ZBA Hearing - October 11, 2023

Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.

Thank you.

Probably not a request you get often, but thank you for the indulgence of letting me go last today so that my client could be on the call.

so i hope you can see the screen now we see the screen sir all right so what you see in the center

here is 724 dickinson uh used to be 724 26 and 28 this has been a single building that's been

built uh since well before 1940 and i'll show that in a second so we're right along fronting

on Dickinson on South Franklin, one block off of South A Street. Here's the building in question,

goes all the way out, has vacant commercial first floor and four residential dwelling units

with commercial garage access off of South Franklin. And notably today, we are not asking

for any new construction or change in height or increase whatsoever. We're simply trying to

legalize the conditions that's been at the property for as long as city records show.

So we did go in front of Passy Young Square Civic Association. We got a letter of non-opposition.

Sorry, I should note, we got a letter of non-opposition. However, our original request

was that we would have a vacant commercial first floor

allowed to use CMX2 uses.

We agreed with Passy-Onk Square Civic Association

that we would reduce that variance request

from CMX2 uses to CMX1 uses.

So as part of the package,

and in case the board has any questions,

I just included from Table 14-602-2

the various differences between CMX1 and CMX2.

We are zoned RSA5, although as you can see, immediately across from us, which we are basically

the same type of building, and just next to us on the other side of Dickinson, the other

side of Franklin, rather, are all CMX2 uses.

I could not find a history of why our side was rezoned to RSA5 and the north side was

CMX2.

So as I said, we got refusals. Essentially, we have three refusals, one for multiple principal uses in a building that's not allowed in an RSA 5 district. Again, we have first floor commercial with four existing residential dwelling units.

No changes have been made.

It's an existing 23-foot tall building, and we are not looking to do any kind of new construction under this application whatsoever.

This is just for use.

So, again, the proposed commercial uses in CMX2 zoning are prohibited.

That was our request.

That was a correct refusal.

However, we are reducing our request from CMX1 to CMX, or from CMX2 rather, to CMX1 in accordance with the RCO and our agreement with them.

And then also we got a refusal for four-family residential because this is a single-family zoning district.

This you can see, this is the Philadelphia geohistory maps.

As far back as 1942, this building was built as a single building with commercial use and dwelling units above.

Go forward one map. They have them from 1962 as well. It's the same condition.

One of the members of the RCO stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for approximately 20 years.

And there's been no change in the condition in the 20 years that he's been there.

And the existing first floor commercial was previously an appliance use.

So it was a heavy industrial appliance repair shop and sales.

I'm showing now simply this is the street frontage.

You have a commercial lobby space.

This is existing.

This is not we're not proposing anything new.

a side storeroom, and then the large garage with the three bays and the parking use.

Again, all of that, all current uses for that are to remain.

So here I think is what gives the board the most context.

This is the building right at the edge.

It is detached along, that's the western side, and attached along its southern side.

It is detached along, that's the western side.

These are the three entry points along the garages along Franklin.

Dickinson is in the frontage.

You can see the commercial frontage here.

There's a separate doorway here that goes upstairs to three existing residential units.

and there is a an existing separate entrance for a one bedroom over here the four existing

residential dwelling units are there are two two bedroom units and two one bedroom units

there is no basement and there is no basement space for any of them living or commercial

so again we're just giving an example this is what's immediately across the street from us

This has been approved for a restaurant redevelopment recently.

So again, just some showing of the commercial status.

And here's what's immediately across the street as we go from the commercial openings.

And then we have, this is just an existing drawing, and I had that zoomed in for you.

to show the the overall outlay of the building again no new construction no change in the

envelope no no new height and here is the uh existing height showing 21 and a half feet

i've misspoke earlier saying 23 and a half it's 21 and a half feet

um from and this basement is just for the that first floor commercial space immediately under

the lobby only so with that i don't want to waste any of the board's time today because

mr well we had a question earlier the there's three units upstairs uh yes so and so where's

the fourth unit yeah um i apologize for rushing through that so no no no no no no here's it is a

little confusing so this is the commercial this is the street frontage along dickinson this is

commercial building right the red door has a single door entrance into a one bedroom unit

on the first floor right the second third and fourth entrance and fourth properties are upstairs

so also there's three upstairs and one downstairs yes three upstairs that

cover the entirety of the top floor okay there's a separate one bedroom here okay good thank you

if the board has no further questions for me and i know i was going quickly

i'll happily call uh kelly fox sure why don't you bring your client one

and while we're doing it i'll say the magic words for the board um i think a variance is certainly

warranted first and foremost we have an obvious hardship which is an existing building that has

been in existence in its current state for at least 80 years, with no change to the structure

or the size or building envelope. Therefore, it would constitute an extreme hardship to have to

demolish or significantly change the property in conformity with the underlying RSA 5 zoning

district. There is no detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare. This has long been

operated for the uses that we're seeking. And this is, I think, obviously the least minimum

variance because all we're doing is asking to legalize what's already there. We're not seeking

to expand anything above and beyond what is in existence at this time. Thank you. Ms. Fox?

Yes. Hi, Ms. Fox. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?

Yes, my name is Kelly Fox, K-E-L-L-Y-F-O-X.

Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Proceed, counsel.

Thank you. Ms. Fox, you're here on behalf of the owner and applicant, correct?

Yes.

And you heard all of the testimony that has been presented today?

Yes.

And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?

Yes. And would you adopt that testimony as your own? I would. Thank you, Board Chair. I offer

Ms. Fox to wear myself up for any further questions. Questions from the Board? No, Chair.

No, Chair.

Questions or comments from our Attorney Hillary Emerson?

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, since the applicant is in agreement with the CMX-1 uses, we can include that the board is granting a proviso just indicating the commercial space is approved for uses in the CMX-1 zoning district.

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, since the applicant is in agreement

Thank you.

And just to be clear, we are in agreement with that.

um and the only thing i would also like to be clear on is that the the three commercial door

openings will remain and and be permitted i don't believe that has any impact on on the zoning it's

it's solely the the use this is a use application so there's no uh structural building issues

thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience

i do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission

thank you chair berkman sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission

the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single family zoning

the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of the property

the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance

23-003-189-724-26 stickerson street i vote yes proviso one more time hillary

um he uh approved or um the commercial space is approved for cmx one

commercial space is approved for cmx one yes okay commercial space is approved for

CMX1?

Vote?

My

pitch.

James, my vote is yes

with proviso.

Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes

with proviso.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you,

counsel. Is there anyone in the...

Thank you, chairman.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the virtual audience who the two o'clock case has not been called?

I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.

Okay, so we're going to try to go straight through here.

And the reason we are, the first case on the 330 list, we only have two cases, I believe.

The first case, we have an interpreter.

So I want to try to get the interpreter out of here and move right through it.

So let me do the preamble here. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergen, and I will be chairing the 330 ZBA hearings. With me is our vice chair, Ismael Shahid.

Present, Mr. Chairman.

Our board member, Thomas Holloman.

Tom's having a hard time getting through. And our board member, James Snell.

Present, Chair.

Also present is Hilary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.

Here's our virtual format.

Be advised that proceedings are being recorded.

The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phil.gov.

For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.

If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.

to enter an appearance statement call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and address of the

property in question. And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments

or testimony. All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumkin.

Let's look at our schedule for the 3.30 list.

number two MI 2022 7105 Grays Avenue this case is continued number three MI 2023 001 748 143

East Shartnack, that case is continued. Number five, MI 2023-001-701-1639 Cecil B. Moore Avenue,

that case is continued. Number 7, MI 2023, 001-767, 6550 Musgrave Street,

that case is continued, attorney moving party. And number 8, MI 2023, 001-700-

MI 2023-001-700-1223 Belmont, that case is continued. Are there any comments relative

with

to the cases that I've just continued? Good evening, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hander.

Once again, I will be your co-host for the session. I do not see any hands for those cases.

Okay, thank you. And MI 2021-005-236-776 Martin Street, James Hellings and Jessica Rogers are the owners. We have no exhibits. This is the fifth listing. Is Jessica Rogers present?

Mr. Chair, I do not see anyone in the virtual audience answering to that name.

Okay.

So this is our fifth listing.

We still do not have any exhibits.

So MI 2021-005-236-776 Martin Street, I vote to dismiss.

James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.

Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.

We're going to go to number six first. MI 2022 004 682 530 West Cambry Street. Jose

Kajas is the owner applicant and we also have an interpreter. I would also mention that there's a

A letter of opposition from the RCO HACE, H-A-C-E, and a letter of opposition from Council Member Lozada.

The applicant did provide five signatures of new zoning of 530 West Cabrera.

Do we have an interpreter?

We're on line, sir.

Interpreter's on line?

Hello, sir.

Hello, sir.

My name is Daniel.

Could the interpreter state your name, please?

Yes, sir.

My name is Leonel Gillen.

Last name is spelled G-U-I-L-L-E-N.

Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I swear.

Thank you.

Mr. Cajas?

Cajas?

Señor Cajas?

Yes.

Sí, yo soy.

could you

have him say

do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

the whole truth nothing but the truth

señor lo vamos a juramentar señor José Cazas

yo voy a ser el intérprete ok

lo vamos a juramentar

señor Cajas usted

acepta decir toda la verdad

toda la verdad

solamente la verdad