We'll review the correspondence from the East Kensington Neighbors Association.
It was not that well attended the meeting.
Only nine individuals showed up.
It was a close vote. More people voted in opposition to the project than in support, but there was support in the room.
We also, based on the comments that we received from the community that were at that meeting, we revised our plans.
We reduced the height of the building. We reduced the unit count of the building as well.
So we think that we're falling closer in line with the spirit of the Philadelphia Zoning Code as compared also to the surrounding neighborhood.
In addition, after the meeting, we did make a concerted effort to meet with some neighbors nearby who are in support of this project.
And I have a few letters of support in our packet of materials.
Then we'll review maps of the area, specifically the zoning map, which you'll see that we are RSA 5, but, you know, we do have a decent amount of non-single family use in close proximity to this property.
Then we'll review photographs of the property in this around the area, sample interior photographs.
So Mr. Alidad is a well-known property developer in the city of Philadelphia, and he has done many projects in the city, and you'll see some renderings of some of the work product that he's done that he wishes to put into this property.
Then we'll review the plans and drawings, which will show that instead of eight units as proposed, we're requesting six units.
Then our RCO meeting notice and proof of email of that notice, as well as mail of that notice
to surrounding property owners, our applications for appeal that we filed to the ZBA, our deed
to the property showing that Sansan Development LLC is the owner of the property, and our
certificate of tax clearance.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Ali Dodd virtually raise
his hand and be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him about my presentation.
So the first things first is the notice of refusal. We are an RSA-5 property, and originally we were looking to put eight units in this double-wide property, which is almost 1,800-square-foot lot.
After communication with the RCO and in the community meeting, we have proposed to put six units.
Again, if this was an RM1 property and there's many examples nearby of RM1, we would be allowed four units as of right.
Clearly, density is preferred.
Even in this part of the neighborhood, when we met with the coordinating RCO,
They even said that they had no issue with the additional density, just not to the point of eight units.
So just to highlight, if this is an RM1 property, four units would be allowed as a right.
We're proposing six.
In addition to the use variances, there are some dimensional variances, such as occupied area, rear yard setback,
and the fact that we're technically on a two-story block in the sense of there's a two-story structure to the left and right of us.
we're required to be set back. The only thing I would say as to that, it's uncommon in this part
of the neighborhood to have two-story structures. So essentially, we're unlucky because if you look
across the street, there's a huge apartment building across the street from us. So if we
were across the street, we wouldn't be subject to that requirement. As far as the open area and
rear yard setback requirements. The properties that we back up into, they have a 31-foot rear
yard setback themselves, plus there is also a four-foot alley as well. So, we're not taking
anyone's light and air in that respect. So, there's a de minimis impact to the surrounding
properties for those dimensional variances. But again, I can understand that the board may have
some concerns about that. And again, we wish to put a multifamily structure here and we
understand if there are limitations in that respect as well. So this is the correspondence
So, this is the correspondence we received from ECNA, East Kensington Community Association.
we received from ACNA.
And, again, I think the letter, you know, echoes what I'm saying.
They weren't against multifamily use.
What they're against was the amount of multifamily use.
They thought eight units was inappropriate under circumstances.
You know, I can hear what they're saying.
And that's why my client has now proposed six units to decrease the density of this project by 25%.
Again, if this was an R-in-1 property, this would be four units.
Again, it's out of character on this side of letterly to have such a large lot of 1,800 square feet.
So clearly, and again, if you will look at the zoning map of the area and uses around there, it's not out of character to have multi-use, a multifamily use there.
So we're asking for the board to consider that when voting on this matter as well.
Where we're proposing six, RM1 would allow for four.
Let's make this a little smaller.
And as you can see here, this was a closed vote. Nine people attended the meeting. Six voted in opposition. Three voted in support. Again, when we attended the meeting, we actually thought it was very positive.
There were a few questions. People understood that this is a multifamily portion of the neighborhood for the most part, and we were actually surprised that we had opposition. We thought that the people in the room understood the project. I guess the issue was the amount of multifamily use there. Instead of having eight, they wanted a lesser amount, and I think we met that goal by reducing our project by a density of 25%.
And then this is our RCO, or excuse me, revised proviso plan form.
So if the board feels so inclined to grant our zoning variance request, we would ask that they grant it with a proviso revised plans.
We reduce the building height from 38 feet, which is allowed by right, to 34 feet to meet more of the two-story nature on our side of the block, which is uncommon in that part of the neighborhood.
But understanding that we are surrounded by two story structures, one to the left of us and one to the right of us, we reduced the unit count from eight units to six units.
And then we also even removed an elevator in the building to give us more room in there for the unit sizes as well.
And then this is just our plans that would be part of our proviso if the board feels so inclined to grant it.
And then we did get additional support from individuals that lived nearby.
So down the block in 1921, East Letterly, we got a letter of support.
And then also from Cross Street in 1918-20, East Columbrilland, we also got a letter of support.
And then if you look at the maps of the area, so we're yellow here, but there's CMX4 here, there's CMX2.5, there's RM1, there's IRMX.
So we're not in a clear single-family portion of the neighborhood.
And then as you can see here, we are half a block away from Kensington Avenue, which is a commercial corridor.
So we're trying to help support that commercial corridor with that increased density.
And then also we wanted to show you a map that we got from Atlas. You can see like our property overpowers that block in terms of lot size. We're over almost 1,800 square feet on that side of the block.
And what you can also see is the how far the buildings are set back on East Cumberland, such that like any, you know, additional lock coverage based on the building structure or the lack of the requisite rear yards, not going to cause much issues with the property owners on East Cumberland.
and then photographs of the property this is the front of the property it's a vacant lot right now
as you can see we're just there's a building structure to the left of us and to the right
of us which are two stories in nature you can see that a little bit here maybe we shouldn't
have cut it off so much but there there's a an apartment building right to the right of us a
newly constructed apartment building and then this is our property in 2008 so this property
has been vacant as far back as Google Earth will take us.
So it's been for over 15 years.
So it's been for over 15 years and for good reason, you know, single family cannot survive here, especially now with rising interest rates and the cost of construction and such.
And for good reason, you know, single family cannot serve.
And then this is proof of our posting for today's hearing. So you can see the orange notice posters.
And then this is east laterally to the right of the property, as you can see at the beginning of a parking lot for a big residential apartment building.
And then this is east literally to the left of the property.
And then this is the apartment building that's across the street, as you can see.
So we're not in a straight single-family part of the neighborhood.
And then the sample interiors, I always try to give an example when I have the ability to of developers.
This is what his work product would look like in this property.
So I always try to give samples of kitchens, bathrooms, and such.
And then our plans and drawings, again, we're well within the height limitation.
We actually went down, so we're only 34 feet.
But I'll go through the floor plans.
So the floor plans are pretty straightforward.
There's two units essentially per floor.
The first floor also has access to the lower level, but the first floor unit are both two bedrooms.
The remaining units on the second floor and third floor, which are two on each floor, are one bedrooms.
There is a trash room on the first floor for access to all of the units.
That was really important to my client to make sure he has a responsible trash storage and maintenance plan.
And then there's also a roof deck as well.
And then here's a proof of our mailing of our community notice. Again, we had our meeting on May 10th. We also emailed notice to the coordinating RCO, all other RCOs, as well as the council member zoning aid.
So, we emailed that on April 27th.
98 properties were also mailed this notice.
Those are the properties that were mailed the notice.
Proof of mailing to those properties, our application for appeal along with our notice of refusal and project information form.
Our deed to a property showing San San Development LLC is the owner of the property.
and our tax clearance certificate showing my client owes no real estate taxes for this property.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Ali Dodd virtually raise his hand.
Alan, before you take testimony from him, could you just mention a little bit why six is the least variance you can go to?
Well, so this is for the board to decide.
As I highlighted, if this was an RM1 property, four would be allowed as a right.
My client has proposed six units.
That's for the board to decide.
I think the community thought eight was too much.
We've gone down.
Again, if we walk by the property, builder users propose this to stick out like a sore thumb, or is it something that fits with new fabric in the neighborhood?
But having multifamily in this living in this part of the neighborhood is something that fits within the fabric of the communities.
How many units that would be, I defer to the board.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Your client?
Oh, yes.
Mr. Ali Dodd.
Can you virtually raise your hand?
It could also be Mr. Christian Sanchez.
I know his partner is sometimes online as well.
Oh, there we go.
There it is.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Hello.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Christian Sanchez, C-R-I-S-T-I-A-N, Sanchez, A-S-A-N-C-H-E-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Oh, yeah. Mr. Sanchez, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes, I did. And is it true and correct? Yes, it is.
And do you adopt as your own testimony? Yes, I do. Thank you.
Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No chair.
uh questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
i do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing residential single-family zoning.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim
with evidence of unique physical circumstances
or conditions of this property.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the zoning board deny the variance.
MI 2023 000 358 1845 to 47 East Lederle Street
I vote yes with revised plans one page stamp by ZBA October 11, 2023
four unit maximum four units
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes with proviso James Snell my vote is yes with proviso thank you thank
number three MI 2023 003 246 2990 Southampton Road
Carrie Nace
passed as the attorney
we were joining as a panel
yes sir
Good afternoon, Chair Carrie Nace-Poust, attorney with the law firm of Fox Rothschild, here
this afternoon on behalf of the applicant.
Just spell your name just for the court stenographer.
First name Carrie, C-A-R-R-I-E, last name Nace, N-A-S-E hyphen, Poust, P-O-U-S-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Cigars on Southampton LLC, and they are the equitable owner of the property.
Okay. Mr. Holleman has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate it to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required
five days in advance to this hearing? Yes, I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
A moment while I share.
Can you see my screen?
can you see my exhibits yes great thank you
as indicated uh the applicant on this matter is cigars on southampton llc they are an affiliate
of holt cigars also here with me this afternoon is satia levin who is the managing member
Max Bustos, who is the engineer on this project, and Jerry Roller, who is the architect on this project.
This property is located at 22990 Southampton Road, zoned I-1 Industrial.
Before you are the exhibits that we have submitted.
Exhibit 1 is a copy of the Notice of Refusal.
As indicated, we're seeking a use variance to use this property for a smoking lounge as well as retail sales, which we'll get into further in the testimony.
Exhibit number two is a copy of the application for appeal that was submitted to this board.
Exhibit number three is a copy of the agreement of sale showing standing to bring this application.
Four is confirmation that all real estate property taxes have been paid in full.
Five is a copy of the notice that was sent to the surrounding neighbors and property owners,
notifying them of this hearing as well as the meeting that was held before the rco
as well as a certificate of mailing confirming proof of mailing to each of those individuals
exhibit six are photographs confirming that the property was properly
Our photographs confirming that the property was properly posted, notifying of the hearing being held this afternoon.
Before you is a copy of the aerial plan.
Property here is identified with red.
it's located on South Hampton Road along Townsend Road as well this property was
formerly used as a bakery it has improved with an existing building as
well as surface parking lot exhibit 7 includes various photographs of the
property showing the current condition this is the existing building this
photograph shows area of the existing parking facilities. Here's another photograph of the