So members of the board, I'm completed with my presentation at this time. I'd be happy
to take any questions. My client for this matter is only Spanish speaking. So unfortunately I will
not be able to ask them to incorporate all of my testimony, but I can say as a member of the bar
that everything is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Questions from the board? No,
Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Question from the virtual
audience or comments? No hands at this time, Chair. Okay. Planning Commission? Thank you,
chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential zoning here however the
proposed use is consistent with the prior use on this property and with the configuration of the
structure city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance mi 2021 005052
3469 crystal street i vote yes carol tenary my vote is yes thomas holloman my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you members of the board
MI 2021 -004738 -6415, Harbison, James Murray Attorney, RCO letter in support.
Mr. Murray, if you're in attendance, can you please raise your hand so you can be promoted to
panelists and he's coming in now chair hey thank you mr murray you cannot mute yourself
Sorry about that. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. James Murray, M -U -R -R -A -Y, from Litchfield, Cavo, L -I -T -C -H -F -I -E -L -D, space, C as in cat, A -V -O, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1220, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
and my email is mary at lichfieldcavo .com.
It's about the same way.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you exhibited the email packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, referral,
photos under plans of this property,
five days in advance of the hearing,
And we do have a letter of support from the RCO. So if you've done all of that, you may proceed.
I have.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning, board. This application is to switch out the gas station pricing at the Speedway at 6401 Harbison.
The picture, and this is not in color, so I have the Google Maps picture here.
The current gas prices are backlit and changed by hand by our employees.
This proposal is to swap out these two panels with LED numbers.
You've probably seen throughout Philadelphia, 15 of these have already been changed.
There are two remaining, this location and 1000 Erie Avenue, which I'll be in front of you tomorrow for.
There's no additional structures being built.
It's simply swapping out these two panels from the backlit numbers changed by hand to LED screens for gas prices only.
The employee who changes by hand will be changing them by a number, a button behind the screen.
No jobs will be lost.
Their job will be easier and paid the same.
That's pretty much it.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chow.
Questions from the virtual audience?
no hands at this time chair planning commission
thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing auto
oriented commercial zoning at this location as this application represents a modification
AS THIS APPLICATION REPRESENTS A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO
to an existing structure we have no objection
THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE. MI -2021 -004738 -6415 HARBISON AVENUE, I VOTE YES.
CAROL TANERI, MY VOTE IS YES. THOMAS HALLIMON, MY VOTE IS YES.
404 East Tioga Street, Movihill, Harrogate Civic Association, Letter of Opposition.
Mr. Movihill.
my apologies chair i was having some issues on muting sure okay you've already been sworn
yeah the vice chair has a few questions for you hi do you agree to weigh the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do i'm assuming based on the notes i'm reading
that you've submitted all of the required documents that's correct you may proceed
all right thank you chairman members of the board let me just get my screen up properly
i'm here today on behalf of carlos moronta who's the owner of 804 east tayoga street
and essentially what we're looking to do today is combine multiple lots into one for an existing
tire shop which had been previously approved on one lot but mr moronta expanded and the other
lots are zoned rc5 we just need to get the approval expanded to reach those lots as well
We have the refusal appeal and project information form at page one, area zoning maps at page seven, data page nine, tax clearance at 15, RCO letter at 16, neighbor support letters at 17, photos of property at 32, and site plans at 39.
So here's a copy of our refusal. This is page one in my presentation packet, and we can see that we were refused because of previously approved use.
zooming in there a bit at 8060s Tioga vehicle equipment supplies sales and rentals tire shop
was originally approved on one lot but not the entire consolidated lot and you can see in the
notes of the ZBA that previously a variance had been granted for a tire shop infrastructure
like I said we're just seeking to expand that use across multiple lots
moving on now to the area zoning map this is the property itself it's actually multiple
properties once it's fully consolidated it is owned rsa5 but it's an existing shop it's
immediately adjacent to commercial mixed use too and this is just an area zoning map again this is
along tioga street so tioga has a significant amount of commercial usage corners middle of the
blocks all over the place it's just not primarily it is a residential corridor but there's plenty
of commercial uses in the water. This is a copy of my client's deed.
This is my client's tax clearance for the property.
We did have a letter from Harrogate Civic. It was in opposition, although we're not quite sure why,
especially considering that the tire shop has been there for a number of years.
The variance, I believe, was first granted back in 2008, and we're just seeking to expand that use.
What I have now are multiple letters of support from members on the block of one, two, three, four, five, nine individual letters. For purposes of the record, we're talking pages, 17, pardon me, 19 through 27.
seven and then what i have as well are multiple signatures on a petition for support we have one
two three four five six pages of letters of petition support of course not all of them
are filled in but you can see there's a significant number of support in the neighborhood for this
property here's a posting of the zoning sign on the property itself
that's a close -up copy of the zoning sign then i'm just going to get some pictures that were
taken from google so we can get a better idea as to what this property looks like in the street
so this is the proposed use for the lot this was originally what was approved
now here we're just trying to seek to expand that
looking down tioga street
and this is from the opposite direction you can see the car lot on the corner which is
on commercial excuse and we're directly next to that there's another shot from the corner
and we're directly next to that there's another shot from the corner
pardon me this is a copy of the site plan with the proposed lot consolidation plan here so
previously we had this was the lots and we're seeking to do the consolidation here
including the building as well i do have a copy of the legal description for that
as well, but we don't necessarily need to include that. I just had it for purposes of completeness
in my zoning packet today. So in essence, members of the board, we have an existing use that was
previously approved by this board. We're just seeking to expand that use across a couple
different parcels. And Mr. Moronta wasn't necessarily aware that he had to do that
because we were previously approved for the tire shop. So here we are now trying to ensure that
is legalized. I'm happy to take any questions at this time. Mr. Moronta, again, is Spanish speaking
only. So I will avert that everything that I've said is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chair. Questions from the virtual audience or statements?
No hands at this time, Chair. Planning Commission? Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Members of the board, comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing residential zoning of these lots. ZBA granted specific tire shop use
only on this lot in 2008, on the corner lot, excuse me. However, the full lot appears to be
used for auto sales in addition to the tire shop presently. The proposed use includes storage of a
large number of tires directly adjacent to residences within 10 or 20 feet of their structures,
which we believe has the potential to increase the risk of fire to these structures.
We also believe that the proposed use variance is likely to permanently impair appropriate use
of adjacent property because of the tire storage use but also the noise. City Planning Commission
recommends that the Board deny this variance. Just to clarify if I may, Mr. Hagerty's statement,
there are no automobile sales taking place on this lot. The automobile sales are taking place
on the adjacent lot actually at the corner we're not at the corner itself we're actually
in from that car sales lot there's only tire sales that are occurring on this location
thank you mi mi 2021 000 357 804 east tayoga street i vote no
carol tenery my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is no james now my vote is now
ishmael shaheed my vote is no thank you thank you members of the board
mi 2021 003512 824 rawn street sean ward appeal against l and i
chair if we could also um call leonard reuter who will be representing the city yep
good morning mr chair members of the board sean ward on behalf of the appellant
uh sharon is uh is leonard wait one minute he should be here any minute okay i'm not
see him and uh yeah i haven't heard from him so um do you know what chair i apologize i this might
be my fault could we is there another case we can move on to only because um i think i was going to
let him know when we got to this case so i'm sorry i think the i i think the other case we have is
also an lni appeal right and he is going to be present for those if we can hold on for just um
one minute sure right okay mr chair can we go back to number 11 i inadvertently voted the wrong way
because i was looking down at my paper i looked at a word so calendar number mi 2021 -000357804
East Tioga, my vote is now. Thank you. Sure. Sorry about that.
Mr. Ward will be in. I mean, I'm sorry, Mr. Reuter will be on in a minute.
okay so we're on number 12.
hey sharon
hey sharon
yes sharon um just a procedural question um you know we'll we'll follow up with leonard when he
gets on but uh in this particular case one of the residents of this property has uh vacated
so up leonard's here hold on okay if we we just talk off the record for a second here
this may dispose of the case in another fashion uh good morning leonard how are you today
i'm fine and i want to uh apologize to the board uh i am working from home and don't have a working
camera here right now so i won't be on camera well we don't want to look at you anyway leonard
just state your name and spell Leonard sure little little laughter and a tough morning
please state your name for the court reporter and spell it sure uh may please the board Leonard
Reuter uh senior attorney for the city of Philadelphia that's l -e -o -n -a -r -d last name
r -e -u -t -e -r all right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do Sean yeah Mr. Chairman I've been previously sworn but for the record Sean Ward on behalf of
the appellant, S -H -A -W -N -W -A -R -D, 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA, 19053. And just a brief off -the -record
discussion. Well, it could be on a record or not, but Leonard, this case was a rooming house
violation for a zoning permit. Presently, the property is occupied by Mike Corner, who was the
owner, two of his sons, and there was three other boarders in the house. One of them has since been
vacated. So presently, you have three related by blood, father and two sons, and then there's
two other individuals. One is almost like an uncle. He lived with Mr. Corner's father,
who passed in or about 2010. And so Mike Corner not only inherited the house, but he inherited
uh uncle jim we call him so okay but presently there's there's five people occupying the
structure two of which are not related by blood so i don't i don't know how you want to proceed
um i i think i i don't have the the authority to to uh remove a violation uh i think if based on
what you're saying uh if that's if it's accurate and i have no reason to doubt you but um my client
My client's right behind me.
Yeah, I would need to.
Yeah, I think what we would have to do is send out an inspector to confirm.
And then if that's the case, then the violation would be would be closed or mark complied.
Yeah, the appeal would then be complied.
So do you want to continue this for an inspection?
Why don't we do this?
Why don't I just make a record today?
That way, if it does have to come back to the board, you know, we don't we don't have to have a hearing in the future.
OK, I just have a brief, you know, brief testimony and I have some photographs to share with the board, which were not included in my packet.
But I will email them to Sharon and RCO's EBA today to be included in the record.
But again, present with me today, Mr. Chairman, is Mike Corner.
Mike, if you could please state your name, speak loudly so they can hear you and spell your full name.
Michael Corner, C -O -R -N -E -R.
and you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
thank you thank you Mr. Chairman uh Mr. Chairman uh I I I'm going to summarize the case and I'll
have Mr. Corner verify and adopt but uh but as previously stated uh there were six individuals
residing in this house uh one has since been vacated and that room is uh is unoccupied but
But right now, Michael Corner resides in the house with his son, Eben Corner, E -V -A -N -C -O -R -N -E -R,
and his other son, Nicholas Bruno Corner, N -I -C -H -O -L -A -S -B -R -U -N -O Corner, C -O -R -N -E -R.
The aforementioned individual I refer to is Uncle Jim.
His name is James Cole, C -O -L -E.
and then there is a fifth occupant, Anthony Taka, T -A -C -C -A. Both Mr. Taka and Mr. Cole
are not related to one another, nor are they related to the Corner family. Again, Mr. Cole
was the best friend of Mike Corner's father, resided with the father at this residence.
Again, Mike Corner's father passed away in about 2010, is that correct? Yes. Yeah.
Coroner's father passed away in about 2010. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. And you'll see by the property records indicate that Mike became owner of this property in 2010, shortly after his father died through inheritance.
Again, Mr. Cole was occupying the property at that time, so they allowed him to remain.
There were some other violations on the property not related to zoning, which
my inspection last Friday would indicate that we believe they've all been complied.
Some of those included locking doorknobs on the bedrooms, which have all since been removed,
and you just have standard bedroom doorware on their hardware.
Some of it is the old crystal knobs with the old skeleton key, but they're inoperable.
And it's my understanding that the inspector did not have a concern with those because they weren't deadbolts or actively working locking doorknobs.
So then the other violations, one would be for a rental license, but since it's not really a rooming house, it's a single -family dwelling occupied as such, we would submit that that violation is no longer correct.
So I do have some photographs I'd like to share with the board very quickly.
so uh real quickly you know you have the common kitchen area
okay these are the doorknobs that have since been replaced with uh standard uh again this is the
antique crystal uh doorknobs uh the skeleton key mechanism does not work uh as you know as
witnessed by the inspector during the inspection you know and then you have the bedrooms that's
Uncle Jim, again, the crystal doorknobs, standard bedroom doorware, again, the old skeleton key lock, but, you know, it's not, it's not operable.
This is the washer and dryer, you know, shared in common by the occupants of the home.
The bathroom, again, doorknobs.
And I would also point out that on the front of the house, there's but one mailbox which services the family together.
So based upon that, we would we would submit to the board that this is not being occupied by more than three persons unrelated by blood or marriage and that therefore the appeal would be granted or should be granted.
However, if the chair is of the mind and wants us to conduct a re -inspection to confirm, we have no objection to that.
And we would ask that the matter be held open pending that inspection.
And the ability to come back and contest any adverse results of that inspection if we should disagree.
Mr. Reuter, any comments by you?
uh no i i just want to point out and uh i i don't recall mr ward did they
file a separate appeal to the board of l and i review on the other violations
no we have not and no re -inspection no re -inspection has occurred but yeah okay so i
think there has to be uh because obviously this board uh wouldn't have uh authority over the other
uh violations uh those would still have an inspection would have to occur in order to
clear those violations so i don't think there's really any um there's no question but that there
has to be an inspection so i i think and like we didn't we didn't contest those we didn't contest
those violations we acknowledge them so here's where here we are we're continuing to the inspection
okay yeah real quick can i mr corner verify and adopt uh mike you've heard my representations
to the board yes i have are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and
beliefs yes they are and you adopt them as your own testimony yes thank you okay yeah and i think
that's fine um that at this point then because if it becomes moot then we have a point question
And Mr. Reuter, if the inspection determines that there is still a violation for the number of residents and requires a room in the house, or can the city...
Sharon, Sharon, you're breaking up.
I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
We can, Sharon.
Oh, okay. So, Mr. Reuter, if this inspection determines that there's still a violation
and it requires a rooming house license, we would need to schedule another hearing. Is that correct?
Yeah, I think that we could. I mean, essentially, I believe the appeal is
It's challenging the interpretation, L &I's interpretation of that particular provision, which is basically the definition of a family and how we count the three persons.
challenging the interpretation, L &I's interpretation of that particular provision.
So, you know, rather than get into that today, because we might not need to get into that, the legal argument, you know, we'll just continue it and it'll be moot.
If it is not moot or if L and I says there's still a violation, then then, yeah, we would we would have a hearing.
And then Sean and I, I think, would just essentially have argument about the interpretation of the code provision.
But, you know, that would be the next time if we had to come back.
If Len, do you want to continue to say moving party, attorney moving party, either either one of us?
I think that's fine. Yeah. If we could do that.
Makes sense.
All right. Thank you. Sharon, you had something else to say?
Yeah, you're breaking up again, Sharon.
Okay, we're good. We're good. Sorry. Mr. Ward.
I'm sorry. I'm back. She just dropped out.
i'm okay could you two gentlemen hold on sure when sharon comes back in we can continue the
discussion absolutely thank you gentlemen chair you can continue and i'm back i don't know what
happened but if it was continued attorney moving party that's fine yeah that's that's what we did
okay thank you all right thank you everybody thank you all right mi 2021 004839 3701 15
chestnut street adam laver
appeal applicant is peal and l and i issue of a of a refusal
um i have mr chairman uh i have two witnesses uh who are available
sure matt uh wysong w -y -s -o -n -g and uh polis isaac uh they're both um in the uh
attend they're both attendees and i think they're both here sure let let let me let me swear in
mr mr laver mr laver state your name for the court reporter please good morning mr chairman
members of the board adam laver l -a -v -s and victor e -r blank rome one logan square philadelphia
19103 do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do mr chairman thank you
shall i proceed yes mr reuter are you ready uh yes i'm ready let me just make c um
yeah i don't think uh we can we can bring in uh our witnesses if we need them uh when when i
when we make our response labor please proceed thank you chairman bergman members of the board
Adam Laver of Blank Rome on behalf of CSC 3701 Chestnut LLC, the owner of the subject property
at 3701 -15 Chestnut Street, as well as Altera Property Group. The property is known to most
of us as the International House, a fixture in the university city community for many years.
I'm going to share my screen and just pull up a few photographs for you.
Here we are with an aerial photograph.
You can see that the subject property is bounded by Chestnut Street to the south, or the lower
section of the screen, Ludlow Street to the north, the upper section, and the 37th Street
pedestrian walkway to the east.
It had once been a street that was open.
Now it's part of the campus with a pedestrian walkway.
Here is another photograph with the International House here at the front where I'm showing you
with my cursor. The property is an existing 15 -story structure. It's in the process of
adaptive reuse. Internal renovations are underway. The building itself has been rebranded
as Mason House in Spanish, and I'd like to briefly show you some existing photographs
by way of background of the International House.
of the International House.
These are internal photographs.
Existing floors 11 through 14
contain pot style student housing.
Floors three through four are a mix of one bedroom
and studio housing.
The urgent care that's shown here in the photograph
is the property next door, it's not International House.
international house is beyond it to the right. A portion of floors one through two is home to
Penn Global, which is a service of the University of Pennsylvania to help acclimate international
students to the university and to new surroundings. The rest of the building is under renovations,
as I mentioned. And I'm just showing you some external photographs. Many of these are probably
well known to board members. The issue that brings us before the board today is a first for me in
two plus decades of practice before the zoning court of an adjustment. I have never filed an
appeal against LNI, and I'm surprised that this had to rise to this level. The legal issue concerns
the following. The lot area of the subject property is approximately 58 ,000 square feet in size.
Approximately half of the site, the eastern portion shown in purple on this zoning map,
falls in the CMX4 zoning district. And approximately half of the site, the western
portion, the pinkish color, falls in the RM4 zoning district. The entire property is outlined
in blue, and it is pretty clear, as you can see, that it's about 50 -50, roughly.
Here is another zoning map that pulls out a little bit. And in this zoning map, you again
see, surrounded in blue, what I just showed you, but you also see that the subject property is
surrounded by this reddish maroon sea of CMX4 properties. The legal question becomes which
zoning district controls, and that's the reason for the appeal before this board.
It is relevant to take notice of the predominant zoning districts surrounding the entire site,
the CMX4, certainly along the northern side of Chestnut Street, which I'm showing with the
cursor. Unlike every other case that I've presented to the board in past years, this board and past
boards, this case seeks to resolve a legal question. It does not involve plans, renderings,
a discussion of variances, or other related relief. We are asking the board to, in a very
laser -like way interpret the zoning code in line with established case law.
In line with established case law that asks the board to look to the plain meaning of the code
language and to do so based on the principle that the code should be interpreted in favor of the
applicant. This is the code section at issue. The highlights are mine.
This section concerns the situation that we have where there are multiple districts or provisions
at one property. Section 14 .107 .2 of the zoning code, which is a relatively new section of the
code, which you can see at the bottom, dates to April 28th of 2021, controls in instances where
there are multiple zoning districts on the same lot. And the code states that when a property
has more than one base zoning district designation, again, you'll recall we have CMX4
and the residential zoning as well, certain provisions apply. Here at 14 .107 .2a, the first
provision states that the provisions of a zoning district, the provisions of a zoning district,
one zoning district, shall apply to the entire lot if the provisions of both of the following
.1 and .2 sections are met. The zoning code uses the word and, it doesn't say or, it uses the word
end, A and D, in these provisions, so both must be true. If one or the other provision is not true,
then the provisions on a single lot cannot be applied to the entire parcel by L &I. We are not
We are not here to look at what the drafters may have intended behind this provision, but
here to look at
what the provision as drafted shows.
So the first point one says that the zoning district must cover at least 75 % of the parcel.
Neither of the zoning districts covers 75 % of the parcel.
The argument could be made that at that point, we actually can't go in the direction that L &I seeks, the zoning unit seeks us to go.
This is the simple issue that other parties have confused.
The zoning unit of L &I has in this case mistakenly attempted to apply a single restrictive zoning district to the entire lot when both conditions of 14107 -2A are not met.
Neither district covers at least 75 % of the parcel. They are both about 50%.
Let's go to provision A .2, which says the conditions of B below do not apply.
Well, actually, B does apply to here in that we have a minimum lot area.
And so you can't look at either of the provisions independently.
It would contradict the first.
What does the provision of 107 .2B state?
if any zoning district covers a contiguous area on the lot that is greater than or equal to either
of the following, the most restrictive provisions of all zoning districts that have a contiguous
area that covers at least 10 % of the total lot area shall apply. And I beg your pardon for getting
into this legal minutia, but that's what this case is about. The minimum lot area in RM4 is
2 ,500 square feet. Both of the parcels happen to be more than 2 ,500 square feet. Based on point two,
where there isn't a minimum lot area, as in CMX 4, both of the lot areas are greater than 1 ,600
square feet. This applies. We're well over 1 ,600 square feet. Where there is a situation where
provision A and provision B end up not being applicable. And that's my contention here,
that you can't read provision B independently of provision A. It would contradict provision A,
which says you cannot go with the one -lot treatment. And where that occurs, we have to
go to provision D highlighted at the bottom. I'm skipping over C, which concerns overlays which
are not applicable. When you go to provision D, the city planning commission is tasked with
choosing the district. And to do so, look at the highlighted language based on what best
accomplishes the goals for the immediate area in the comprehensive plan. Quite clear by looking at
the zoning map and quite clear by looking at the vision for the neighborhood, that it
is CMX4.
The provisions of section B, again, where I have the cursor, alone cannot apply in this
case because to read the section independently would contradict provision A. If A and B were
meant to be read separately, a code amendment would be required. If one or the other condition
in provision A is not true, going back to the 75 % and the conditions of B not applying,
we're less than 75 % and we have a situation where a condition of B applies, the single lot
treatment cannot be applied to the entire parcel. A and B are linked. What L &I's apparent
interpretation would require is language along the lines of the following, which is my language.
I think it's where Alan and I is trying to go in this misinterpretation. It would be something like
the provisions of a single zoning district shall apply to the entire lot where that district
covers 75 % of the parcel, or the provisions of B are applicable, in which case the most
restrictive district shall control. That is not what this language says. Let's move to what's
called the L &I change mark notes. And these change mark notes, if the board is not familiar
with them, are the plans as submitted to L &I go through the Eclipse system, and then the L &I
go through the Eclipse system, and then the LNI examiners enter change mark notes, which go back
examiners.
to the applicant for further revisions, etc. I'm going to draw your attention, if I may,
to the section on the right here.
there we go, highlighted on the right. And you'll see that the notes, hopefully this is not covered
up by the Zoom, but on the right -hand column, June 22, 2021, change mark notes from Paulus Isaac,
the examiner, state that the application will be reviewed under RM4. This was the first
communication from the zoning unit stating that the application would be reviewed under RM4 moving
forward. That is not in line with the code. Later, after this was sent out, it seems like the zoning
unit tried to change the tune, if you will, regarding this language. But once again, where
the plain language of the code is not clear and it's subject to interpretation, the interpretation
should fall in favor of the applicant. Both provisions A and B are not applicable to a site
where a district takes up only about 50 % of the lot. If the subject property had a zoning district
that covered 75 % of the land, he would apply, and the most restrictive district would be applied to
the entire parcel. And this highlighted section on the change mark notes would make sense.
We are asking the board to read the provision as it is written, not as the zoning unit thinks
it should be. I'd like to move on here with an email correspondence, a preliminary email
correspondence dated June 2, 2021 from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission,
which originally agreed with this position. Their position changed later on. I should note the law
Department also originally agreed with this position, but then the position changed.
And the language I've highlighted in that preliminary determination was that split
parcel CMX4 was correct for this entire site based on the comprehensive plan recommendation
for the parcel to be remapped wholly to CMX4 to see University Southwest plan.
Reading the provision as a standalone provision directly contradicts the provisions of section A.
It is this conflict where we are requesting that the board make the determination that
appropriately favors the applicant. No doubt this is a confusing issue which will probably
be further confused once the city's position is put on the record. But I ask the board to go back
to the simple basic law in this matter. And where the provisions do not apply,
the Philadelphia City Planning Commission should make the determination based on the goals of the
immediate area in the comprehensive plan. This is not before the board today, but with the CMX4
zoning, based on the equitable grounds, which the board is often looking at,
the ability to have the parcel reviewed under CMX4 would allow for underutilized space along
Chestnut Street to serve much -needed retail commercial in the community, allowing for
jobs creation, activity on the streets, the highest and best use of the site overall.
And with that, we would pause at this moment in time. If it is necessary, I would prefer not to
have to do it. I have asked that Paulus Isaac, the zoning examiner, be available to testify,
and I could have some questions for him,
but I would rest momentarily, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Reuter, do you want to respond?
First of all, I don't think,
I do have Mr. Isaacs available
and I also have Mr. Weissung available from planning,
but I don't think their testimony is going to be necessary
Because this is essentially, I mean, the fact that, you know, positions on the interpretation changed isn't really relevant.
because this is essentially, I mean, the fact that, you know,
What's relevant is the actual final determination, and it is pretty much entirely legal argument.
So I think we can stipulate to what Mr. Labor has presented in terms of the things that led up to the final determination.
I would note, for instance, and I don't know, Mr. Laver, if you want to put up the planning email back up on the screen so the board can take a look at it.
Happy to do that.
right so i would just note um the part that's the one sentence that's not highlighted makes
it very clear that final determination will be made at the time of zoning permit application
review and is not guaranteed to be consistent with the preliminary determination so i just
want to make it clear uh that this um that email from planning um was very clear that that was not
a decision that was not a determination it was simply a preliminary uh determination uh and that
was not in any way intended to be uh binding and it was very clear that it wasn't binding i i would
i would i would stipulate to that i i felt that it was helpful mr chairman and members of the board
for the board to have that background i don't even think that that exhibit is necessary for
the board's review of this matter the plain language of the code uh speaks to the reason
for our appeal sure um so i'm gonna attempt to uh share my screen because i want to unless uh
mr labor if you're already sharing maybe you want to if you want to put up the code provision again
I'm happy to do that, Mr. Reuter.
One moment.
There you go.
So there's a couple of things I think we want to point out.
First of all, I think there's a little bit of confusion.
And again, in terms of like what the actual decision was.
L &I did not make a determination that RM4 applies to the entire lot.
What the provision in question says is that the most restrictive provisions of all zoning districts in the split zone parcel apply.
So both CMX4 and RM4 apply to this district, and it is the most restrictive provisions of both districts that apply.
There was no determination that only that the entire lot is being treated as RM4.
It just so happens that with respect to certain bonuses that the applicant was certain development bonuses that the applicant was seeking, that on those provisions, RM4 was more restrictive.
But, say, in terms of other, I mean, and I would say it's probably accurate to say that RM4 overall is more restrictive than CMX4, but if these were two different types of zoning classifications, you know, then you may have some provisions in one classification that are more restrictive and then some that are less restrictive.
So it just so happens that comparing CMX4 to RM4, RM4 is usually going to be the more restrictive.
So, but we did not make a determinate, L and I did not make a determination that only RM4 applies to the whole lot.
Again, it's just a consequence of RM4 typically being more restrictive that it affected the application.
um so let me just go over it again the the the code provision a little bit more clearly
that the applicant the appellant is saying that the provisions that essentially what they're
saying is that if a doesn't apply then what i mean i guess that's the question is like which
zoning classification then applies because a doesn't apply but b does apply what they're saying
is once a doesn't apply you don't go to b at all but that's not what the provision says
if you go up to the sort of preamble of the provision it says when boundaries of various
districts are shown on the zoning map are established so that a single lot has more
than one base zoning designation the following provisions apply so you go through all the steps
So you go through all the steps. You don't skip B. A is essentially just saying that if that ones of the two, like not, I don't know if there's any three zone things, but like, so if you have a lot like this that has two zoning classifications, one of those classifications, which may or may not be the more restrictive, that could be the least restrictive.
you don't skip b
One of those will apply to the entire lot if it covers at least 75 % of the parcel and B does not apply.
So if in that instance, when you have something where, say, CMX4 is 75 % of the parcel and B doesn't apply, then in that instance, CMX4 would control for the entire lot, whether or not it's more or less restrictive.
but you don't skip b because again the code provision you you the following provisions
apply to any split zone parcel so you go next to you you then you go to b and what b says
is if a zoning district covers a contiguous area of a lot etc etc the most uh restrictive
provisions of all zoning districts that have contiguous area that covers at least 10 of the
total lot shall apply. So we agree that if you go to step B, that this parcel qualifies for B
because it does meet, there is the minimum, both sides, I mean actually the entire, have
exceed the minimum lot area. Again, CMX4 doesn't have a minimum lot. This is well more than 1 ,600
feet for either side. So again, we agree if B applies, then it definitely, then if you go to
step B, then B definitely applies to this parcel. But what we're saying is that you do have to do B
just because A doesn't apply. A is only saying when one zoning classification will work for
the entire parcel b is saying that you will apply the most restrictive in other cases
because there's really no other way i we don't believe there's any other way to read this
we agree that there's some confusion in the writing but the confusion isn't a type of uh
conflict or direct ambiguity there's no ambiguity which would would we agree would iner to the
benefit of the applicant this is one where it's pretty it's clear you you check off all the boxes
you do a if a doesn't apply then you see if b applies so if and here b applies so if b applies
then it's the most restrictive then you then and it just so happens that rm4 tends to have
more restrictions it tends to be more restrictive than cmx4 but we're not saying like i said we're
not saying that RM4 applies to the entire, to the lot, that we're only doing RM4. It's only
because it's, again, it just happens to be more restrictive. We agree C is not really relevant in
this. So D doesn't make any sense. If, if the way they're reading it, it would just simply be,
if A doesn't apply, then the commission would select, but it says neither A nor B applies.
If A doesn't apply, then there would be no reason for that last provision to even mention B.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, just two points very quickly.
This language needs to be cleaned up. That's clear.
And when language needs to be cleared up, it should be read in favor of the applicant.
I've shared with you change mark notes from the zoning unit that show that RM4 was applied.
There are no instances where there has been any contention that a more restrictive provision
in CMX4 has been applied to this. So as the zoning unit's reading would go,
A would never apply. And that, respectively, is where we are.
if the if the chairman and the board members believe that it would be helpful
to uh question mr isaac uh i'm prepared to do so but i hate to take up the board's time
so so i i'm gonna call for a vote here um um
excuse me this is sharon if i could just make one point before you call for a vote
Mr. Laver has also requested that there be a note whether the appeal is denied or
Also requested that there be a note, whether the appeal is denied or granted, stating that in the alternative, the applicant shall be permitted to submit a NUNC -PRO -TUNC appeal requesting a variance.
Mr. Reuter, do you have any objection to that?
Not at all. And again, I can't predict what planning's recommendation would be on a request for a variance, but I can say that, as was indicated in planning's email, that we agree that this entire parcel should be remapped to CMX4.
It's CMX -4 in the comprehensive plan. So we would have no objection whatsoever to a variance.
Exactly, but not getting into the merits.
No, no, I have no objection to a non -cruise. No, we would have no. I mean, again, I guess that's probably more for anybody that were to oppose such a variance, but the city certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't object to a non -cruise.
Well, I just think under the circumstances, so they were permitted to go forward with the appeal against L &I. We don't know whether that's going to be granted.
So in either case, adding a proviso, allowing a non -protein appeal seems appropriate.
Yeah, no problem.
So MI 2021 -004839 -3701 -15, Chestnut.
I vote to grant the appeal with the proviso.
Carol Tenere, I vote to grant the appeal with the proviso.
Thomas Holloman, I vote to grant the appeal with the proviso.
James Snell, I vote to grant the appeal with the provisors.
Ishmael Shahid, I vote to grant the appeal with the revisor.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Have a good day.
MI 2021 -003213, 1910 Chestnut Street.
Chair, I'm going to hop off.
Thank you.
Oh, okay.
Oh, that's number three.
Chair, if we could just mention who hopped off.
Ishmael Shaheed.
He left the meeting.
Thank you, kindly, Chair.
Mr. Patterson and Mr. Baddione, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm trying to find Mr. Patterson now, but I just have a...
I promoted him.
Okay, thank you.
You're right.
I'd like to swear to both of you, please.
But both state your name and spell for the court reporter.
I guess good afternoon.
Ronald Patterson, Claire Harrison Law Firm, 1835 Market Street,
Philadelphia PA 19103, on behalf of the applicant.
Michael Mattione, that's M -A -T -T -I -O -N -I,
Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall,
Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia 19106,
on behalf of Protestants, the William Penn House, and Michael Niederman.
Do you both swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And I think if I remember this correctly, Mr. Patterson, we left with you after you questioned
several of your witnesses. Am I right?
That's correct. If you want me to briefly rehash, I'm happy to.
I think we know it, but tell me, would Mr. Mattione now want to cross your witnesses?
Is that where we are? Or do you want to continue?
So, yeah, I would like to continue briefly because when we left the last hearing, we were hoping that we would reach a settlement.
And if not, then we would continue with this hearing today.
So I was going to, I'm bringing back my witnesses, of course, for questioning two of them.
I wanted just to clarify some things. And then I have a CCRA witness would like to speak. And then
my two expert witnesses, which will be available, of course, for cross. And Mr. Matione, I know,
has a handful of witnesses as well. But as you may recall, I'll share my screen.
this application regards 1910 chestnut street i'm just going paint going through some pictures
where we have before the old boy theater here as you see um and
the old boy theater here, as you see. And directly across the street would be an entrance
to the William Penn House right here, which sits back a ways on Ludlow Street.
The application originally contained two things. One was for the use as an eat -in restaurant.
and be in located in the cmx 5 commercial zoning district uh is a permitted use but because we're
within the center city overlay uh which includes chestnut street walnut street and south broad
street it requires a special exception for the restaurant we also had a series of
uh a sign package that we had proposed i'm going to show you that now
for the building
sorry not this
and it included a digital sign package which generated a refusal in addition to the referral
for the use and we as we had represented at the hearing we were withdrawing those digital
signs from the application so therefore this matter just came down to a special exception
for the Eden restaurant so that's that's where we are I don't know attorney Matione if you want
anything otherwise i want to have uh mr palermo return i just just wanted to ask the board how
much time we had because in addition to your witnesses i i do have four witnesses mr chairman
and i was wondering you know where we were going to be in terms of time um i would like to do a
brief opening before my witnesses testify but just yeah we're we're struggling for time you
You know, I'm thinking we're going to get to about one o 'clock and maybe have to continue.
And excuse me, Mr. Mattione, I believe the plan was this was left with you cross -examining the witnesses who Mr. Patterson previously prevented.
If you can do that today and also if we can get CCRA's position on the record, that might be all that will be possible.
I have no cross -examination for his witnesses who appeared at the last hearing.
if he has, and I know he has additional witnesses, if they testify, I may have cross -examination
for them, but it depends on how far along we go and he testifies, you know, but if the
likelihood is my witnesses would not testify to at least like one or two of them to be
excused because, you know, they're just on the line doing nothing, and if that's okay.
So, Mr. Patterson, you're prepared to put your additional witnesses on?
Yes. Yes. The first will be Michael Palermo, P -A -L -E -R -M -O.
Excuse me. You don't in the next hour that we have, you don't anticipate going beyond that.
And CCRA's position should have put one on the record so that Mr.
Matione can excuse his witnesses. If that's what we're saying, yes, I think I could complete my part of the case,
of course, subject to and reserving, you know, rebuttal or clarification after Mr.
Matione's case. But that probably is a good place to break.
if we agree on that we get so essentially the next hearing would be about the experts and
mr neederman i guess too okay thank you okay so i'll stop before my experts is that what we're
saying we're agreeing to no i i think what's going to happen okay all right unless you can get the
experts in okay we'll see how we go let's just let's see if we can get as much in as okay sure
Can I ask one more question, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Maglioni, would it make sense to first
get CCRA's position on the record if they've been waiting?
We can do that, sure.
Chair, can we ask if any representative of CCRA is present?
Any representative, pleasure.
It's Mr. Gross, G -R -O -S -S.
mr gross yes could you could you state your name please and um my name is gross g -r -o -s -s
i live at 1920 chestnut street philadelphia pennsylvania right do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you proceed thank you
proceed thank you uh hi mr gross um could you tell the board your name and address please
Oh, hi, Mr. Gross.
Could you tell the board
mr gross yes you're you're breaking up
Thank you. So where do you live in relationship to 1910 Chestnut Street?
Next door. My building abuts the property that's being proposed as the restaurant.
And how many residents live in that building?
And does your building support this application?
It does.
Okay. And you're also here on behalf of the Center City Residence Association?
I am. I'm the president of the Center City Residence Association.
Okay. And you can confirm that we have met publicly with full CCRA membership that was notified as well as some meetings with a special committee regarding this application?
that is correct um there have been a series of uh meetings and discussions about this project
and CCRA has notified its membership about the existence of the project
and how would you describe or how do you view this restaurant as presented well
if i could give two minutes of background when the project was first proposed
The proposers asked if CCRA would join in a kind of community representative agreement, a community representative forum with them.
I said that I would rather have a community benefits approach.
I would rather have to appoint a stakeholders committee, which we do when we have major projects, and let the stakeholders committee composed of nearby residents and others throughout the neighborhood make a recommendation about an agreement and bring that to the CCRA board.
That approach was followed.
I became president on July 1st.
I appointed a stakeholders group consisting of two residents of William Penthouse, the chairman of their board, and another member of their board, two residents of my building, 1920 Chestnut Street, including a professor of engineering to handle engineering questions,
the president of Robin Real Estate, which owns almost all the adjacent buildings opposite the property and west of William Penthouse, a resident of the Rittenhouse Plaza, and a resident of a different part of the neighborhood.
That group met in extensive sessions with the bankroll presenters, and they presented them with a substantial agreement.
They listened to all the concerns that people had brought to them.
They dealt expressly with questions of congestion, noise, lighting, security, and the unusual nature of some of the restaurant's proposed sports theming.
Of course, the neighborhood is well familiar with Stephen Starr, who is going to be the operator of the restaurant.
But this proposal raised questions that we haven't seen before, or at least raised some concerns that we thought should be addressed in a written memorandum.
That agreement was reached and was presented to the CCRA board.
Before presenting that agreement, I insisted that it be published publicly in our CCRA this week.
our newsletter that goes to 1300 residents we are the largest rco in the city we have 1300 members
and on two separate weeks we published the agreement we also asked for comment before
the board would take up the agreement the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of the comments or
I'm going to allow the testimony. I hear what you're saying.
The comments were overwhelmingly in favor of the agreement,
including comments from residents of William Penhouse.
I made sure that people understood that we would have a board meeting about it,
and people were invited to attend.
Our board meetings are open to our members.
The agreement essentially provides extensive protections for adjacent buildings,
including William Powell.
Mr. Chairman, I would object. I just say the agreement's up on the board. It's a written agreement. It speaks for itself, and I think it's going to be admitted into the record. I don't know that we have to have it.
Mr. Chairman, I would inject,
I just say the agreement's up on the board.
It's a written.
Okay, we won't go over the whole agreement, but Mr. Patterson, continue.
Yeah, I would like to just maybe focus on one, and it's one that's on the page. So there was some rumors or concerns about gaming within the facility. Is that correct, Mr. Gross?
That is correct. And we had heard originally that there were residents who were quite concerned, as was I, that this could have been a gaming facility.
My condition for proceeding in the way that I did and the way CCRA did was to insist that the applicant, the restaurant, the Stephen Starr restaurant, and the owner of the building, which is Pearl Properties and not the applicant, jointly agreed to record a deed restriction prohibiting gaming at this location.
That was my condition for proceeding with any communications. That was agreed, and it's paragraph 1A in the agreement, which is up in front of your screen, and as far as I understand, that restriction has been recorded, which will permanently prohibit any gaming at this location.
The balance of the agreement, and I won't do any more than just summarize it, dealt with a series of issues that the residents had in mind having to do with noise, congestion, safety, lighting, capacity, and everything else that might arise from the operation of a large restaurant.
In all respects, we were informed by the stakeholders group that they had reached a satisfactory agreement with the promoters, the Stephen Starr restaurant.
And another provision, which I do want to highlight, is that all neighboring buildings were offered an indemnity in case there would be any damage caused to those buildings by virtue of a patron of the restaurant, somebody who might be disruptive or unruly.
by way of example my building has very extensive planters in front of the building
after our super bowl victory they were all destroyed we were concerned that that not
happen again and bankroll has offered and we have agreed for all neighboring buildings to an
indemnity in case any damage arose we've never seen that in any of the community benefits
agreements we have negotiated and i've negotiated personally about 10 of them in the ccra neighborhood
This matter was brought to the board. I would note that on the stakeholders group, as I've said, there was the chairman of the William Penthouse board and another board member representative.
The CCRA board had open and extensive discussion about the agreement and about the operation of the facility, and it voted 28 to 1 to adopt the agreement and approve the facility proceeding.
This is after our zoning committee had voted 10 to 2, not to oppose the special exception.
okay i have since heard i have since heard from members throughout the community as i walk around
the community and the overwhelming chairman again to any of these other statements because
thank you mr patterson continue sure okay um mr gross do you recall in 2017 there was another
application for a sit -down restaurant proposed here yes there was a very large restaurant
proposed. I'm judging to the relevance, Mr. Chairman. I was going to get to it. And how large
was it, if you recall? I believe it was 350 seats against the current 400. And was there support for
this restaurant, which simply needed the same special exception? Yes. There was an issue with
the liquor licensing, and that was agreed to between our building, William Penthouse, and the
applicant and there was no objection to the special exception for that restaurant, which
unfortunately failed and didn't go forward. License agreements have been incorporated in
the agreement that was before you and with the stakeholders in CCRA that are more restrictive
than the agreement that was reached with the previous restaurant. You're saying that William
Penthouse supported that restaurant? They did. Do you recall in 2016 that the owner of 1900
of Marcus Street, the former Philadelphia Stock Exchange building, had a ZVA case and
involved the parking garage on the rear of Ludlow Street that faced William Penthouse?
I recall that well. I was a member of the zoning committee of CCRA at that time,
and I was approached by the then president of the board of William Penthouse, Dan Coyle,
and another member of the board, and asked if we would continue at the zoning committee the
variance request because of their concern that the parking, the newly arranged parking for
because of their concern that the parking, the new newly arranged parking for 1900 market, which backs on.
I don't know.
I think we don't all hear say those statements, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Patterson.
So let me ask you this.
Based on your observation that you live next door and across the street from the William Penthouse,
do you see or understand any fire department or emergency vehicles can access William Penthouse and where?
based on your observations. I personally see emergency vehicles using Ludlow Street,
the four bays that were protected in the earlier zoning decision, and I sometimes see emergency
vehicles on Chestnut Street across from my house, and I've also seen them on Ranstead Street at
another entrance. Because I am out and around, I have opportunity, and because I live across the
street. I have opportunity to see a great deal of the activity. I would say there are infrequent
emergency vehicles in the front of William Penthouse. Most of them are on Ludlow Street,
to my observation. Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Otherwise, I have no further
questions. All I would add for the board is that CCRA, which is experiencing our 75th anniversary
this year is a well -regarded and long -standing RCO is overwhelmingly in favor of a special
exception for this project. Thank you. Mr. Matteoni? I have no questions for Mr. Rowe.
Okay. Mr. Patterson, continue. Thank you. Michael Palermo, please.
i think i'm unmuted you mr put could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
Sure. My name is Michael Palermo, P -A -L -E -R -M -O.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Michael, to rehash, what is your position with the Star Restaurant Organization?
I'm the vice president of development. I've been with Star Restaurant since 1998.
and um as part of your duties you develop open and oversee new restaurants is that fair
that's an accurate statement i work with the designers i work with the operations team
to uh to develop the restaurants how many star restaurants have you worked on
uh in the last 24 years uh clipped to 45 restaurants and you've acted similarly with
developing and proposing this restaurant? That's correct. This restaurant has been
the same. I just want to have a pointed question. So could you briefly describe again the nature
and the scope of this proposed restaurant? Sure. This restaurant is a scale boutique restaurant
that is sports focused. The restaurant is being built and developed to be comfortable for sports
enthusiasts but also comfortable for guests that are not primarily interested in sports
uh the restaurant is a is a complement to our other written house restaurants
park barkley prime the love continental midtown dandelion uh the restaurant has
you know five different venues inside of it there's a large great space
with seating for approximately 100 guests there's a more formal restaurant
in a part of the building on the first floor that accommodates about 130 guests
there's a smaller bar on the mezzanine that accommodates approximately 50 guests
and there's an event space on the mezzanine that accommodates about 40 guests like a private party
event space and last but not least there's kind of like uh living room seating pods for back of a
lack of a better description that's also on the second floor that accommodates approximately 60
guests so it has various venues that can accommodate the various interests of the guests
that are coming to the restaurant. Okay. So, and to be clear, Michael, despite, I guess,
persistent rumors and dispersions, there is not a game, this is not a gaming facility, correct?
Not at all. And you've never intended to or apply for a gaming license?
Never. Okay. And since the last ZBA hearing,
Have you had an opportunity to update your testimony as to the operations?
have you had an opportunity to update your testimony as their operations are
There were some numbers that we didn't quite have.
Let's do it.
So if you could state what the number of occupants would be.
The venues that I described totaled to approximately 400 seats and bar stools, about 400.
number of tables is about 102 and there's three bars in this building uh two very small bars that
accommodate one for eight guests one for 12 guests and the larger bar in the great room
accommodates 25 guests and those numbers are incorporated and included in that 400 number
And the 400 number sounds, you know, it's in the hundreds, but what, if you know, which I'm sure you do, are the occupancies of the nearby other star restaurants like the Midtown and Park and Barkley and the Love?
Well, the Continental Restaurant is quite large. It accommodates, including the roof occupancy and season, approximately 350 guests. Our Park Restaurant accommodates about 280 guests. Barclay Prime, which is half a block from Park, accommodates about 140 guests.
And getting back to this address, is is it reservation only seating, general admission? How does that work?
Well, we're certainly we're certainly we're certainly going to take reservations for all areas of the restaurant where they're seating.
and when the demand is there we can be 90 95 percent booked with reservations uh that's how
we run our other restaurants we we like to keep maybe five eight percent of the seats
not reserved just to accommodate uh walk -ins from the neighborhood but once the the public
gets to know the different venues um on the when as we take reservations on resi or open table
the guests will be able to reserve uh in the main dining room in the little bar upstairs or
in the great room uh it's always best for us operationally to have as many reservations as
we can and and not being a nightclub or a bar would you expect all the patrons to leave at one
time no i mean in a restaurant like this uh of course there's going to be certain games
uh whether it's a football game or an important um you know gaming event whether it's soccer
football baseball where a portion of the guests will say okay that's it we're leaving uh but
But, again, guests are coming to the restaurant not only to watch the sporting events and the entertainment, but also to dine.
And, you know, it's very rare that it's that everyone's going to get up and leave at once.
It's just it's just not a not something that I, you know, our experience has ever happened.
And I don't think it's going to happen at at this restaurant at all.
and here to clarify at least the contrast you have a you have a lobby area so would you
where would patrons wait to be seated and wait for let's say car share to pick them up once they
leave so we're keeping the old vestibule that the the void had the previous theater and the
the vestibule lobby after you go in underneath the canopy that vestibule lobby accommodates
40 guests there's no tables there's no chairs in there there's a couple little like waiting benches
uh for guests who may want to wait for their party to be complete or wait for an uber or or a lift
uh and of course you know some of the guests are going to walk outside and they're going to stand
under the canopy um okay i have a couple more questions that's all um the park and like barclay
continental let's say do they have parking on site they do not have parking on site
well i'm trying to show by comparison that's all different locations i understand understand um and
as far as this back to this location like your question could answer your question ron i mean
park and and barclay that adjoin each other in continental midtown that's right up you know a
block away from this property uh you know we we stagger our seedings uh we don't like to
You know, we stagger our seatings. We don't like to have 100 guests, 150 guests come at once. We stagger the seatings every 15 minutes. And in order to make it a smooth flow for service, for food, and it's the same thing we're going to do at bankroll.
Okay. And as far as the loading of supplies and trash removal, that's performed in a common area on Sampson Street as part of the larger Harper building that you're in. Is that correct?
the the um the building has a i believe it's on 21st street has a very large receiving garage door
thank you and it's it's below grade and you know our deliveries as well as our trash pickups
okay are you still there
I can't hear them.
I think you lost them.
I'm back, Michael.
The deliveries and traffic pickups are all underground?
It's all going to be inside.
Great.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have for Mr. Palermo.
Mr. Mariani, thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Palermo.
could you continue with your witnesses please i'm sorry what did you say you have your other
witnesses oh okay we're moving on okay um mr uh paul staff assault s -o -u -l -t
so he's available chair okay state your name and spell for the court reporter please sir
His name is Paul Sewell, S -O -U -L -T.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
To refresh the board's memory, Paul, what's your position with the project?
I am vice president of real estate and operations.
Okay. And at the last hearing, you testified as to call the patron management or control, which I guess we grouped into calling a security group. Is that correct?
That is correct.
And why are we having what's being called security at this typical and as a typical of a star restaurant?
Well, number one, it's in response to, as Rick Gross referenced, we had conversations with WPH, we had several online meetings with groups of people from multiple community organizations, and it was obvious that people were voicing concerns about management of people, management of the flow of people, if you will, inside and in and out of the facility, as well as a concern about
congregation in front of the building. So we look at the security as really a management of those
people, those patrons as they come in and out of the building and to limit congregation in front
of the building. Okay. And is this Stephen Starr restaurant a kind of restaurant that needs security
or crowd control to stop violence or violence? Do you feel? Well, it was not in our original
business plan. Excuse me. Again, we see this as a reaction to concerns that the neighborhood has
voiced. But as a standard Stephen Starr restaurant goes, it is not typical to have security
on hand. So is it fair to say that you view most importantly as the management of,
I'd say, patrons entering and exiting the restaurant. Would that be correct?
That's correct.
And the goal here may be to, I guess, prevent excessive waiting time on the street. Is that one of them?
That's correct.
And to maintain a constant flow, I guess, and not a slug flow of people?
That is correct.
And then in terms of exiting, can you elaborate on that in terms of waiting and car share stops and close, if that is applicable?
Yeah, so we've been in conversations with a very skilled and highly recognized security firm that does manned security, Allied Universal.
Council, they specialize in certainly kind of managing the flows of people in and out
of various venues, everything from major arenas and football stadiums, something as small
as this restaurant that we're proposing.
Again, we had no concern about patron issues.
Again, we had no concern about patron issues.
We had no concern about problematic situations arising from people attending our facility.
It was more about managing that flow of people in and out of the building, as well as keeping
the flow.
Now, there will be people using rideshares.
We heard that concern from people at WPH, and we responded with an organization like
Allied Universal that is steeped in experience with handling rideshare traffic issues and keeping
rideshares moving on small streets like Chestnut Street. And Paul, up on the screen is a letter
from Allied which you can surely testify to or answer questions about. That letter was delivered
to you. It was, yes, after several conversations, excuse me, with the professionals at Allied
Universal. One in particular is Charles Bonnenberger, his senior VP, and he felt compelled to put
it in writing, exactly what they would propose eventually. Do you have an arrangement for
parking for guests? Yes, we're working on it. We've been in discussions with a number of local
lots. Once again, we heard a concern from the William Penhouse residents specifically. There
is a garage on 19th Street that is utilized by the residents of William Penhouse. We are making,
we are taking extreme measures to avoid our patrons using that garage. We can't stop it 100%.
But as an effort that we feel will be quite constructive, people will be offered incentives through relationships with other local garages, discounted parking, for instance, ease of parking, so that it will incentivize people to look to other garages when they come to our place.
again with we consider that to be a minimal problem most of what we expect to most of the
people we expect to attend our facility will be within walking area walking distance of the
building so you're saying that's what your demographics say our demographics the reason
why we're putting this in center city is in large part because many of the uh the the targeted
demographic many of those in that targeted demographic live in that area within a four
to five block radius. I just have a couple more questions. If you can briefly revisit, you
testified about security cameras, and how many were being installed outside or proposed?
We proposed three cameras for the outside of the building, two of which will be pan -tilt zoom
controllable with remote devices as well from inside in a security room that will have
dedicated inside the building.
The middle camera will be a 360 camera.
Once again, in response to concerns from the community,
we're putting a very expensive 360 -degree camera
that will capture a 360 -degree panoramic video
in real time, also recorded.
So if there is an event,
like Rick Gross referenced earlier,
some patron from our facility crosses the street causes some damage we have video verification
that that has happened we will be able to see the william penthouse court house court area from
oh yeah most definitely we'll be able to see cameras inside as well we will we have a healthy
setup of cameras inside it's considerably more it's going to run between 40 and 60 cameras in
total. Once again, much of which is being utilized as a concern about, and I'll do
respect to the star people, but concerns that there may be issues related to staff and the
like, and we simply are covering ourselves legally and insurance -wise. But it would be
a prolific number of cameras inside the facility. So they're not there because of the proposed use
in terms of a restaurant that would cause an issue.
Is that fair to say?
No, they are not.
That is not the intended installation.
That's not how they were proposed originally.
And that simply goes, again, as I mentioned earlier,
security was not a part of our business plan from the outset.
I have no further questions.
And would like to reserve, Paul, if there's any rebuttal to WPA,
William Penthouse's security testimony. So if Mr. Matione, if you have any questions.
I have, um, excuse me, Mr. Matione, before you start, can I mention one thing?
Excuse me, Mr. Mattiotti, before you start, can I mention one thing?
Clearly, you're not going to finish today.
Checking tomorrow's list, it looks like there are several continuances in cases with no exhibits on the 930 listing.
Would you be willing to come back tomorrow morning to continue with this?
Assuming my witnesses are available, I would.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do you have to check with them, Ms. Folletta?
Check with the witnesses?
Yes, because obviously I don't know their schedule.
Yeah, if you could check with them, that would be great.
And then we can announce at the end today, if it's possible to get an answer from them by then.
Let me send a text message out and see if I can get back.
And I apologize for the interruption.
Before I get sidetracked on the, I have no questions for Mr.
I do want to object to the Allied letter being entered into evidence.
Mr. Bonnenberger is not here to verify the letter.
and uh it's hearsay and he's not here to authenticate it so i just want to object
on the record for that letter thank you i don't know who else would have written it but
i understood but i still think it's here i understand okay you have another witness to put up
i do um miss miss nancy templeton
and Ms. Templeton you can unmute yourself
state your name and spell for the court reporter please
sure it's Nancy Templeton
N -A -N -C -Y -T -E -M -P -L -E -T -O -N
do you swear for them to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
proceed
hi Nancy
um uh please remind the board where are you employed i am employed with ch planning
limited in philadelphia and uh what is your position there and your expertise
i am an urban planning consultant specializing in comprehensive planning community planning
land use planning and general i do believe she's been recognized by this board as an expert in the
Okay. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to make, just to identify her, that's all.
Okay. Thanks, Michael. So, Nancy, you're retained to provide a professional land planning analysis and report?
And would that, would this on the screen be the first page of your report?
The support has? Okay. What did you review to conduct your analysis and complete your report?
I reviewed the development and architectural plans of the project. I conducted a site visit
of the site and surrounding neighborhood, reviewed the zoning requirements and special
exception criteria. I reviewed the draft memorandum of understanding and the Philadelphia
2035 Central District Comprehensive Plan. Okay. And this property, as I mentioned,
is true it's located in a CMX 5 commercial zoning district? Yes, CMX 4 I believe.
What kind of district is that as far as uses are concerned? That is the core commercial mixed use
district. And does it allow let's say unlimited residential units and a full array of commercial
retail and service uses yes and proposed for this location and in this case uh was uh or is
an eating restaurant that you're understanding correct yes and as i mentioned uh if you would
confirm so an eating restaurant would be permitted as a matter right under the cmx zoning district
but because of the overlay it requires a special exception is that is that accurate correct
And what does a special exception relief mean, if you know, not legally, but what does it mean?
It means that there's several criteria that have to be met, primarily making sure that the project
does not create negative impacts on the neighborhood.
So no hardship that you understand?
No, hardship is not required.
And the zoning code sets for the certain criteria that must be met for the granting of the special exception?
And we must address them.
And then to paraphrase, then anybody protesting must then address them.
So that's why we're here.
Correct.
And again, you prepared a report.
Uh, and, um, what type of block and location is this property located on in terms of zoning
And what type of block and location does...
and mixed uses this particular part of chestnut? Um, it's, it's a high density, uh, mixed commercial
and residential corridor. Would you consider it a residential block or no? Okay. What would you
consider it? High density mixed use. Okay. Uh, is it sparsely or densely, uh, populated with
uses? What'd you say? It's very dense commercial corridor. So is it fair to say that if you have
a mixed, uh, use like this block, uh, that mixed commercial and residential uses, um,
I guess, have to live in harmony and not in opposition.
Is that fair to say?
And what do you think, would a resident living there expect that on one of the most commercial streets,
that there would be a lot of commercial uses, having high occupancy numbers?
Yes, correct.
Did you conduct a site visit, visit the site in the surrounding areas?
And have you viewed the William Penthouse building?
I have.
And if you look on the screen here, there's some photographs.
Where my little hand is, that's the William Penn house. Is that what you understand?
And where I have it here would be our property in 1910, Chestnut Street?
And the entrance, or at least one of the entrances on Chestnut Street is right here, the little court area, as I'm describing it.
may be different and does it front on other streets uh the william penthouse yes on four
other streets and do you understand if there are any other entrances to this building on those
streets yes there are and you you happen to know where the main loading and unloading areas are
I know the main loading area is on Ludlow Street.
And in your analysis, I don't want to get into it as part of the record, but in comparison to surrounding uses, what is the loading and unloading that's performed on Chestnut Street, if you know?
For the William Penthouse or for?
Any of the uses, if you know, the nearby uses.
usually on the on an alley or if it's present or uh one of the ranstead or
okay other smaller streets i'm just going to take you now through the um the litany of um
special exception so we get that on the record um criteria so in your professional opinion does
this proposed use of the board grants a special exception not cause detrimental impacts in the
neighborhood beyond which that is normally might be expected from this proposed use?
It does not.
Will it cause, in your opinion, congestion in the public streets or transportation systems?
She's not a traffic engineer. I don't think she's qualified to make that opinion.
Well, she can answer.
She's testifying about special exception criteria.
I guess it's congestion in public streets or transportation systems, and that's traffic
generated, stuff like that. I mean, I think you should be a traffic engineer to testify to those
things. Well, I'm sure she can comment on it, right? I mean, or are you going to reject it?
Why don't we do this? She has to read some conclusion on the special exception.
I agree with Mr. Mattione on that particular point, so why don't you just move on?
Okay. Overcrowding the land? No. Impairing an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties? No. Burdening water, sewer, school park, or other public facilities? No. Impairing or permanently injuring the use of adjacent conforming properties? No. Endangering the public health safety by fire or other means? No. Or is it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of the city? No.
thank you i have no further questions for nancy mr manioni i have no questions i did get a text
message saying the council president clark wanted to to comment on this application i don't know
if he's on and i don't know what the board would want to do but i did get a text message from
somebody saying that he wanted to comment now i don't like to interrupt the case but
okay is there anybody is there anybody from his office on
yes chair and i'm on mute to him now okay and mr clark you can unmute yourself
hello mr clark good morning bill bergman
hello mr clark good morning bill bergman could you state your name for the record yeah
thank you uh daryl clark council president philadelphia fifth council president do you
swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth that's the only thing
i know how to do mr chairman absolutely okay thank you sir thank you sir yeah yeah and mr chair i
didn't want to interrupt the case uh but you know i have a number of other i got to redistricting
bill and i know that's not you all's challenge a couple of things i got to get done but
okay sure will you guys be uh reconvening in the morning and i just want to get because i do want
to weigh in on this particular issue not to jump the line so to speak okay you can you can jump
the line now okay and i hope it's okay with my friends from the way in penthouse um just just
briefly um and thank you mr chairman and board for allowing me uh this indulgence um this essentially
Actually, I'm going to acknowledge, first of all, all the work that's been done, particularly from Rick Gross and CCRA.
I want to announce that they've done a good job in being stewards of the community, as Rick said, one of the largest RCOs and the responses from the applicant.
But at the end of the day, to suggest that it is not the newest phase of gaming.
is just not accurate. I mean, this is clearly where a lot of gaming is going to go. I mean,
while people will not be exchanging chips and all the other things associated with the
traditional gaming, it is a new wave. You can't turn on the TV without a commercial about some
former or current star, a person of note, promoting this type of activity. So people
will be coming there to utilize their devices to play the bets. But saying all that, I do want to
talk about the impact, particularly around a couple of issues. And I know that a lot of this
has been discussed. And again, I want to acknowledge all the work that's been done by
all the parties. This issue with respect to traffic, I know that can be problematic.
We have a traffic problem in the city without bankroll. But the ability of the allied folks
to be able to monitor traffic in the street, I don't think that's within their jurisdiction.
This issue about capacity, I know that was some conversations back and forth.
The earlier conversation about the approval of a 350 foot capacity restaurant under a past iteration was supported.
But now this is somewhat more whatever the capacity ends up being could potentially be an issue.
just the general impact of a facility and it's a new type of facility in a neighborhood though
albeit mixed use it is a strong contingent of residents on the block um so i i guess i'm saying
that i really am concerned about the enforcement the compliance associated with whatever agreement
is made um i actually had the pleasure of being the council person when the first casino
was proposed at that time on Delaware Avenue Sugarhouse
and was right in the midst of it
because my district extended there.
And early on, it was a brutal one.
I mean, even had a guy challenging me
to come up to the table and beat me up
because he didn't want it in his community.
And I stood up, he saw how tall I was,
so he kind of backed down.
But the reality is that you should expect
a significant pushback when this is proposed in this particular neighborhood, albeit a different
type of environment. But ultimately, people worked it out with an agreement with a special
services district and individuals who had enforcement authority to actually monitor
activity. So I'm a little concerned about who actually had the authority to monitor the impact
on this site. So I would ask, and I did forward a letter referencing some of the things I'm saying,
but I just wanted to say it in a public way, that this conversation needs to be had in earnest.
Any compliance, any agreement that is reached, and people should acknowledge that this is going
to have impact on the residents, even the ones that support it. We're kidding ourselves,
and we don't think that it will. Will not. So I just for the record I want to put my two cents
on the record about what I think about this proposal. So again thank you for giving me
consideration to allow me to put my words in but I am concerned about the impact and I want to
And I want to whatever understanding is reached to ensure.
whatever understanding is reached to ensure and also the other thing that we did.
And also the other thing that we did, and I'll shut up after this, is that this operation be revisited if it is allowed to proceed, not suggesting that it will.
But we did that with the casino on a periodic basis to ensure that there was whatever compliance was put as a part of the agreement.
so um just saying that to say it is going to be an impact um some of it not positive
this should be full acknowledgement um so when you make your decision i've asked the board to
take all of those things into consideration and mr chairman again thank you very much for
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
Ron, can you want to consider?
Sure, I can. Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Mationi, just to confirm, we had no questions for Mr. Solt?
I have no questions for Mr. Solt or Ms. Templeton. I believe she was done too, right?
Okay, great. All right, I have one more, Mr. Chairman, for today. Guy DiMartino.
Sir, if you're in attendance, can you please raise your hand?
Chair, he's available.
Please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Yes, it's Guido DiMartino. Guido is G -U -I -D -O. DiMartino is D -I -M -A -R -T -I -N -O.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Hi, Mr. DiMartino. Who employs you?
Traffic Planning and Design, Inc.
Okay. And what's your position there?
I'm a regional leader of transportation planning.
And what does that mean, if you could elaborate?
Yes, I'm responsible for preparing and reviewing various forms of traffic analysis, traffic impact studies, parking studies, conceptual roadway designs,
analyses of various configurations, the intersections and corridors, all aspects
of transportation planning. Just like Mr. Templeton, I believe he's been
qualified as a traffic engineering expert before this board in the past. Yes, but
thank you. I don't have any objection. And so you've heard our testimony in this
case and you reviewed documents relevant to allow you to formulate an opinion as to traffic issues
and congestions here in the media area is that correct yes that's correct and i guess you reviewed
miss miss templeton's report and i have are you familiar with this location in the area of
chestnut street i am yeah and um you're aware that one of the criteria for granting a special
exception as we were discussing a few minutes ago is that there will be no congestion in the public
streets or transportation systems to the neighborhood beyond that which normally might
be expected from the proposed use is that fair to say yes familiar and uh you prepared i guess a
um a letter report that i'm showing on the screen which was submitted that's
your um report that's correct that is my report dated january 14th
incorrectly dated. It should be January 14th, 2022. Right. I would hope so.
So about the congestion sentence that I just mentioned to you, what does that really mean,
which beyond what you could normally be expected from the proposed use, if you know?
Right. So my interpretation of that is certainly any use. Right now, the site's vacant.
So it's not generating any traffic. There's no visitors to and from the site on a regular basis.
So certainly any use or reuse of that site is going to have some sort of impact.
That's understandable. I mean, it's going to add traffic to the area.
But my interpretation of it is, will this proposed application, will it have anything in excess or beyond what would normally be expected of a use of this site?
and what was the conclusion you came to in your professional opinion about that
in this instance yeah so i i believe i mean it's proposed to be a restaurant with reservations
Yeah, so I believe, I mean, it's proposed to be a restaurant with reservations, as you heard in the prior testimony.
So the restaurant will operate just as any other restaurant will operate and is expected to operate just like any other restaurant and will not have caused any specific detrimental impact to the neighborhood beyond what would normally be expected.
And how about as to traffic, which is what we're talking about.
Yes, exactly. And that's from a traffic perspective. That's what I was referring to in terms of no detrimental impact beyond what would normally be expected.
Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. DiMartino.
Mr. Nadeo, do you have any questions?
I have no questions for Mr. DiMartino.
Thank you.
All right.
So we're coming up to one o 'clock, Ron. How many more witnesses do you have?
I have no further on direct. I may have no rebuttal, as I mentioned, but at this point, it's Mr. Mattione's.
All right. So, Mr. Mattione, as we approach tomorrow, how long do you think it'll take to put on your case?
I have four witnesses, Mr. Chairman. I don't know, 20 minutes each witness, 15 minutes.
It depends on whether Mr. Patterson does extensive cross -examination as well.
But I have a one -way witness and three experts, and, you know, 15 minutes each.
Somewhere that range.
So how are you making out with your witnesses to be available tomorrow?
Everybody said they're available if we can start, you know, relatively close to 930,
because some of them have things at like 1130 at noon.
So first, I think we'd finish quickly.
Tanya, did you hear that?
tanya where's the boss
sharon
yes i did suggest i did discuss with tanya the idea of moving it to tomorrow and she was in
agreement that's good okay so then what we'll do is we'll take this first tomorrow
if we could do it last the others have already been scheduled so we would think last as an
exception so so give me an idea of the time tanya it's it's up to you chair however we proceed with
the cases scheduled after they're completed then we can move forward with this case fairly to those
who have already been scheduled for all this time they should how many let me ask you this how many
cases we a lot have been a lot have been continued right how many cases do we have yeah i i believe
that there are only at this point it looks as though there are either five or six cases going
forward um none of them looks all that complicated so so once we complete those then we can do this
case um especially because all board members will not be available for uh or necessary for this case
okay we should be in good shape mr chairman all right good good good we'll get this on as soon
as we can tomorrow we'll move whatever we have and we'll get everyone for you okay
thank you and thank you so much and thank you mr uh okay um boy chair you're at 1 p .m exactly
i know they had places to go all right thanks thank you everybody thank you
have a good day y 'all
Bye, everybody, now that I'm turned on.