Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair, it looks like the number is stable, so whenever you want to start, it should be okay.
Thank you. And Jason, Yvette is on.
You'll be assisting us. Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette. I'm here.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll begin. Good morning, everyone.
Excuse me. One more. I just want to say, Tanya, for some reason,
I see you three different times and I don't know if that'll cause a problem at all with your sound.
So if you want, we can test it.
So if you are speaking, we're not hearing you.
I told you that woman tries to be three places at one time.
See that?
Okay, sir, I think she's gone out and coming back in.
Tanya, I see you, but we still don't hear you.
Good morning, Tanya.
Good morning.
i'm sorry i'm having technical problems oh i figured oh no worries we're ready to go pauline
we are we are good to go okay thank you good morning everyone my name is frank de chico i'm
the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our vice chair ms carol tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board members mr thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Yvette Benton and our Board Attorney Ms. Sharon
Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual
hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and that the recording will be available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by
hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone participating
by phone. If you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. I will repeat that as well.
to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue. I would also like to remind everyone,
please do not attempt to testify in the chat. All comments should be directed to our board
administrator, Ms. Benton. With that, I will read off a list of requests for continuances.
I will read off a list of requests for continuances on the 930 list.
Case number six MI 2020-002811 590 Rector Street. MI 2020-001222 5909 Elmwood Avenue.
excuse me chair you got muted
did you hear what was the last one you here to continue with elmwood yes okay next case to be
Thank you. Next case to be continued is MI 2020-002-759-6324 Newton Avenue.
That request, that continues as a request by the applicant's attorney.
Number 11 on our list, MI 2020-002-751-683 North Broad Street.
and i believe that is the list of continuances if anyone has any objection to the any of those
cases that have been requested to be continued please raise your hand at this time excuse me
chair this is sharon saletta we just heard from um hillary emerson of councilwoman parker's office
that um number eight on the list the applicant is requesting a continuance and that um hillary
said her office is working they've had trouble scheduling an RCO meeting her office is working
with them to schedule one so if we could add that to the continuance list okay thank you MI 2020-0012745871
North 6th Street is continued again if anyone has any objection to any of the cases that have been
call to be continued. Please raise your hand at this time. Chair, we have Craig Melodosian.
Mr. Melodosian, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning. Craig Melodosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N,
coordinating rco ward 40 republican rco po box 3 3 3 5 5 philadelphia 1 9 1 4 2
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed i'm speaking in regards to 5909 elmwood avenue
uh the applicant has not met with the community the applicant has not made any posts for any of
his hearings on the subject property and uh my opinion is that the applicant is a predator
business along a residential corridor and has the street stacked full of cars that they're working
on so even though their application says no body work the nature of the wrecks excuse me
getting into the case are you requesting that we we uh dismiss this case yes sir well we're
on behalf of the community we're requesting that it be dismissed
i believe it could be listed must be heard but because the um the applicant's attorney
was told it would be continued
we're going to continue it it must be heard all right and at this point may i ask who is the
attorney of record at this point sure it's ryan boland do you want me to send you his contact
information i i i have his contact information thank you very much for your consideration we
appreciate it is is there a listing date at this point or should i wait for that you'll have to
wait for that. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So let me go back. MI 2020-001-222-5909
Elmwood Avenue is continued. Must be heard. Any other objections? Any of the cases that have been
asked to be continued? Please raise your hand. Chair, we have a Christopher Labovitz.
you can unmute yourself and speak morning sir please identify yourself for the record spell
your full name and provide us with your address my name is chris labovitz chris last name l-a-b-o-v-i-t-z
i'm calling on behalf of the tachoni civic association and just as you were reading the
continuous list, my computer rebooted, and I was just checking on 6948 Keystone Street.
6948 Keystone Street. MI 2020 002817. That has not been requested to be continued. I will ask if
there's anyone here on that case. We did not even get any exhibits as of last night. No, we have
not. The woman who's filing for it was very confused about how the process works. So I said
that I would make sure it was continued
so that we could meet with her.
I don't, with the community.
So I'm requesting it to continue
on behalf of the owner of the property.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
So MI 2020-002817-6948 Keystone Street is continued.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Chair, we have a Joseph Consul.
Consul, good morning.
Hey, good morning, Frank, and the rest of the board.
I'm here on...
No, just please identify yourself.
I'm sorry.
Joseph Consul, Consul Madison, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204, Media PA 19063.
Consul is spelled C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
That's right.
You swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I'm here on meeting ID 2020-001317.
It's 3101 Cotman.
And I'm just seeking, I guess, a little bit of advice.
My clients met with the RCO twice prior to getting me involved.
They were unable to get a letter.
I have proof of their mailings and the meetings and everything.
I got involved and I reached out to the RCO to see what was going on with the letter.
And they said there was some language barriers and some miscommunications.
We need to meet with them again.
And so they want to meet with us next week.
They emailed a request this morning for a continuance.
I guess it was too late to make it onto your list here.
But my clients are concerned about getting this pushback even further based on that.
So I'm just seeking some advice.
so we have no letter but we have proof that we met with them and the proof of the mailing and
all that um so but i also didn't want to ignore the fact that they there was the emails that came
from the mayfair civic association and from uh the one of the wards this morning as well excuse
me this is sharon sletta um karima did forward that request that email request to me just now
for continuance yes from the rco all right mr council i mean
if we hear the case we're not going to be voting on it until we get
communication from the rco i'm i'm okay with that we can do that
excuse me um mr council you have though met with them is that correct
The applicant themselves met twice.
They were trying to do it themselves.
They got me involved in December when they weren't able to get a letter, and that led
to the RCO scheduling a new meeting saying that they needed to meet with me since I was
going to represent them now.
But my clients were concerned that it would get pushed back really far, so they wanted
me to explain that they've already met.
They sent all the notices out.
They had two virtual meetings, but they weren't able to get a letter.
And the RCO had told me that there was some level of miscommunication language barrier that really confused both of the meetings to a point where they didn't feel comfortable writing a letter at that time.
So we do an attorney moving party or does that help him?
I mean, this is your call.
Again, this is one of those cases where they the applicant has complied.
There has been a meeting.
You're not going forward in cases where there hasn't been a meeting.
but we can hear the case and hold and uh it would have to be a resumption hearing
yeah i'm i'm fine with that i i feel i feel confident that we can we can get it all all
straightened out we'll do it that way right we'll do a resumption yeah maybe ask miss sunkit if she
is on the line um i will have to come up with a date okay but you have no objection to them
handling it this way since there have been two meetings nope no problem at all thank you okay
so we'll hear the case right yes and i can give a resumption date okay very good all right mr
council hang in there thank you any other uh any other objection to any of the cases that
have been called to be continued please raise your hand here we have andrew goodman mr goodman you
Mr. Goodman you can unmute yourself and speak. Hi good morning. Good morning Mr. Goodman please
You can unmute yourself and speak.
Hi, good morning.
identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in. Andrew Goodman G-O-O-D-M-A-N here representing
the office of third district council member Jamie Gaudier. We're going to affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth. Yes I do. I believe you have a request in for continuance
but proceed please yes thank you sorry wasn't wasn't sure um but yeah we're here to formally
um request a continuance for agenda item number five mi 2020-001-231 4614-16 chester avenue
we understand the applicant has planned revisions but has not yet met with the with the community
so we ask that the case be continued to allow that community meeting to take place
Thank you, so noted. So MI 2020. Excuse me, Chair, this is a third party request. If you could call the property owner, who is Elwood VanSkyver. He has submitted exhibits.
MI 2020-001-231-4614-16 Chester Avenue. Is Mr. VanSkyver available or someone who's representing this application?
Mr. VanSkyver, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning, Mr. VanSkyver.
Please identify yourself, the record first and last name, spell your last name.
My name is Elwood VanSkyver, V as in Victor, A-N-S.
If you can get a little closer to the microphone or increase the volume, that would be helpful.
let me see can't hear you elwood vance hold on maybe if i that's better is that better sir yes
sorry i apologize for that no worries no worries elwood vance skyver v as in victor a n s-c-i-v-e-r
uh 243 monument avenue malvern pennsylvania we're infirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir you heard the request from the councilwoman's office about a
continuance yes uh i had contacted the uh once i got the notice of the continued date for the
hearing i contacted the rco to uh chat with them about setting up another meeting the revisions are
relatively minor i was advised by the rco chairperson that unless the revisions were major
their position would not change so uh the the revisions we made are relatively minor to the
plan so we'd like to go forward with it and get you know the board's decision upon it
excuse me this is sharon saleta i have the proviso plans form in front of me the changes are
overall height of proposed building reduced from 38 to 32 feet roof deck at third floor eliminated
those are the only changes right and and actually the the height change was made uh after the
refusal was received and prior to the first meeting with the rco so that wouldn't that you
know that wouldn't impact the rco's decision i anyway the rco sent sent the letter of opposition
you know that yes sir i'm aware of that
and it appears that the councilwoman's office would like to have our staff involved
to see if they can address some of the issues that may have led to the opposition
would you rather go ahead with this hearing you're saying uh well
Well, frankly, I had not understood that the council person wanted to be to discuss it further.
As I said, when I reached out to the RCO, the RCO advised me unless there were substantial changes to the plan, they would not be changing their opinion.
So we did not make substantial changes to the plan.
uh adam you there let's see mr goodman are you still on oh yes yes i'm here yeah i mean i i did
not i figured that there would be an interest in going back to the community to reflect updated
plans uh so i'm a little i'm a little surprised um but if the applicant wants to proceed with
opposition as reflected, then that's their prerogative.
Sir, it's your call.
If you want to go ahead with the case.
uh well that's that's where i am sir yes i mean was the updated was the updated hearing
Well, that's where I am, sir.
date posted so that neighbors would have would have known that they had the opportunity to testify
today yeah all right we'll go ahead with the hearing
hello mr gubman and if you want to get on the record at the time of the hearing
state the position of the councilwoman yep we absolutely will thank you sir okay thank you
at this time i will ask are there any other requests for continuances or withdrawals on
the 930 list. Chair, we have Sloan Foulkes. Mr. Foulkes, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Mr. Foulkes, you're still muted. Okay, can we, are we clear now?
Good morning. I'm sorry, I'm in City Hall on my phone. Sloan Foulkes, Office of Councilwoman Maria
candidate sanchez room 508 city hall we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do sir good morning i am uh uh i'm uh on case number mi2020-002812830
east thayer street uh case number 14 um we don't have a record of the applicant meeting with the
RCO, therefore requesting a continuance until such time as they do.
Thank you. Is there anyone here regarding 830 East Thayer Street?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, so MI 2020-002812. 830 East Thayer Street is continued.
thank you anyone else continuance or withdrawal the 9 30 list chair we have henry clinton
mr clinton you can unmute yourself and speak uh good morning mr chairman i may have missed this
i just want to confirm that 63 24 newtown has been continued we did send a letter in but i
okay continued at your request thank you very much i appreciate it thank you
anyone else continuance or withdrawal from the 9 30 list
there are no hands at this time chair okay uh carol i'll do the add-ons and then we'll get
into the regular list uh mi 2020 that's zero zero three two eight three two one zero zero
0-02 Ruffner Street. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
Thank you. The next case is MI 2020-0003481957 North 24th Street. We announced that we would
hold this vote to the end of the last session. Excuse me, the last time this case was heard.
Is Mary Jones available?
She was not expected to come back. Okay. All right. Just want to make sure she's on the
record. Excuse me, Ms. Jones is here. She just raised her hand. Oh, sorry about that. Ms. Jones?
ms jones you can yes speak yes good morning please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
um mary jones council president daryl clark uh city hall room one excuse me 494
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do please proceed um yes I just I was able to I spoke to a member of the community um
excuse me I'm sorry later on in the day oh sorry that's okay this is Sharon Saleta because this
was only going to be the planning commission recommendation and a vote if we are going to
hear further testimony, can we see if Mr. Dwyer is in attendance? Oh, okay. Okay, I understand.
Oh, well, he may be here. I don't know if he is.
And what we're waiting, let's get to the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
Ian you're muted just thank you Pauline good morning Territico members of the board Ian
Hegarty on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission that's I-A-N-H-E-G-A-R-T-Y
thank you you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do please proceed okay thank you the comprehensive plan recommends single family
use for this property. This is a block of primarily two-story single-family homes.
We recognize there's an adjacent non-conformity, but we don't see any
unique physical characteristics that would prevent this building from being used in
accordance with the base zoning, and so we would recommend that the Board deny the variance.
Thank you. This is Sharon again. If we are going to take additional testimony from Ms. Jones,
i think it's going to have to be rescheduled so that mr dwyer can be present um yes this is tanya
sunkett i did communicate with the applicant that he did not have to be present because it would
only be for a vote
ms jones uh we got a recommendation uh from the planning commission uh the board is probably uh
at least i'm inclined to honor that recommendation do you still need time or could we just vote this
and get it over? Our office will be in line with that recommendation, just based on further
information we received from the community. Okay, thank you very much. All right, so Sharon,
we can vote this, right? Yes. Okay, MI 2020-000348, 1957 North 24th Street, my vote is no.
Someone has an open mic and we're getting feedback.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Thank you.
MI 2020-002412, 503 South 6th Street, and MI 2020-001, 961, 505 South 5th Street.
This is request for reconsideration. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
This will vacate the original decision. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Yes to reconsideration and rehearing. Yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Thank you. We now will go to the resumption hearing for MI 2020-002-476-2214-22 North
4th Street. The attorney's Adam Laver. And I believe this was a resumption hearing at
the request of Mr. Folks, who represents Councilwoman Sanchez.
So, maybe we go to Mr. Foulkes first.
We should probably confirm that Mr. Laver is present.
Mr. Foulkes?
Mr. Foulkes?
I'm available.
I'm waiting on Mr. Laver.
Good morning.
He's here.
Mr. Laver, you've been unmuted.
You can speak.
i promoted him to panelists he should come right in
adam laver of blank rome one logan square philadelphia pa 19103
you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do mr chairman thank you um we're waiting we have i don't think there was anything else to add
unless you have anything mr laver or any is there any further discussion with the rco or the
councilwoman's office we we've been in touch with sloan folks several times perhaps uh i did hear
the chairman suggest that he speak first i might wish to add a word after he does but
i think that's a good suggestion okay mr folks you're still under oath good morning again sloan
folks, Office of Councilman Sanchez from 508 City Hall. Our office requested that the hearing
be held for two weeks. We did receive two letters from the community, one with no decision
and one right before the meeting that said non-support. The non-support was based on
a very close vote in the community, and we had thought, Councilman's office had thought
that there was some more discussion between the community and the applicants that
that there was some more discussion between the community and the applicant that could be had that
might resolve any outstanding issues the applicant was very willing to meet with the community
and we've had several discussions with the applicant regarding that meeting
unfortunately that meeting didn't take place that meeting didn't take place not because
community didn't want to meet didn't want to meet but because there was pretty much after
After the coordinating RCOs had spoken with the attendees of the meeting, there was pretty much a resolve in non-opposition.
The non-opposition was based on two factors. Again, as we said, it was a very close spoke.
Non-opposition was based on two factors, density and parking.
um there was but to be fair there was opposition i mean there was support um based on home ownership
and the opportunity for home ownership in the community um again we had hoped that there could
be a resolution uh uh that uh that would have an outcome that would be beneficial to both the
applicants and the um community but unfortunately that didn't happen so that's like that's the
Councilman's statement. All right. Mr. Laver. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Polk said
it best. There's a variety of thoughts in the community on this project. However, there's a
very good working relationship in place with community leadership and neighbors, and there
are several positive attributes to transform this vacant lot, which is used unofficially
by others for car repair for uh owner occupied living uh which means the spoken spirit of the
code there is a full record and i sense that the board would like to move forward so um we we hope
that the board agrees that this is uh appropriate for variance relief if there are questions i can
starting to speak further. Thank you. Is there any questions from the board? No. No. No.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair DiCicco, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for single-family use on the comprehensive plan.
The application represents an overuse of the scale and the density by creating new undersized lots.
Accordingly, we would object to the granting of the variance at this location.
Okay. MI 2020-002476-2214-22 North 4th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Carol, I think we're ready for the
Ready to roll. Calendar number 2756, 1511 South 15th Street. The attorney is Vern Anastasio.
Letter of Opposition from the RCO.
Right. South Broad Street Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Anastasio, you've been promoted to panelists.
good morning sir can you put your name and address on the record and then i'll swear you in
yes good morning verne anastasio 1315 walnut suite 1006 philadelphia 19107
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do do you also agree to wave and wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
refusal referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes to all that. Thank you. You may
proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. Thank you. Okay. Please confirm that you could
see it? We can. I can. Okay, great. Very good. This is a vacant lot on 1500 block of South 15th
Street. And the application initially was for a six-filling. This is an unusual case. This has
This is an unusual case. This has been going on since 2019.
It's been going on since 2019.
Brian, excuse me.
Brian, excuse me, you broke up. You said it was originally for, and then we didn't hear you.
You broke.
This project was originally for six-family dwelling, and this case has been going on since 2019.
We've been working in tandem with the East Point Breeze Civic Association, led at the time by Joe Iskowitz,
and we met with them several times. It was our intention to get compliant with all dimensional
variances based on the back and forth between the East Point Breeze folks.
And what we were basically explaining to them was what my client would like to do
instead of building a 5,700 square foot single family home from the ground up, and then having
to sell it for just under a million dollars, she'd like to be able to offer three 1,500 square feet
condominiums, each a couple bedrooms, so that folks can come into the housing market in this
growing area at an approach more approachable price point you know not everybody can afford
$750,000 single family home so we thought we were on the same page at the end of our
discussions and several meetings with the leadership of East Point Breeze however at some
point uh and before this hearing uh there was a switch which and the rco leadership
at some point and then we lost you i'm sorry about that i don't know why the internet's
acting up today uh at some point it was the south broad street uh rco that was selected
and east point breeze was no longer a part of that conversation so then we met with them and
of course we tried to explain to them that we had been in doing good faith negotiations with
east point breeze for quite some time we came up with the uh being 100 compliant on all dimensional
variances and but we'd still like to offer three nice sized condominiums instead of a three quarters
of a million dollar home. We hear a lot about gentrification and folks being priced out of the
community. And we thought this was a nice solution to that problem. Instead of a 5,600 square foot
single, we'd offer three 1,500 square feet of homes. So South Broad Street, however,
Robert decided that that wasn't good enough. So that's, this is where we are. You know, I.
Lost you again, Vernon.
It's just a matter of.
We lost you. We lost you again. You said something about South Broad Street, and then we lost you.
Okay. I have submitted the revised plans to Attorney Soleta with the proviso sheet.
So I just wanted to give you the history of this project.
This is the actual plot plan. Here's the elevation.
We've got three beautiful apartments.
excuse me counselor yeah can you can you enlarge the floor plans sure
we have uh the basement is just an office and a family room and a den we have the first floor unit
which would be a bedroom in the back a bedroom in the middle
and a very large living and dining area with full open space kitchen
got the same layout on the second floor and the identical layout on the third floor
and by by no means are these going to be cheap units these are brand new construction
10-year tax abatement they're going to be going for you know three hundred thousand dollars
uh so it's not like uh there's going to be a diminishment of value on the block
we just simply she would like to simply build a product that's more approachable
than than what she would be forced to build under the code
and we're 100 compliant with the dimension now we've got a 25 foot backyard
Each unit has plenty of space for trash.
each unit has plenty of space for trash
Here's the proof of posting.
We have our deed, our tax cert, of course the South Broad Street folks weighed in, and
of course here's our proof that we mailed 190 pieces of mail.
Now, so the total number of RCO meetings, we've actually had are four, three with the
East Point Breeze, where we got into the negotiated three-family dwelling, and then one with
the South Broad Street folks.
And with that, I'm going to ask my client, Michelle Huang, to raise her hand.
Ms. Wang, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning, this is Michelle Huang, H-U-A-N-G, 8901 Dewey Street, D-E-W-E-E-S Street, Philadelphia,
PA-19152.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Michelle, did you hear what my presentation today before the board?
And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony if need be?
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
What was the acquisition cost when she purchased this property?
Is it on that deed?
No, you're frozen again, Vernon.
well let me go take a look at the at the deed
just over yeah just over nine thousand okay yep
is there any sharon do we have to have a letter from the councilman's office in the file
i hadn't received one as of the time this hearing started
uh any questions from the board uh yes uh counselor do you know if there's other
multi-family houses on the block yes of course there are uh i mean it you know it's a typical
block on the 1500 block of South 15th Street. Now, are primarily properties of single family
nature? Absolutely. That's the primary use. But I think, again, there's a problem that needs to
be solved, generally speaking, in areas of growth. And that is, here we are, the code would require
my client to build just under 600,000 square foot home and have to put it on the market for
an incredible amount of money, further pushing folks out of the community. You hear it more than
I do, I'm sure, all the time. Here's a solution to that problem. From the outside, the property
looks identical to every other single family home on that block, every other property. So the only
difference is each floor would be a home for someone who could not otherwise live on that
block for a new in a new constructed home. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
No. Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
This is Sharon. I did confirm that we have no letter from the council person.
here we have a mr zutter mr zutter you can unmute yourself and speak
okay can you can you hear me yes peter good morning please identify yourself for the record
good morning chairman to chico my name is peter zutter z-u-t-t-e-r i live at 1440 south broad
street 19146 and i'm president of the south broad street neighborhood association
you swear and affirm peter to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do? So, I guess, do I need to read into the record the reasons for our opposition? I mean, you've heard most of these before, that what they're proposing is an overuse of the property.
this is a block with mostly single family dwellings and there's really no reason to
deviate from that. Additional units like this with what could be six additional bedrooms and
three offices which could be considered potential bedrooms could add many new cars to add
considered potential bedrooms, could add many new cars to add parking congestion.
The applicant agreed that there's no hardship for this since it is a vacant lot.
And well, this is all in our notes. It also does not represent the least modification possible to
provide relief for the applicant and i was at many of the uh there were several meetings um i think
that i missed one of the earlier meetings uh when east point breeze was handling this variance
request and the neighbors who were in attendance at those meetings mostly the large majority of them
did not support this variance and so this was negotiation with i have to object to that first
of all it's hearsay yeah well it's kind of mixed bag he does represent the community rco
that this was not this was not his meeting mr chairman and for him to testify to someone else's
position is hearsay sustained okay so peter just just talk to us uh as it relates to you and the
south broad street so okay um so there has been there has really not been support from from
neighbors for this project um which was noted by the the the vote at our meeting um we we had a
good number of neighbors in attendance and the support was just not there for a project like
this even with the reduction to the the three units and um you know we sort of stand by this
there's just no it's it's a vacant lot it could easily be built to accommodate a single home
there there's nothing that dictates that it has to be uh whatever the number was that Mr. Anastasio
is saying five six thousand square feet um it could be a smaller home with a large yard um folks
in South Philly like the large yards. It's a neighborhood where, you know, you look at the
selling prices of some of these homes, the new construction on Dickinson Street with very small
yards that are right next to this property, you know, perpendicular to it. There's really just
no hardship for this to be converted into yet another multifamily building. You know, the talk
of condos is is fine but it's still you know no assurance that it isn't going to be just three
more very high density very large apartments um so that's really basically it thank you uh
for your attention mr chairman just a just point of clarity uh we're offering a 25 foot yard
which is large by South Philadelphia standards and it's completely compliant. There is nothing
to say that a single family home can't be filled with people as well with plenty of cars. We all
know especially if we're from South Philadelphia one household could have several cars so there's
nothing to say that that is going to be an issue and quite frankly someone who lives in a 1500
hundred square foot condo is less likely to have a car uh and they're by the way a block off of
broad street than someone who's going to have a sixth bedroom uh home uh they'll most certainly
probably have a car because they'll have lots of kids so again uh there's a problem and uh that is
a lack of affordable and approachable new construction my client is offering a solution
to that problem. And the same folks who would fight three condominiums are the same people
who will complain if a single family home is sold for $800,000 and somehow raises their property
taxes. So I think on a public policy argument basis level, this is smart development. This is
not going to be the first multifamily on the block. And these are going to be, you know, high
end, new construction. And that's that. And by the way, for clarity, my client never admitted that
there was no hardship period. Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your
hand here we have a jonathan mccarthy mr mccarthy you can unmute yourself and speak
good morning mr mccarthy mr mccarthy please identify yourself spell your last name
and give us your address sure my name is jonathan mccarthy j-o-n-a-t-h-a-n last name
Sure. My name is Jonathan McCarthy, J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N, last name M, little c, capital C, A-R-T-H-Y, and I live at 1523 South 15th Street.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Thank you. I have been present for all of these meetings, even to the ones over on the east side abroad.
and found it to be frustrating to just have it written off as hearsay.
I think our neighbors were more concerned about being part of those meetings
because we weren't certain that they would be representing our street as carefully
considering it was going to be not directly in their neighborhood.
And all of the complaints that we have as neighbors were also
taken as note in the East Point Breeze area. Mr. Vernon brings up the idea that originally it was
to be a six-family project and we very easily dismissed that and kind of laughed at how big
that would have to be. And it's kind of like what my sister would do with my dad where she asks for
fifty dollars and then when he says absolutely no she says oh i only need 20 then people are
willing to give that when the reality is this is a single family area this is a single family
building they knew that when they bought it the prices yes are up there but that doesn't mean
that anyone on our block or anyone that i know of has asked uh miss wong to solve the housing
problem in Philadelphia. This is clearly not a desire for her to build a house and move there
herself, but a desire to build a project that got left by someone else who couldn't get what
they wanted out of the project. She still would like to push forward the three condominium idea
and there's no one on our street who wants that to happen. We've invited her to come live there.
I don't think that's her plan. Just because three different condos or an entire house might have
the same number of cars does not change the validity of our complaint that that will make
more congestion there. And this isn't what our neighbors or myself are hoping for in this area.
And if she wants to build a single family house, I think that's great. If she doesn't,
I think she should try to unload this property to somebody who does want to do that.
thank you anyone else that would like to testify in this case
here we have france pierre mr pierre you've been unmuted you can speak
good morning mr pierre you know the drill please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
good morning mr chairman and fellow board members this is france pierre jr from councilmember
johnson's office that's f-r-a-n-t-z last name pierre that's p-i-e-r-r-e you swear and affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i certainly do thank you sir please
proceed yes uh at this time council member johnson joins the community in their opposition to the
appeal. Thank you very much. Anyone else? No hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning
Commission? Thank you, Chair DeCicco. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia State Planning Commission.
Hold on. Someone has an open mic.
there we go okay thank you um thank you uh chair chico the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the single family zoning at this location um you know we're we understand the economic
arguments here but we have to look at the hardship in this case i think the applicant has not
demonstrated that development is restricted by any kind of unique physical circumstances
or conditions. And the proposed variance is clearly not necessary to enable viable economic
use of the property. And so the Planning Commission would recommend that the Zoning Board deny this
variance. Thank you. MI 2020-002756. 1511 South 15th Street. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote
much. Calendar number 2745-2132 North 21st Street.
A letter of support from the 32nd Ward RCO.
A letter of support from the 32nd Ward RCO.
Right.
Chair, we have Michael McKinney.
McElhaney.
McElhaney?
McElhaney.
McElhaney.
He's been promoted to panelists.
Mr. McElhaney, you can speak now.
good morning sir can you put your name and address oh go ahead go ahead on the record and i'll swear
you in good morning members of the board michael mcelhenney law office of orphanetes and toner 1500
jfk boulevard philadelphia pa 19102 here on behalf of the property owner ad holdings llc
that's a-y-e-d-e-e holdings llc and the address is 21st street okay thank you do you swear or
affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do you also agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy we do yes have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral plans and photos of the
property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a
letter? Yes, to all those questions. Thank you. You may proceed. And I will say I'm here today
with the member of the LLC, DeShay Brown, and we'll bring him on later on in the process.
and I'd like to share my screen.
Okay, so members of the board on the screen
should be an index of the exhibits
that were submitted prior to the hearing.
And we're here today, my client's seeking
approval to add a third unit
to an existing structure
that's been previously approved
for two dwelling units plus a doctor's office on the ground floor.
As mentioned by the chairman, we did meet with the 32nd Democratic Ward as part of this zoning
process. The letter on the screen is Exhibit 2. It's difficult to read. We do have a full
letter of support. The main comments from the RCO were noted at the bottom to request that my
client do a good quality rehabilitation. And my client's plan is actually to do more of a higher
and renovation that would then would typically be seen in this neighborhood and to make sure
that we have sanitation um a trash pickup plan which we will have commercial trash pickup as
part of the the property by way of background my client did purchase this property back in
december of 2019 and as i just previously stated the properties currently approved
uses are doctor's office on the ground floor with two dwelling units above
The property at issue, just to orient the board, is located on the 2100 block of North 21st Street,
Diamond Street to the south, and Susquehanna Ave to the north.
And this is a block that has suffered from disinvestment over the years.
Turning to Exhibit 4 are photographs from 2009 showing the the abandoned and blighted nature
of the block there was there were only a few habitable structures on the block most of the block
are you see are clean and sealed buildings by the department of licenses and inspections
and that's pretty much been the condition of that block for an extended period of time so what
upon in the more recent time the looking at an aerial view on exhibit five
Most of those clean and sealed buildings, or many of them, have since been torn down.
As you can see, page one of Exhibit 5, many of those buildings are now
exist as vacant lots throughout the 2100 block and North 21st Street.
The property itself is zoned to RSA 5, so adding the third residential unit is the reason for the
use refusal here. But as you can see from the zoning map, this property is right off of Diamond
street and it is surrounded by or bordered by a lot of rm1 and commercial mixed-use properties
and the subject property itself is they're quite sizable on the 2100 block
it's a 16 foot wide by a 100 foot deep lot which is quite frankly pretty enormous for
what we're used to seeing in the south philadelphia neighborhoods and
other smaller neighborhoods around the city
turning to a sixth i'd like to direct the board just to the current conditions on the block
Many of the properties are still abandoned in nature, missing doors and windows.
Abandoned in nature, missing doors and windows. There are multi-family buildings. Photograph two on Exhibit 6. There are multi-family buildings immediately to the north of the subject property. There's a duplex and a triplex.
There are multi-family buildings.
To the south, there's an abandoned building. There is one new construction or two new construction properties going up on the block as we speak.
But other than that, there's not much activity on this block other than we're still dealing with the abandoned nature of many of the properties.
Page three are the properties directly across the street from the subject property, which again, it's more blighted abandoned properties that aren't currently inhabited.
And having conducted a survey of the block, it turns out that there's about 14 abandoned houses, 25 vacant lots, eight occupied homes, several of which are multifamily, and there's those two homes that are under construction.
So the condition of this block is in need of rehabilitation and it's a depressed area.
As far as one of the concerns that come up often is parking. As you can see from the photograph
at page four of Exhibit 6, there's not a parking concern at this area in this part of the city
because there's not much habitability on this block of North 21st Street.
turning to exhibit seven this is a photograph of the actual property at issue
as you see it's a an existing three-story structure it's approximately 2,500 square feet
of space and has a massive backyard due to the 100 foot depth of the property
it does require substantial rehabilitation with the walls being repointed and doors and windows and
And as I stated, my client's going to go through with anticipates a full renovation, hopefully with three residential dwelling units.
And I'll pull up the floor plans, which can be difficult to see.
The basement of the existing structure is planned to be used just for the utilities, not necessarily living space.
And the only unit that would have access to the basement will be the first floor unit.
So the first floor unit is a two-bedroom. There will be two bedrooms, one bath on each of the
three floors. The bedrooms are sizable on all the floors, eight feet by 12, almost 13 feet, 11 by nine.
And the second and third floors are pretty much mirror images of each other.
And the bedrooms there are actually more substantial than the first floor
in terms of bedroom at 14 feet by 12 and a half feet
and eight feet by 13 feet.
We do have utility rooms situated on each of the floors,
which would allow for trash storage
to put it out of the way in between trash pickup.
As I previously mentioned,
we will have commercial trash pickup
as part of this rental property.
And the third floor, as I mentioned,
is a mirror image of the bottom floor.
It's a little bit larger bedrooms
because of how the stairs work in.
but these are substantially sized units and my client hopes to do a higher end renovation to
provide some quality housing to the neighborhood that's severely been lacking in affordable rental
options. I did mention previously there are other multi-family properties on the block
and at exhibit 10 are just some of the references to the other properties that have multi-family.
2138, which is three doors down, is approved for a triplex use, three-family dwelling.
2143, North 21st Street, is approved for a two-family dwelling.
2151, North 21st Street, again, is a triplex.
And 2161 is currently approved for a three-family dwelling, triplex.
so we did we are tax compliant I have included a copy of the deed as part of the package and we
met with provided notice to all the RCOs we do a full letter of support and we would request that
the board allow grant the variance to allow the first floor to be used for a third rental unit
rather than the existing permitted use of a commercial doctor's office that really isn't
viable at this location or desired by the community.
Mr. McElhatton, listen to me.
I'm sorry.
Do you have your client?
Mr. Brown, can you, he's on his phone.
He's on a computer to view the images, but is on his phone to speak.
You can get him on just to adopt your testimony.
Can you please hit star nine to raise your hand so that you can be brought in to speak?
Does this phone number end in 7731? That's correct. Okay.
That's correct.
Mr. Brown, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning, Mr. Brown. Please identify yourself with a wrecker and I'll swear you in.
Yes, how you doing? My name is Deshay Brown, D-A-S-H-A-Y, last name Brown, B-R-O-W-N.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes thank you mr mckelhenny mr brown did you hear the statements that i put on the record this
morning yes and to the best of your knowledge were they true and accurate yes and would you
adopt those statements as your own statements absolutely i have no further questions
questions from the board no no no what else would like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand here we have a tina marie russell miss russell you can unmute yourself and speak
good morning can you hear me yes please identify yourself with the record and i'll swear you in
tina marie russell north central philadelphia cdc
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed okay so
we agree with this project we have the further you have the following provisos
okay so um we would like to we would like to make sure that um the the front of the
the uh building is consistent with the nature of our community as far as the outside appearance
that is something that is not enforceable by the board but please proceed okay then we would also
like to um again get a construction schedule for the residents and we would like to make sure
there's no basement dwelling and we would like to um ensure how do we ensure if that's possible
that there's indeed a doctor's office going to be in that location and that is not going to be
enforceable by us we can uh do the proviso uh prohibiting any living guests quarters in the
basement okay so and there's no way to put prohibiting um because i understand that he's
looking to put a doctor's office there correct no it's three apartments you're right three apartments
We're requesting three, yeah.
It was prior you
permitted for a doctor's office. There's no
desire for a doctor's office at this
location.
Okay, so then we would like to make,
sorry, do we have a schedule of the
And then we'd also like to see if
the applicant would be agreeable
to utilizing the
workforce from the community.
Laura, that's going to be
the appointment.
Say it again, sorry.
First floor will be an apartment.
It'll be three units.
No, I'm saying the workforce.
I'm saying he could use the-
Oh, workforce.
Again, that is something you need to work out
with the attorney and the developer.
All right?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
There are no other hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair DeChico.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the single family zoning on this site however the proposed uses are consistent with the prior
approved uses for two dwelling units in a separate professional office unit and so the city planning
commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance. Thank you MI 2020-002745
2132 North 21st Street my vote is yes with the proviso no residential use of the basement.
yes with proviso
yes with proviso
yes with proviso
yes with proviso
calendar number
Cotman Avenue
the attorney is
Joe Consul
Mr. Consul you've been promoted
to panelists you can unmute and speak he's already been sworn in carol okay thank you
mr consul can you put your name and address on the record please yes it's joseph consul
that's c-o-n-s-o-l-e address 1 west 3rd street suite 204 media pennsylvania one nine zero six
three do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
I do, yes.
Have you mailed the email packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos and or.
with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
uh the everything but for the rco bit we had spoken earlier regarding the rco situation where
my client had met with them twice uh and um they uh had asked me to come back once i got involved
uh the client wanted to um put this part of the hearing on the record and earlier we agreed that
we could do that and hold a decision pending my meeting with the rco which will be next week
okay you may proceed uh i'm trying to figure out how to share my screen um
they want to do that on a windows computer i apologize i'm working on a colleague's computer
right now if you have yes i can help you thank you if you look at the bottom of your screen on
the zoom you'll see the share screen button the green one oh it's different than how it normally
is okay but but you should right you're working it now all right uh i'm all right thank you
okay uh this is 3103 cotman avenue uh philadelphia pa um the owner is mr chen
um he purchased this this property uh and at the time it was purchased uh it still uh on the
outside appeared to be a spine center what's sort of like confusing about this property is and if
you look through the zoning archives 3101 and 3103 the first what what here appears to be the
ground floor, but there's actually another ground floor around the side of 3101. But the floor that
you see here is one doctor's office that spans both of these two units, that 3101 and 3103.
And in the zoning archives, it's been approved. And in the past, in 2008, when this was applied
for and approved they they squeezed both uh applications onto one or both both addresses
onto one application and it got approved as such um see if i can bring that up
uh so going through the archive here there's just several examples uh here's one um where they
discuss both 3101 and 3103. So the setup of the properties is actually on the ground floor,
3101 and 3103 have a doctor's office. On the second floor, there is one unit at the top of
3101 and one unit at the top of 3103. And then around the side on the ground floor, there is
another unit on 3101. So when my clients applied this time to change the professional use from a
doctor's office to a real estate office, they got a refusal for both the commercial use on the first
floor, but also for both of the residential units. These units and the office have been
occupied since 2008. There's tenants in both of the units in 3101. It's just confusing. And
admittedly, I've been wrapping my head around how to present it because the doctor's office
occupies both properties um and it had been approved as as such prior to that and the more
that i say it out loud the more i realize it's probably where some of the rco confusion came in
as well uh and um yeah so that that's sort of the situation so um we have a doctor's office
that they want to use as a real estate office the floor plans of which are included here
And then 3101 has two of its own units, and that has had a continuous rental license, and is currently occupied as a two-unit building.
So it's sort of a weird one, but what they're seeking to do is use it as two units and a doctor's office, but that office spans two properties.
and they want to use it instead of a doctor's office
as a real estate office.
I'd like to call my client, Mr. Chen,
to speak about this a little bit more.
If you could raise your hand.
Mr. Chen, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Mr. Chen, please identify yourself with the record, first and last name.
Goufeng Chen.
Tell your full name, please.
G-A-L-F-E-N-G, and last name, C-H-E-N.
We're in front of the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chen. Have you heard my testimony so far?
Could you explain to the board the setup of 3101 and how that relates to 3103 and the current use of each of those properties?
uh there is my doctor office there when i bought this property and then there is my um
unit tennis living there also yeah so that's what i was saying is you have uh two units
rented there you have two rental licenses for 3101 and one person for 3103 yeah so
3103 that rental license is not in question that that's you've had that's been in existence since
2008 um but because you tried to convert the the doctor's office to a real estate office
the refusal now calls into question um both the uh the use of the commercial space and the two
rental units is that correct yes yes okay uh i don't have much more to add except perhaps when
to meet with the RCO I could send a more thorough letter to the board explaining everything along
with what we're hopeful will be the RCO's approval on this or any question you want you want to ask
your client if he adopts your testimony yes uh Mr. Chen do you adopt my testimony as if it was your
own yes do you have anything else you'd like to add hey Joe can you show the picture around the
buildings everything is true um yeah i can you want me to show some of the pictures that you sent
yeah for the whole buildings oh so we have examples of other corner properties uh right
around that that have commercial spaces that are set up similar to ours but i don't think that's
necessarily. Thank you. Any questions from the board? No. No. No. It'll be a resumption,
but I'll ask, does anyone else like to testify?
There are no hands at this time, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair DeChico. Ian
Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the existing single family at this location. However, the variance recognizes
a documented non-conforming use, and so the City Planning Commission has no opposition.
We recommend that the Board grant the variance.
Thank you. Tanya, do we have a date? April 28th at 9.30.
April 28th at 9.30. Okay. MI 2020-001-317-3101 Cotman Avenue. This hearing will be resumed on April the 28th at 9.30 a.m., at which time the board will consider any feedback related to the RCO's position.
Thank you, board.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
Thank you.
You too.
Calendar number 2790-4515 East Thompson Street.
Mr. Robert Hunter or Kyrie Hunter available.
There are no heads at this time, Chair.
Okay, MI 2020 does 0027904515 East Thompson Street. My understanding, Sharon, there are no
exhibits, correct? No exhibits and it is the first listing. All right, well I'm gonna, I think we're
gonna move things along a little bit differently. So this case will be continued, must be heard.
okay we are on nine calendar number 1651 6130 west past yonk avenue
steve pollock is the attorney i think
mr pollock you've been promoted to panelist you can speak
Mr. Pollack, you've been promoted to panelists. You can speak.
I think I raised my hand.
I can hear you. Mr. Pollack, put your name and address on the record, and then I'll swear you in.
My name is Stephen G. Pollack, Esquire, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
Do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do madam vice chair have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all questions madam vice chair
thank you you may proceed okay uh mr chairman members of the board this is uh i have with me
Heather Havener, who is my associate, I would like to be able to have Heather have the ability to
share the screen, since as I always say, this is technologically above my pay grade when it
comes to sharing screens. Ms. Havener, you've been promoted to panelists.
I see her. Ms. Havener, you're on mute, so if you need to speak, just unmute yourself.
She's not going to be testifying, correct?
Not really, probably.
So we don't need to swear.
Just here, just here.
This is basically my client, Gus Dracopoulos is on.
Gus is the principal of Philodelsa Fia LLC, which is the owner-operator of the Adult Cabaret at 6130 West Passionk.
It used to be the Vanity Grand.
Gus has taken it over, and it's now going to be called Sin City.
we are asking for permission to change the existing freestanding double-faced sign that's
been on the property to an accessory sign that will be a double-faced digital sign. One side
has already received permission from the LNI because it's recognized as a non-conforming sign,
but they considered thus increasing the non-conformity by converting the second side
to digital. The height of the structure will be the same. Heather, if you can show us that photo
number nine that you've got there, that would be great. If you can blow it up. So if you see it on
the right-hand side, that is our, well, that's right across the street is a double-decker
billboard, a non-accessory sign, but we are to the right. As I said, we've changed the name to
Sin City, but we have waited for permission to make this change. The height of this sign will
remain the same. The sign will be about, it's a 12-6 by 24-6. Heather, if you will go to the site
plan that we have. There you go. This is what the sign is going to utilize the existing
tripole. We're just going to swap out the static sign and put the new double-faced freestanding
digital sign on top of the existing structure with some fortifications. As you can see,
if we go to the lower part of this exhibit, you'll see that we're going to put it right
in the same corner of the parking lot where it says existing 40 foot high pylon sign so we need
because the sign is bigger than what is allowed in an industrial three district however it's a
non-conforming as the size we are at 45 feet rather than 20 feet which is the allowable height
but again it's a non-conforming sign it is an accessory sign if you could go to what we have
is some exhibits of what could be here's in there uh number three go back to number three the aerial
that you have um again and um i know i don't want to steal craig melodosian's thunder i never want
to do that but craig uh aptly put it in his letter because we have a letter of non-opposition from the
southwest uh uh the council of community groups um as you can see we're surrounded by uh scrap yards
part uh automobile repair lots and that nature and the upper uh also gives you an aerial there's
a petrochemical storage facility so we're not in any residential area uh in in this we're just
sort of down just over the pass yonk avenue bridge and just down from the auto mall is where we're
is where we're located and you can see uh we are right where it says pass yonk avenue is basically
located and you can see uh we are right where it says pass yonk avenue
where our building is in the parking lot uh heather will you go to the exhibits that show
the potential signage that we would have again if you look at four you'll see this the vanity
grand sign that's the support system we're going to be using and just putting a double-faced
digital on it heather go to the signage um something that we will be able to do is you'll
see go down to where it's well sin city we've changed at least the face of the facade but we
have like public service announcements that we'll be able to do open for lunch that's what we'll be
able to put on there go down to the next one we'll be able to say don't drink and drive
community meetings can be announced at certain times so therefore we believe that we're not
asking this is the least minimum variance you're allowed for up to four faces in this i3 district
we're still just sticking with two faces we're not increasing uh the size or height or dimensions of
the sign uh and we believe that is not detrimental to health safety and welfare uh i would like to
ask i have gus dracopolis who is with us who is the principal of the uh ownership entity uh can
we have Mr. Dracopoulos let in and let him confirm what I've stated on the record.
Thank you, sir. When you get on, please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name for us,
please. Mr. Dracopoulos, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Gus, are you on? Yep. Can you hear me? Gus, can you state your name and address for the record?
Gus Trakopoulos, G-U-S, last name Trakopoulos, D-A-V-I-D, R-A-K-O-P-O-U-L-O-S, 6130 Pass Young Avenue.
Sorry for, in the words of Rodney Dangerfield, I mispronunciated your name. I'm sorry.
And you do affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Gus, you've heard what I've stated on the record. Is that correct?
It's correct, yes.
And your days and hours of operation, you're right now 5 to about 11 at last call and close at 12 because of the COVID restrictions, is that correct?
And seven days a week?
Correct.
Everything I stated on the record, do you adopt that as your testimony?
Yes, correct.
Members of the board, if you want, I have Mr. Matt Shapiro, who is with the Eastern Tech Sign Company.
It's a digital sign.
we'll be able to live with the uh restrictions that we have in terms of message changing for
non-accessory signs but this as i said is an accessory sign i would have mr shapiro if the
board would like to hear from we also have mr andy barrios from albert tows's office who prepared
those that exhibit that you've seen with the site plan if the board doesn't have any questions of
those witnesses i'll uh i'll assume that we can go without them and i'll just ask the board to
accept. We had two submissions. We submitted an original packet of exhibits A1 through A18
for the original hearing scheduled for November 18th, and then we provided supplemental exhibits
that are A21, A12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 15.1, then added A19 through A23, which shows you the various
elevation plans sign plans the part the menu that's being served because there is a full
food operation so with that members of the board uh we believe that uh there is a hardship uh this
is a modernization of an existing non-conforming use to allow it for accessory signage to be able
to uh identify the change in in the use and the ownership rather at this at this location
and as I said we are in the good position I always like to be in of asking for permission
to change a sign rather than having asked for asking for forgiveness so with that I would
move for all our exhibits accepted into the record and we would rest and I know Mr. Melodosian is
here to let you know about the Southwest community. Any questions from the board? No. Yeah. No.
else like to testify in this case please raise your hand chair we have craig meladozian mr
meladozian you can unmute yourself and speak morning mr meladozian uh you're still under
oath from this morning please identify yourself with the right morning chair craig meladozian
coordinating rco ward 40 republican rco representing the southwest philadelphia consortium of rcos
We had a meeting with the applicant's team. Though there was a division on the vote,
I wanted to indicate that the current owner
is much more organizationally driven in terms of safety, security, public order, and cleanliness
is much more organizationally driven in terms of safety, security.
than was the previous operator of the facility.
In terms of the application for signage, we considered several different issues.
One, that the sign faces that are there do need to be dressed up.
We find these types of requests coming in regularly from the proprietors on the auto mall
where their national brands require an updating of the brand
for the particular dealership.
So we viewed this as a similar situation.
Additionally, since one digital sign had already been approved
through LNI, it made no sense to try to oppose a second digital sign.
This way, one sign is looking east towards South Philly.
A second sign is looking west towards a remainder of southwest, and we believed it would give it a much better look.
Regarding the vote, there were three affected RCOs that participated.
They were two to one in support.
There was a fourth non-affected RCO, which was in opposition.
We also looked that way, splitting it.
We also looked at all of what we would call the votes as individuals.
And that was five to four. So in light of the various issues here, I, as the coordinating RCO, are in support of it, but in deference to my colleagues, we wrote a letter taking a position of non-opposition.
There were also discussions of a community benefits agreement, which doesn't necessarily come before this board.
uh so that was not considered with the vote so and i i leave it at that unless uh there
are any other questions thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand chair we have andrew goodman mr goodman you can unmute yourself and speak
morning good morning again mr goodman you're still under oath please identify yourself for
Yes, Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, Office of Third District Councilmember Jamie Gaudier.
The council member has no opposition to the application being presented here this morning.
Thank you. I think I did ask questions from the board. I think I asked planning commission.
I'm sorry, is there anyone else to testify?
There are no hands at the sign, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair DeChico.
Mr. Chair, if it's okay, may I ask if you could put a question to the council for the applicant?
Yes, please.
Just wondering, I'm after the commission, whether this sign will require approval by PennDOT?
Not that we know of.
We're withholding within our property line.
Understood.
Yes, thank you. So the comprehensive plan recommends no change to heavy industrial
zoning at this location. The proposed alteration to the existing non-conforming sign is in line
with a de minimis request and so the Planning Commission has no objection to the granting of
experience. Thank you. MI 2020-001-651. 6130 West Hesseonk Avenue. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
You've got to go to number five, Carol. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
and have a great day you too steve calendar number 1231 4614-16 chester avenue the owner
is elwood van skyver and we do have a letter of opposition from the rco which is cedar park
neighbors, and also Councilwoman Gautier.
Is Mr. VanSkyver counsel for this case, Madam Chair?
I don't believe so.
I think he's the owner.
he was on earlier we swore him in he chose to go ahead forward with the case
Mr. VanSkyver you've been promoted to panelists you can speak now
he's still under oath Carol okay Mr. VanSkyver
Mr. Vanskyver, he has to unmute himself.
you have to run he has to run
Mr. Vanskyver?
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
My name is Elwood Vanskyver, V-V-A-N-S-C-I-V-E-R, at 243 Monument Avenue, Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Thank you.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet in with all the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
I have sent the packet in five days ago.
However, I could not get the tax compliance document.
so i emailed a copy of the of a screen from the revenue department yesterday showing our tax
balance as current and i did send that yesterday i have met with the rco and there is a letter and
it's uh it does not support the project okay miss aletta do you have that tax compliance letter
yes we've received everything necessary great sir you may proceed okay uh this property i've
i've owned this property for 40 years uh i've lived there uh for over 10 years and it is a three family
uh uh rental property now it's a legally non-conforming property uh on chester avenue
in the 4600 block of Chester Avenue. The zoning for it is RTA 1 and across the street,
across Chester Avenue, the zoning is RSA 3, a single family. However, my neighbor at 46
12 or 46 18 Chester Avenue is a 46 unit building directly across the street in the block between
46th street and 47th street there are three buildings with over 50 units each and on my
block there is only one property that has that conforms to the existing two-family zoning
our proposal is to uh to build a we have an existing accessory structure in the back of our
lot that is a garage and uh our proposal is to build a carriage house onto this um this this uh
uh garage again sir can you share plans okay pardon me can you share plans on the screen
please yes i can i guess i can uh i can also shit uh share uh photos would be better maybe
to start with the photos so i could well whatever works for you yeah let me let me show the plans
how do I do this
do I just put this
over here
can you see that
the plans
if I want to
share screen okay
here we go
Okay, so if I open this up, these are the proviso plans, can you see the screen?
Yes, we can.
Thank you.
Okay. All right. This is the property as it exists now. And this is the existing building
A as it's referred to. This is building B, which is the proposed carriage house in the
back this shows the first floor second floor unit third floor unit and this is
an elevation looking from the from what you would see from Chester Avenue if it
was not occluded by the other building. Now the variances that we require for
this are one because the existing garage is on the property line in the rear, two
Two, they talk about an extension of the fact that we have three rental units in the building
they talk about an extension of the fact that we have three
now, and this would increase that to two additional ones.
And it would be another item that's part of the variance request is because it would be
two principal buildings on the lot.
And so those are the three items, the rear yard depth, two principal buildings, and the
extension of the rental units. However, it's a very large lot. We're the only property on the
block that meets the open space requirements after this development. So we still meet the
open space requirement. And we also provide off-street parking. We're the only property
on the block or across the street that provides off-street parking. So we conform to the
requirement for all street parking and open space. Now, we did meet with the RCO. We have five
abutting neighbors to this property. Let me see if I could get, let me try to open the photos here.
this is our this is the building here that's the zoning notice
once again this is our neighbor with 46 units here this is our driveway
we don't see that oh you don't see yours always sees the elevation so oh i'm sorry
what worries uh let me uh it's important that you see the photos so uh so you might
unshare and then um reshare with that screen being highlighted
do you see it now yes okay so uh here you see
that our lot goes in the back in the driveway this is as you drive back into the driveway
and this shows you our lot kind of bumps out to the uh to the east or to the west there i should
say beyond that so it goes out and you can see we have a lot of open space and our our proposal is
to build up and over this to this property line at this side. So we've met with the, we have five
abutting neighbors. We have 4617 Regent Street, 4619 Regent Street. There's also 4623 Regent,
which you cannot see beyond this side. And of course, 4612 Chester Avenue, who's our neighbor
on the other half of the twin, as well as the Berger group that owns the 46-unit building here.
We've met with each of the four more residential abutting owners, and we do have, although they've
never testified before the RCO, we do have support from our 4612 neighbor and from Ms.
Mohammed who is at 4623 region the 4619 folks and 4617 folks are very opposed to it they say that
this building is going to take away their you know light and whatnot even though we're on the north
side so uh so that's that's the that's the issue there the 4619 parcel is actually a non-conforming
parcel they do not they're supposed to have a nine foot rear yard lot they only have five foot at
certain parts of their area. So that's the nature of the, that's the nature of the project.
Ben Skiver? Yes. Do you happen to know what the height of 4619 Regent Street is? Well, our garage
is about 11 feet. I would say that 4619 is going to be probably around 24, 25 feet. Your proposal
would be 32 feet well our original refusal was the the allowable height in this uh zone is 38 feet
and that's what we originally submitted and we just we uh determined to take it down to 32 feet
because we think we can still construct uh our carriage house there at 32 feet now one of the
one of when we met with the rco initially we had that reduced height shown on the plan
and but we are uh if i can open the plan up to show you that part the uh we had a a terrace
in the back area can you can you see the plan now yes yes oh okay good all right so i'm getting the
Oh, okay, good.
All right.
So I'm getting the hang of this thing here.
hang of this thing here.
So you can see this area back here was going to be a terrace area, and it allowed us to
keep the rear along the rear property line to keep it lower and also to get some southern
light in through these windows in the back side.
and the neighbor the neighbors at on region street were very concerned about the noise and
privacy and all that sort of stuff so we eliminated the terrace and that's the change that we made
to present this to you now as far as the proviso goes we did not present that to the rco and we
don't consider that a substantial enough change to when they when they told us that unless you
made a substantial change we don't see that you know bringing it back is going to change our
opinion so uh i said okay so you know we're going forward and we wanted to get your opinion of it
uh based on where we are once again you know we meet the open area requirements of the of the area
unlike any other any other property on the block frankly uh no other property make it meets it and
uh so the bottom line is is you know we have this property and we we uh we want to try to enhance it
and uh and that's we think that this is a better in a in a certain sense you know from my opinion
a wall is a better way to separate from your neighbor than a fence if we were to you know
use that area in the back
you know
more with more
use than we have historically
in the past
I guess that's
what happens
with the parking
you still have the off street parking
yeah we'll still be parking underneath
the garage house will accommodate
was it two cars
uh well actually we're going to be able to accommodate three cars three outside and then
in the garage this this little piece here is a kind of an odd part of the property it juts east
so that's part of our property that goes over that way and like i said there's there's no no
one on the block either side has any off-street parking you know yeah so um we don't think we're
we're not changing anything on the streetscape as far as chester avenue goes you you probably
won't even know that this thing is back there now we are going to be abutting the property line in
the back against two neighbors and uh i did i did did talk to the one neighbor in the back there
that supports it but unfortunately she is uh being treated for covid in the hospital so she
cannot cannot appear today to support it and my neighbor at 4612 they're both academicians they're
teaching at some university somewhere I mean to ask them to try to accompany you know to appear
here is was frankly a hard one I didn't want to do that but if the board you know would look
favorably upon this if I had some letter of support or some affidavit from them I'd be happy to get
that. I don't think that would be a problem. But I know the neighbor, you know, the RCOs opposed.
They wrote a letter. They pulled all the attendees and no one supported the project.
They were concerned about noise being generated to the rear neighbors and maintenance of the rear
wall. They didn't seem to object to the use. They didn't say anything about the use. So
I don't have that. And obviously, I think Mr. Goodman made his comments. I guess the council
person is going to support the comments of the RCO. Aside from the two houses on Regent Street,
I think it was 1417, was it? Or 1416? Can you bring that up again, please?
Yes, yes. Hold on, I'll get the photos. Okay, here we are.
Yeah, 1417 and 1419. So at the meeting, there was opposition. Aside from those two,
where were they? Where's the other opposition coming from? Do you know?
Oh, I don't know. No. Well, it was whoever, frankly, I don't know. I'm not I've never
appeared before that group before. I don't know where they're from, you know.
All right, fair enough.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case,
please raise your hand.
Chair, we have a Catherine Dowdle, Ms. Dowdle.
Chair, we have a Catherine Dowdle. Ms. Dowdle, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Kathy Dowdell.
My address is 1008 South Farragut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I'm here
Ms. Dowdell, just to interrupt you a minute, please spell your last name.
Sure. It's D-O-W-D-E-L-L. And first name is officially Catherine, K-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E.
Thank you. You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay. And your address again?
1008 South Farragut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19143.
Where is that relationship to this application?
Half a block away.
Farragut Street sort of dead ends into Chester and actually I'm here representing Cedar Park
Neighbors who was the coordinating RCO for this case. Very good. Thank you. Please proceed. Sure.
Sure. Mr. VanSkyver is correct. The objections to this project were not use related and
astoundingly not even parking related, this being Philadelphia. The primary objections were that
the proposed project sits on the property line. It was not only the neighbors behind on Regent
Street who were opposed to that, but there were several other RCOs present at the meeting,
all of whom voted against this project. The concern was that, frankly, we did not understand
where the hardship was. This is an existing condition with a small garage on a property line,
But to exacerbate that by now putting occupied space directly on the property line, we just did not understand where the hardship was.
Mr. VanSkyver is correct. The site is larger and more open.
He is certainly free to reconfigure the existing building or to do other things.
But we did not understand why building on the property line represented a viable hardship.
The Regent Street neighbors were primarily concerned with, yes, loss of privacy, with having
neighbors in the case of 4619 Regent. The back of the garage is only six feet away from
the corner of that property. The people at 4617 Regent were likewise concerned that people could
look into their second floor windows, that just the proximity was really the issue.
And then the other question, which is not really the zoning question, but if that rear wall is
right on the property line, how then does the owner maintain it without needing to access
those adjacent properties? It just did not seem like a good case. One RCO member did express a
concern, as Mr. VanSkyver stated, you won't even know it's back there. That is true. And in the
case of getting a fire engine back there or an ambulance back there, there was concern about the
width of the existing driveway. There's a reason that the Planning Commission does not want to see
more than one building on a single property. So we felt that those were really the much more
compelling issues here. I know that one of the neighbors is on the call, Mr. Tim Peterson, who
owns 4619 Regent. And that's all I have to say, but I'd like for him to get an opportunity to
speak if he has his hand raised. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else
would like to speak? Please raise your hand. Chair, we have Eric Sample. Mr. Sample, you can
unmute yourself and speak. Morning, Mr. Sample. Please identify yourself with the records by your
last name and provide us with your address good morning my name is eric sample s-a-m-p-l-e first
name e-r-i-c the address is 4617 region that i reside at and and do you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you sir please proceed
yes i i looking at the revisions that uh mr uh van skyvers brought forth now we do see that the
balcony has been removed that does offer a little more privacy as opposed to people looking over
into your yard but there is still the concern of it being on the property line and just as mentioned
earlier if there were any issues with that wall they're going to have to gain access to our
property to get to that wall and that's still a concern there was a question off or there was
suggestions offered earlier previously i should say where there was a question of why can it not
be moved further back from the property line i understand it from a construction perspective
Mr. VanSkyver said that there was going to be a lot of issues there, but once again, with it also being on the line, I still see that as a lot of issues there.
mr van skyver said that there was going to be a lot of issues there but once again with it also
Not to mention, during the process of the construction, the noise that we as the residents there, as far as Tim and myself, that's going to be constant noise all day from them building right there because they're literally right in our yard.
So, I'm still against it.
at least if it can if it can be moved back then maybe i can agree with it but as of right now
i'm against it okay thank you anyone else would like to testify
chair we have andrew goodman mr goodman you can unmute yourself and speak
mr goodman good morning again you're still under oath from earlier please please identify yourself
Good morning. Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of Third District
Councilmember Jamie Gaudier. Councilmember opposes the variance application as presented
this morning. As has already been said, there was near unanimous opposition during the vote at the
RCO meeting. What this application proposes to do is convert a rear garage into a structure that is
almost as big as many of the structures at Front Chester Avenue, but without it actually
fronting a street. I would also question the characterization of a carriage house as being
appropriate, since my understanding is that carriage houses are traditionally one story tall,
not three stories tall. So this proposal significantly increases the scale of the
property and by doing so brings the rear yard depth down to zero feet, bringing this new
structure dangerously close to the homes that they share a property line with, hence the refusal for
rear yard depth there is still a perfectly economically viable property here otherwise
as it currently exists so we don't see any physical hardship financial hardship or justification for
this type of build therefore we ask the board to deny the variance as requested here this morning
thank you you anyone else yeah we have a timothy peterson mr peterson you can unmute yourself and
Good morning, Mr. Peterson. Please identify yourself with the record, spell your name, and provide us with your address.
Good morning. My name is Timothy Peterson, P-E-T-E-R-S-E-N. I reside at 4619 Regent.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
um i'm very strongly opposed to this um this a massive building um six feet from uh
my my daughter's bedroom window um you know the and any any problem that have happened with it
like a fire or something like that just terrifies me um it's right on my property line uh i don't
know if they're planting windows in the back, but I mean, I can hear sometimes residents in that
building, the building he owns that he does not live in from time to time from, you know, 25 feet
away. I can't imagine, you know, having a sound issue with somebody that close. It would, I would
probably sell my house and move um yeah i don't i don't understand why you need a another building
there you already have three rentals that you know you're renting out uh why do you need two more i
mean this is uh i understand there's these you know old uh very large apartment buildings uh
in the neighborhood um but you know this just seems you know like total lack of consideration
for everybody uh around you know it's strictly you know um a business um that's going to affect
us it's just you know i feel like um the lack of consideration is okay understood thank you
No problem. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Anyone else? Something new and different.
May I respond?
Mr. Chairman?
Oh, okay.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to a number of the comments made.
First of all, as far as the comment about lack of consideration,
I reached out to the neighbors, the buddy neighbors in particular,
wrote them a few letters going back to when I first received the refusal and set up the thing.
And I tried to establish a dialogue with them and we only had one meeting and one only Mr. Peterson agreed to meet.
and we only had one meeting and one only mr peterson agreed to meet very reluctantly and
just said no that was his answer no so wouldn't discuss any other matter as far as the uh the
issue with maintenance on the rear wall uh well i mean that that's true everywhere you know i've
a builder for over 40 years as well and uh you know we we hope that we don't have uh maintenance
issues with the law once we put it up uh so i i don't expect that that would be uh an issue
you know going forward and one that would create problems uh as far as the hardship goes this is a
You know, the building was built in the post-Civil War era, the gaslight era.
These buildings were built prior to electricity.
And the expense of upkeeping of these buildings is tremendous.
If you can even find tradesmen that can do some of the work on the exterior these days.
It's a tremendous expense.
Not to mention the city's own efforts in taxation.
the current taxation for this property is over 16% of what my gross income was on the building
last year. So, you know, and you can say, well, you know, maybe you have the wrong tenants in
there. It's like, well, you know, I'm trying to respond to the market. So, as far as hardship
goes if anybody penciled it out that they would be able to see that uh so like i said i i you know
it's it's it's one of it's the only property on the block that conforms to open space and off
street parking and there's no there's only one other property on the on the block that conforms
to the required use so given that my neighbor has 46 units right there uh you know i think it
it it kind of says where the neighborhood is you know but i you know i'll close there but i certainly
respect my neighbor's opinion and uh i only want the best for the neighborhood well i think mr
van skyro that was what we were trying to get at earlier this morning about continuing this case
and have the councilwoman's office involved in those discussions it may not change anyone's
mind going forward i have no way of knowing that i don't have a crystal ball right uh but
you decided you wanted to go forward with and here we are but well there's some discussion
about pulling the wall back pulling the building back i don't know if it would work i i'm you know
Right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that I could recraft the project and be able to get there
and maintain the use. But frankly, I don't think it's as good as a project. I know I'm opposed
by this and by the neighbors, but I don't think it's as nice of a project. And so, you know,
if the board, I'd rather have the board just make a decision now and say, we disagree. We think it
is not a good project so you know we'll go back and we'll recraft things okay all right fair enough
all right um planning commission thank you chair chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential two family zoning at
this location existing building as we discussed has illegal three-family use established we would
agree with the RCO that the applicant has no grounds for hardship here. The applicant's
hardship claim is purely economic, whereas his burden, as you know, is to demonstrate that the
development is restricted by some kind of unique physical condition of the property. I also believe
it's plainly evident that the proposed variance is not necessary to enable viable economic use
of the property given its current non-conforming three-family use. And finally, we find that the
the variance is likely to impair the use
of adjacent properties.
And so the city planning commission recommends
that the zoning board deny the variance.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2020-001231, 4614-16 Chester Avenue.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Thank you.
Carol, number 13.
Not 12, 13.
That's going to be continued also.
Is that correct, Sharon?
It is, but I'm not sure that that has been announced yet.
No, we haven't.
I just want to make sure.
All right, so I'm going to call that now.
MI 2020-001216, 8104 Caster Avenue. There's been a request by the attorney,
MI2020-00121681.
Mr. John Sabatino, to have this case continued.
Yes, that's correct. Okay. Yes, thank you. I believe that concludes the 930 list.
do you leave anything out yes if we could ask if anyone present
if anyone is here for a case that they believe was scheduled that has not been called
right as uh miss soletta just said is there anyone believes a case
has been scheduled that has not yet been called but was scheduled
excuse me
no hands at this time chair thank you uh okay see everyone back at two o'clock
thank you and we'll give staff a few minutes let us know when you're ready
we're all ready chair well thank you good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico
i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing with
along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, our Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board
Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Yvette Benton and our Board
Attorney, Sharon Saleta, are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in
one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, if anyone who is participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I would also like to remind everyone that please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
All comments should be directed to our board administrator, Ms. Yvette Benton.
With that, I could, I want to have some unfinished business here.
MI 2020-000349-3009 North Front Street.
This appeal was mistakenly voted on February the 17th.
We are now vacating that vote, reopening the record, and continuing the hearing to a date to be determined.
With that, I will now read off the list of requests for continuances on the 2 o'clock list.
Number three, MI 2020-003416, 1345 East Susquehanna Avenue.
Number four on our list, MI 2020-001714, 1608 North 27th Street.
Number six on our list, MI 2020-001-849-1719 Spring Garden Street, Attorney Moving Party.
MI 2020, that's 000033 204 South 12th Street. MI 2020, that's 001753 2533 Alter Street.
MI 2020-003415, 3020-34 Euclid Avenue.
dash three four Euclid Avenue excuse me the continuance was requested by the attorney
the applicant's attorney MI 2020 dash 003 414 430 Mifflin Street continuance requested by
applicant's attorney. MI 2020-003417. 5002 North 12th Street. The continuance is requested by the
applicant's attorney. If anyone disagrees with any of the continuances that have just been read into
the record, please raise your hand at this time. Chair, we have Alan Nockamson. Alan, you've been
unmuted and you can speak now good afternoon mr knockamson please identify yourself for the
records by your name and i'll swear you in uh yes uh good afternoon mr chair members of the board
my name is alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n-1-2-3 south broad
street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 do you swear in a friend to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed thank you uh yes it's with regards to
2533 altar street uh this is at least a second continuance at the request of the community when
we did uh agree to the continuance um i spoke to uh france pierre uh councilman uh kenyana johnson's
zoning aid and the understanding was that we were going to try to get a date uh a little earlier
than the typical continuance,
because we feel like we can present this matter,
but at the request and out of respect for the community,
we would agree to the continuance.
So we were hoping to see if we can see March 31st.
I mean, this has been multiple continuances
at the request of the community.
I will have to speak to Ms. Sunkit about that,
I believe, offline.
Okay, I will.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
anyone else have any issues with the continuance that have just been read into the record please
raise your hand chair we have david guest mr guest you can unmute yourself and speak now
mr guest please identify yourselves by your last name thanks very much david guest last name g-e-s-t
with Ballard's Bar, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes, thank you. Just a minor clarification.
This is for MI 2021-00033204 South 12th Street.
We had requested that to be attorney moving party.
Just was hoping to update the record for that.
what street was that uh 204 yep 204 south 12th street okay because it had paul bonnie's name
next to it all right miss yeah mr bonnie is also online and i've been corresponding okay so it'll
be attorney moving party correct am i am i 2021-000033 204 south 12th street attorney moving
party correct okay thank you thank you any other corrections or discrepancies please raise your hand
there's no hands at this time chair thank you is there anyone else who would like to request
a continuance or withdrawal on the two o'clock list please raise your hand
Chair, we have Rachel Pritzker. Ms. Pritzker, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good afternoon, Ms. Pritzker. Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
So we are, this is for 4914 North Penn Street. We're ready to move forward with this. However,
we were asked by the council office and the community to allow for more time for them to
try to assist with obtaining parking for this site, even though there's no availability on
this existing site for parking. The only concern I have is that we have a 30-day finance and zoning
contingency that's going to wear off and then we have no project to discuss, which I know
that the community and the council office appreciated. I didn't know if we could ask
for a date with, you know, on the record so that we can address the community's current
on the record so that we we can address the community concerns and align with the council
office uh without messing up the project in general there's a financial component that has
to be met right correct otherwise the project could literally go away correct correct all right
tanya i don't want to put you on the spot but would you like to do you have a date or would
you like to speak with rachel off for offline
um i'm sorry this i was on the phone um
this rachel's case i don't know if you heard that 4914 north penn they were ready to go forward but
the councilman's office uh asked them for a continuance uh which uh rachel and their her
client are willing to do, but it's date sensitive for financing. If they don't get a date, I think
you said before March 31st, is that accurate? Yes, Chairman. The project is doomed or will go
away. Yes. Unfortunately, no, we don't have any early dates. When would be the next, if it helps,
it would be a non-controversial matter for it to be continued. So it wouldn't be something that
would take a significant amount of time if that helps at all unless we do a resumption but i don't
know if that gets that does that help um it would still be at april date what's the earliest date in
april tanya i would have to look and see okay i'm nervous about saying okay and then there is no
project to discuss with anybody what was the count who's the council person again councilman sanchez
i'm just thinking maybe we go forward with the case
i don't want to discount the councilwoman's interest in this but that would be my suggestion
chair yeah we'll go because unfortunately we are swamped with cases and we have full dockets
thank you tanya for your input all right rachel we're going to go ahead with the case all right
okay thanks chairman any other requests for continuance or withdrawals
here we have slow folks mr folks you can unmute yourself and speak now
Identify yourself. You're still under oath from this morning.
Yes, sir. Good afternoon.
It's all folks, Office of Councilwoman Maria Quiñones, Sanchez, room 508 City Hall.
Regarding the case that Ms. Pritzker had mentioned, we don't have a clearing.
I'm sorry. Repeat that. You broke up.
No, I'm sorry. Can you hear me? Are we clear?
Clearly, the applicant has met with the community.
the community requested the continuance um we understand and we the community as well as
Ms. Pritzker had discussed um uh the issue um um over the past couple of days um if you if the if
the ZBA does uh determine as you have said that you're going to move forward with the case we'd
ask for a uh resumption hearing on the back end so the community can file their um put on record
their um opinion and that we can put our opinion on record also. Sloan the problem with the
resumption hearing. Resumption hearing will be passed uh the March 31st. And then we don't have
a project to discuss. I I understand I understand and appreciate well can we is there a way that we
can uh come back in uh a few weeks after uh the applicant uh returns to the uh the at least has
the one more discussion with the uh the the community regarding the issues that they were
uh roves so and we can report that out to the zba yeah but again we're not going to be able to put
you back on the list until after march 31st which is the due date on the financing for the project
um this is sharon seleta can i make a suggestion would it would you be willing to agree
that the board is going to hear the case today
and close the record
except for a letter from the community
that will be read into the record
in, say, one week.
Nothing else, no more testimony.
Would that be acceptable?
I would like to give the community two weeks
if that's possible to have it read into the record.
We can do that, I guess,
as long as we do it before March 31st.
And do you understand that that would be?
and you understand that would be no testimony from any party it would simply be
And do you understand that would be no testimony from any party, it would simply be reading
the letter into the record.
Miss Pritzker if you wanted to write a written response that would be acceptable, but again
no testimony.
Yeah, that's that's fine with me and the community had submitted a letter sort of just
asking for more time to address the parking which the board will see there's no refusal
for the parking and we've agreed to work with them.
I've been working with them for the last couple weeks on this and there's been conversations
late last night and this morning.
And so we have no, we have no problem working with them on that.
I just didn't want this project held up for that.
Let me really, this is, Sunkit's called, Sunkit, would that work for you if it is only reading the letter into the record?
Yes, I actually think that's great.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
So we'll hear the case and do as suggested by Tanya and Sharon.
All right.
Thank you so much.
All right, Mr. Folks.
All right.
thank you thank you anyone else
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you uh carol the next two are together
two cases together calendar number zero zero two four one zero three two south randolph street
Parcel A, and calendar number 00251032 South Randolph Street, Parcel B.
The attorney is Brett Feldman.
Here we have Brett Feldman.
Mr. Feldman, the promoter of the panelists.
and excuse me i'm sorry to interrupt but um i realized we did not give a time on the last case
for so two weeks from now at two o'clock weren't we going to hear the case and hold it oh i'm sorry
yes and we're going to hear the case and then close it only comment exactly exactly i apologize
no worries no worries all right good afternoon mr feldman please identify yourself
yes uh mr mr chairman mr chairman members of the board good afternoon brett feldman
1835 market street philipia pennsylvania uh i represent uh the applicant property owner on
both of these two cases they're both separate cases um but they are uh they back up to each
other it's just uh one faces one street and then the other one backs up and faces the other street
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do for both.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do for both.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents for both properties, which includes proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
uh yes to all um we have um sent revised plans with change plan forms for both uh to miss saletta
and miss sunkett uh for both as a result of uh meetings with the community group uh and we do
have a letter of now support from queen village neighbors association which was in our updated
package that we sent um i believe monday okay you may proceed uh if i may share my screen now
again good afternoon brett feldman i represent uh the applicant property owner in both of these
matters uh with me today is uh logan dry who's our project architect um as well as on behalf of
the property owner yossi abraham both logan and yossi i think have been in front of this board
four or five times on other projects throughout the city.
These are the final exhibit package that exhibits one through 13, which I'd ask to be incorporated
into the record.
You'll see now at exhibit tab 11, we have a letter of now support from Queen Village
Neighbors Association, and this letter reflects a series of back and forth over the past month.
These are two single-family homes that are fully code-compliant, but on very small streets, right north of Washington Avenue between 5th and 6th streets, Fairhill and South Randolph that are going to be streets that have been filled in.
And let me show you the pictures of them right now here.
These are the deeds and tax certification.
Those are the refusals.
U Properties is the owner.
Some of these projects might look familiar to the zoning board.
These are cases that we've actually done in front of the zoning board in the last year or so.
Here is, let me just get everyone bearings here. So this is the aerial. South Fairhill is here. South Randolph is here. Right now, this is what it looks like from Randolph Street. It's a single family block with a hole, a missing tooth. This is what it looks like on Fairhill Street. Similar single family block, missing home.
Here is, let me just get everyone bearings here.
So this is the.
these are two small lots they're both about 600 square feet the main refusal
for both of these is the same you need a seven-foot rear yard we have a five-foot
rear yard and you'll see you know we did an analysis on the block our five foot
is pretty consistent with what the rest of the houses have on the block here
unfortunately that two foot because these are so small these lots are only
you know, only 45 feet deep, that the two feet really makes a big difference.
And certainly, you know, I can have the client speak to that and the architect,
but we wouldn't have went through this whole process if those two feet didn't make a difference.
The other part of this is we really tried to contextualize these homes.
And as you'll see, you can go 38 feet on, you know, we all know an RSA 5.
These are actually only 31 feet.
we wanted to as well as much as possible match these in with the heights on the block so that
that is a big part of what's going on in these cases here here's the view from South Randolph
Street that's our vacant lot again that's on South Randolph Street that's on Fairhill Street
that's that's the lot right here South Fairhill Street South Fairhill Street I think that's
Randolph and let me just get right to the plans here so here is here's the home proposed on
Randolph Street with the revisions with the community again 31 feet and the only the main
refusal here again on this is seven foot versus five feet we lose even we're not going to 38 we
also lose more of the rear yard or the building area because we need to have a breezeway
to meet the building code.
So the helm on Randolph has a breezeway
that goes to the backyard
and connects in on South Fairhill Street.
And here is the revised plans.
We did move around
based off the community negotiations
on South Randolph Street.
There's a roof deck.
We moved the roof deck back
from the front of the building to eight feet.
We relocated the AC condensers
And we were made clear what the facade materials are on the Randolph Street property.
On Fairhill, here's the Fairhill.
This is on the back side now.
This is the home on Fairhill.
Again, the refusal here was the five and the seven.
The other change we made and the other refusal on Fairhill is that there's a Queen Village overlay, which is – and maybe Logan can explain it better.
I'll give it a best shot here. But basically, at the cornice line at 21, at 22 feet, you've got to either do an eight foot setback above where you've got to recess on a plane at a minimum of 45 degrees.
But you can go to the maximum height of 38 feet. So initially, we just kept it at 31 feet.
We didn't have any setback.
You know, in respecting the neighbor, I guess this is to the north, the revised plans now
show a five-foot setback at this third floor.
You can kind of see it here on the plan.
So this is now set back five feet.
So we're real close to compliance, but there are other houses on the block that did it
as of right, that they actually set it back eight feet, but then they went all the way
up to 38 feet.
We decided to not go to 38 feet, go to only 31 feet, but instead of an eight-foot setback to do a five-foot setback.
And as you'll see in the Queen Village, the Bella Vista letter, that was, you know, I think they really appreciated, you know,
the effort we made to contextualize these as much as possible in these small 600-square-foot lots.
I can go through some more, you know, this is the revised plan for Fairhill Street that shows that setback
at the third floor uh we we did some other work with the condensers uh and and and that was an
important part getting the letter the letter of uh support uh these are the floor plans they're
single-family homes um these are more you know we did all these studies uh for the neighbors
and just showing you here some of these other homes on this street they've done a four-story
by right uh which is it it creates these monstrosities that meet the code but now are
way higher than the rest of the block which which our architect really did not want to do
and we thought this was a much better way to to make something that was much more contextual you'll
see this is that this is what you can do 38 feet which is way bigger than us on the block and is
you know really no one on the block i think wanted us to go in that direction these are the code
No one on the block, I think, wanted us to go in that direction.
These are the code provisions.
provisions.
I'd like to just reach out to Logan Dry, our project architect.
Can he be unmuted?
Logan?
Are you on there, Logan?
Mr. Dry, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Yep, I'm here.
Can you guys hear me?
Yes, please identify yourself, personal name.
name? Yep, Logan Dry, L-O-G-A-N-D-R-Y, architect for KCA Design Associates, 6525 Tulip Street,
Philadelphia, PA. Are you swearing if I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Feldman. Logan, I gave it my best layman's effort
to, you know, try to explain the changes here, but can you just real quick, you know, the importance
The difference of the additional feet in the rear yard to each one of these homes and how it made these bedrooms much better on the third floor, and also the way that we decided not to go to 38, we went to 31.
Can you just briefly explain to the board?
Yeah, I mean, to be brief, you know, what we felt was, you know, based upon the zoning code and the overlays, you know, we could have built four-story houses that had these funky setbacks.
You know, we didn't feel like that was appropriate based on the other three stories on the block.
So we figured, you know, if we steal two more feet out of each home's rear yard, we'll get a refusal for that respect, but we can at least get, you know, bedrooms that we can fit a bed in and be able to walk around without, you know, being up against the wall.
So we figured it was a decent tradeoff to ask for a little less rear yard in order to keep a three-story massing.
And then again, as Brett kind of touched on, you know, we worked with the community group, especially on Fair Hill Street, and tried to meet somewhere in the middle for that NCO setback.
So again, instead of the full eight foot setbacks, the third floor, you know, we kind of compromised with five, you know, we were able to redesign the floor plans a little bit to still make that work. So, you know, we could incorporate some of the setback, you know, without again, having to add a fourth story on.
So we felt, you know, kind of what we came up with at the end of the day was, was a little bit better to ask for a little less rear yard in favor of, you know, just keeping a three story massing and still having, you know, functional floor plans that met the building code.
when we submit for those permits.
And Logan, on the screen right now
is the Fair Hill Setback, correct?
Yeah, and we're real clear with the materials
and I would just turn to,
let me just go to the other exhibit,
which is the letter of support from Bella Vista here.
That's here.
That's I think all the way up here.
It should be Green Village, I'm so sorry, Green Village.
um i'll never live that one down from the community groups um on on the um on the proviso
letter uh that was right here spelling out the the revised plans and uh in our exhibit package
at exhibit 12 uh we have the change of plan form um randolph street and at exhibit tab 13 we have
the change of plan form um for south fairhill street that match up with what the um queen
village letter references. So I think with that, Yossi Abraham, can you be unmuted?
What is the person's name again? Yossi Abraham.
I don't see anyone by that name. All right. Mr. Feldman, being an officer of the court,
will stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony yes all right yeah questions from
the board sorry questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand chair we have a samantha laws miss laws you can unmute yourself
and speak thank you good afternoon ma'am please identify yourself with a record name and address
My name is Samantha Laws. I live at 1033 South Fairhill Street, Philadelphia, PI 19147.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
I wanted some clarity if I could ask for on the depth of the lot
and where the property line is. Is it 38 feet?
Are you talking about the structure or the lot size?
The lot size itself.
Okay, the depth of the lot.
Yeah, Logan, I think it's 45.
Yeah, if you go to any one of the zoning plans, we can pull that dimension.
If you go to any one of the zoning plans, we can pull that dimension right there and zoom in.
Yeah, hold on here.
You can enlarge that. It'll be helpful.
Yeah, just give me one second here.
sorry it's it's it's actually it is 38 feet the property is 38 feet our building is only 33 feet
with the five foot rear yard 33 so okay yeah it's even smaller than i said
well 38 is still eight feet deeper than the adjacent than our house for example so um
The the additional two feet in the yard would make a difference in closing off our completely
closing off our roof deck on the one side, making it feel more closed in.
Is that a question, ma'am, or a statement, I'm sorry?
It's a statement.
I mean, I guess we are, you know, we, a seven-year, seven-foot rear yard would be preferred as the adjacent property.
yeah i mean i i think you know as logan said um you know on this on this house we we we didn't go
to the 38 we went to the 31 um as we tried to you know do everything we could do to um
lessen any impacts on the, you know, on the adjacent property owners, whether they be north
or south. And I think for your house, we set, we actually set back, and let me just, I'm just
trying to find the best picture here. You're on Fair Health 1033, right? That's right. Yeah. So
this is yours here. No, no, I'm on the other side. Oh, you're on the other side. Okay. So,
So, so yours, so yours doesn't, you know, I think yours came before the code.
You don't have any setback in the front, correct?
You're right at the property line.
And so, you know, so that's, what's different than your, your house here is now you're required
to set this, you're required to set this third floor back now, eight feet.
And we have the neighbor over here that's got, you know, they've got, they, they did
the setback that was required.
So we're trying to, I guess, kind of cut the baby in the middle here
where you don't have any setback in the third.
They've got the full setback.
We pushed it back five feet so we didn't impact their front here,
which they were concerned about, and only had the two foot in the rear,
which is fairly de minimis.
So that's the tension that we've got right here is you're right here.
You don't have any setback.
They've got the full setback.
we tried to we tried to do it as good as possible uh you know in both of these situations yeah but
in the rear we have our complete second or third floor is a deck that's going to be completely
enclosed by your building an extra an additional two feet um in the rear i don't know if you have
a picture of what it looks like from yeah brett if you want to go to those context sketches this
is the house that has the second floor deck off the rear there's no there's no construction on
the one side our house would would certainly block that deck but this is the right yep yep
this is this is the house with the the no rear yard we have right we have a side yard
so they've got no rear yard we have a side yard yeah i mean so that's the other you know so you've
got nowhere to your lot is is what 40 30 it's 30 yeah so you're not you're not code complying in the
rear well it was when it was built i mean we didn't you purchased it was existing house right
yeah yeah we understand that yeah yeah all right so the difference so when you look at it an
additional two feet makes a big difference from where from from where we are yeah and your lot
line basically goes in additional eight feet back if we were if we were to provide two more feet of
rear yard that the construction would still block the second floor deck yeah yeah so you're so ma'am
you're talking about right here right this is this right here yeah i see it if we move this back
i think this is this is the two feet we would still block your entire second floor rear deck
we would still block your entire second floor rear deck, right?
right because
Because you don't have any rear yard.
Your whole – even if we're code compliant, we block the whole thing
because you don't have a rear yard.
So, I mean, that's the issue here is that even if we were code compliant,
there would be no change to your condition because there's no rear yard
and your whole thing is a deck in the back here.
You don't gain anything.
We're gaining light and feeling less closed in.
And I realize that, you know, there's not much we can do about being closed in, but I'm just expressing our.
Yeah, I understood.
We understand.
All right.
All right.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify?
Chair, we have Barbara Lee Kruger.
Ms. Kruger, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Afternoon, Ms. Kruger.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, and provide us with your address.
I'm Barbara Lee Kruger, B-A-R-B-A-R-A, L-E-A hyphen K-R-U-G-E-R. I live at 1030 South Randolph.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
So I have a similar issue as Samantha in that I have a second floor roof deck that the extra two feet will will impact.
And I feel like, you know, that we shouldn't grant variances that have negative impact to the adjacent properties.
okay right for the architect could you just kind of show us what logan do you want to
what's the best brett go back to the the site context plan yeah okay
okay so just so real clear we're talking about in the back off yeah off the the property on the
right we're talking the rear right here right here okay that one yes okay if you can go to
the site context plan brett yep working on it this one hogan yep
right here right yep so so right there that area that's hatched
So that's the neighbor's deck. And then down below, you can see where our construction's at.
In this scenario, compared to Fair Hill Street, there would be a slight difference in terms of a two-foot reduction in our house length.
But I would argue in that scenario that the lot lines as they're drawn up, as well as the existing condition of that deck being there,
the deck does actually stick past our construction yeah so it would certainly it would certainly you
know it would allow for perhaps an additional amount of air and light to that existing second
story deck but i wouldn't venture to guess it's it's a significant amount because that that deck
also faces into a rear yard versus you know the other property that that didn't have a rear yard
so i think in this scenario it's just a virtue of where the lot lines fell for these two properties
compared to, you know, where the lot lines are drawn for the other properties. It's sort of,
you know, it varies as you go upon the blocks. Everybody has a slightly different rear yard
depth. You know, everybody has a slightly different house depth. You know, we just try to design
these somewhere in the middle of all of it, but we've got clearly several different conditions
around us. Yes, but that two feet would mean a lot to me, and I don't like the fact that it would
be a variance for a new building that impacts the existing homeowners okay anyone else like
to testify there's no hands at this time chair i think i did ask the board did the board have
any questions no no yeah i would i would just say that these we we went back and forth with um
with the community group on this um you know to try to solve this riddle of all four properties
around us um and this was this was really um by not going to 38 feet um you know we're trying
our best here to to address all the different situations around us here um that's really where
we where we came out with and we were real happy to get a letter of support and uh you know we
You know, we moved roof decks back.
We moved roof decks back.
We moved condensers back.
We moved condensers back on this.
So, you know, these roof deck configurations were actually much improved, you know, and I think should be a benefit to the immediate neighbors as well.
Logan, is there anything else you wanted to add on that?
So basically, you would have, if you went up, you'd have to shrink, if you shrank the building down two foot, right, back two feet, you would actually be going up beyond the 30, was it 31?
Yeah, correct.
that was you could go to 38 correct yeah we're seven feet below what we could do that that was
that okay that's the trade-off is the seven foot in height versus the two yeah which has been done
on that block and it's just it looks it looks and it towers over the other hound so yeah it's
extremely extremely uh narrow street i'm familiar yeah yeah so um you know all right understood uh
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon.
My name is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
Do you want me to spell my name?
Who's wearing a firearm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning at this location.
the variance that is being sought by the applicant is de minimis and would likely have
no adverse impact to the surrounding community accordingly we have no objection to the granting
of the requested variance thank you mr feldman there's a one page revised for each property
uh correct within a corresponding plan change form excuse me this is sharon saletta if the
board votes to approve this mr feldman would you please send me for both properties the proviso
plans form and the revised plans as two separate pdfs and also the proviso plans form that you
submitted isn't signed if you could sign and date that please yes yes yes thank you sharon if i if
this gets approved we say revised plan but we're not approving them today are we technically yes i
i have the plans it's simply that they have to be in a form that i can stamp okay i understand now
Thank you. All right. We'll take these individually. MI 2021-0000241032 South
Randolph Street. My vote is yes with revised plan approved today. One page.
My vote is yes with Proviso. Yes with Proviso. Yes with Proviso. Yes with Proviso.
QMI 2021, that's 000025. 1032 South Randolph Street. My vote is yes with the proviso. Revised
plan one page approved today. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso. Calendar number 0022, 1630 Page Street.
The attorney is Alan Ockamson.
Madam Vice Chair, we have Clementa Amazon.
Ms. Amazon, you're going to be promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Hello, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in?
Of course, Clementa Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name A-M-A-Z-A-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
refusal referral, plans and photos, and have you met five days in advance of this
meeting, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, all of the above.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. May I share my screen?
okay can everyone see my screen yeah yes so again my name is come on to amazon and i will be
presenting 1630 page street and i also have my client ahmad nasrallah on the line as well
so in this packet of materials i will be going over the deed tax clearance information notice
of Appeasal, a similar project which is located on 1700 West Norris Street, the application
for appeal, maps of the area, photographs, plans and drawings, as well as a letter of
support from the 32nd Democratic Board.
from the 32nd Democratic Board, the deed, tax information, and then our notice of refusal.
So this property is actually zoned as RM1, and we are requesting to have single-room
residences.
There are currently five bedrooms, and we are looking to have single-room residences.
Again, as an RM1 property, it would have a lot more density if we were to have, for example,
a duplex with three bedrooms each.
In this matter, we only have five bedrooms, and we're keeping it down to one person per bedroom.
As I mentioned prior, there is a similar project at 1700 West Norris Street.
In here, we have the information for that project, which is actually for 11 occupants.
So this is not an odd use of a property in this particular neighborhood.
We have our application for appeal.
A map of the area.
Again, this is an RM1 property.
and if we were to use it as such, there would arguably be more density, but we're simply asking
to have five individuals, one per bedroom. Another map of the area, and we have West North to the
rear. We're on Page Street in between North 17th and North 16th. This is a picture of the front
of the property, view to the right, view to the left of Page Street, photos of the interior,
the backyard, and our plans and drawings. So as I mentioned, we have five bedrooms. There's
no basement living. So we're looking to have one person per bedroom for this particular project.
And we are happy to say that we did receive a letter of support from our RCO. My client
has a reputation in the neighborhood. He's a great neighbor. He takes pride in his work,
and he has a great sanitation plan in effect. This is a notice that we sent out for our February 25th
community meeting, as well as information about this particular hearing. We sent that out to all
112 properties, a list of the properties that were notified, and our certificate of mailing.
So with that, if I can just have my client adopt my testimony. His name is Ahmad Nasrallah.
Mr. Nasrallah, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Hi, good afternoon.
Please identify yourself for the record, name and address.
Good afternoon.
My name is Ahmad Nasrallah.
That's A-H-M-A-D.
And last name Nasrallah, N-A-S-R-A-L-L-A.
And the property address is 1630 Page Street, Philadelphia, PA 19121.
We swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Thank you. Please proceed, Ms. Amazon. Thank you. Ahmad, did you hear my presentation
today? Yes, I did. And is it accurate and correct? Yes, it is. And if given the opportunity,
would you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes, I would. Thank you. So with that, I'd be happy
to answer any questions that the board may have. Any questions from the board? Yes. Yes,
can you go back to the floor plans please of course
here we are and i also like to note that this is a special exception not a variance
you have five bedrooms yes we do how many baths two yes three three there's three
a half a bath
it's a full bath upstairs
so there's two upstairs
one in the front bedroom
so we have one right here
one right here and one on the first floor as well
correct
and you said one person per bedroom
are they all related or unrelated people
they would be unrelated
you allowed the five
unrelated people in one unit? So this is for a special exception. It's not a variance and we're
just looking for the single room residence. So that's why we're here today. Thank you. Of course.
Okay, any other questions? No. Would anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
there are no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon this is greg waldman for planning commission staff
this property was part of a remapping in 2014 that recommended no change to the existing
residential multifamily zoning at this location which is situated on a block that has several
multifamily properties of similar scale to this proposal. Accordingly, we have no objection
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the requested variants.
to the granting of the requested variance. Thank you.
Thank you. MI 2021-000022, 1630 Page Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you. Have a great day.
You too.
Have a great day.
Calendar number 2599, 2740 Amber Street.
Chair, we have Alan Knackleton.
Mr. Knackleton, you're going to be promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon, Mr. Knackleton.
You're still on the earth from earlier.
Carol, you can proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Name and address, please.
Yes, Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
You agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, just so long as we understand that we have a second refusal dated February 16th of 2021 with the permission of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, in all respects.
Thank you. You may proceed.
All right. I'm going to share my screen.
Can everyone see my screen?
Hi. So good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair, and members of the board. My name is Alan
Occamson again, and I'm proud to present 2740 Amber Street. This is a project that has had
much scrutiny within the community and the CDR. This project originally started out something
different, but through the process of community input and with the assistance of the CDR,
We're proud to say that we have a letter of support from the Somerset neighbors for better living.
And my understanding is that, you know, the CDR also believes that this is a good and productive project in the Kensington area of Philadelphia.
So I have a table of contents, which includes the DTIP property, a certificate of tax clearance, a notice of refusal, an application for appeal,
maps of the property in the surrounding area, photographs of the property, architectural
plans and drawings, and the aforementioned letter of support.
This property is owned by Amber Street Holdings, and as you can see here, they are in good
standing with the state of Philadelphia, they just recently paid their property taxes.
Originally, this was, you know, we submitted an application for appeal based on a notice of refusal dated October 15th of 2020,
where we're looking to put on this 30,000 square foot RSA 5 property, three principal building structures of a height with the largest one over 70 feet high with off-street parking and such.
Over the course of several meetings with the community, as well as smaller session meetings with the executive board of the Somerset Neighbors for Better Living, and based on the input and comment for the CDR, we changed the project to better fit from an architectural standpoint and the community standpoint.
So as part of that process, we received authorization on February 12th of 2021 to actually revise or amend our zoning appeal based on certain changes we made to our plans.
First of which is instead of three building structures, we have now two building structures that are interconnected.
Instead of 140 units, it's going to be 132 units.
We also decreased the height of the building.
So even though this is an RSA 5 property, we are surrounded, as you'll see in our materials, by ICMX, where in scale, our 63-foot high building and some portions of it fits within the scale of the community.
As well as we have now garden apartments, which fit better in scale with other portions of the community, which are closer to the RSA 5 properties.
So those were the major changes that we did.
And based on that, on February 16, 2021, Department of License and Inspections issued a new notice
of refusal that we did give to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
So just for purposes of this hearing, this is the operative notice of refusal that we're
uh that we're speaking of today again instead of this is an RSA 5 property um instead of three
speaking of today.
SAY, AGAIN, INSTEAD OF THIS IS AN RSA V PROPERTY.
principal building structures we have now two that's a refusal and you'll see that that it
makes sense based architecturally as well as how it fits within this 30,000 square foot lot
secondly we are proposing multi-family use 132 units but again we're on a 30,000 square foot
lot, which would not be out of character, especially if you see that we're surrounded
by ICMX. Third, we're proposing no rear yard depth on portions of the property. Again,
we front three streets, two public streets and a private street on Seltzer. So how our lot is
unique in nature, there is an undue hardship with respect to complying with that portion of the
code. And then finally, the height. We're requesting 63 feet, a little over 63 feet,
while 38 is required. But again, this is a 30,000 square foot lot. We're surrounded by ICMX,
asking for 63 feet high, especially since we knocked off one story as to the high rise portion
of it. And given how we're focused near ICMX, makes sense under the circumstances.
Here's our application for appeal we originally followed with the ZBA and our project information
form. And then maps of the property. We are actually all of this. We're not just this
little portion. We're on East Silver, we have Seltzer, and we have Amber Street. And we're
all of this. We're a significant portion. As you can see, we're surrounded by ICMX.
There is an RSA 5 component in this neighborhood, and we respect it through our design, as we'll show.
And these are photographs of the property from amber and silver.
And then our plans and drawings that we submitted to the community as well as to the CDR.
So as you can see, this is the Amber Street side.
This is the high-rise portion of the property.
As part of the input of the CDR, we now have one large lobby that focuses and directs traffic to a lobby portion, but also eyes on the street where we have apartment units that actually open to the street as well.
We have a gym that faces the city skyline, and we have a dedicated garbage room as well.
So again, as you can see, this is our property.
which is substantial in size,
and would be more appropriate to be more closer to ICMX
without the CMX, obviously the C portion.
And these are pictures of the property from Silver Street.
And you can see it's industrial nature,
this part of the neighborhood, Amber Street.
And then you can see Seltzer.
So there is no legal street,
no primary frontage allowed on Seltzer Street.
So that's where we kind of got here. Originally, we were looking to do a subdivision or to do single-family, and because there's no legal street on Seltzer, we revisited the plans and worked with the community on something that's a little bit different.
And again, we reduced the amount of units from 140 to 132. We created a low-rise effect on Seltzer Street to kind of match the feel of the RSA-5 properties as well.
And then as you can see, this is just a rendering of what our property looks like in relation to the neighborhood.
You can see our building structure, the tallest portion is furthest away from the RSA 5 portion of the neighborhood.
And, you know, we've provided as much light in there as we can.
You can see from that direction and then that direction.
And then this is, and again, I have the architect, Tony, on the call.
we can go through the floor plans if you wish uh there's just another rendering from amber
a view uh from the corner of amber you can see there's a entrance here there's you know a cutout
here to allow for a parking lot of a substantial size again a lot of eyes on the street a lot of
nice landscaping that's important to my clients and here's the parking lot
do you have your client i do i do i do um and again just we have the letter of support as well
but the other thing that we're really proud of and i want to make a point of this and the reason
why we had community support is we this is really a good example of inclusionary zoning uh 16 of the
16 of the units are going to be dedicated to affordable housing units, but affordable in the truest sense.
units are going to be dedicated to affordable housing units but affordable
Eight of the units are going to be at 20% AMI, and eight of the units are going to be at 40% AMI.
So that was really important to the community.
So with that being said, I would like Jordan Brody to virtually raise his hand.
oh mr brody you can unmute yourself and speak now good afternoon mr brody please
identify yourself with a record spell your last name and i'll swear you in
can you hear me yes my name is jordan brody
last name is spelled b-r-o-d-y
we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do mr notkinson uh yes uh mr brody you heard everything i stated today yes i did and is it
true and correct yes it is and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes i do thank you thank you
Questions from the board? No. No. No. Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand. Chair, we have an Anthony Miller. Mr. Miller, you can unmute yourself and
speak now. Good afternoon, Mr. Miller. Please identify yourself with the record. Provide us
with your name and address. Hello, my name is Anthony Miller, A-N-T-H-O-N-Y-M-I-L-L-E-R.
My address is 3033 Mercer Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19134.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
I would like to testify as a stakeholder with Somerset Neighbors for Better Living.
I was involved with the negotiation and the meetings that Alan mentioned.
We met with them multiple times and hammered out a deal that we think is going to bring a lot of benefit to the community.
I just want to testify that on behalf of Somerset Neighbors for Better Living,
I hope that you allow some other members to testify as well.
But we fully support the project as it is proposed.
Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify?
Please raise your hand.
Chair, we have Pastor Capers.
Pastor Capers, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good afternoon, Pastor.
pastor please identify yourselves by your last name sure good afternoon my name is pastor Jacqueline
Capers C-A-P-E-R-S I am the pastor of Disney Nichols AME Church in this particular community
I'm also a member of Somerset Neighbors for Better Living and I too would like to say we
have worked very diligently had several meetings and working with the developers and we
want to state that we truly do support this project. Thank you, Pastor, for taking the time.
Anyone else like to testify? Chair, we have Pastor Harris. Pastor Harris, you can unmute yourself and
speak now. Good afternoon, Pastor Harris. Good afternoon to you, Mr. DeTico, and everyone.
My name is Richard Harris. Pastor, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth. I do. I didn't expect otherwise, but I had to ask you. Yes, yes.
Please proceed. So yes, we stand in total agreement with Amber Street Holden, as well
as Somerset Neighbors. We too serve with Somerset Neighbors for Better Living. We've been active
with them for about 12 years, and we was very appreciative of Amber Holden for their approach
to the community, and their willingness to come in good faith and make some amendments to their
plans, whereby they would accommodate some affordable tenants, some affordable units to
those within the community. So yes, Firm Hope Baptist Church stands with Somerset neighbors,
as well as the community, in total favor of this project. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Anyone else?
chair we have joan dan set miss dan set you can unmute yourself and speak now
good afternoon ma'am please identify yourself on the record spell your last name and provide
us with your address sure my name is joan dan set last name is d-a-n-s-e-t-t-e my address is
It's 2006 Hartley,
Philadelphia PA 19134.
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Along with everybody else, I'm the vice president of SMBL.
And we always stand by our...
I'm sorry, I'm getting tugged at you.
We stand by the project.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
there are no hands at this time chair excuse me chair this is sharon solita if you should vote
to approve this um well first let me ask mr knockamson this is a an amended refusal is that
correct uh that is correct okay so we would ask that you add a proviso stating as per application
zp 2020 004012 so there won't be any confusion when you go to lni as to what was approved
let me just make sure that's the right one yes if we've had issues in the past yes
you said miss salato which what was the number again is it zp 2020 004012 that's correct okay
thank you thank you
is uh is it zp 2020 does zero zero one two
it is zero zero four zero one two four zero one two where did i get the zero okay four zero one
And you said we're going to, if we approve it, it is per?
Just add a proviso as per application, ZP 2020-00.
There we go. Thank you.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
This property is zoned for a single family,
and the comprehensive plan recommends industrial, commercial mixed use.
This project concluded a civic design review on March 2nd after its second meeting.
However, when we changed the zoning maps for this neighborhood in 2017, the Neighborhood
Association wanted the zoning to reflect their desire to see the remaining scrapyards disappear.
We settled on single-family zoning because it provides a reasonable density without overwhelming
the surrounding blocks.
However, due to the overwhelming stated support from the community for the multifamily project
at this juncture. We have no objection to the granting of the requested variants.
Thank you. MI 2020-002599 2740 Amber Street. My vote is yes with the proviso. Approval
as per ZP 2020-4012. My vote is yes with proviso.
yes for proviso yes for proviso yes for proviso thank you you good luck thank you
calendar number three three nine four four nine one four north penn street
miss pritzker you're up and you're still under oath from earlier
chair she's been promoted to panelists
Thank you.
Rachel, are you there?
Can you hear me?
Name and address, please, and spell your last name.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos under plans of the process?
Reporter, I'm frozen.
Oh, there we go.
Rachel, I got your name and nothing here for that.
My apologies.
No worries.
So my address is 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos and plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
You may proceed.
Thank you. If we could also promote Jason Trutner, that will save some time as well.
Thank you.
If we could also promote Jason Trotner.
Okay. And who is Jason? He is the architect. Okay.
Mr. Trutner has been promoted as a panelist. Hi, Jason. Name and address, please.
Thank you. My name is Jason Trutner, T-R-U-T-N-E-R, at 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA-19127.
You swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay. Rachel, you may proceed.
Thank you so much. So this is 4914 North Penn Street. This property is an RMX, sorry, an RM3
property located on North Penn Street. As you can see, it's an existing structure that takes up
a majority of the lot coverage, and we are looking to restore this building. It provides
for multifamily by right, and the only refusal we have is for some additional floor areas so that
we can have an elevator in the building access all four floors to accommodate those with disabilities
under the Fair Housing Act. So again, our hardship here is that the way that the building is
currently laid out, the only place to put an elevator so that anybody with physical limitations
is able to access all four floors and the top floor where the amenity and the roof space is
would be to add a little extra FAR in order to accommodate that given we're working within
an existing structure. That's the only request we have for the board as far as variances are
concerned. The letter from the community, the biggest concern they have in general, not just
related to this project, was parking. As Jason will go through the plans, as you'll see with
this existing structure, the grade change, there's really no ability to provide parking
on site. So they wanted to have us do a continuance, although we had two meetings in order to try
to reach out to some of the owners of the vacant lots in the area, which we are working
with the community to do to see if there is any opportunity for off-street parking. However,
we don't have a refusal for parking because this is an existing structure and the use
conforming with the zoning code. I won't really belabor that point any further. I just think it
would be beneficial for Jason to go through the plans. I can then again highlight on the community
aspect. And again, we're just asking for a variance for a little extra floor area ratio
in order to add the elevator. And I think Jason, you can, if you don't mind mentioning how minimal
the square footage that we're asking for is, I think that would be beneficial for the board.
Absolutely. So just to go through the plans, this is the site plan for 4914 Penn Street,
and again this is an existing structure that occupies the majority of the lot area. The
right-hand side of all of the plans will be the access from Penn Street, left-hand side being the
rear yard, and the top and bottom of the plans that we'll be showing are the side yards.
And again, this is largely an interior renovation that we're proposing. The only extra area
will be for an elevator located at this point on the plan, which we'll see on each level.
And there are three levels in that building? Is that what I'm seeing?
There is three main levels, and then there's an inset fourth floor penthouse structure, which the elevator accesses.
Can you just zoom in a bit, Jason?
Yeah, absolutely.
So this is the basement level.
We'll just start at the bottom and work our way to the top.
The breakdown on most of the floors consists of a series of residential units.
In the basement level, which is a partially below-grade basement, we have utility access, bike storage, and trash.
And again, you can see the two staircases, as well as the elevator located at this location, which will translate up through every floor.
And can you also mention, Jason, just the grade so that board member Holloman, I know he's very big on living space and basements.
I just want to mention sort of the grade change so that there's an understanding.
There's actually windows.
Yeah, absolutely.
It's not a grade basement.
That's what I want to know, access.
yep so um you can see here in this uh uh three-dimensional uh imagery you can see that the
the windows that are uh and again these are existing windows are located more if you can
it's just really tiny thank you um you can see that the windows are uh uh four feet uh still
heights from the inside so this is you know again in in character with a much more luxurious basement
a much more luxurious basement dwelling unit
dwelling unit than the conventional
than the conventional egress well
sort of fully below-grade structure.
And again, this is all existing,
and the trash access that I was describing
actually has a door to the side yard
so that that can go directly to the outside of the building
without needing to go through the common corridor
and use the staircases.
And there's a door up to grade as well on this basement level closer to the front of the property.
Yes, that is correct.
So we have a utility access door at the front of the property.
And then at the rear of the property, the staircase egresses directly outside before coming back inside from the basement level.
So if you need to get out of the basement, you're crawling out?
uh no there's oh uh the the rear egress uh stair goes directly outside at the first floor
as well as doors in the in the trash room um and then yes there uh there would be um
the ability for any of the the windows to be egressed in a an emergency uh situation
or through the utility access.
Is the board of any questions?
You've met with the RCO?
Yeah, we can just fast forward to the fourth story
just to show that addition that we're adding
where the elevator is.
I just want to highlight that
because again, that's all we're here for.
We met with the RCO twice.
It's the Frankfurt CDC
and they were really receptive to the project.
They are excited to see, you know,
the reuse of this structure
that used to you know be habitable and we're keeping sort of everything interior from a
historic perspective it's not deep you know designated historic but we're keeping the
character of the inside of the building again their only main concern was sort of parking in
general so we I've already mentioned and put in writing to them that we're happy to work with
them we've done some outreach ourselves they've done some outreach and again I think the letter
they sent just really highlights wanting us to work with them on parking and a community
benefits agreement for local hiring, which I've also already said that we would be happy
to do. But without getting the zoning and then the financing for this project, it's
hard, you know, we can't do any of that. So and again, that's sort of why we were grateful
that the board was able to allow us to hear this today. So again, we're just here for
little extra floor area for the elevator and it's what 40 74 square additional square feet something
like that yeah it comes out to one percent far increase yeah that's all we're asking for so that
we can make it ada compliant otherwise you know it limits who could live on what floors and and
also who can access the amenity space anything from the councilman i think sloan folks was on earlier
um and i don't i don't think that the council office had any issue with the
request i think they were just wanting us to continue the conversation with the community
about the parking and frankfurt cdc is okay now no member um in the beginning we have to
um we were allowing two weeks just for a letter from them
i'm sorry i had to i had to go out and come back in uh yeah carol this is the one we spoke about
earlier right i i didn't just resume it just for the purpose of a letter from the rco and the
council and or the councilwoman's office and just to recap mr chairman wireway we're asking for
one percent increase in far 74 square feet for an elevator to access all four floors for to meet
88 compliance standards that's the only variance we're requesting here understood any other
questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand can i have my ear we have sloan folks here mr folks you can unmute yourself and speak
now folks you're still on their oath from earlier please identify yourself and proceed
Good afternoon again. Sloan folks, Office of Councilwoman Maria Kenyola Sanchez, Rule 508 City Hall. I have Kim Washington on the line. She's the Executive Director of Frankfurt CDC.
Understanding that the ZBA had determined, based on Ms. Pritzker's argument regarding financial constraints that they were going to hear today, I reached out to her so that she can at least say something on the record today.
As of right now, the letter that was sent was really requesting a continued...
The letter that was sent was really requesting a continuance. It didn't outline any of the
community issues, as I recall. And the issues, really, the issues Ms. Washington will be able
to elaborate on. We still want the opportunity in the next couple weeks to have the RCO formally
weigh in uh by writing um uh anything they have to say but i'm going to defer to miss washington
to have her hand raised right now okay but i thought we you know you will hear from miss
washington but again if there's a meeting you guys can have it but we just want to have a
a letter from the rco assuming they agree and uh before the end of the month
but we're not going to have another hearing is what i'm saying we won't the only thing the hearing
the resumption will only be limited, will be limited to a letter from the RCO.
I clearly understood, Council Chairman DiCicco, and that is why I reached out to
Ms. Washington because of the parameters that you put around
what the RCO will be able to submit and our office will be able to submit.
Very good. Thank you. Is Ms. Washington on?
Ms. Washington, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good afternoon, Ms. Washington. Please identify yourself with a record name and address and I'll
swear you in. Good afternoon, Chairman DeChico and the rest of the ZBA board. I am Kimberly
Washington. I'm the executive director for the Frankfurt Community Development Corporation
located at 4667 Paul Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19124. And do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed.
And so I won't, I'll be brief. Just wanted to say that we are in support of the general project.
Everything that Rachel said, I hold to be true. I just wanted to add an issue that while parking
was a big issue, I think there were also some conversations around affordability of the units,
local jobs, and then there's probably a few other small like design issues around the property that
we'd like to discuss as part of the community benefits agreement. But we just, we're thankful
to hear that the ZBA is going to give us a few more weeks to work that out with Rachel and the
developer without holding up the project too long. So I appreciate that. And thank you, Rachel and
your team for reaching out to us and being willing to work with us. Yeah, thank you very much for
that. And we will have two weeks. So I'll put on the record that we will do our best to expeditiously
worked together on this and your group has been really helpful as well so thank you also all right
thank you thank you miss washington uh tanya do we have a date for that uh resumption which would
only be limited to uh limited to the uh letter from the rco and councilwoman sanchez's office
so because this is sharon's letter are we getting a letter from the councilwoman's office i thought
that it was simply to read the letter from the RCO into the record and to and also if Ms. Pritzker
would like to submit a brief reply that would be read into the record as well but nothing too
lengthy or it might have to be continued for another hearing. No problem. All right so it'll
be limited to the letter from the RCO correct? And that should be submitted to the ZBA and Ms.
the letter by the 23rd of the month to be read in the record on Wednesday, the 24th.
Okay, thanks so much.
Okay, so let's just get that officially on the record.
MI 2020-003394, 4914 North Penn Street.
This hearing will be resumed on March the 24th.
At what time, Tanya?
2 p.m.
at 2 p.m., at which time the board will consider any feedback or a letter from the RCO.
Chairman, may I have my clients adopt my testimony or as a member?
Sure, sure.
Okay. Do you see Ehrman?
Can we just add that there will be no testimony taken at the March 24th hearing?
So noted. Thank you.
Mr. Agarnasli you can unmute yourself and speak now
hello can everyone hear me yes good afternoon please identify yourself in the record
name it your full name please my name is Erman E-R-M-A-N last name Agarnasli A-G-I-R-N-A-S-L-I
Address is 570 Broom Street, Unit C1, New York, New York, 10013.
Unit C-1, New York, New York, 10013.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Rachel?
Thanks.
Irman, have you heard my testimony that I've given today in front of the board?
And do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think we asked those questions from the board who have already been asked.
We have everybody else.
Planning Commissioner.
I got ahead of myself when I read into the record that this is a resumption hearing,
but that's all on the record now we can move to the next case carol calendar number two six seven
two five six six west clapier street
madam vice chair we have a
cordon fuller uh yes and danina i think they are the owners
Okay, Mr. Fuller, you've been promoted to panelist.
Sir, can you hear me?
Frank.
Hello?
Hello.
You can hear me now?
Yes, please identify yourself with the record.
First and last name.
My name is Corrodon Fuller.
That's C-O-R-O-D-O-N-F-U-L-L-E-R.
Live at 566 West Clapier Street.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
All right.
Hold on.
Hold on one second.
Carol?
Am I swearing him in?
You're calling me.
I'm sworn in, but you've got to go through the list on the waivers.
Sorry about that.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of the spring, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes and yes.
A few of the tax compliance documents I emailed in yesterday.
when I was able to get it, but I, uh,
have other,
Do we, do we have proof of ownership?
copy of the refusal or referral?
And you have photos and plans?
Uh, yes.
And you've met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Uh, yes.
You may proceed.
All right. The variance is simply to build a staircase from the exterior deck down to grade inside the backyard of the of my home at 566 West Clapier Street.
um if i can share my screen um is it sharing
no so mr fuller yes if you open up your documents and have them present on your screen are you on a
computer yes yes okay so open up your documents have them okay you're doing it now you're perfect
Okay, yes. So this is the rear of 566.
The staircase in question is in character with the neighborhood.
Most of the other houses on this block of Clappier have them.
This is facing east towards Schuyler Street.
You can see there's a staircase here.
There are staircases all the way down.
This house here has a staircase that's just hard to see because it's against the house.
And these are to the west, towards Rosahickam Street.
There are various staircases coming down from the decks here as well.
um the okay um i can show the uh plans for the house it's for the uh the staircase itself it's not
For the staircase itself, it's nothing extraordinary.
extraordinary
Let me see again. There we go.
I mean, the staircase simply comes down parallel to the end of the deck.
Also with me is Aaron White.
He's the contractor in charge of building the staircase.
And so he is available if there are any questions more technical than this.
So, yeah, we met on the 4th with the RCO board about this.
There were no objections voiced.
they were
there was general support
they voted 6-0
to support
and I do not know if there's anything else
any other questions
questions from the board
anyone else would like to testify
in this case if so please raise your hand
chair we have a aaron white mr white you can unmute yourself and you can speak now
hello um this is aaron white mr white please identify yourself spell your first name please
my name is aaron white it's a-a-r-o-n last name w-h-i-t-e your address
my address is uh 240 west rittenhouse street um and yeah you're swearing a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed
yes i do please proceed yeah i i just wanted to testify and say uh i'm the
I'm the contractor hired to build the staircase and the staircase is fairly straightforward.
We had our plans made by a structural engineer and submitted and there is there was a small
hiccup that we had in the code and I every almost every house on that same block has this staircase
so it's kind of an unexpected issue for us but as I mean it's very standard very straightforward
and we just want to make sure we just make a good staircase that's to code and compliant
thank you anyone else to testify
chair we have charles richardson mr richardson you can unmute yourself and speak
good afternoon mr chair and members of the board good afternoon mr richardson
please identify yourself charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312
city hall you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you sir please proceed just called to uh let you guys know the councilwoman has no
opposition to the granting of this variance. Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Chair, we have a phone caller. Last numbers are 5555.
Caller, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Hello. Please identify, ma'am, please identify yourself. Name and address.
yes allison weiss solo germantown civic association 4908 wayne avenue we were an
overlapping rco we attended the meeting allison hello you swear and affirm to tell hello do you
swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir thank you
please proceed yes uh we are an overlapping rco we attended the uh hearing the excuse me the rco
meeting, community meeting, and we have no opposition. Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
There are no hears at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Chairman Dejico, members of the board. This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission
staff. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family
zoning at this location. The applicant requests the de minimis variance to create a condition
that is common on this block. Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the requested
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the requested variants.
variance. Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2020-002672-566 West Clapier Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, Jim.
I believe that concludes the 2 o'clock list.
Yes, it does.
Any unfinished business on the two o'clock list?
Chair, if we could announce, if we could ask if anyone is here for a hearing they believe was scheduled but was not called.
Is anyone here for a hearing that was not called?
you can unmute yourself and speak now
yes does everyone hear me yes your name sir um farhan sahoun
um that's uh farhan um f as in frank a r h a n last name sahoun s as in sam a h a w n e h
your address 3466 division street philadelphia we didn't get we didn't get to that case yet
oh i'm sorry sir that uh no worries we'll get that in a probably within the next 20 to 30
minutes we'll be thank you very much thank you anyone else here we have someone by the name of
katherine blunt miss blunt you can unmute yourself and speak now yes i'm inquiring about the property
oh excuse me ma'am you made it yourself
okay can you hear me now yes miss blunt thank you uh so i'm inquiring about the property at
826 south bodge street is that going to be heard today
it's uh it's on the 330 list we're not there yet
excuse me but i believe that case is being continued that's what i want to know that thank
you yep thank you but we didn't call it it's a record i just wanted to be sure yeah understood
so it is continued right being continued yes thank you very much have a good day you too
anyone else no all right it's uh 8 30 oh 3 36 so get back here at 10 of four take a 12 15
minute again everyone my name is frank de chico i'm sorry we're we're going we're okay pauline
sorry yes sir we're good to go okay and i'll we'll wait a couple of minutes for staff
um chair can i just do a check for a court reporter
I'm here ready to go thank you kindly you're welcome ma'am we're ready chair ready to roll
thank you good afternoon everyone my name is Frank DiCicco I'm the chair of the zoning board
of adjustment I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair Ms. Carol
Tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snow
Our board administrator, Yvette Brown, and our board attorney, Ms. Sharon Saleta, are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
second we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be
available to the public on the web or otherwise third for anyone participating by phone if you
wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat that as well.
To enter an apparent statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address.
2 7 0 5 5 4 8 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'd also like to remind everyone at this time, please do not attempt to talk,
testify in the chat. Any comments should be directed to Miss Yvette Brown.
Benton, excuse me, I keep saying Brown. Yvette Benton, I apologize, Yvette, must be directed to her.
with that i will now read off a list of requested continuances for the 330 hearing list
number two on our list mi 2020-001-225-1329 levick street
and MI 2020-002-368-826-SOUTH VOGDES STREET.
If anyone objects or has a concern about the two cases I read in to be continued
at this time, please raise your hand.
there are no hands at this time chair thank you uh if anyone at this time would like to request
a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand chair we have sloan folks
mr folks you can unmute yourself and speak now good afternoon mr folks uh please identify yourself
for the record you're still under oath afternoon chairman tico so thank you sir sloan folks office
of councilman maria canyona sanchez room 508 city hall um i would we would like to request
a continuance for case number mi20200007102843 north water street um this is their third listing
and they have yet to meet with the uh coordinating rcl thank you sharon do we have any exhibits
we do not and it is the third listing yeah so okay mr folks what we're going to do is dismiss
this case so mi 2020 that's 000 710 2843 north water street is dismissed
thank you sir have a good day you too dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed
miss anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand
there are no hands at this time chair thank you um i have a clarification for mi 2020-002561
100-02 West Ashdale Street. The Board voted this, voted last week to approve this case
with provisos, including a proviso limiting the variance to a two-year period. We'd like
to now clarify that the temporary variance will expire April 1st, 2023.
And we now also have a resumption hearing for MI 2020-002-459-3445 Division Street.
And I want to apologize personally to Ms. Alderfer.
I mistakenly closed down the hearing.
I think I wouldn't see her hand or whatever, but I apologize for any inconvenience to you.
and the folks who may have been waiting on the call.
Carol?
Chair, if we could confirm that the vote taken last week is vacated.
The record is reopened for this resumption hearing.
Noted, thank you.
Is this the resumption hearing now?
Calendar number 2459-3445 Division Street.
Madam Vice Chair, we have a mic.
Looks like Whittier with his hand up.
I don't know if he's the attorney or the owner.
I just saw Sarah.
No, it's Sarah Alderweire.
Oh, Sarah.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, Sarah Alderfer, S-A-R-E-H-A-L-D-E-R-F-E-R, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia.
I'll swear you in again.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents?
yes you may proceed before you begin sarah is the sonographer able to hear
are you able to hear mr otherford yes so far so good thank you thank you great
Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Board. I appreciate the Board's working with us on this issue and
getting us rescheduled for today's hearing as soon as possible so that we can continue.
By way of summary review, since this is a resumption hearing, I won't go through
everything from the beginning in deference of time, but just so that the Board
to remind the board as to where we are in this matter
we are the developers of 3445 division street which is in the east falls neighborhood of the
city we are coming here today with the proposal of one page of revised plans and our revised plans
were done in order to accommodate comments made by the community at the first meeting on this matter
and then there was a second meeting where we presented these revised plans to the community
and just to give a rundown as to the main changes we revised the plan down from the proposed three
units down to two units we increased the size of the proposed rear yard from zero to seven feet
we changed the we brought down the overall height of the building and is now below a by right height
we we moved the pilot houses to eliminate the pilot house refusal so where we have originally
had four refusals on this application we are now proceeding with only two refusals one for the
front access parking which is not which is prohibited in the rsa5 zoning district and one
for the size of the proposed parcels. The minimum lot area in the zoning district is 1,440 square
feet. Our original proposed lot area was 603 square feet, and we have increased our proposed
lot area from 603.5 square feet to 905.25 square feet. In terms of the size and characteristics
of this lot. Scrolling down to the photos, let me just zoom in a bit. The property presently exists
as a non-conforming one-story garage, and we are proposing to demolish the existing
non-conforming use and structure, which encompasses 100% of the lot area, and replace it with these
two houses. The lot is unique in that it is the only lot on that side of Division
Street which is not a through lot to Sunnydale Avenue back here. So to scroll
in on the zoning maps. Our lot is here and the remaining lots on this portion of
Dividend Street which is not a through street it's a dead-end street are go
through to Sunnyside Avenue whereas our lot does not. In addition our lot is
49 feet and 8.5 inches wide but only 35 feet six inches deep which creates limitations in terms of
developing uh what would be one single family home here we met with the community as i said earlier
on multiple occasions um since the last hearing to update the board we uh we attempted to reach
out to the community because we made committed to compromise. However, we were not able to reach a
compromise, and the RCO, East Falls Community Council, informed us that what they originally
supported a two-unit plan, but they stepped back third floor. They were now unwilling to support
two units and would only support one unit, and I have submitted to the board, which I'm showing now,
on supplemental exhibits. The first exhibit is posting photos for today's hearing to provide notice which were posted on
photos for today's hearing to provide notice which were posted on March 5th at the request of
counsel for the zoning board and then I've included the second supplemental exhibit is the
correspondence with the RCO in which they indicate that they are now no longer willing to support
any sort of two-unit plan but only looking for a one-unit plan here. So I'm happy to answer any
questions or go into detail further but you know in deference to everyone's time um my understanding
that the assumption hearing was that we were going to you know hear more from your comments
and listed anywhere in the meantime when we try to work out whether or not we can have a compromise
here um so that's my understanding of the broad strokes of where we were the purpose of today's
hearing. However, I would like, with me today is the developer, Jason Kater, but also on the phone
is the principal of Newbrook Group, LLC, who is the owner. So I'm going to ask him to raise his
hand and unmute himself so that he can adopt any statements that I've made. So Rich, if you could
raise your hand on the Zoom or if you're on the phone by pressing star nine and then star six to
unmute yourself. What is the person's last name? Bauman, B-A-U-M-A-N. Okay. Mr. Bauman, you can
unmute yourself and speak now. Hello, can you hear me now? Yes. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify
yourself for the record spell your full name and i'll swear you in thank you it's richard bowman
r-i-c-h-a-r-d b-a-u-m-a-n do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do thank you miss uh albert fair thank you um mr bowman um have you heard my
statements today i have um and did you hear my statements in this matter at the prior hearing
on February 10th? I did. Were they true and correct? Yes. Do you adopt the measure? I do.
Thank you. I'll defer. Did I hear you correctly? Originally, you had three units. You're down to
two. That is correct. Was that testified at the first hearing? It was. Okay. I'm just trying to
refresh my memory uh 38 foot height you're removing the pilot house correct correct originally there
were um three pilot houses one for each of the units now the pilot houses have are the half
pilot house style which are which don't extend past the top of the route the parapet so if they're
not visible from the street so they're technically there but they're set back from the let me just
find let me just go to the floor plans where you can more easily see the elevation or the elevation
but like you can see here on the elevation that you cannot see the pilot houses beyond the parapet
line because the pilot houses are set back five feet from their rear but also um set down from
front so that the top of the pilot house is even with the top of the parapet um and our total group
height is 33 sets and with the three foot six inch parapet that brings the overall parapet height to
uh 38 feet am i correct in understanding that these revisions that were proposed uh the
community is still opposed to the project uh that's correct there's a letter of opposition
at Exhibit 2 from East Falls Community Council, and I would imagine that there are neighbors
here who wanted to speak in opposition as well. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that
I had my facts straight. Any questions from the board? No. No.
Okay, we'll now open it up. Anyone that would like to testify in this case,
please raise your hand and give us your full name and address and then I'll swear you in.
chair we have a mike whiter mr whiter you can unmute yourself and speak now
uh hi please identify yourself full name my name is mike whiter m-i-k-e whiter w-h-i-t-e-r
your address 3468 division street thank you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed so i live directly across the street from um from this
property uh i don't know if i can share my screen here or not but i have a video um i have a couple
um I have a couple of concerns um yeah I'm not I don't see any button to share my screen but my
of concerns um
main concern here uh is the garages um Division Street as has been mentioned is an 11 foot wide
street um I have a video of a truck pulling out of the existing garages where he has to
um actually back up twice in order to turn out of the garage uh had my trash cans not been on
the curb that day he would have driven over my curb onto my sidewalk which is already broken
and cracked from people driving on it because it's an 11 foot wide street and people park on
the side of the street i don't personally park in front of my house because of the condition of my
sidewalk. I have a driveway, but my sidewalk is demolished from cars pulling up on the sidewalk,
pulling up on the curb. And it's going to cost me money at the end of the day. The other concern I
have with the garages is that when you're pulling out of these garages, people are going to have to
pull in forward. It's an 11-foot wide street, like I said. And when you're pulling out of the garage,
you're pulling out blind backwards into this street dead-end street that people do fly down
like you're talking it's a short dead-end street people still fly down 25 miles an hour
okay so you're backing up into the street it's dangerous uh and two of those garages it's
dangerous and and it's ruining my property sir i saw you just put your hands up in the air
i know you don't necessarily care i do i paid a lot of money hey wait a minute back off
Excuse me. I got it, Carol. Sir, do you know why I put my hand up?
No, sir, I don't.
Well, I'm sitting at a table in my house conducting these Zoom hearings, and I just want to kind of balance myself on my table.
All right, sir.
I'm glad you didn't follow.
We do care. You don't know. I don't care. You don't know me.
You don't know me either.
All right, then talk about the case.
Hey, sir, talk about the case. Let's go.
my my problem as i said is with the garages my other problem as i've stated in the past
is with you know with this being such a uh a narrow street a 35 foot building is going to
block the light out from the front and the back i'm not going to have any light coming in the
front windows of my house granted the sun does not shine directly through the front windows of
my house, but any light is going to be blocked by those homes. And I know that my neighbors feel
similarly, so I'll let them talk now. When you bought the house, you had no light shining in?
Ma'am, when I bought the house, there was no building across the street from it, aside from
this garage. And there was plenty of light shining in because it's not being blocked.
The entire front of my house is going to be blocked by this now.
That and the garages. Okay, gotcha. Thank you.
Would you be opposed to one house?
I would not be opposed to one house with a potential for a setback garage
because I think a garage directly on the street is ruining my property and is dangerous.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
And I'm about to kind of balance myself again, so please.
Chair, we have a Mark Wildstein.
Mr. Wildstein you can unmute yourself and speak. Hello can you hear me? Yes sir good afternoon
please identify yourself for the record spell your full name and your address. My name is Mark
Wildstein. M-A-R-K-W-I-L-D-S-T-E-I-N. Hold on one second sir. Sure. We're getting feedback someone
has an open mic and I hear a bunch of kids in the background you can mute yourself that would be
helpful. Mr. Wildstein, please start again, please. Yeah, my name is Mark Wildstein, W-I-L-D-S-T-E-I-N,
first name Mark, M-A-R-K. I am- You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth. Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I am the owner of the property
directly behind these garages. I own three properties on Sunnyside Avenue, 3454, 56, and
1958. The garages, to the best of my knowledge, were at one time part of the properties that I
own, but were subdivided prior to my purchasing them. This is the only property on Division Street
that is a buildable lot. I'm not sure how it became a buildable lot, but that's neither here
are there this has got to be 30 it's over 30 years ago um my concern is uh one the fact that
So one, the fact that Division Street, again, is an 11-foot wide one-way street, and it is near impossible to get in and out of that street.
division street again is an 11 foot wide
I don't know how... Mike, who lives across the street from the garages, I mean, suppose he put bollards up on his sidewalk, which I suppose would be his right, since he owns the sidewalk and is responsible for taking care of them.
um now he's got to replace his sidewalks but if there were bollards there there's no way that
they could turn a car into or out of the garage that is proposed for two homes it's just it's
not possible the the the people that live on the street it's a dead-end street i don't know how
people i don't even know how people turn around in the street other than to pull onto the empty lots
that are part of the Sunnyside properties at the top.
So, I mean, this is, it's not a hardship.
It's a travesty to think that this thing
could possibly be two houses.
I mean, not to mention the fact that my properties
will be impacted by the height, of course.
But the truth of the matter is, you know,
if it's done by right and you can do one house,
there's nothing, I guess, you can do about it.
but the fact is that lot is not big enough to build two houses by right and you know i i'm just
a concerned i've been there 30 years do you reside in any of those three houses i do not
they're rental units and my tenants have all called me and said all right and i know that
has nothing to do with it right i appreciate i just want to know and uh yeah i'm very familiar
with dead-end streets. I live in South
Philadelphia. Right. And people
literally back, and it's almost
an entire block to get
parked on those streets. They back in
and they pull out. So, it's not
unusual. I'm not suggesting
that you accept
that, but I'm just, the reality
is it's not unusual. No,
but it's a particularly narrow street.
I mean, it's 11 feet
You and I
They both know a legal parking space is 10 feet.
Go to the 1800 block of South Watts Street in Philadelphia and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Anyway, thank you for your testimony.
Is there anyone else?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Here we have Hillary Langer.
Ms. Langer, you going to meet yourself and speak now?
Hi, Ms. Langer, good afternoon.
Please identify yourself, spell your first and last name, and provide us with your address.
My name is Hillary Langer.
I am the chair of the East Falls Community Council Zoning Committee.
Spell your first and last name, please.
Hillary, H-I-L-A-R-Y, Langer, L-A-N-G-E-R.
And I live at 3567 Indian Queen Lane in East Falls, just around the corner from this development.
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Please proceed. Can I get myself on camera and present an image? Yes.
I don't see the camera option. So you're just going to have to.
Sir, can you try to hover along the bottom of your screen and see if you see the green share screen button?
He's not promoted. Oh, I'm so sorry, Tanya.
So, sir, are you going to present a picture that you're...
Yeah, no, I'm going to present a picture across...
Sir, I'm asking a question, okay?
Are you using the device where the picture is on?
Okay, so then we'll promote you to panelists,
and you can use that to present on the screen.
he's been promoted to panelists
someone has an open mic with babies in the background
that's our co-host sir that's her daughter
oh okay sorry for the inconvenience no babies all right no problem
Sorry, it looks like I got muted.
Can you hear me now?
can you hear me now yes you uh you testified at the first hearing uh yeah but i i didn't get
You testified at the first hearing.
Thank you.
through yeah but no i thought someone presented the same uh aerial photo uh aerial view that
you're proposing now right this is uh different it's had more information and i do want to be
very clear this is not a measured drawing okay all right thank you it's not meant to be representative
it's google shots by definition it cannot be so it is just a uh information of uh what's there
um the how the building is going to be situated right across the street in the back of all these
homes uh some of the local residents here uh on the line here have given me their property data
They're 24 feet to the roof line, 22 feet to the roof line.
They have 1,500-foot plots, lots with single-family homes.
Some of them here are 2,000 square feet.
This street does not have the benefit of protection by an NCO,
which would have enabled us to negotiate some of the daylight
requests that we had on the street. This is an accurate drawing. It is calibrated
and drawn accurately. This is Mike Whiter's house across the street with a 24-foot high parapet.
This is their proposal to bring their house down to 37 feet to a parapet.
At that point, they did not want to provide any further concessions, either relating to a glass picket or a setback,
which is typically something that you have to do in an NCO on such a narrow street.
so the overwhelming census of the neighbors is to go to a single family dwelling now
but i do want to point out a couple more things the street is 11 foot 6 wide
there's a right-of-way this is all from the development plan there's a right-of-way here
which is four foot three off the curb and their actual building is proposed to be four foot three
on their right-of-way from the curb, according to their plan. So this makes this, I'm actually not
sure the minimum width of a sidewalk, but it's a narrow sidewalk. And they're also proposing within
their plans to build a light well, which would go pretty much up to the curb. So this actually
compounds the parking issue even further. So I don't know if you can see this. This is one vehicle backing out of an open parking space onto the sidewalk.
These are the cars that park outside Mike's and Farhan's homes. This red line here is where
the face of the proposed building is going to be built. So any garage here is going to be even
closer to the curbs and any parked cars on the sidewalk. So you're going to see more of this
And it's actually going to be worse than this because the building line is close.
Next shot, Mark Wildstein had spoken about his rental units.
This is the back of the garages.
And the actual property line is over towards Mark about another foot or so.
so the seven you know their original scheme came up 42 feet right straight up they had full build
out to the full lot lines we said we'd rather see two or one home on the lot with the expectations
that with two we could really negotiate on heightened setback that really didn't come
and meet the needs of addressing daylight.
So this is the situation in the back
and the hardship that is going to be caused
with any kind of dwelling here.
This is further down Division Street,
not relevant to this project,
but it's typical of the kind of hardships
that are caused by the zoning code without an NCO.
the zoning code without an NCO. So having said all that, we've come to the conclusion
So having said all,
and the neighbors are unanimous that they would like to see a conforming single-family
house on this lot that meets lot size requirements and without a garage because the garage
at this close to the curb
and with more than likely a light well
coming out to the curb
which would be a feat of engineering
trucks, full-size trash trucks
passed down this street
so that's going to have to be heavily shored
so the overwhelming
opinion of the community
is that this should be a conforming single family
thank you so correct me if i'm wrong based on what you're showing us now if it was just a
single home as opposed to two would the property line issues still exist
uh yeah the the house is still going to go up at four foot three from the sidewalk
mr chairman if i may um our massing is actually coming in at below by right in the revised plan
because we're not building to the full building height if we were to build a by right plan
we could go to 38 feet to the roof line which would be even more of a issue i would imagine
for the neighbors than is currently um so massing is actually coming in at below what we could build
as of right. I missed a part of the last of that because you it sounds like you're in an echo
chamber. Yeah sorry our conference room is quite large. Just our massing is actually below by right
as of right we could build from property line to property line and then 38 feet high.
Right now we're only building to 33 feet six inches high to the roof so what we're proposing
is actually below what a guy right would look here understood and is that an accurate description
which what we're looking at now that the property line would be four foot three inches from the curb
uh not to my knowledge no um uh if uh to my knowledge that is not an accurate description
i didn't draw this plan i this is the first time i'm seeing it so um we're gonna i can't
you have an architect or somebody somebody could speak to that
like from the curb line back what is the what would the side the width of the sidewalk be
under your proposed plan it's shown on our revised plan as uh three feet wide
it would be less than what we're seeing now
no it's four foot three excuse me it's it's four foot three wide i can't read uh this what
what mr langer's dimension say uh his say four foot three that's what i'm at so he's it's correct
then the property line would be four foot three from the curb line
I have a question, Mr. Chairman. I'm not clear on, aren't there existing garages?
Are they tearing it down and building new ones?
That is correct. It is an existing garage with three bays and we would be demolishing
the existing structure to erect the new homes.
It looks like from the picture, the sidewalk is much more than four feet.
It does.
Why can't you build on top of the garage?
You use the garage as the ground level, right?
Correct.
Correct.
i mean to tear down the garages and move it out look like three feet i don't get
the logic behind it i i believe that there's confusion here because the it
because my understanding is that the existing garages are in fact
on the property line um however and we're recessing the garages one feet inside the
property line as well yeah mr cute and mr putera has informed me that the garage doors are going
Doors are going to be recessed inside the property line, one foot.
to be recessed inside the property line um
At this present time, I do not believe that this current curve is actually at the edge, is at the edge of where the...
The red line is where the proposed window wells would be.
then it does shrink the it would shrink the sidewalk down so this is an accurate description
correct of what would be so the red line would be the proposed um extension of a
excuse me excuse me could you just spell your name before you speak sir thank you i'm sorry
Jason, J-A-S-O-N, Q-T-A-R, C-U-T-A-I-A-R.
And I'll swear you in.
You're swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Sharon.
So, yeah, just to clarify this picture, so taking it in effect,
which I believe the turning radius was approved by the streets department
beforehand, but as well as not only would we be widening the existing garage doors to help
any potential car just making the turning rate easier, we're recessing the garage doors
from the current property line in 12 inches to even further help, you know, any turning
rates concerned by, you know.
Excuse me, counselor.
Excuse me, counselor.
Do you have a site plan?
Can you put it up on the screen?
At present, I am not able to share my screen while Mr. Langer is sharing his.
Mr. Langer, do you have anything?
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Can you enlarge the site plan?
just a little more
is that large enough or would you like it larger
that looks good just a little bit so i can read the numbers
so you're proposing three feet ten inches
uh i'm sorry mr holliman can you repeat the question looks like three foot even than me
okay so that's proposed egress well grade per per code um you need three foot clearance
oh you you're putting why are you putting egress windows the floor plans have the living below
grade uh yeah there is a living space that's below grade so there's um egress walls that
are provided in the front and in the rear.
Someone mentioned, I think your client mentioned that the garage doors would be set back.
yeah that doesn't do that does i understand why you're doing it for the
turn-in but it really doesn't do anything to the property line
correct i believe the point that just got a little confusing prior thinking that we were
trying to extend the property line on the sidewalk which we weren't you know just with
the neighbors comments um about cars turning out so that was just a kind of clarify yeah understood
and at a point in time i would just like to note that our lot is only um 35 feet six inches deep
so to have a co-compliant rear yard and also set back the front um would create even more of a
squeeze in terms of the depth of the homes but also that um setting the homes back from the
property line depending on how far the neighbors are proposing would create might create an additional
um be neighbors or for prison or it might create an additional marriage
counselor i understand what you're trying to do
but the sidewalk is not big enough to put egress windows in
we can eliminate those that's that was just proposed
you need three feet for the egress and you need another three feet for the walking pedestrian path
correct i mean we're here talking about it they were preliminary proposed e-press wells
we'd be happy to revise the pants again to eliminate the e-press
thank you
any other questions before we go back to the public comments yeah I want to know where where
would if there were no garages where would people where do people park other than on the sidewalk
there's only one car on the sidewalk and then there's a car that looks like an escalade
there's further down the street if you look Carol there are multiple cars on the sidewalk
i can't see that far yeah so uh at present there's no legal parking on division street
um the times that i've been out there i've observed cars parking on the sidewalk which
may or may not be legal um and then in terms of on our side of the street um a lot of those rear
yards for the sunny dale avenue homes are actually parking so the people that live on sunny dale
park off of Division Street.
They come up Division Street and they turn into
a kind of a backlog.
Okay. Thanks, Sarah.
Yeah, the issue
of people parking on the sidewalk
that was brought up by the gentleman across
the street, concerned about
people coming in and out of these proposed
garages, that problem
obviously already exists.
I mean, the only way to cure that
is to prohibit parking on that street and I'm not suggesting that but that's a situation it's
probably been going on for a hundred years and it's not going to go away is this this
this proposal is not going to change that uh anyway anyone else would like to testify in
this case please raise your hand here we have uh Linda Norris you can unmute yourself and speak
New and different would be helpful.
Good afternoon, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with a record name and address, and I'll swear you in.
Linda Norris.
Tell your last name, please.
Linda, L-I-N-D-A, Norris, N-O-R-R-I-S.
And your address?
3422 Division Street.
Thank you.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
i do sir thank you please proceed yes uh just i just want to say i'm the block captain of division
street and true cars do park on the right hand side of division so to allow the people on sunny
side to park in the rear like you know the whole city the parking issue my biggest concern of being
a block captain i'm hearing i feel bad for mark for the tenants in those three apartments when
she builds this unit or unit whatever the house one or two
it's going to be directly like I said in their backyard
there will be no privacy for those tenants
them three houses there on Sunnyside
I don't know how they say it's Division Street when it's right in the rear
of Mark's backyard first of all and then
across the street Division to take their sunlight away so
I'm just saying, to be fair, if I had my way, I definitely
would oppose this whole plan. I don't think it's fair. It just
offsets the whole street. And I feel bad for those tenants and Mark
that live there because they're literally building right in the backyard
of that property. And for the neighbors
across the street to take their sunlight away, it's wrong.
But more Mark and those tenants that live there,
the three there's six apartments there will be no privacy there's sunlight the air they're going
to be practically on top of them this is so wrong my opinion only thank you anyone else to testify
yeah we have far hands so how we mr so how we you can unmute and you can speak now yes hello
hi identify yourselves by your first and last name and provide us with your address
Hi, identify yourselves by your first and last name and provide us with your address.
Sure. My name is Farhan Sahawneh. That's F as in Frank, A-R-H-A-N. Last name is Sahawneh, S as in Sam, A-H-A-W-N-E-H. And I am the homeowner at 3466 Division Street. I am Mike's neighbor.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
thank you please proceed um while it may not it may not be relevant i do just want to say very
briefly that mike is a wonderful neighbor who has put his life on the line for me uh when i
shortly after i moved in uh to my house so uh great neighbor but um i i just want to echo um
what everybody has said so far um i know it's it's not really a legal reason but i do i do
enjoy the light that comes into my house I do enjoy the view of the sky from from my windows
but but really the major issue here is that the street is distinctly narrow I know that's been
said another thing Mr. Chairman I know you had mentioned something you had said something like
the problem with parking has probably been there there are actually not any front-facing garages
of that proximity anywhere else in that street so this would be a new sort of sort of issue
what i excuse for the interruption what i was referring to that people are parking on the
sidewalk and they're damaging sidewalks so you can't blame it on this you can blame it on this
these two garages or three garages but it's not because of them there's other cars that are causing
creating that same problem that problem for the sidewalks on the other side opposite side of the
street the side that you live on i i see i see i see your point um that's all i was trying to make
okay okay thank you sir um you know uh i think when when one when one walks around the neighborhood
of east falls one sees um that you know while there are buildings of this size in the neighborhood
None are built quite in the same proximity directly across of other homes.
I know maybe that's the case in other parts of the city.
It's not here, and this is probably why it's not enjoying the support of the community.
I'm here.
I'm much younger than those who have lived here for decades.
I'm rather new to the neighborhood.
I'm here to speak not just for myself, but for them.
These are smart people who know why they feel the way they do about this.
And I just want to voice my support for the community and speak up against this as it's being proposed.
And that's basically it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify?
This is Mike Weider again.
And I just want to make.
There's no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Board.
This is Paula Brumbelow-Burns from the Planning Commission.
I have not been sworn in.
I know. Paula, please identify yourself.
You did identify yourself.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
please proceed okay let me get to my page the comprehensive plan recommends this property for
single-family use and there is no evidence of a unique physical circumstance that would support
a claim collection additionally the proposed three lots are undersized and out of character
with the surrounding properties and so small that they cannot meet the open space and rear
yard requirements of the zone code we recommend that the board deny the requested variance
thank you mr chairman yes sir can i ask the counselor a question a couple two questions
sure yeah uh counselor is that street a legal street yes it is legally open and on the city
plan another question is have you reviewed the egress windows with the street department
the egress wells on the the proposed egress wells i'm sorry is that what you're asking
yeah you need streets you need streets review to use a sidewalk for egress opening
uh the streets department has not reviewed the new proposed egress well okay thank you
and if i could just very quickly respond to uh planning's commission's comment
And if I could just very briefly respond to Planning Commission's comment, I just believe that there's some confusion here.
In hearing the testimony of the Planning Commission, they seem to be responding to the three-unit plan, which was the original proposal, and not to the revised two-unit plan.
Is that accurate, Paula?
um i was looking at the original refusal but we still uh don't find a hardship for two lots or two
lots because they wouldn't even be allowed two lots by the zoning code the property is not big
enough so we are still at one lot thank you okay anyone else on the board no okay no all right
MI 2020-002-459-3445 Division Street. My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
I think we go now, Carol, to number one, Lycoming Street.
yes calendar number 0666 1216 West Lycoming Street
anyone here for 1216 West Lycoming
there are no hands at this time chair thank you MI 2020 that's 000666 1216 West Lycoming my vote
is to dismiss. My vote is to dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss. Thank you. Calendar number
2760-1640, Edgley Street. The attorney is Steve Masters. No, excuse me. Carol? Yeah, are we?
You skipped. You had a good number two, Levick Street? Yeah, I thought that was continued. Oh,
right. My apologies. You're right. Okay. Sorry about that. Next time I'll put my hand.
We talk like that because we're Italian. Mr. Masters. Mr. Masters has been promoted to
panelists. Hi. Can you put your name and address on the record, please? Yes. Good afternoon,
Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Steve Masters, the attorney for the applicant from the law firm of JustLaws, 621 West Mount Airy Avenue in Philadelphia.
Thank you. Do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, photos, and or plans of the property, refusal or referral, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of your questions.
Thank you, and you may proceed.
um good afternoon we're here on four properties today it's a scattered site development and these
are numbers three four five and six on your agenda uh the first one that was just called
is 1640 edgley street uh the the second one is 1910 page street the third is 1938 page street
and the fourth is 2035 North 19th Street.
Could you hold one second, please?
Let me interrupt, Carol.
Should I read them all in?
No, just before you do that, Sharon,
on our notation, the Page Street properties,
we don't have any exhibits.
Did we get them?
Well, Mr. Chairman, we are withdrawing the appeals
on the two Page Street properties,
which is why we didn't submit any exhibits.
Okay, all right.
And then we can proceed.
So we're going to do 2035 North 19th and 1640 Edgley, correct?
And we're hearing them together.
Calendar number 3315, 2035 North 19th Street.
And there are letters of non-opposition on both cases.
actually for 2035 north 19th street there's a letter of support from the rco and for 1640
edgley street there's a letter of non-opposition both of the letters are also incorporating
three provisos that are located in exhibit five of both of our exhibit binders for these cases
um so let me share my screen
And let's go to, okay, starting with Edgley Street, so the project at Edgley Street is
and let's go to
an undersized 825 square foot vacant lot zoned RSA 5.
We are proposing to build a duplex with one two-bedroom and one three-bedroom apartment, which constitutes the least modification possible from the single-family use.
The proposed use also contributes positively to affordability. There's only one use refusal for two-family use and one dimensional refusal for 14% open space where 25% open space is required.
As you noted, the RCO has issued a letter of non-opposition based on our meeting and a couple meetings, actually, with the RCO and with the creation of provisos.
Let me just go to the provisos quickly.
so these provisos um involve first the withdrawal of the zoning appeals for 1910
and 1938 page street second we eliminated roof decks on the plans for both 19th street and
edgley street and we have revised plans that we are we've already submitted to your council with
the proviso form before this hearing. And the third proviso was that we will develop a trash
removal plan with the residents of each duplex, and we will also strongly support the community's
efforts to bring back twice a week city trash pickup in the neighborhood, which was something
that was strongly supported at those RCO meetings. So let me review for you the plans here.
uh this is the site plan uh make this all pure so we have the front elevation uh the rear elevation
and uh the the rear yard with the slightly smaller setback uh in terms of floor plans
we have the first apartment will be um in the cellar and the first floor
kitchen on the first floor
and then the second apartment is the second and the third floor
we have living space and bedrooms the kitchen is on the second floor for the second department
and we have some photos for you this is this is the lot in this area here
and photos of our zoning posting
And then our pro forma, our tax clearance, our deed, our application for appeal, our project information form, and the letter to the RCO and proof of mailing.
That is for Edgley Street and for North 19th.
These are very similar.
on north 19th we only have one use refusal for the two family we meet all the dimensional
requirements of the code in this case the RCO gave us a letter of support
This project was originally permitted as a single family home with eight bedrooms and
we are now converting it into a duplex which has said had three bedrooms in one unit and
which I said had three bedrooms in one unit and four bedrooms in another.
four veterans in another.
Here is the drawing with the neighboring property next door.
Our elevations.
And floor plans.
Apartment A is both the cellar and the first floor.
And then Apartment B is the second and the third floor.
This is photos of the corner lot for the 2035 North 19th and photos of the zoning posting.
The same provisos apply to both of these projects, and then we have the pro forma tax clearance,
the deeds, the application for appeal, the project information form, and the zoning RCO notice,
and proof of mailing.
Are there any questions from the board?
I can bring my client, Mr. Joseph, on to adopt and accept my testimony.
Let's do that, and then we'll see if there are any questions.
All right, sure.
Mr. Joseph, can you raise your hand and join us?
Joseph, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Hi, my name is Todd Joseph.
Good afternoon, sir.
How are you, Mr. DeChico?
I'm well.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
thank you mr master um good afternoon mr joseph you've heard my testimony this afternoon do you
agree that it's true and correct and do you accept it as your own i do
uh we have no further presentation to make members of the board but we're happy to
answer any questions thank you questions from the board no
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have a phone caller with the last four digits 6318.
Call or identify him or herself and spell your name and provide us with your address.
Caller, you can unmute yourself and speak.
can you okay good afternoon can you hear me yes your full name please okay Jacqueline
Wiggins j-a-c-q-u-e-l-i-n-e Wiggins w-i-g-g-i-n-s your address ma'am 1936
Page Street, P-A-G-E.
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
With respect to the withdrawal that Mr. Masters and Mr. Joseph spoke about, the withdrawal
of the zoning appeals for 1910 and 1938, I would just like to know that with those withdrawals,
withdrawals that should anything be built by Mr. Joseph that the two-story request of many of the
neighbors would remain in place that they would just the block would not go into any three-story
structure but it would remain a two-story structure is that correct? Ma'am I understand you want a
commitment but that would be something for the board if they were to decide to build and any
change in the agreement, they'd have to come in front of the board. They're right now withdrawing
any applications. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else?
there are no other hands at this time chair
There are no other hands at this time, Chair.
There are no other hands at this time, Chair.
Carol, would you call those?
I'm losing power.
I got to move again.
Hands up.
Hands up.
hands up watch your hands mr italian calendar number two seven six zero six ten forty
oh okay planning commission um first we have a question that or a comment and then a question
the comment is one of the provisos is that they would work diligently to get two day of trash
pickup. That's not a reasonable proviso that is either enforced or realistic to promise a community
that you can try. Excuse me, this is Sharon. That can't be added as proviso. It's only the revised
plans, but thank you. Yes, you are absolutely correct. I wanted to make sure that the neighbor
also was aware that that was not functional. If they're successful, I like to do the same thing
in my neighborhood so let me know how you get it done i've been here i've been here 18 years and
it's been a question for 18 years and never been a yes we're still hoping for street cleaning once
a month um the second question we have is that they've mentioned that page street was going to
be withdrawn but i don't have it written down as withdrawn so i just want to make sure that that
gets done yeah i'm going to read those into the right the chair is going to call it okay thank
you and then so our recommendation this property is indicated for residential single family
in the city's comprehensive plan and is zoned for that purpose. There are no unique characteristics
to this lot that would prevent the development of the lot in accordance with the permit for
single-family residential use and that has already been granted. The applicant has chosen to put eight
units at eight bedrooms and they don't need to. There is no requirement to maximize the amount
of bedrooms in a unit or a house. Further, while the size of the lot might warrant a variance for
open space, this is also a reason why a multi-family property would be inappropriate for this location.
Accordingly, the planning permission is opposed to the granting of the requested variances for Edgley and 19th Street.
Did you say eight bedrooms? I must have missed something.
Mr. Chairman, the eight bedrooms was permitted last year if it was a single family home.
They were issued a permit for an eight bedroom single family house.
we chose to change the design to make it much more compatible with the community and to make
it a duplex with three bedrooms in one unit and four bedrooms in another unit. So, Chairman,
that would be seven bedrooms total, two units versus one unit that would only allow three
unrelated individuals living together as a family unit. And that would include one bedroom in the
basement i believe yes yes so we are recommending for single family at this property they choose
to put in the amount of bedrooms while there is no code requirement to maximize your bedrooms or
minimize your bedrooms but we feel that two units is inappropriate could could i mr chair um have
mr joseph come and testify as to um why he is proposing the duplexes and what the community
has communicated to us around that. Thank you, Steve. One of the reasons that the community
supported this is because the lack of affordable housing in the neighborhood. And with one large
three-bedroom, I'm sorry, one large three-story, eight-bedroom, single-family house, it will only
allow for one family, where if, you know, the lack of affordable housing, everybody knows it's an
issue that's why we're proposing to do so the duplex in each we create four affordable housing
units that are smaller units rather than one large unit on each property and that's the demand that's
out there and there's very little supply it doesn't make sense to build a three-story eight-bedroom
single-family house there's next to nobody can that doesn't fit anybody's criteria where with
a three bedroom and a four bedroom and a two bedroom they all fit the criteria and the demand
that's out there and we all know what a problem the affordable housing is and this here we this
is an opportunity for affordable housing so were you sworn in yes yes yes okay
uh i don't want to belabor the point but i actually missed some of this i was losing power
so i apologize i'll move again um the bedrooms in the basement each unit each of the properties
the bedrooms in the basement each unit each of the properties has a bedroom in the basement
has a bedroom in the basement
just one with a single legal egress window well
just one one bedroom i can show them again yeah would you mind
um this one is
what's property let's see hang on let's see which address this one is this is 19th street
So we have the, this is the basement plan. We have a family room.
So on the 19th street, we don't have a bedroom showing in the basement. We have bedrooms on
the first floor and then we have the second apartment is starting at the second floor
and the third there's no no bedroom in the basement of 19th street correct right i thought i saw i i
thought i missed that all right on an edge of the street there is there is um there's the one
Oh, it's Edgley Street again.
So here's the Edgley Street.
You have a one-bedroom on the first floor of Edgley,
and the second bedroom is in the basement.
We have...
Yes, we have two bedrooms.
one has an oh excuse me steve hold on someone has an open mic we're hearing a radio or tv in
the background thank you sure so the the apartment on the basement and first floor of edgley there's
a bedroom on the in the basement and a bedroom on the first floor um edgley is a much smaller
lot um it's only 825 square foot lot and then for the second and the third floors
um on edgley there is one bedroom on the second floor in the kitchen in the living room and then
there's two bedrooms on the third floor
i'm starting not to start over again but does the board have any other any questions no no
any commission yes we would like to add that while they can say they want affordable housing
They have not said that they were going to what AMI level that they were going to do
or that it would be de-restricted, which means there is no guarantee that once they are built
that they will remain affordable.
So it is a concern of the Planning Commission.
We would prefer them to follow what's in the zoning code on mixed income housing bonuses
and opportunities.
Well, there isn't mixed income housing bonuses for RSA 5 zoning facility?
You are correct, but we would like your applicant to deed restrict this then, like an RM1 would require.
And hence, that's why we're recommending for single family on the single family lot.
So are you saying that you would support this application if there was a restriction for workforce housing?
No, we were asking if the board approves it, that there would be a deed restriction.
A lot of people use the term affordable housing, but there is no guarantee to follow through on it.
And so we really like to make sure that the board has the option to be able to, that it gets followed through on.
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
I think that's something that would have had to have been worked out in advance.
It's not something that the board can add as a proviso.
uh we can do a resumption hearing steven you can work some of that out
if that's your um if that's your suggestion mr chairman and suggesting that and
because of the planning commission raises a good issue an important issue
excuse me just to be sure that I
for my notes that I get the planning commission recommendation correct
Paula your recommendation is that it be denied and the alternative is that if it is to be
approved as duplexes that a deed restriction be entered into by the parties is that correct
We would still go for single family, but if the board is, we always recommend to applicants and the board that there should be some kind of a legal restriction, making sure that these units will stay reportable.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
All right, you know what, I'm going to close the record on this, and the Board of
You know what?
I'm going to close the record on this, and the board will discuss it at our next executive session next Wednesday.
And we can work on possible provisos between now and then.
All right.
Does that work, Sharon?
Yes, that's fine.
Thank you.
Okay, so MI 2020-002-760-1640 Edgley Street and MI 2020-003315-2035 North 19th Street.
The record is closed.
The board will discuss this at its next Wednesday session, which would be the whatever day that is.
It's Wednesday, the 17th, I believe, correct?
Okay, thank you.
And let me, I don't think we did this earlier,
or maybe if we did, I apologize.
MI 2020-002762-1938 Page Street is withdrawn.
And MI 2020-003315-2035 North, nope, excuse me.
MI 2020-002761-1910 Page Street is withdrawn.
Did I get both of them?
Yes, you did.
I think we now go to...
Number eight.
Number eight.
Calendar number 1124, 4055 Richmond Street.
Tanya?
Excuse me.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, there was some confusion with this case. A case that Sean Ward was handling
was voted for the same property for the same use. This application preceded that one. I'm not sure
whether this needs to be dismissed
or, Ms. Sunkit, do you?
Yes, this was a different
application
made by a different attorney.
We do.
I can't understand you.
How about now?
Okay, so this was
an application made previously
by a different attorney
and it was continued
on multiple occasions and it was
brought over from hansen but we have not had any correspondence so if the board wishes to dismiss
then that would be fine because they really already kind of handled it with a different attorney
thank you it's likely moot in any case since the use was approved right all right so mi2020-001124
4055 Richmond Street is dismissed. Dismissed.
Dismissed.
I think that's everything, right? That's it.
Any unfinished business? If you could just announce and ask whether anyone
is waiting for a case that hasn't been called. Okay, is anyone waiting for a case that hasn't
yet been called please raise your hand there's no hands at this time chair okay so that'll
conclude our sessions for today i want to thank everyone and especially those folks
behind the scenes who make all this happen