And good morning everyone. Before I give the opening statement, we're going to wait a few
minutes to get our list together. We're waiting for Ms. Sunkit. She'll give us the green light.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Chair, we have about 30 people we're ready to proceed.
Thank you. Again, good morning, 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 Board Secretary,
Mr. Confessor Plaza, and board members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snow.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit and 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, for the benefit of anyone
participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking
or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. Fourth, 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'll 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 excuse me with that said we can begin but before the
vice chair our secretary calls our first case we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a
continuance or an appeal listed for this morning's hearing?
If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have attorney Henry Clinton.
Mr. Clinton, you can unmute and wait to be sworn in.
We did receive, Mr. Clinton's case is on the list of continuances that I sent you,
we received the request in advance. Okay, do we still need Henry or does Henry
Does Henry have anything to add? If so, Henry, please identify yourself for the record.
have anything to add? If so, Henry please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I don't have anything to add other than
it's the property address is 2301 North 8th and we're asking for a continuing to continue to
meet with the community group. Thank you, Henry. This is Sharon. That's number eight on your list.
Okay, so go ahead. MI-2020-00157. Excuse me. Try again. MI-2020-001577. 2301-13 North 8th Street is continued.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
We have Sloan Folks. Mr. Folks, you're going to mute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Mr. Folks. Please identify yourself with the records, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Chairman Tachico and the ZBA Board. My name is Sloan Folks, S-L-O-A-N-E, Folks, F as in fire, O-L-K-S, the Office of Councilor Maria Quinonez Sanchez, Room 508, City Hall.
Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Chairman DiCicco, on behalf of the RCO, who's also sent a letter, we are requesting a continuance for case number MI-2020-000349, 3009 North Front Street.
The applicant has met with the RCO, but the RCO, actually the meeting was held October 26th.
At the outcome of the RCO, the outcome of the meeting was that the RCO did not have enough
information to make a decision whether to support or to oppose the request.
um what they they requested several things from the uh applicants um uh in anticipation of a
secondary meeting um and one of the a few of those things include um more outreach to the
neighboring neighboring properties um a an ada um uh plan um as well as an idea of who is going to
be renters for the property thank you and that's a 3009 north front correct yes sir all right
is there anyone else uh related to uh 3009 north front street sure this is sharon saletta we did
receive the letters from the rco and the um and the councilwoman but since this is a third party
request if we could confirm whether anyone is here representing the applicant um we did not receive
exhibits one out there who represents the applicant no hands up at this time thank you so
mi 2020 dash 000349 3009 north front street is continued thank you sir thank you anyone else
uh real quick mr chair also if anyone here presenting the case today hasn't met with the
rco please come forward now and explain to the board thank you thank you confessor
chair there were also two additional cases that i emailed you though so recently you might not
have received them brown street or no north 15th 3649 brown street is the first one that's on your
add-on list they've requested a continuance also see number eight and number 14 okay that's high
Street, correct? Well, I'll add that in with the rest of the list when I read them off.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
We have Leo Mulvihill. Leo, you can unmute yourself and be sworn in.
Morning, Mr. Mulvihill. Please identify yourself with the records, spell your name.
Good morning, Leo Mulvihill, M-U-L, V as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L,
It's 2424 East York Street, Suite 111, Philadelphia, 19125.
I'm here today on 3649 and 3651 North 15th.
Correct.
Correct and you're asking for a continuance correct? Yes members of the board we had previously
And you're asking for a continuance, correct?
Yes, members of the board.
presented these projects to you after an initial community meeting where we were not allowed
sufficient time to present. We were given basically 10 minutes and then we were cut short.
We were asked to come back for a second meeting. There was a scheduling mishap whereas I was still
in front of the zoning board and I believe that the next community meeting was a different day
than it actually was. So I'm going to request that we continue to hold these until such time
that we can have our formal community meeting with the RCO. The ones we heard last week?
Chair, this is Sharon Saleta. These cases are listed on the add-on list that I sent you.
Yeah, we have that, but we heard these last week, if I'm not mistaken, correct?
Correct. Okay. All right. Is there anyone-
on 1014 I believe oh pardon me two weeks ago then two weeks ago all right thank you all right so MI
2020-000-551-3649-North15 and MI 2020-000-686-3651-North15 are continued
um chair i would ask um if this is tanya that um attorney movahill uh inform me when he's ready to
go forward uh that way we would put it on whatever week as opposed to doing a continuance yes and as
i recall members of the board this was a case where we do not have to repost as the record
had been closed, but for the community feedback?
That's correct.
Yeah, that's fine.
This is Sharon.
The only problem with that is if we don't announce the specific date, it will have to
be reposted.
Do we need that date now?
You can leave it open and repost or announce a date, in which case it wouldn't be necessary.
If we could get a date in early December, that would be ideal, as I believe that will give us sufficient time to meet with the community group.
Okay, how about December 1st?
That's a good date.
Is that 9.30, Tanya?
Yes, Chair.
Okay, so we'll go back again.
MI 2020-000551-3649-NORTH15 and MI 2020-000686-3651-NORTH15 is continued to December the 1st at 9.30 a.m.
If I could just clarify, not continue resumption hearing.
resumption pardon me resumption hearing to take place on december the 1st at 9 30 a.m
what numbers uh were those they were on the add-on list that show this morning
and members of the board i have one other case to address as well
okay that is a property address three six four three north 19th street
i don't see that on our for 9 30. oh i'm sorry that's for 2 p.m list members of the board okay
no problem we notice you're not we don't have a visual of you i don't i wasn't given the
opportunity for the continuance request, members of the board. So I think that's just audio only.
And if that's it, then I will go back to muting myself. I'm waiting for my next case to be called.
Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Any other requests, continuances, or withdrawals?
no more hands up thank you confessor i'm going to go down the list that was given to me earlier
and then we'll proceed um mi 2020 that's 0003401530 west champholst avenue is continued
MI 2020-000307, no, I'm sorry, skipped that one, sorry about that.
MI 2020-000338-526
That's 000338-526-High Street is continued.
I believe that's all I have. Did I miss any?
I believe number nine.
i think we already number nine i just
that was uh we already did that one that's one where
i believe the councilwoman's office had asked we already went with mr folks we did that one
any other requests
and did i leave anything out tanya and or sharon not from me i'm ready to not not that i sent you
um i wanted to tell you i'm having connection issues so if i don't answer something right away
that's the reason we're ready to go yes all right uh mi 2020 that's zero zero one five five three
1234 South Harmony and MI 2020-001554 1232 South Harmony.
here i've promoted henry clinton
morning again mr clinton i i think we already did we swear you in no sorry no okay please
identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in. Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, Henry Clinton, Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right
Mr. Plaza. Mr. Clinton, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Thank you. Also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five
days prior to this hearing? Yes, I have. Also, have you emailed and have you met with the RCO and have
a letter? Yes, I have, Mr. Plaza. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Ms. Sunkit, may I share my screen?
Ms. Duncan, can you see my screen?
Ms. Duncan, yes, we have it up.
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
With me to my right and six feet behind me and masked is the principal of the applicant,
Lou Achiavati, and he will be here throughout the testimony. This concerns two properties
in the Forgotten Bottom area of Grace Ferry, which is on the west side of 34th Street.
I have included my presentation binder for Exhibits AA through 810, my appearance statement,
Refusal concerns the fact that most of this area is zoned I-2, which is industrial, and we're proposing, consistent with what is on that block, at least on the west side of that block, we're proposing two single-family homes on these long, vacant lots.
Here's the elevation of the property, trying to be consistent with the neighborhood, double-hung windows, red brick.
This is our zoning map indicating the rear yard would be 7 feet, and frankly, the rear yard gaps are going to be 10 feet, even though the descriptions on the D do show a rear alley.
The homes on both sides have really encapsulated that alley,
so no one is really using the alleys at the rear of this building.
There are some more photographs for perspective for the board and for the chairman.
Right next to us to the south is a brand-new construction.
Some of the other homes are still in need of updating,
which I think that's going to happen over time.
Floor plan, we're not going to have any basement.
This is going to be on a slab, living room, dining room, kitchen, first floor, rear yard, two bedrooms on the second floor, third floor, master bedroom, and a roof deck.
A cutaway view, we're not asking for any relief with regard to height.
There's the deeds indicating that Mr. Acciavati, who is with me, is the owner of the properties.
Tax certification, our application for appeal.
Our zoning map, here's the property.
You can see the whole area is I-2, trending toward residential.
Here's our certificate of mailing, all of which have been pre-submitted.
So I'm willing to answer any questions that the chairman or the board has with regard to this project,
as is my client, and I can get him to adopt after there are any questions.
Thank you.
Let's get him to adopt your testimony, and then I'll find out if there's any questions.
Mr. Roger Voddy, have you heard my testimony?
Henry, ask him to spell his full name, please.
H-C-C.
I don't have him.
Ms. Sunken, he's with me right behind you.
All right.
Sorry.
Will we start over?
In fact, Henry, you could spell his name, but it's a little easier to hear if you spell
his name for it.
A, C, C, I, V as in Victor, A, T as in Thomas, T as in Thomas, I.
Thank you.
And Mr. Achiavati, you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Achiavati, have you heard my testimony today?
If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
no no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hand thank you planning commission good morning david fecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the
city planning commission david do you swear to the firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank you thank you sir mr chairman and members of the board
these properties are indicated for residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive
plan the zoning for this block dates back to 1933 we have not received a rezona request
accordingly we have no objection to granting these variances calendar numbers mi 2020-001553
1234 South Harmony and calendar number MI-2020-001554 1232 South Harmony.
My vote is yes on both.
Yes to both.
Yes to both.
Yes to both.
Thank you very much Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Thank you.
Next one up is MI 2020-001-558-1355-57 Cater Street.
Chair, I'm promoting Sarah Aldifer.
good morning mr aldifer miss aldifer uh please identify yourself with the records by your full
name and i'll swear you in uh good morning mr chairman members of the board sarah aldifer s-a-r-a-h
a-l-d-e-r-f-e-r 1500 jfk boulevard suite 800 philadelphia we're in the firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and do you agree to wait the reading of its refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
Thank you. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
Have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required document
to prove of ownership,
prove of...
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing? Not exactly. I submitted a partial exhibit packet with the original site plan
five days before this hearing on October 29th prior to 5 p.m. We had our meeting with the RCO
the day before October 28th and in response to that RCO meeting we revised the plans and so I
submitted revised plans after the 5 p.m. deadline on October 29th but they were we submitted two sets
of revised plans and the most recent revised plans which we're presenting today were submitted on
the fourth day, which is October 30th, 2020. So I respectfully request that we be allowed to
proceed today. Farron, you have this though? We've received everything. Yes, and I've reviewed the
revised plans and the proviso plans. Let's proceed. They're both fine. Thank you. At this time,
I'm going to share my screen. So good morning again. I'm here on behalf of M99 LLC, which is
the owner of 1355 to 57 Cater Street. The principal of the company is Jason Kuter and the architect
on this project is Adam Montalvano. 1355 Cater Street is a 1,041 square foot lot,
which is zoned RSA 5, which is presently a single family home with garage, which is shown on the
screen here, which is exhibit 4, page 15 of the PDF that was sent. The property is located on
cater between 13th and Broad and the lot is 25 feet wide and approximately 40 feet long.
The width and shallowness of the lot creates some of the refusals that we're here for today.
Our proposal is to build a single family home with two accessory parking spaces.
Our refusals are for a pilot house. The rear setback we're proposing is zero feet where five
feet is required. Parking that is accessed from a that is not accessed from a shared driveway.
Pardon the interruption, Ms. Albafer, we're still only seeing the first photo. Oh, apologies.
So here's the refusal, we're here for the roof depth access structure setback, the parking
that is not accessed from a rear street or shared driveway, rear yard of the acquired
seven feet where five feet is proposed and then the deck in the rear yard which encroaches
in into the required rear yard. The surrounding area
if it is in the aerials here
which is page nine of the pdf we're next to the arts bank here and then also on the block
is a large condominium building here, and then there's a row of single-family RSA5 homes here.
We are also across the street from a gas station with traffic in and out on Broad.
going to Surface Street photos, which is page 19. You can see here that there is the existence of
other garages on Cater, as well as here's our property, which is next to the Arts Bank, which
is a much taller building than ours. Also on the block is 1347 Cater Street.
Also on the block is 1347 Cater Street. Exhibit 12 is the zoning permit for that, which is page 43.
The ZBA granted a variance on March 14, 2018 at calendar number 32595 and allowed them zero rear yard setback and accessory parking accessed off Cater Street.
At this time, I'm going to go to the plans, which are Exhibit 9, page 36 of the PDF.
And you can see here the two-car parking accessory, and then this is the
pilot house and the rear deck that's proposed. Originally, we had proposed for the rear deck to
extend the full length of the property, but in response to comments from the RCO, we have
narrowed the rear deck, and so it takes up less space in the rear. We met with the RCO
So Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition, their letter is exhibit 15, which is page 62 of the PDF.
Here's their vote.
They voted three in support, zero in opposition.
And then in their letter, they described their position as they do not oppose the project
And they request for variances, with the exception of the second story projection into the rear yard, which they believe will limit light and air to the neighbors.
And just to respond to that, going back for a moment to the aerial shots on page nine, exhibit two, we are next to the art bank here, which is a much taller building.
um and and our building is much now is much shorter so you know from our perspective you
know if you're looking at sunlight in the afternoon coming from the west um any sunlight would
and air that block would be blocked at least later in the day would be already blocked from
the Arts Bank and then here you can see a little bit on this aerial that there is the presence of sunlight here presently that come that comes in, and we believe that the rear deck which is proposed on the second floor wouldn't appreciably limit the light and air at the rear of the property.
as any more than the existence of the structure itself.
So with that, I'd like to have my client adopt my statements.
Please bring your client on.
Mr. Croutier.
Mr. Croutier, please spell your full name, first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Ms. Couture, can you raise your hand on the Zoom?
No hand.
Ms. Othoffer, we'll recognize you as an officer.
of the court that your client would it would adopt your testimony thank you mr chairman all right so
thank you uh any questions from the board no no no would anyone else like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand no hand thank you planning commission good morning david effecto
city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for
residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan. Accordingly, we have no
objection to granting this variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001558, 1355-57 Cater Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. Mr. Chairman, we're presenting revised plans today, so we'd request a proviso.
I'm sorry, how many pages?
One page.
Sorry about that.
All right.
MI 2020-001558, 1355-57 Cater Street.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Revised plan, one page approved today.
revised plan one page approved today yes proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso thank you
Yes, proviso.
this is Sharon Saleta chair can I ask
excuse me this is Sharon Saleta can I ask that before you move on to the next case
could you go back to number one
you're breaking up i'm sorry brown street and just give a specific date for the return
um i'm sorry it's probably my connection problems if you could go back to number one
on the add-on list brown street and announce that they will be coming back yes okay uh we
need a date correct that they will be returning on december resumption hearing yes december 2nd
at 930. Okay. MI 2020-000089-3801 Brown Street is continued till December the 2nd at 930 AM or
two o'clock? I'm sorry. It's 930 and it's a resumption. Okay. Resumption. This case will be
resumed on December the 2nd at 9 30 a.m all right thank you
next one up is mi2020-000307-2125 north 20th
in cases but
Chair I'm promoting attorney Leo Movahill
Thank you Mr. Movahill you're still under oath
Yes good morning
Movahill you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal
or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Also have you met with the
RCO and have a letter? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. Good morning members of the board. Leo
Mulvihill today on behalf of the owners of 2125 North 20th Street. We're here today to ask this
zoning board's permission to turn this property into a two-family dwelling. What I'm showing on
the screen right now, members of the board, are a copy of the materials that I forwarded.
The refusal of appeal and project information form are at page one. The area zoning maps are
at page six. The deed for the property is at page eight. My client's tax clearance information is
at page 13. Zoning notification letter is at 14. The RCO letter I've actually included in this
packet. We received it late, perhaps over the weekend, maybe on Saturday or Sunday. It was not
initially included in the materials i sent but i forwarded it and it is in this packet well but
those part of the interruption were you're still only showing your first page yeah that's all i've
done so far okay thank you um uh at page 15 in my packet i have zoning history for this property
dating back to the 50s it's showing it's always been either a two or three family dwelling
photos of the property are at page 19 and i have plans showing the interior layout of page 69 so
members of the board. First, I'm going to page three of my packet to show the address and location.
Essentially, this is an RSA 5 district. We're proposing two family dwelling in this location.
On the screen now, I'm showing page six. This is the overhead zoning maps from Philadelphia Atlas.
As you can see, this property is zoned RSA 5, but it's located in a mixed area of RSA 5,
CMX2 and RM1 properties. The deed for the property is here at page 7. I only wish to note that
there's a different party indicated on this than on the original application. When we first filed
this application, this property was owned by a different individual. My clients now, Joanne 2
and Sandy Musante, who are both on the line, have assumed that application and this is the most
current deed for the property. This is the zoning letter that I sent out members of the board,
a page triple star because I didn't have the time to renumber everything. This is a letter dated
October 29th from the 32nd Ward RCO. We held a meeting back on August 13th, 2020. It was a
virtual meeting hosted by Judith Robinson, the coordinating RCO chair over Facebook Live.
there were 30 attendees and there was a position of non-opposition.
and there was a position of non-opposition. As I recall from the comments and questions that were
As I recall from the comments and questions that were presented,
presented during this meeting, essentially the neighbors were not opposed to having a two-family
dwelling here based on the fact that there are significant two and three-family dwelling
in the immediate area and on this immediate block, and that the renovation of this property
was frankly well received by the members of the community. What I'm showing now at page 16,
and which proceeds for quite a number of pages, members of the board, is a zoning application from 1968, if I recall correctly,
which shows that it had been used as a two-family dwelling back then.
So there's precedent for this.
Page 20, it had been used as a three-family dwelling in 65, three-family dwelling in 64,
And I'll let the board peruse the rest of those documents if they show desire so I don't spend 20 minutes going through 50 pages of zoning history.
But more or less, members of the board, I represent as an officer of the court that that's the history of this property.
Getting now to my photographs.
To page 69 of my packet, members of the board, here's the zoning sign that I posted.
This is the property as it looks today.
It is not currently rented.
It's looking northbound on the street, and kind of rotating slowly towards the south,
so we see the subject property in the adjacent homes, looking further southbound, and then
across the street as we again rotate to get a full panoramic view of the block.
As the members of the board noticed, there are multiple properties with multiple mailboxes,
so this is not unprecedented on this block.
what i'm showing now members of the board is a copy of the floor plans
there's no change to the exterior elevation of the property there's no additions nothing along
those lines um in the first floor as you enter the front door you can either go to the left to
get in the unit one or go upstairs to get in the unit two the first floor has a bedroom to the
front living and kitchen area to the middle a side door to get to the rear yard for trash storage
this bathroom and a bedroom to the rear.
You can then go up the stairs at the rear of the property
to get into the third bedroom
and the additional bathroom with laundry.
Unit number two begins on the second floor,
has kitchen and living area to the front,
bathroom to the middle, first bedroom is here,
and going up that main staircase,
you get to the third floor,
which does not encompass the entire parcel.
We have two smaller bedrooms,
laundry, and a bathroom there as well.
This is just a site plan.
You can see it's a typical Philadelphia-style row home, relatively large.
There's a side alley to allow for access to the rear yard for trash storage.
And this is simply an elevation of the property that indicates the present condition of the
property, which you were able to see in the photographs themselves.
It looks nice, and there's an effort to maintain the traditional characteristic of the facade.
Now, I do have my clients, Sandy and Joanne, on the line.
If one of them might please raise their hand so that they can adopt my testimony as their own.
Sandy has been unmuted.
Hi, this is Sandy.
Good morning.
Can anyone state your name and call your last name and give your address for the record, Sandy?
Sure. My name is Sandy Musante. It's S-A-N-D-Y, and Musante is spelled N.
You need to get closer to the microphone. We can't hear you.
Sorry about that. Sandy Musante, S-A-N-D-Y, and then Musante is M-U-S-A-N-T-E.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Now, Sandy, you and Joanne are the current record owners of the property, correct?
Correct.
You've heard my testimony today with respect to this property?
Correct, yes.
Is there anything you'd like to add at this time?
Not at the moment, no.
Okay, and my testimony has otherwise been true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, that is correct.
And you adopted as your own today?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Members of the board, we're happy to entertain any questions you may have at this time.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
no no would anyone else like to testify if so please raise your hand
no hand thank you planning commission good morning david effecto city planning commission
mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential single
family use in the city's comprehensive plan we do not believe that an additional unit
will have an adverse impact on this block.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting this variance.
Thank you.
Thank you. MI 2020, that's 0003072125 North 20th Street. My vote is yes.
MI 2020, that's 000307.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
All right. Thank you, man.
Next one up is MI.
Excuse me one minute. Leo.
I figured today being election day, we would come out with something like, you know, Uncle Sam or something like that.
I was waiting for this moment.
you know chairman i i considered it for a moment um but with things the way they are today i decided
to just lay low for today probably going a little wild in october probably doing the right thing
take care i feel a little let down though because that's all i look forward to just wait till next
year all right god willing take care uh mi 2020-000297-2212 north marshall street
here i'm promoting attorney's engine
good morning mr jen you know the drill please identify yourself with the record and i'll swear
you in good morning zen jen z-h-e-n last name j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838
philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the applicant and they swear and affirm to tell the
truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Do you agree to
wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Also, have you emailed an
exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Also,
have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do. We have met with the RCO. We do have a
letter. As a preliminary matter, I just spoke with Ms. Jones from the Council President's
office this morning. She wanted to follow up with the local ward leaders for some additional
information, so she did ask that we have the case held for two weeks, if possible, after
the presentation. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and share
my screen with the board with the information that we have submitted, including refusal,
community letter from APM, notice and proof of mailing and notification, photos, plans,
tax clearance, deed, copy of the appeal, PIF, as well as the calendar of this hearing.
The refusal for this matter is purely based on the zoning district of CMX2.
my client would like to request a variance to permit him to build a three-family dwelling,
which actually is essentially replacing the ground floor commercial unit with a residential unit.
The reason we asked for this is because while Germantown Avenue, which meets up at the end of
the block with North Marshall Street at this area, Germantown Avenue is a commercial corridor,
but my client's location on Marshall Street is not quite in that corridor. It's a little bit
off to the side and it's further down the block. I will show the photographs to better
explain the situation. As far as the RCO meeting, we have just APM's one member that was present.
Even though we did the notifications and we asked the community to appear, no one did appear at the
meeting. This is why the council president's office would like to do some additional due
diligence, and I agreed to ask for a two-week extension based on that request. We just got
the request this morning, which is why I did not let the board know of this ahead of time.
So the location here, as you can see from this aerial photo, Germantown Avenue, which is a
commercial corridor, but even in this area, the commercial corridor isn't as heavily used.
What we have are actually lots that are across North Marshall Street, and what we're abutting
to for the most part, except for up here, which is a currently, I'm not sure it's even
being used.
It is a multifamily plus what looks like a garage and maybe some commercial use.
This is the church, and all the rest around here are essentially RM1 multifamily uses.
So we're kind of surrounded by more multifamily use and not quite as much for commercial uses.
So we do have a vacant lot, but as you can see, all the new development that is going on behind us, further down the street, in the next block, everything is actually...
Further down the street, in the next block, everything is actually residential.
There's just not a lot of commercial activity going on on North Marshall Street in this area, one block away up and down the block.
So this is the corner building that actually is right near the intersection between Germantown and North Marshall itself.
we are also on the back side of the germantown commercial buildings none of their commercial
building including this church actually faces marshall we only got the back side of their
buildings facing us so on our side where the lots are we really don't have a ready
situation where a commercial space would get traffic and that is part of the reason why my
client asks for a residential use from a design standpoint we are proposing a three-story structure
and again we're not asking for any height beyond what is normally permitted actually the proposed
height is actually lower to kind of keep it more consistent with buildings further down the block
and also on the other side behind us. So the structure itself is three stories. It is designed
let me go to the floor plans for the board so I can explain each floor clearly. So it's designed
as a bi-level on the first floor and then two units above. Again, the two units above would
been by right given the district if we had a commercial space on the first floor. This is not
a very large lot so the proposal is for basically one bedroom units on each floor. The bi-level unit
if the layout can be adjusted potentially could be a two bedroom but my client would rather leave
the family area open for home office where those kind of use and then just make it a
one bedroom unit as the proposal. This is the plan we presented to the community. We
explained to them that again the development here is purely residential because again on
that block there are just no currently from our perspective really viable commercial uses
and the addition of residents would only help the existing corridor of germantown which has some
struggling commercial uses and we think the addition of the residents would only help so
that is why my client has asked for a pure residential design from a trash storage standpoint
we have trash storage for the first floor in the back the second floor we actually built an out
rear enclosure outdoor space for temporary trash storage. And for the third floor, we have a roof
deck, very small roof deck area specifically for trash storage as well, pending actual pickup
by the trash pickup during the week. So each of the unit has their own trash
storage area available to them. These are contemplated to be condorized, but
But obviously, if the condo process is not viable, we would still be renting the space
as well. So that's one or the other would be the likely end result. I'm happy to answer
any questions from the board. Thank you. Questions from the board? No.
No, no, no.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
I believe my client is here, Mr. Joseph Gitterman.
Gitterman, please raise your hand.
Mr. Gitterman, you've been unmuted.
You can wait to be sworn in.
Yes, how are you?
Good morning, everybody.
My name is Joseph Gitterman.
I'm the owner of 2212 North Marshall Street.
Mr. Gitterman, if you can hear me, would you please spell your first and last name?
My first name is Joseph J-O-S-E-P-H, and the last name is Gitterman, G-I-T-E-R-M-I-M.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Gitterman, you heard my testimony and presentation to the zoning board this morning.
Can you verify that the facts as I presented are true and correct and adopted as your own?
Thank you.
um mr chairman again as i indicated earlier the council president's office did ask that the case
Mr. Chairman, again, as I indicated earlier, the council...
for two weeks okay uh just let me ask any questions from the board i think i've asked
i'll ask again no no thank you planning commission
good morning david effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the
board this property is indicated for commercial and residential mixed use in the city's comprehensive
plan the zoning in this neighborhood dates back to 1933 we have not received a request to change
the zoning maps we believe that during a rezoning this property would likely change to a residential
zoning category accordingly we have no objection to granting this variance thank you mi2020-000297
2212 North
Marshall. This hearing
will be resumed on. We have
a date, Tanya.
may suggest, I am actually coming
back before the board
on November 17th for
a attached property to this
one, also on Marshall Street, for this
client. So that would probably
make things easier if we can put it on the same
Works for me, Chair.
All right. What date is that again? The 17th?
17th at 9 30 at 9 30 and mr jinn that'll be great thank you okay excuse me this is this is
sharon seleta mr jinn can you remind me you're coming back to present feedback from the councilman
or the board leaders council uh the council president will be forwarding some kind of
update for us on this based on his conversation i assume with the rco
Based on his conversation with the RCOs in the area, correct.
It's only because we had only one D at the RCO meeting.
All right.
So, again, MI 2020-000297-2212 North Marshall.
This hearing will be resumed on November the 17th at 9.38 a.m.,
at which time we will consider any feedback related to the RCOs
and the Council President Clark's office.
Thank you.
Okay, next one up is MI 2020-001566, 2240 North 2nd Street.
Chair, I promoted Alan Nakamson.
good morning mr chair members of the board good morning mr knockamson please identify yourself
for the record oh yes alan knockamson of knockamson pc 123 south broad street suite 1600
philadelphia pa 19109 you starting to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth for nothing but
the truth i do do you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
I have.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Excuse me.
This is Sharon Saleta.
Can I just advise the board that we have received a letter of non-opposition from Councilwoman
Sanchez and a letter in support from the RCO.
Thank you.
I HANDED YOU PACKING MATERIALS WHICH INCLUDE EIGHT EXHIBITS. THE FIRST EXHIBIT IS THE D-TO
PROPERTY SHOWING THAT GOLDEN RULE LLC OWNS THE PROPERTY. GOLDEN RULE LLC IS AN ENTITY OWNED
B2 Properties. I've presented many zoning matters in front of this board with regards to B2
Properties. Just a little background. B2 Properties is one of the largest residential home builders
in the City of Philadelphia. They build and sell in excess of 100 units a year.
They are well regarded in the area as well. The last two years the Philadelphia Inquirer
has recognized them as developer of the year, so not only do they have the volume in providing
jobs in the city of Philadelphia and homes for homeowners within the city of Philadelphia,
they also are well regarded as well. Second exhibit is the notice or the certificate of tax
clearance showing that B2 properties is a good standing with the property. Exhibit three is the
Exhibit 3 is the Notice of Refusal. So I've been here on several occasions over the last few months in this part of town. This is 2240 North 2nd Street. It's a north square section of the city of Philadelphia.
notice of refusal. So I've been here on
and this is an ever developing part of the city we've done numerous projects v2 properties and
myself in my office have done projects on this particular street of north second street and
what we're hearing from the community is that you know even though this is a cmx2 portion of the
neighborhood they want all residential here because they want to support and nurture their
commercial corridor on north front street so over the last several months i've been here for 2262
which is on this block 2250 2529 and 2531 north 2nd street all exact same situations where we
had a cmx2 property where we're allowed three units as of right we just want to swap out the
commercial unit for a residential unit so we can make these into three unit condominium buildings
And in each instance for 2262, 2531, and 2529 North 2nd Streets, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of these variances, and then this board also voted in favor of similar variances.
So that's all we're looking to do.
So in my Packet Materials Exhibit 4, I actually provided the Notices of Refusal for these properties at 2262, 2529, and 2531.
You'll see the Notice of Refusal, and behind the Notice of Decision granting the variances over the last few months.
Attaches also Exhibit 5 is the Application for Appeal for this project at 2240 North 2nd Street,
along with the notice of refusal, as well as the related project information form.
After that is a zoning map showing that, again, although we're in a CMX2 area, you'll see from
the photographs, this is a residential block by nature. Exhibit 8 just shows the first page
is the front facade. Again, V2 properties typically has a brick facade with a modern
feel to it. In terms of their floor plans, the first unit is a bi-level first floor and lower
unit. The second unit is on the second floor, and then the third unit is on the third and fourth
floors. Of particular note, we're not seeking any dimensional variances. The one thing I would say,
and just to correct the record, because we're about full transparency here,
We did have a meeting recently with the Norris Square Community Alliance.
So more people did vote against this project than for this project.
So I just wanted to correct the record for that purposes.
I don't, you know, so this is the letter we got.
They may have changed their mind after the fact.
But again, if you look at the letter, it's all non-zoney related.
They wanted, you know, the whole discussion had nothing to do with the CMX2 nature of the property.
It had all to do with like they wanted a community benefits agreement where we would promise a certain amount of jobs towards this project and other projects.
We had no issue with that, actually. We were in support of, you know, supporting the community. Right.
It's a two way street. I don't know where the disconnect was.
I tried to reach out to the representative from the community group and she stated this is, you know,
their vote based on the fact that we declined to provide local, you know, jobs to local
residents, which is not correct. So I just want to correct the record in that respect.
But as you can see, I also provided the letters from the Norris Square Community Alliance
for all these other projects where they did support these projects and where the planning
commission did recommend for the grantee and the variance. Here's 2240, the notice that
went out to the community, to the 158 addresses, and then the proof of mailing.
So again, we're looking to make it into a three-unit condo, not increase the amount of
units, just swapping out the commercial unit with the residential units for the CMX2 property
with no dimensional variances. With me today is Bill Archer, one of the directors of V2
properties. Bill, can you virtually raise your hand?
mr archer when you get on please identify yourself for the record spell your first
and last name and i'll swear you win you can unmute mr archer yes thank you it's bill archer
130 clover lane kirk yeomanville pennsylvania 18074 last name is spelled a-r-c-h-e-r
you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes I do thank you Mr. Mockinson yes um Bill you heard everything I stated today yes and it's a
Yes. Bill, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt this as your own testimony?
And does V2 properties employ contractors that are locally situated in the Norris Square area?
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no thank you planning commission good morning david effecto city planning commission mr chairman
and members of the board this property is indicated for commercial and residential mixed
use on the city's comprehensive plan the zoning for this block dates back to 1933 we have never
received a request to rezone it we believe that if the block were rezoned the property would likely
be indicated for residential use accordingly we have no objection to granting these variances
thank you mi2020-0015662240 north second street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you next one up is mi 2020-000347 3209 west montgomery avenue
the attorney is darlene treat
and I have no hands all right let's move on to the next case in case okay here she is chair
also we have a letter in support from the RCO on this one
I have promoted mystery
Good morning, Ms. Three. Please identify yourself with the records by your first and last name.
And I'll swear you in.
Ms. Three, do you want to unmute yourself? There you go.
Good morning, Commissioners. Darlene Feud on behalf of the applicant,
Master Street Properties, LLC. My address? Please spell your full name.
D-A-R-L-E-N-E, last name Threatt, T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-T-T.
Do you swear in the term to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have. With the exception of I originally submitted a HUD-1, HUD-2 sheet by mistake. I should
have submitted the deed. Thereafter, I sent the deed to your attention. Okay. Also, have you met
with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, I have. Thank you. Please proceed. May I share my screen?
Yes, you may.
Okay, here is my submission package today.
It consists of 12 items.
I will go through them very quickly.
The first item is a refusal.
This is a zoning district, RSA5, which does not allow for a two-family dwelling.
We requested this property for a variance for a two-family dwelling.
The next document is the petition application for appeal.
The next document was the settlement sheet.
I previously submitted the deed, and I'll switch over to that at the end of the presentation.
It's not attached to this submission.
This next document is the Certificate of Tax Clearance from Massa Street Properties.
The next document is the current rental license currently this is being rented out as a one
The next document is the current...
unit dwelling.
The next document is the commercial activity license for master street properties unlimited.
The next document is just a general property information from the city website.
The next document is actually from the Zoning Archive, and this is a zoning history of this
property.
If you'll see back in 1942, this property was actually used as a three-family dwelling.
You can see here there were three apartments, and it was actually stamped and illegal use
back in 1942.
The next document are the plans.
We have an elevation here, and here we have the layout of the property.
The basement will have new use.
The first floor is a two-bedroom apartment and one-bathroom apartment.
apartment. It's approximately 750 square feet, which is a very good size. The second apartment
is actually a four bedroom apartment and two bathrooms and its size is approximately 900
square feet. Here is a picture of the posting of the property. Here is a nice picture of
the front facade of the property. You'll see it's consistent with the other properties on the
block. Also, there are several multi-families. This is a pretty big property. It's approximately
2,800 square feet, quite large for today's use and well suitable for a two-family dwelling.
Here is a picture of the backyard of the property.
Here is a picture of the deck or porch area for the second unit of the property.
That's just an interior picture of one of the kitchen in the property.
One of the bedrooms in the property.
Here is a letter from one of the community residents indicating that the work that Ms.
Vesco of Mass Street Property does in the community and the help that she's given to
some of the neighbors in developing their properties.
And here is a letter from the 32nd Ward.
There was a community meeting back on September 4th, 2020.
Ms. Judith Robertson chaired the meeting and they supported the development of this property
for a two-family dwelling.
With that, I'm going to try and switch over to the deed that I submitted very recently.
And here we go.
This is the deed indicating that Master Street Properties, LLC, is the owner of the property.
And with that, Commissioners, I'm open to answering any questions that you may have about the renovation.
Thank you. Do you have a witness?
Yes. Ms. Vesco of Master Street Properties, LLC, should be on the line this morning.
Ann, are you on the line?
you are ma'am when you get on please identify yourself with the record spell your first and
last name and i'll swear you in no hands are up all right as an officer of court ms three we'll
uh we'll stipulate to the accuracy of your uh that your client would have adopted your
testimony as being accurate true true and accurate questions from the board no
no no hands are up shani no chair thank you planning commission good morning david effecto
city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for
residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan we do not believe that adding
one unit will have an adverse impact on the block accordingly we have no objection to granting this
variance. Thank you. MI 2020, that's 000347-3209 West Montgomery Avenue. My vote is yes.
3209 West Montgomery Avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you very much commissioners
next one up is MI 2020-0009674011 Richmond Street
this is sarin saletta i don't have any record of having received exhibits for this one
the attorney is ronald patterson
thank you is mr patterson available all right very good i'm glad that we were able to uh
Ms. 3, Ms. 3, you need to, okay.
Anyone from Claire Harrison, if not Mr. Patterson?
Okay, MI 2020-000967, 4011 Richmond Street is continued.
The next one up is MI 2020-000299-4363 Main Street.
This is Sharon Saleta. Again, I have no record of having received exhibits for this.
Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to testify in this matter? MI 2020-000299-4363 Main Street.
If so, please raise your hand.
no hand thank you this case will be continued okay next one up it's uh mi 2020-000-668-4951
north fifth street sharon saleta again i have no record of having received exhibits
Thank you. Is anyone present regarding MI 2020-000668-4951 North 5th Street? If so, please raise your hands.
I have no hands, Chair. And if I could request to put on record that this be continued and must be heard, this application was received in 2019, November.
Okay. MI 2020-000668-4951 North 5th Street is continued and must be heard.
Okay. Next one up is MI 2020-000323-6644 Hollis Street.
Chair, I'm promoting Omar.
Omar, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Mr. Caccellus.
We can't hear you.
Can't hear you.
hello good morning good morning mr cassells um please spell your first and last name
o-m-a-r-c-a-s-s-e-l-l-s your address
6644 ollie street fredelopea 19138 and you're swearing for him to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes yes sir and your interest are you the owner
Yes, I am the owner of the property, Your Honor.
Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I've submitted all of the unnecessary documentation on October 24th.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I've met with the RCO and they told me that they're going to be sending a letter to the committee.
Thank you. Please proceed.
yes one minute sir just one minute sharon have we received the letter from the rco
not that i have a record of but i will double check thank you okay mr cassells please proceed
yes i'm having technical difficulties sharing the frame of sharing my exhibit okay no problem yes
sharing my exhibit okay no problem yes but i've actually acquired the property in
but I've actually
july 2018
in july 2018 and upon upon acquiring the property the property actually was zoned for a duplex
but i would like to definitely um apply for the property to be a tribe a triplex and based on the
meeting which i have with the roc committee one of their major problem was parking but the property
at the moment currently has legal parking at the back which can accommodate two cars comfortably
and i decided that since it can accommodate two cars properly it will be mandatory for the tenant
for the for the apartment which i'm going to turn into a studio will be definitely parked in that
HERE. BASED ON THE MEETING THAT I HAVE WITH THE RCO, ALL THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS WAS MET AS
IN SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY, THE DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, AND ALSO ALL THE NECESSARY AMETINGS FOR THE
PROPERTY. HERE, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS YOU CAN SHARE WITH US?
YEAH, I SUMMITED THAT PLAN, BUT I SAID BEFORE I'M HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
sharing it at the moment on my screen but i've submitted in my in my in my exhibit
unfortunately all the board members don't have access to the physical
paperwork because we were working remotely so it's helpful so sharon i'm sorry chair i don't
have exhibits i'm wondering if sharon have them i do they were submitted us uh over i think
one two three four five emails okay shall i forward um i don't know plans photos to you
tanya sure if the chair wishes i could present yeah i'm very sorry i'm very sorry about that
about the technical difficulties i'm up i'm very sorry we're working it out sorry about that sir
Tanya, Chairman, thank you.
I'm good have you received those in the interest of time could we maybe
move on and then come back if what does it work though yep sounds good to me why don't we move on
mr cassells we're going to put you uh a couple of cases back until we can work out the technical
issues with the exhibits okay sure sir um yep sir okay no problem sir we'll get back to you
We're going to have a couple other cases
So confessor let's go to 16
Geyer Avenue
MI 2020
Dead 0-0-0
6-7-5-6
Geyer Avenue
I have no hands
Okay, MI 2020-000634-6756, Geyer Avenue is continued.
Chair, I'm sorry, if I could just again with this one.
This here application was made on August 2019.
If I could request that this be a term.
Must be heard.
Must be heard.
Yes, thank you.
Okay, Geyer Avenue, correct?
Correct.
Let me go back. MI 2020-000634-6756 Geyer Avenue is continued, must be heard.
Okay, next one up. MI 2020-002193714-20 Montreal St.
here i'm promoting attorney carrie nice post thank you good morning ms post uh please identify
Here, I'm promoting a
yourself for the record spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in um excuse me before
miss nace starts can i say that this is the um hearing that i emailed the board about this
morning okay there have been some uh adjustments too for right number of units and garages and
whatever correct that's correct the original hearing was held before the shutdown um the
community requested changes that the applicant made and had reviewed by lni so thank you thank
you uh good morning ms paus good morning chair chico uh carrie nace paust attorney with the law
firma fox rothschild address 2700 kelly road suite 300 warrington pa 18976 here this morning on
behalf of the applicant montrose views lp i also have with me the architect rich villa as well as
the owner mark ginsburg if they can both raise their hand would you please spell your first and
last name yes carrie c-a-r-r-i-e last name nase n-a-s-e hyphen paust p-o-u-s-t swearing
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed
pulling up my screen you can see my screen here yes okay great thank you uh as attorney
Saleta has indicated this is an application that was previously before the board. The property is
located at 714 to 720 Montrose Street. It is along the corner of Montrose Street and Beulah Street,
as you can see here on the plan in front of you. A hearing was before this board back in May 1st,
2019. The applicant is proposing, you can see here on this plan, the overall property
is bounded here by Montrose, Beulah goes across. It was owned by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
The proposal was to subdivide this parcel here, which the Archdiocese would retain as a church,
and then subdivide the remainder of the property into six single-family residential lots where a
house would be constructed on each lot. At that time of the prior hearing, opposition was raised
with regard to the proposed project. Since that time, my client has met with the Bella Vista
Neighbors Association. They were able to reach an agreement on the proposed development of this
property, which resulted in reducing the number of units from six to five. And I'm also going to
pull up here. Here's the other plan. And also removing the garages that were being proposed.
The Bella Vista Neighbors Association did submit a letter back to the board back of January 2024,
which was submitted to the board. I believe you have a copy of it, which did support the proposed
project as revised based on the five dwellings. We did receive, we resubmitted the plans back to
L&I based on the revised layout. We did receive a new refusal from L&I, which was to create six new
parcels, one being the church parcel, the remaining five being the single family units. However, the
five dwelling or lots do not comply with the minimum lot size. So we are asking for a variance
to provide less than the required number of lot size, as well as the open-air area requirement
for the church parcel, as well as the side-dured setback for the church parcel,
given the close proximity of the church building to the side lot line.
So that is what we are requesting.
We did, as I said, we revised the plan to address the concerns by Bella Vista Neighbors Association.
we received their support and we are here this morning asking uh for the variances requested
you have uh your clients anyone that you wish to have to adopt your testimony yes i do uh mark
ginsburg if you're on the line if you could raise your hand and uh miss thunkett if you could allow
him? I don't have him. If not, Ms. Paus, as an officer of the court, we will stipulate that your
client would have adopted your testimony. Thank you. Any questions from the board? No. No.
Now, anyone else like to testify in this case, if so, please raise your hand.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
I have a Dina.
Dina, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Dina, please identify yourself with a record.
First and spell your first and last name and give us your address.
And I'll swear.
My name is Dina Zimbardi, D-I-N-A-Z-I-M-B-A-R-D-I.
i live at 708 montrose street you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do please proceed um when we approved the zoning variances as requested
from the last bella vista board meeting we approved them based on the understanding that
only one of the properties was shy of the proposed required um square footage and it appears that in
new plans that all of them are short of the square footage and your objection my objection
is that we approved plans that proposed that the square the lot size square footage was per law
and the only one was short of the law plus the there's one house lot that was short of the
square required square footage and the church yard was or the church alley was short of the
is your testimony that the plan that is being presented to the board today
differs from the plan that was presented to the board and adopted uh the number of units going
from five to six is not accurate the number of units is indeed accurate what i'm confused about
is that the lot size where the lot size is and if i may did you shed any light on that
yes and i apologize i was not in attendance my client was represented by a separate council at
that time however i do have the architect on the line also which is rich villa uh miss sunkett could
you do you see if mr villa is on if he could raise his hand so you could identify him and unmute him
can you hear me yes mr villa please identify yourself for the record first and last names
by your name please uh richard villa richard r-i-c-h-a-r-d and villa is v-s-n-victor-i-l-l-a
i'm the architect you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do thank you please proceed yes i'm sorry in front of you is a is a plan um it's the five
new single family townhouse plan with a revision date of september 25th 2019 are you familiar with
this plan i am and did you prepare this plan i did and is this the plan that was presented to
the Bella Vista Neighbors Association? Yes, it is. And were you present at the meeting with the
Bella Vista Association? Yes, I was. And could you please just clarify, I'm sorry, to the neighbor
that is on the line as well as to the board, what is shown on the plan and what was presented to
the community group at that time? The plan that is shown is what was presented. I believe that
the issue is that the original refusal listed the incorrect minimum lot size as being 1080 and so
when we went back to the neighborhood we showed them that you know these are the lot sizes did
not change size but it's just that the refusal should have said 1440. that in that inconsistency
was corrected for the second refusal so the second refusal is correct saying that they're all
undersized, but it would have been correct had the incorrect refusal continued to be
incorrect in the second refusal.
So if you go to the refusal, Kerry, you would see that at 1080, which was the original incorrect
refusal, all of them but one are correctly sized.
Thank you.
So it was not, and I, you know, I would say to Dina that we, you know,
this was definitely what was presented at that meeting at these sizes.
Is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No other hands.
Questions from the board?
uh planning commission good morning david effecto city planning commission mr chairman
and members of the board this property is indicated for residential single
this property is indicated for residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan
family use in the city's comprehensive plan accordingly
accordingly we have no objection to granting this variance thank you uh ms paus did you have
revised plan um it is a revised plan however the lni issued a notice of refusal so what is before
you today i don't believe in uh miss saletta you can confirm but i don't believe that we need
the revised plans approved since this the plans that are being presented what was is what was
shown to lni that's correct there's no need to add a revised plans proviso the the proviso would
be the number of units maximum five and no garages no you don't need to know because it's
reflected in the plans right okay just want to double check all right thank you mi 2020-002193
714-20 montrose street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
okay thank you all thank you very much have a nice day
Next one up is MI 2020-000325-944 Belmont Avenue.
Chair, I have a promoted attorney, Johnson.
Mr. Johnson, you're going to mute and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Mr. Johnson.
Please identify yourself for the record, first and last name.
And then I'll swear you in.
My name is Kenneth Johnson.
I'm not the attorney.
I'm the architect and advocate.
I'm not the attorney.
Are you the owner?
No, the owner is on the phone.
The owner needs to be the one to testify.
Okay, that's what I informed him.
But I could go through the exhibits and everything.
Let's get him on and I'll swear him in and then we'll figure it out.
Mr. Kenneth, he has to go through the exhibits.
Okay, no problem.
You're there to back him up if he needs help.
Oh, you want me to say my name and get on the record?
Yeah, let's get you on the record, and then we'll wait for your client.
Thank you.
Kenneth Johnson, Architecture, Urban Design, and Policy, LLC,
3401 Grace Ferry Avenue, Suite 234, Building 200.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Now, your client's name is?
He would have to raise his hand if you're here on behalf of Belmont, please raise your hand.
Okay, let me tell him.
He's on a smartphone, so you should see the hand.
Okay, Chair, I have promoted the applicant.
good morning sir please identify thank you please identify yourself for the record spell your first
and last name my first name is saeed s-a-i-d my last name is a-r-h-r-o-u-d you do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do okay please
proceed with your testimony i assume mr johnson that you're going to be able well hold on one
second, confessor. We have some other questions for the applicant. Get ahead, confessor, and then
I'll ask him about presentation. Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral,
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I did. And have you met with the RCO and
have a letter yes i did okay the letter the rco said they sent the letter directly to the zba
they didn't send us a copy sir i think uh the owner of the property has to speak okay thank you
all right and to the owner of the property um i mean mr johnson i believe that you're probably
going to be the one that's going to have to show the exhibits yes unless you're because i think
mr arad is on just on a phone not on computer did i hear that correct no i promoted him oh okay i'm
sorry all right so let's go through the plan please all right i have the plans on my computer
i can share him he can talk but i can share whoever you're gonna have to be continued mr chairman
no it's okay confessor he can he can promote the plans or the or the exhibits and then mr saeed
can discuss the exhibits and as necessary we can have Mr. Johnson jump in as the architect
okay works all right thank you but Mr. Johnson I'm just going to take you off screen okay okay
all right thank you but mr johnson i'm just going to take you off screen okay okay thank you
mr arad yes please present your case
um share your documents on the screen
yeah i purchased this is the house it's 944 billman's avenue i purchased the house
which one is the house to the left or right the one the two-story house is the two-story house yes
okay and um when i purchased it it was looking as uh it was two families it was two like i mean
two apartments but the zoning i didn't know that the zoning was not multi-family
so when i purchased the house i was trying to make it like two three apartments and live in one
because for right now i just um i'm renting i don't have a house yet and i'm trying to rent
the other one to uh to a couple of my uh family members is it currently set up as a two family
When I purchased the house, I think Mr. Johnson has the pictures.
It was two apartments.
Two apartments.
You want to add an extra apartment.
Then I want to add another third store, yeah.
As you can see, I can, if I'm not exaggerating,
almost 80% of Belmont Avenue from Lancaster all the way to,
after Girard, it's all three stories.
and most of them is multi-families and I was trying to do the same thing. Mr. Johnson if
you can give us some of the architectural rent there you go and you can make that a
little bit larger that would be helpful. So utilities first floor
you want me to go through the drawing
i can't hear yes yes please all right i'm sorry now the basement is existing basement
uh it's going to keep it as utilities there's no living space in the basement
then when you come in um you go either go upstairs to the second unit or you turn and you go to the
first unit, and the first unit has a living, kitchen, got the bathroom, you got two bedrooms
in the back. If you go upstairs, you go to the second unit, the second unit has a bedroom
in the front, you walk into the living, there's a kitchen, there's a bath, and then there's
another bedroom in the rear. And if you keep going upstairs, you get to the third unit,
the third unit has a bedroom in the front, a bedroom in the back, in the middle you have
the living, your bath, and your kitchen space.
What we're doing is,
you see that the existing basement footprint,
we're not increasing the footprint,
we're just adding the third floor.
And in the back, there's a masonry one story structure,
and we add two additional stories on top of that.
Hold on, we have elevation,
and this is the elevation.
Let me see, let me make it bigger.
As you can see from the site plan, the first floor extends all the way back, and then on
the second floor, there's an existing bay which will be removed, and in the second and
third floor will be extended to fit this existing footprint of the building.
The refusal is because we had, for this one, you need two additional parking spaces,
which we can't provide for the two additional units.
And the rear yard is too small, but we're just matching the existing emissary structure
that's in the back.
We're just going to add in the two stories.
And, of course, the multifamily is not zoned for multifamily.
This is Sharon Saleta. If I can interrupt for one moment to let you know that Councilwoman
Gauthier sent in an email supporting the project with a proviso that the front
edition have a brick veneer, however that the proviso really wouldn't be enforceable by LNI.
the proviso really wouldn't be enforceable by L&I. Thank you.
Okay. Questions from the board? No.
Anyone would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
no hand planning commission good morning david fecto city planning commission mr chairman and
members of the board this property is indicated for residential single-family use in the city's
comprehensive plan it is zoned that way because it's part of a row of other single-family homes
however there are also multi-family rows on the block accordingly we have no objection to granting
these variances thank you um i would like to close the record on this and the board will resume
uh render a decision at our next wednesday's executive session okay okay next one up hold on
Let me just read that in, Confessor, MI 2020-000325, 944 Belmont Avenue.
The record is closed.
The board will render a decision at its next Wednesday's executive session, November the 10th at 9.30 a.m.
Chair, this is Sharon Saleta.
Just to clarify, it will be discussed at the executive session and voted at the 9.30.
I always forget.
Thank you.
I'm sorry. Could I also interject? So November next week, we are not open. So it will have to be Tuesday. If you wish, we can have the executive session Tuesday.
that'll work okay all right so this this then we'll the record is closed on this case and it
will uh the board will render a decision that uh next tuesday the 9th of november at 9 30 at
in the executive session and vote on it at 9 30. so okay thanks should we come next tuesday
yes we will make a decision next tuesday morning no should i attend the the meeting
should i come and it's up to you it's your decision okay sure and
thank you thank you i'm sorry mr saeed if you have questions you can contact the zoning board okay
we're back on number 15 mi 2020-000-323-6644 holland street
and this is sharon saletta miss sunka did you receive the emails that i forwarded
yes okay and can i also say that um
um the hillary emerson is here she let me know that she did attend the um the rco meeting that
the vote was in opposition but she would prefer that you wait for a letter um there may also be
neighbors here to testify i'm sorry are you suggesting we we hold this um i'm saying no
I'm saying that there was an RCO meeting they took a vote they did not submit a letter or I
don't have a copy of the letter Ms. Emerson is requesting that you yes that you hold the vote
until you receive the letter that the applicant come back and present the letter okay all right
but we'll hear the case and hold right yes okay thank you Mr. Cassells
and or Mr. Johnson could you share the your exhibits
I think that maybe I'm confused I think Omar is alone Mr. Johnson was a different case
yes Omar sorry I'm alone you're right Mr. Johnson was a previous case you're right sorry
and then I can share what I have let me know if you see it
We have some visuals.
Some visuals.
Thank you.
We have like a collage of 9 or 10 or 12, is it?
And then that's it.
let me get those exhibits up
Tanya are you controlling the exhibits
yes chair what is it that you want to see are you controlling the exhibits
yes okay i i guess you see what we see you see like 12 small shots snapshots okay that's all we have
uh the plan is in the pdf folder sir for the layout is in the pdf folder okay
It's on page 15.
The plan is on page 15.
does it come up for you guys we have the application okay yeah the plan for it is on
page 15 okay we need to see the right i just right um and chair do you see everything that's
coming up yes moving along yep all righty
it's here is that what you need uh yeah i guess could you shrink that a little bit
how about that a little bit more shrink that that's better i think
uh we're still missing i think if you go down one more we might be able to get it all
that that just scroll that up a tiny bit now we're missing it which are you looking for this
Yeah, I'm looking for that.
The layout, sure.
And maybe, Mr. Cassell,
you can walk us through this.
What we're looking at now,
what floor is that?
This is the basement, sir.
Do you have another device on?
If so, would you please shut it?
Because we're getting feedback.
No, I don't have another device on, sir.
Getting some feedback.
It sounds like it's connection issues.
I'm sorry.
I don't have a...
Try this again, Mr. Cassell.
Is this the basement level?
Yes, sir.
That's the basement level, sir.
that's what is currently there what is it now single family
no it's current it's currently a duplex it is two floors first floor and second floor
yes first floor and second floor each occupy one unit yes sir so your proposal is to add
an additional unit into the in the basement yes sir is the two unit currently a legal is it legal
two unit currently a legal is it legal yes sir yes sir they're currently legal because i bought
yes sir
the building as a duplex okay all right just want to make sure of that okay all right um
questions from the board do you have do you have more drawings is you only have one floor
This is not the basement. The only job drawing is for the basement.
Can you go back to the drawing? Thank you.
The basement is a one-bedroom studio apartment?
It's just a studio apartment, sir.
Yes, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Here we have Hillary from the council person's office.
Thank you.
Good morning, Hillary. Please, Ms. Emerson, please identify yourself for the record, then I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Hillary Emerson, H-I-L-A-R-Y-E-M-E-R-F-O-N, on behalf of Councilwoman Sherelle Parker.
I swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
okay um excuse me um the the councilwoman um is opposed to adding a unit um in the basement
of this property um it was um as mr cassells indicated um it was built um as a duplex um
the the street hall of street is mainly single family homes with a with duplexes on the corner
because i don't want to mess up the zoning that's there um because the records like i said do
indicate that the property was built as a duplex rental licenses have been issued for two units
so i don't know if this this a decision in an adverse decision in this case would mess up to
uh because it just uh multi-family on here so and the zoning is single family so i just didn't want
to mess anything that you know the existing um property um zoning up um so it may it may be that
one of those situations where it would need to be maximum but sharon if sharon could weigh in on that
that would be great um yes if there's a concern that the two family was never legalized um the
alternative would be to grant with the proviso limiting the number of units thank you okay thank
you uh anyone else no no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning city planning
commission de facto mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for single
family residential use in the city's comprehensive plan we do not believe that any unique physical
circumstances or conditions exist that would justify a hardship. We believe this property
can be used in conformance with the zoning code. Accordingly, we recommend these variances not be
granted. Thank you. MI 2020-000323, 6644 Hollis Street. My vote is no, and also, correct me if
I'm wrong, Sharon, out of proviso, this property be limited to two units, no residential unit in
basement no it would either have to be a straight no or it would be yes with maximum two units
well okay then we'll do it uh my vote will be yes with the proviso maximum two units
no residential unit in basement correct yes with proviso yes with proviso
thank you does that conclude this morning's session so it does
I'm sorry if I could mention that you have one very complicated case this afternoon that I will
be emailing you about if you could check your email before the two o'clock session please
okay thank you uh any unfinished business Tanya no chair okay see you all two o'clock stay safe
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. With that, we can begin, but before we call our
first case, we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal of
an appeal listed for this afternoon's hearing. If so, please raise your hand, wait to be
recognized, provide us with your name and address, spell your name, and I will then
swear you in. We have Drew. Drew, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Please identify yourself, spell your first and last name and give
your address absolutely mr chico my name is drew middle initial k kapur k-a-p-u-r and i am an
attorney at the law firm of duane morris and today i represent the applicant is 10 the address excuse
me is 1026 pine street number five the applicant is christine house let me let me let me just stop
you i need to just swear you in you swear to the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth yes sir i'm sorry to interrupt it finish oh that's okay okay uh my client the
applicant is christine with the c house h-o-w-z-e sir and that was what street again
pine street yes sir 1026 pine street this is sharon selena it's number 17 on your list
and sir you're requesting a continuance we're requesting a continuance we appeared before the
um the zoning committee last week and the board the zoning board the rco doesn't meet until
the 10th and we're obviously they're not going to have the it's not ready for today so we would
like a continuance until the next regularly scheduled meeting after the 10th year okay thank
Thank you. MI 2020-000301, 1026 Pine Street is continued. Any other requests?
Frank, what's the page number on that one? 17, last one.
Thank you.
here we have stephanie boggs who's ready to be sworn in miss boggs good afternoon please
identify yourselves by your first and last name and i'll swear you in stephanie boggs
b-o-g-g-s 1835 market street suite 1400 philadelphia pennsylvania you're on behalf
of the applicant for 1627 cater street we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do okay please proceed we um pursue into an agreement with the near
neighbors we have agreed to make certain changes to our plans which will generate an additional
refusal so we've requested leave to amend the application which the board kindly granted and
are currently waiting on our revised refusal from lni so what is the address of that case
1627 Cater Street and my number nine on our list requesting a continuance correct yes until the
date when we have our revised refusal all right MI 2020-001452 1627 Cater Street is continued
you thank you so is i'm sorry uh chair i wanted to just clarify miss boggs is this attorney moving
party no i expect to receive it in the next couple weeks so if there is availability um in the next
week couple weeks on the board um that that should be appropriate yeah no we're doing december and
january yeah i think that would be plenty of time all righty thanks jerry leave it as a continuance
yes that's fine thank you the other request
here we have alan knockamson good afternoon mr knockamson please identify yourself with
the records spell your foot name and i'll swear you in yes alan knockamson of knockamson pc
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Swear in front of me to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
We're in front of you to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
Yes, my office this morning sent a letter regarding 3642 North 21st Street.
I don't know if that's on your list of continued matters.
I just want to make sure that was the case.
Okay, that's number seven on our list, confessor.
MI2020-001513, 3642 North 21st Street is continued.
Thank you.
chair we have richard de marco good afternoon mr de marco please identify yourself with the
records by your name and i'll swear you in uh hello mr chairman can you hear me okay yes
uh good afternoon i had a case today uh 1815 uh conestoga street i'm sorry did we get sworn in i
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
It's 1815 Conestoga Street.
Number 12 on our list.
Right.
The MI number is 2020-000-305.
I no longer represent this applicant.
I'd ask for a continuance in order to allow him to obtain new counsel.
no problem unless there's anyone out there who objects to this case being continued
no chair thank you mi 2020 that's 000 305 1815 south conestoga street is continued
thank you thank you
we can proceed. Okay, as a result of the conversation with Sharon Soletta,
I understand we're going to go to case number two first, confessor.
MI 2020-001458, 7519 Ridge Avenue. I'm sorry, for some reason, two hands popped up.
I guess they're for this case. I don't know.
Alan, are you for this case?
No, I'm not, but I did remember that someone requested a continuance for 1419 West Grange
Avenue MI-2020-001494. We're in opposition to that continuance request.
yeah we have it we have it on our list but since that that if the attorney or applicant
doesn't request a continuous we move forward until that time for you to speak to it okay
sounds great just want to make sure that's on the two o'clock list yes sir
okay anyone else it's number 13 on your list and we're prepared to move forward with unless
a discussion is had by with the board of something otherwise okay thank you okay west
grange i see it any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
all right as i said mi 2020-001458 7519 ridge avenue this is a remand case number two on our list
That'll be, I believe, Mr. DeMarco.
Also attorney Paul Toner.
I'm sorry Chair, if I could request, if you are not here for that address, please lower
your hand and allow me to promote the required people.
Thank you.
we only need hands up for 7519 ridge avenue all others please uh put your hand down until after
this case okay chair um i should have promoted mr demarco and mr toner
mr demarco you're still under oath mr toner
i'm here hi mr toner please identify yourself with a record spell your first and last name
and i'll swear you in thank you very much mr chairman my name is paul toner with orphan
news and toner i'm here on behalf of the upper roxburgh civic association do you swear and
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you uh gentlemen
um i i'm assuming mr demarco's first or how you guys want to work it out
um i i'm assuming mr demarco's first or how
this is the first time it's been listed
the remand yes this is sharon saletta can i make a brief statement sure please um this appeal was
heard by the board i believe in 2017 late 2017 you granted variances for a multi-family
dwelling. The required variances were for multifamily use and for steep slope.
At that hearing, the RCO raised the issue of whether the proposal additionally met the
impervious coverage requirements that existed at the time. Because that was not a refusal,
you did not address it. This case was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and then to the
commonwealth court it was remanded strictly as to the issue and i'll read from the court's order
so that the board may appropriately address whether brannigan's fourth proposal complies
with the zoning code's impervious coverage limitations for the overlay district so at
least initially you will be arguments should go to whether it met the requirements that existed at
the time. Does counsel agree with that summary? I do, yes. I would say yes, and I would add the
board is empowered to resolve the issue as it sees fit. The Commonwealth Court has determined
that the record was unclear as to whether our fourth proposal met the impervious coverage
requirements. Therefore, it has obviously found a deficient factual record. We are here to
supplement that record under the local agency law. You are empowered specifically to hear
whatever evidence you want to hear on that specific issue to supplement the record. It's
obvious from the rules from the local agency law and the case law on these types of remands. We're
not here to reinvent the wheel. We're not here to revisit other issues, but we're certainly going to
help you, Mr. Chairman and the board, address and resolve this issue as the Commonwealth Court wants
you to. I would also say that it is unequivocal and res judicata that your decision granting
my client variances has been upheld with regard to two critical matters. One, that this property
unequivocally suffers from an unnecessary hardship for a multitude of reasons. You heard
days of testimony from my clients and his witnesses regarding why the property suffers
from a hardship. The Commonwealth Court has affirmed you with regard to that. Also, this
property and my client's final plan, you were affirmed on that the 16 units were the least
minimum variance. So Mr. Chairman and members of the board, you have been affirmed on every other
issue with regard to this case with the exception of the court was unclear regarding the issue
raised by the protestants, by the way, was not in the refusal, but the protestants elected to try
to get you to strictly enforce the impervious coverage requirements. We have one on every
other issue we're only here to see whether our final proposal either meets the requirement
or if you choose you are fully empowered to grant an additional variance if you see fit not only
mr demarco do so you should yes yes sorry i i think we understand that and okay
it would just be a matter of sequencing i think first the board would be required to
determine if it did or did not meet the impervious coverage requirements that existed at the time
and then the second issue if it determines that it's not what is the next step but let's
okay thank you all right thank you thank you okay we got it uh so again Sharon uh we the board
is not bound by anything other than dealing we could bifurcate maybe that's the wrong word
and just deal with the impervious soil coverage issue?
I think that that would make sense to take testimony today
on the impervious coverage issue, deliberate on that,
and then make a determination on what the next step is,
depending on what the answer to the first question is.
Thank you. Mr. Toner.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
If I could just ask for a point of clarification
as to what the scope of this free manned order is.
Both the Commonwealth Court and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas are very clear that
the sole issue on remand is whether the fourth application, and this was the fourth proposal
that was delivered to the Zoning Board in December of 2017, the remand is very clear
The remand is very clear and very narrow that the board is to take testimony on whether the
and very narrow that the Board is to take testimony on whether
fourth proposal complies with the terms of the Wissickon Watershed Ordinance before it was then
subsequently amended after our appeal is taken. So in terms of testimony, we believe that the
narrow focus should be on that one plan, the fourth proposal,
and on the ordinance as it existed when they made their initial application.
um okay um
so i mean hypothetically i had this conversation with sharon if the applicant were to say
we're going to reapply for an entirely new application everything stays the same in the
first in the original application that the board approved and in the new application
the issue of the impervious coverage is now by right assuming the board would vote the way they
did back in 2017 and if we approved the project with the impervious coverage issue
there would be no argument does that does that make sense what i'm saying well i think there
yes and no i think there are a couple layers of assumptions there assuming that they reapply
some new application for a review by L&I and the Planning Commission of an identical plan,
then yes. If there are substantive changes to the plan, obviously there's no race judicata or there's
no binding precedent on a new plan that hasn't previously been reviewed and subject to court
review. But my understanding, correct me for right, Mr. DeMarc, there is no change in the original
plan. Right. What we voted on then is what we, if technically, if we were voting on the full case
today, there will be no change in the plan that was presented to the board back in 2017.
Except for the coverage, the impervious coverage.
We have absolutely no plans to change our proposal from the final plan that you approved.
The reason why there's some, I think, some discussion here is I fully prepared for this
hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I have evidence to introduce.
should you somehow find, which I don't think is likely,
but should you find that our final plan
doesn't meet the standard of impervious coverage.
We have an illustrative plan to show
what the project would look like
should you do what the Protestants want,
which is strict adherence and a very strict reading
of the definition of impervious coverage.
So we would not get credit for porous papers.
Mr. DeMarco can I say the thing is we just don't want to blur these two issues if if you are saying
that if the board were to decide that you did not meet the impervious coverage requirements that
existed at the time I would say that we are back where we were in the initial hearing that
we decided that there was an additional refusal before us and you would have perhaps been
entitled to present evidence as to why that was also entitled to a variance. Again,
we'd like to do it in two steps. Okay. I'm fully prepared for both. That's why
I just want you to know that I think confused the opposition because I have illustrative plans for
the next step. But if your board wants to deal with the first step first, fine. Again, I wasn't
suggesting that you file a new application i'm just trying to put this in some context
rather than go back over the plan again which we already agreed to the only real issue is that's
still out there or remains out there uh is the impervious coverage which is would now have been
a right if it was by right then we wouldn't be having this conversation okay assuming the board
vote. I'm prepared for both phases of this, Mr. Chairman. All right. So, okay, gentlemen,
and Sharon, please jump in if these lawyers get a little out of hand. Thank you.
So there are a number of our experts that are on the call. I don't see them in the gallery.
So I have George Ritter, who would probably want to have his hand raised at this point,
and i have david plant from uh rogerio plant um they are stormwater management and engineers
uh they're both i do have also david branigan who's my client he's on the call as well i don't
need him to testify on your narrow on the narrow issue that you want to hear from i think george
would be the guy but david is our engineer and would of course agree with george's testimony so
could just do George and and I'll I'll keep it to the focus that you want. Thank you. Mr. DeMarco,
Thank you. Mr. DeMarco, can I ask, would it make sense for Ms. Brumbelow to testify, maybe first?
can I ask would it make sense for Ms. Brumbelow to testify?
Whatever you want, Sharon. Why don't we do that? Yeah. Just to get her position on the record and
then thank you. Paula, good afternoon. Please identify yourself in the record. Hi, I'm Paula
Brumbelow-Burns with the City Planning Commission. I'm sorry, this is a newer court reporter. Paula,
P-A-U-L-A, Brumbelow, B as in boy, R-U, M as in Mary, B as in boy, L-O-W, Burns, B-U-R-N-S.
I am a planner.
You put the planning commission, and I'm going to swear you in.
All right.
You're swearing to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And happy birthday again.
Why, thank you.
Happy birthday.
Thank you.
It's more important that it's election day and everybody votes, but it's like the best
of all birthdays.
So in reviewing of the zoning code for the Wissahick and Watershed, the applicant, and correct me if I am wrong because I didn't get the full package, but the applicant had a 45% coverage limitation, and at the time, the planner that reviewed the plan felt that the applicant met zoning code 14-510, Section 6, Subsection C.
Accordingly with the information provided at the time of application submission,
the watershed impervious coverage amount was not disapproved by the Planning Commission staff.
And what 14-5106C states is that for additional impervious coverage,
additional impervious coverage in excess of the coverage permitted by 14-5106A
above may be permitted by the commission and after review and comment by the water department and
other appropriate city agencies according to the following criteria that stormwater leaving the
property shall be substantially similar in effect to that under basic impervious coverage limitations
stormwater countermeasures shall not require excessive or significant maintenance
the design of stormwater countermeasures must take account of stormwater runoff that enters the
property from adjacent land. The method of handling runoff on the site must be in accord with sound
engineering practices and must not significantly accelerate on-site erosion and that such
development must not significantly diminish the infiltration capacity of the site. I'd like to
put on the record that while I did not necessarily review the site plan, I was the planner at the
zoning board and I do recall this plan being at the counter in the discussion and because they
had to go to the water department for stormwater management. The planner that signed off had worked
and thought that those criteria had been met. So we did not give it a disapproval for a watershed
variance. Thank you. You're welcome. Can I ask Paula to clarify something? I found out something
interesting and I just want to make sure I fully understand this. Do not have my code with me today.
I uh my my witnesses uh will testify if necessary that the line that only that only most of the site
falls within category four and that a portion of the site towards the front has no
impervious coverage limitation is that right yeah if that is true because you'd have the map in the
drawings in front of me but we only review each category depending on where it is on the property
we don't apply the entire more restrictive category to the whole property we only take
the more restrictive category or the section that it's in oh okay so we would get we would get if
i'm correct and i think i am but i'll i can do that through witnesses but if the line falls
somewhere within the property you would apply you'd apply both standards to each portion thank you
i mean i don't i don't need to cross uh paula i i i from what you're telling me you don't need
me to get into anything else i mean the the i think that and i think everybody agrees that
our final plan uh was approved by the planning commission back in december of 2017 right
can i ask a question um given the information that you just presented mr demarco
would this warrant another review by the planning commission to take into consideration
um what category the relevant portions of the property fall into
was that considered the first time or is it something that should be considered again
i think uh well that's for paula right paul's raising it
jaren if the plan showed it that there was a line in between that would have been taken
into account at the time of review i believe mark gregorski was the person who reviewed the plan
I believe Martin Grigorski was the person who reviewed the plan originally for that, and I know he would have taken that into account.
originally
originally.
Thank you.
He is not here today, so we are on my hearsay.
Right, Paul?
Mr. Toner?
Paul, just a couple questions.
At the first hearing, your testimony was the fact that the fourth proposal or a prior iteration of the fourth proposal was approved because of the use of porous paver material, correct?
I'm not saying it was porous paver or not, but I was saying that it met the criteria that is laid out in the zoning code of water infiltration.
I have to share a screen again.
sorry so that would have been the stormwater countermeasures uh the stormwater runoff
the handling of runoff um diminishing infiltration capacity and what countermeasures are we referring
to what specific countermeasures i don't know at this moment i don't have a packet in front
of me to review all of that i know the water department reviews that and what about the
pre and post stormwater calculations do you have that information in front of you i honestly have
nothing in front of me but the code okay and section of the code and you don't have a plan
in front of you either right no okay i have no questions no further questions are you prepared
to go forward mr toner this is the applicant's presentation
or yeah as i told you i'm prepared for both aspects of this i i can have uh what i can do
is since i understand the board just wants to hear about um and you know to confirm the planning
commission's testimony i can present some limited testimony uh you know obviously i i don't know if
this is my only bite at the apple so i was prepared to also you know explain to you why the variance
would be appropriate if you were somehow to find that it didn't meet the standard i have that as
well obviously i'll deal with the first issue and not belabor the other point uh but i certainly
would want that right if the board were to decide somehow that we don't meet the standard with our
final plan you follow me that makes sense excuse me this is sharon again mr toner um the court found
that you were not required to file an independent appeal of the issue of whether L&I had erred,
that you could raise that for the first time at the hearing. But doesn't it essentially still
become an appeal against L&I with you having the burden of proving that the examiner erred and not
including that refusal? Based upon the testimony and the court's findings as to what was included
within the record at the first two presentations. The commonwealth court was very clear that
the factual evidence that was presented at those first two hearings made it extremely
likely that the amount of new impervious coverage was in excess of the 45% permitted by the
Wissigan Worship Category 4 provisions. In terms of meeting our burden, we met our burden
at the first two hearings through the cross-examination of Mr. Ritter and his admission
on pages 41 and 42 of the transcript as well as pages 69 through 72 that the total amount
of impervious ground coverage exceeded 45 percent. So in terms of whether we've made
a prima facie case, it's already been made. The Commonwealth Court's remand order was
for the applicant to specify the precise percentage of impervious ground cover that was being included
and for the board to issue findings in fact on the precise percentage of additional impervious
ground cover so let me let me add something mr chairman and sharon uh the commonwealth court
uh had it has a didn't know that the planning commission had approved the last plan the issue
was uh because the the plan that was included in the record did not have the planning commission
stamp on it um the planning commission did approve the final plan and the commonwealth
court wasn't aware of that so um you know part of my presentation is going to be
you know, part of my presentation is going to be, and it's in my exhibits that I submitted today,
I submitted the December 2017 plan that has the Planning Commission's approval stamp on it. The
Commonwealth Court was not aware of that. So that's one clarification that will be made and
I can make right now, and it's on the record. It's on the plan itself. You have the stamp of
planning commission uh if you don't count let's let's call a spade a spade and we'll get right
to the point here if you don't you don't count porous pavers as porous we're going to be over
45 that's that's a given but it's not clear that the commonwealth court wanted this ultra strict
interpretation of that the the uh the pavers are permeable um and the planning commission's policy
at the time was to include them it's not clear whether the plan whether the court is substituting
its view for the planning commission that would be inappropriate anyway what the court appeared to
want was for the planning commission to say whether it approved the plan or not which it did because
They didn't know that, and that was because the plan and the record wasn't completely updated.
We continued to move along in the process, and we got Planning Commission approval after the board decided the case.
So that's why don't I do this.
May I share my screen?
If I could respond to that before we present any documents in terms of what the Commonwealth Court did or did not approve.
The Commonwealth Court was crystal clear that it was aware that the Philadelphia City Planning Commission had issued prerequisite approval of the first plan that was actually presented to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Its decision on page 19 is very clear as to what it was asking for.
The Commonwealth Court directed the CBA to make, quote, factual findings as to the precise amount in percentage or square footage of area covered by porous elements in the fourth proposal.
The confusion that was at issue with the Commonwealth Court was that because there had been four iterations of the plan that had been reviewed at the various hearings that had been conducted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
It wasn't entirely clear when the applicant's expert, its architect, and its land planner were testifying as to impervious elements and impervious area calculations, whether that testimony referred to the first plan, the second plan, the third plan, or the fourth plan.
Its remand was for the applicant to explain, with just looking at the fourth plan, what the impervious calculations are.
Anything more is going far beyond what the Commonwealth Court ordered.
And it expressly recognized the Planning Commission's review of this and my cross-examination of Ms. Brumbelow at the second hearing
when she admitted that the plan had been approved because the applicant was proposing to use porous pavers.
And the Commonwealth Court, in referring back to the Azule decision,
said it's now a matter of law in this Commonwealth that under the pre-amended ordinance
that the use of porous pavers still constitutes new impervious ground coverage.
So they wanted the zoning board to look at the poorest pavers, the new building development, and determine what is the exact percentage of new impervious ground cover, so a specific finding could be made, and a specific conclusion could be made, and that would then be remitted back to the trial court under this appeal procedure.
Excuse me, Mr. Turner. I agree with parts of what you said. The court did find that pavers constituted impervious coverage. They state that specifically.
if the 45 if there's no dispute that the 45 percent the 45 percent is the standard
and if Mr. DeMarco is acknowledging that excluding the pavers it will not meet that standard
then I guess that resolves the first issue whether it met the impervious coverage requirements
however the court did not specifically say it and then send it back to us I think we are in
same position that we were at the time of the initial hearing had the board made that conclusion
it then would have considered whether Mr. DeMarco was additionally entitled to a variance on that
point so maybe that's where we are i
point so maybe that's where we are i there's no point no provision within the trial court's
re-emand order dated may 4 2020 or the commonwealth court's decision that says that the matter is to
be reopened for de novo hearing before the zoning board of adjustment it's not a de novo hearing
it's strictly related to the point that the court addressed there's also nothing saying that the
board can't go further. And if you look at the docket, the Court of Common Pleas decision is
marked as a final decision. In past cases, when there has been a remand, the board has, if required
to submit to prepare additional findings, if done so, they have then voted. This is a new decision
that can again be appealed. But Ms. Salata, the trial court's order has been vacated. That's the
one point that's crystal clear with the commonwealth court's remand order is that the trial court's
order on appeal is entirely vacated and the matter has remanded back down to the zoning board of
adjustment. And that's where it is. I don't think that makes any change anything. If you notice
though I believe that the order was to remand it to the court of common pleas which then issued an
order remanding it to the zoning board i was merely addressing your statement that the trial
court's order was the final order that final order had been vacated by order the commonwealth court
and was replaced by the remand to the court of common pleas which in turn remanded it to the
zoning board which is now final order the trial court there is no order at the trial court because
is vacated excuse me there is an order now this ninth day of july 2020 upon consideration of the
commonwealth court of pennsylvania's may 4th 2020 opinion in this matter it is ordered and decreed
that this foregain case is remanded to the philadelphia zoning board this is from the
court of common pleas as of july 20th so that is their final order just for the record as a matter
of law a remand order is not a final appealable order under the rules of civil procedure
it is an order remanding it to the court to the board and the board's decision then
becomes the final order which is appealable in any case um and i don't want to get caught
up in procedure here um if we're stipulating or the applicant stipulating that the fourth
proposal includes more than 45% new impervious ground coverage, we agree that the first of the
two prongs that the chairman laid down at the beginning of the hearing has been met. Okay,
and Ms. Brumbelow, do you agree to that if you apply the court's ruling that the pavers do not
constitute pervious coverage, that the proposal does not meet the 45% requirement?
Can you repeat the question one more time? Sure.
Just because there was a lot of conversations, I want to make sure I get it right.
In determining that the proposal met the impervious coverage requirements,
the Planning Commission took into consideration the pavers and treated them as pervious.
The court said, the court determined that they have to be treated as impervious coverage,
in which case Mr. DeMarco acknowledges that if they are not taken into account that they do not
meet the requirements, the 45%. Do you agree with that? I believe I do. Thank you.
And then I guess, Chair, your call on whether to go further and to consider whether
Mr. DeMarco's client meets the criteria for grant of a variance on this aspect of the proposal.
Sorry, repeat that Sharon. I think the first question to be answered did does this meet the
impervious coverage requirements that existed at the time the answer is no it did not that there
should have been an additional refusal the question now is do you go forward and consider
any evidence going to whether the project meets the criteria for grant of a variance on that.
That's what I thought initially we were just going to narrow it down to that issue.
Yes. So the answer is yes we will go forward on that issue.
Am I saying that is my am I correct in saying it that way? Yes the board there there seems to be
no dispute that the proposal did not meet, using the court's interpretation, that the
proposal did not meet the impervious coverage provisions as they existed at the time the
application was filed. So there should have been an additional refusal under the court's
So there should have been an additional refusal under the court's interpretation.
interpretation.
The question is,
The question now is, are you entitled to a variance on that aspect of the development?
So, Mr. DeMarco, if you want to go forward with your variance proposal.
I'm happy to.
And, you know, I want to, again, I know I said it already.
I want to reiterate it.
you know this board before i called david and george ritter uh the board was affirmed already
on that this property suffers from an unknown not only suffers from an unnecessary hardship
for a multitude of reasons but also we met the standard for a least minimum variance so we are
entitled to the 16 units and then you'll see why i have illustrative uh plans to show how
how ridiculous the development will look if we are permitted to develop 16 units
and can't put the pavers that we need to provide access and provide the parking
that was actually demanded by the neighbors we mr chairman if you remember we included
um visitor parking plenty of visitor parking and we have two parking spaces per
unit and then in excess of 15 spaces not only will we lose visitor parking
and overflow parking on the site we'll also lose access to four of our units if we have to provide
a literal compliance with what the court seems to want. So I'll call David and George. They're
on the call. I'll call George first, and we'll illustrate that point. Gentlemen, with no
disrespect to either of you and the people who have an interest in this, we have about 12 cases
left due on the two o'clock list before we get into the 3.30. So I would ask that you
consolidate your comments as best as possible. We understand this may again be appealed.
So we don't want to not allow for important testimony to be on the record. But we ask that
you just try to summarize as best you can without leaving out anything that you think
might be necessary going forward. Can I make one comment? If you believe this is going to take,
Mr. Koenig is also going to get to cross-examine these witnesses and perhaps present his own
witnesses, I'm not sure that he was prepared to argue the variance issue today. Would it make
sense to delay this, to continue this part of the hearing to another date, or would you like to get
as far as you can today let's see we've been on this for about uh 35 minutes already
and we try to keep these to an hour minimum so let's get in as much as we can between now and
three o'clock and again i don't we're not trying to rush you fellas but it's it's just the way
things have been going. We're going to be backed up. I can get George on and hopefully get through
him pretty, I think, efficiently. Okay, let's go from there. Thank you. Can we authorize George
Ritter, please? Mr. Ritter, good afternoon. Please identify yourself with the record,
spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
mr ritter yes uh i am i on that i'm sorry yes you are my name is george ritter and it's spelled
r-i-t-t-e-r and you're in interest in this case you are uh yes well i'm a i testified at the
original hearings before the board i'm a professional planner and associated with
the firm of Ruggiero and Land Planning. Thank you. You swear in the firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. DeMarco. Mr. Ritter,
let's get something out of the way. Do we all agree that if you are unable to count
your porous elements as pervious, that we would be over a 45% limitation? Is that
not agreeable to you? That is correct. And your firm provided the stormwater management
processes for this proposal, is that right? That's correct. And David Plant is also in your
that's correct and david plant is is is uh also in your permanent is on the zoom call
as well that is correct all right and
to remind the board your stormwater management proposed why don't you brief very briefly
describe the stormwater management elements that are included with the final plan that we have
was approved and submitted in this matter? Yes. Well, the plan did an extensive amount
of improvements to the project. Besides using pervious pavement, the plan incorporated
basically a design that transferred most of the stormwater runoff that went from the
front of the property to the rear and onto the abutting residential units.
The project was designed that the vast majority of water was being brought back into Ridge Avenue so it no longer flowed toward the residential areas, so that a substantial amount of runoff was diverted away from the homes in the rear.
Also, the plan incorporated rain gardens to help infiltration of the remaining water that came onto the site.
and it also met the city requirements for uh doing retention of the various storms
excuse the interruption excuse the interruption i think mr holliman's trying to get in
yes yes we have to speak up tom can you show the site plan yes i can am i authorized yeah i think
I am. Yeah, sure. That would be helpful. Thank you. And while I'm on, counselor, can I ask you
a question? Of course. What percentage is it over the 45%? And where is that overage on the site
plan? George, did you hear Mr. Holloman's question? They want to get, and I don't know
if you're prepared to give an exact number, what is the, and maybe this might be for David
or Rondo other than you, but the question is, what is the percentage if you don't count
Boris Pavers? I think you can get the best answer there from David or Rondo,
who actually put the plans together you have. Who's the best person? Let's get him or her on.
uh david plant yes good afternoon sir please identify yourself with the record spell your
first and last name david plant p-l-a-n-t-e
that's p as in paul l-a-n-t-e correct thank you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you mr demarco could you enlarge that um that page please
You're going to have to forgive me. I'm having trouble doing that. I've been trying to do it.
Let's start with the oral testimony. Maybe you can get that.
Mr. Chairman, there was a PDF original of the fourth proposal that's in color, that's clear, that doesn't have the stamps on it, but it's a legible copy.
We're prepared to produce one. I know Mr. DeMarco also has one, but we're going to have testimony.
i think it would be helpful if we were looking at a clear plan not this very hazy it would be
very helpful with that very helpful i'm okay with that mr chairman uh what i wanted to
indicate the reason why i had to use this plan it's not the best quality but that's the
planning commission stamp that's why i have this as my plan i'm happy to use okay all right i'm
happy to use Mr. Toner's color, color one. That's fine. Anyway, the question was to David.
You have to take yours down, I believe. Then I will. Mr. Toner can put his up.
Okay, Mr. Plant. David, did you hear the question from Mr. Holloman, which was, do you know what
the exact percentages uh of pervious cover if you if you're not permitted to include the porous
uh pavers if the porous pavement is included oh he needs to be sworn mr chairman
i was oh sorry sorry go ahead if the porous pavement is included in the impervious cover
calculation, then the total
for the entire site is
approximately 77%
confirmed.
Right. So that's minus
the 45%?
Go ahead, David. I'm sorry.
Go ahead, David. I'm sorry.
It would be
It would be approximately 22% over the 45% wedding.
approximately
Thank you. And where is that 22%?
Well, it really is over the entire site.
And when you look at the site plan...
Paul, the site plan is not up. You have to...
The front 25% of the site approximately is within Category 5.
And that is the section that has no limitation on the impervious cover.
And then the rear 75% is category four, and that has the 45%.
And I think that impervious distribution is about the same.
So we would have about 75% coverage within Category 5, even though more would be permitted, and 75% to 77% in Category 4 with 45% permitted.
Mr. Holloman, I do have the color.
It looks like Paul's having trouble loading.
I do have it.
It's in the old exhibits.
it's I can try to bring up a color unless Paul thinks he can fix this. I can bring up the color
plan if you need me to. Let's try it. All right, Paul's going to have to stop
unless he can get that document to load.
He's having technical difficulties.
Are you going to give me a shot?
Yeah, Paul, if you don't mind, take your shot.
That's fine.
Yeah, take it off.
I'm not sure what's going on.
Yeah, let's let DeMarco try again.
Should be.
in this one.
Oh, the wrong one. Hold on.
Yeah, it's in the reproduced record, I think.
All right, this is the, yeah, all I have is that black and white, unless David can give it to me.
I mean, just for, I mean, this was the plan, that was the 18.
It's that black and white, it's the best, it looks like the best I have, I'm sorry.
I'll put it up, though, in case you want it, because it does show it.
i mean this this is the final you can see we get we created two gaps and there's additional
green space here and here you can see this one right uh mr holloman yes so the difference between
the second to final plan and the final plan was we removed these units here and created
additional green space but this is the overflow parking this is our i believe our storage basin
um one of them yeah am i right david that's the rain garden rain garden excuse me and so david
let me well let's continue moving this along here is the line uh where i'm indicating is
this approximately where the boundary of the line is where this side of that line is
the 45 percent limitation and this portion here has no limitation is that right that's correct
that's correct and this is based on what you you what you were told by the planning commission is
that right correct all right so i think we answered mr holliman did we answer your question
I think we answered, Mr. Holloman, did we answer your question, and I'll move on.
and I'll move on.
I guess you're saying about 25% over.
I guess you say.
So 25% of this property has no impervious coverage limitation, whereas to the right, it's about 100 feet in.
This is over 350, 360 feet deep, that's not.
the 100 feet in is approximately right here is the boundary line and to the right is the coverage
limitation of 45 percent to the left there is no limitation correct david yes and george all right
so did the water department approve the storm water management um proposal for this final plan
yes they have approved the plan um they gave it both preliminary approval and they've approved
it recently correct correct so they have approved your stormwater management proposal as compliant
with their regulations not only then but now correct correct all right um now as far as uh
impeding water surfaces and infiltration, the porous elements do allow for the intrusion of
water, right? Yes. And also the current site has some, even though it's open space,
it has stormwater management problems, correct? Which you mentioned earlier, correct?
Mr. Ritter described how the water flows towards the back of the site towards the
adjoining homes. About 85 percent of the site slopes away from Ridge Avenue towards the back
of the site in its current condition. So is it your opinion as a and you are an engineer Mr.
plant? Correct. Is it your opinion that the proposal that is proposed in the final plan
proposed by David Brannigan is a vast improvement or a wash or worse than current conditions?
It's a significant improvement in terms of stormwater management and impact on adjoining
properties. The proposed plan is a significant improvement over the current conditions.
And is that because current conditions, current groundwater, ground level, ground quality there allows for runoff, right?
Correct.
So in other words, natural ground does impede the flow of water into the soil.
Is that a fair statement?
To some extent, yes.
To some extent, right? So even soil, natural soil does impede groundwater and creates pooling and rivulets and can result in water, rainwater flowing onto other properties, right?
Is that correct?
And that's currently occurring, right?
Okay. On this site, correct?
All right.
i'm almost done mr chairman um i want to just show uh since we're talking about uh potential
variances i'm going to
go to a different plan i'll see if i can do this
uh david do you see what i'm showing on this on your screen yes but you tell the board and mr
holloman and the rest of the board what what we're showing here well this this version of the plan
contemplates the limitation of 45 percent impervious cover including the permeable pavement
within the category four area which is the rear property and that required elimination of all of
the um visitor parking as well as um driveway access to three of the four homes at the rear
of the site all right my courser can you see where i'm putting my courser that's the area that um
and where it's shown green in front of the the houses that that would have to be eliminated so
you would lose the parking garage parking in this building all right so this line diagonal line here
is that the 100 feet depth issue that i discussed earlier where this portion indicating the front
portion of the lot for the record does not have a impervious coverage restriction right
Right. Right. And this area that I'm outlining, which is the rear larger portion of the law, has the 45 percent coverage.
and this area that i'm outlining which is the rear
Correct. Is that right? Yes. All right.
So if you were to comply literally and strictly with what the Commonwealth Court seems to want.
do we agree that you will lose all of the visitor parking here and you will not have access to
at least three homes in the rear correct correct and you will only have what looks to be one or
two spots in one of the rear units correct that's correct so if these homes indicated for the record
the back three homes here that don't have driveway access those people will have to
either unload elsewhere or outside of the site and walk packages if you will to their properties
right because there's no room to pull in am i right yes all right so you will have eliminated
i think at least 15 spaces here which is our overflow visitor parking correct yes and you
have eliminated both access and accessory parking to the back three homes here correct yes all right
so this is what the plan would look like if you were to comply literally with
impervious coverage limitations agreed all right i'm going to show one more screen mr chairman and
We can go on.
Do you see this one, David?
We don't see anything yet.
Oh, okay.
Hold on.
I'm sorry.
Give me a minute.
having a senior moment
wait until you're a senior
now can you see it yes all right good i'm getting there just tell the board briefly and we can move
on tell the board briefly what you see here on this screen this is a minor alteration of the
previous plan. And this is what the plan would look like if the 45% impervious limitation was
applied to the entire site. And so you'll see it really is a fairly small difference. And the thing
that I think that's been eliminated, the part that's been eliminated is access to one of the
four homes at the rear of the site so if the board if this plan that we're looking at and
correct me from wrong was presented to the board back in 2017 and the impervious coverage requirements
what are in place now were in place then this is what the board would have been
uh voting law correct well not exactly mr chairman no show me what show us the one that
with with the changes that have been made regarding impervious coverage if you have
so to be clear we're asking the board now since since we we can't present you with an argument
that the final plan that you approve complies with what the commonwealth court believes are
impervious coverage requirements okay so we're we have no intention of building this it's a nightmare
it's a nightmare scenario it's it's it's it's okay it's not feasible and i'll ask uh george uh i'll
ask him his opinion as a land planner whether literal interpretation with the impervious coverage
requirement is feasible so let's can i get that on the record now mr chairman yes george um looking
at the two plans that david has explained to the board uh you agree that this is these plans show
what the plan would look like if you were forced into a literal interpretation of the zoning code
agreed i agree yes so tell the board in your opinion as a as a zoning professional and a
professional land planner whether either of these two proposals make sense from a zoning standpoint
Mr. Chairman, before we move on, can we just have the witness Mark D's or Mr. DeMarco Mark D's plan so we know on the record what plan we're referring to?
Yeah, because I wasn't sure. I was interpreting this as a different plan.
yeah that's fine this can be uh i'm gonna go r for remand i'm sorry this is tanya
Yeah, that's fine. This can be, I'm going to go R for remand.
i just want to call the time at 3 10. i just don't have a full docket for two yep okay i'm
almost done mr chairman i was getting ready to say that too tanya thank you i'm almost done
i'm gonna do r we're gonna do r we're gonna do r we're gonna do r1 and r2 for each of these plans
Okay, if that's okay. So an R1 and R2 is what we're talking about, Mr. Ritter?
Yes. Are they feasible from a zoning and professional planning standpoint?
Well, I would say not. The plans as drawn there, if they were built that way, would really
produce housing that would not be serviceable for the people that would be buying them. The lack of
access and parking would make the project virtually undesirable and unfeasible in terms
of trying to market it and get people interested in it.
I don't think it would work at all.
Right.
And in your opinion, as a professional land plan, are variances clearly warranted for
this condition?
Oh, clearly, in order to serve these properly, variances are in order.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
All right.
Mr. Toner, I don't want to rush you, but let's give you a few minutes.
I've added a few extra minutes to the technical problems we had.
So if you could.
I'll move as quickly as I can.
Mr. Ritter, going back to what was marked as three-man-two,
at your position, this is not a feasible plan from a land development standpoint,
solely because of the lack of visitor parking is that right? Well it no it's
not it's infeasible not only because you lost all the visitor parking which
obviously has impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of people coming
and going to the site but also it lacks adequate access to some of the homes. You
So in that sense, I think it's infeasible from both.
And it also would have negative impacts on the neighborhood.
The lack of parking on this site forces people to go out onto Ridge Avenue and into the residential neighborhoods if visitors come and want to park.
It's clearly a less desirable plan than the plan that is before the board that provides adequate parking and overflow for visitors.
Mr. Ritter, is it your position that it's not feasible to access a unit if one has to walk to it?
No, I'm referring to the fact that there would be insufficient parking for them.
They would have to park either within.
The code requires one parking space per unit.
So if those units were built in the back with no access to parking, they would have to park within another.
they would have to have a space assigned within another unit or they would physically have to go
out on Ridge Avenue or into the neighborhood and park and walk back. So it's your position that
feasibility is entirely tied to park access to a parking spot right? I don't I don't quite follow
the question there but. It's your position that two units are not feasible because there's not
parking spot right in front of those two units and that a prospective buyer would have to walk
somewhere else well i'm saying that it's not it's not that it's infeasible to have someone walk to
a unit clearly they can do that uh but it's not desirable i think is what i'm saying and if you're
selling single-family homes most people would expect to have parking in relatively close
proximity to their home. Mr. Ritter, you're aware that probably a vast majority of people
sitting in this room live in homes in Philadelphia without parking spaces right in front of their
house. Yes, and as I have for years, I park in my neighborhood and walk blocks at times to get to
my house. I'm very familiar with it. I can move on. I want to touch on the line markings, the
separation between the category 4 45 percent impervious limitation and the no limitation
if we could put up the uh fourth proposal can you see it now no the fourth proposal is
the first plan that was shown with the stamp from the planning commission
is that it mr ritter the the line demarcates
Is that it?
Mr. Ritter, the line demarcating the two zones is not actually on this plan, is it?
Not on the plan that's up for exhibit, no.
So exactly where does that line come from?
How did you get the information needed to think that there was a line on this plan?
well as far it's my understanding that this line came from the planning commission's
mapping of the watershed i did not personally get this line
have you ever personally seen a map with the line on it that's at the planning commission or a formal
city document only i'm only objecting because that's probably a question for david or ronda
rather than george i can ask david too but i'd like to hear from mr ritter since he's the latest
plan here i i i have not seen a map with the actual outline of the district on it other than
what's in the code and the stormwater features on this fourth plan is there a store pre and post
development stormwater management study that's been prepared for this plan the fourth plan
Yes, the firm has done pre and post stormwater analysis on the plan and has submitted it to the water department and has received approval for it.
Is that plan here today?
Or is that approval here today?
I'm not sure it's an exhibit.
no there's no I haven't there's no exhibit my exhibits are are what they are we can certainly
provide if the board wants it of course and Mr. Ritter on this plan aside from the the poorest
pavers what other stormwater uh facilities are there well they have the rain garden they also
have designed the the yes that's the rain garden that's being pointed to uh to help
There's a single rain garden on this plant, right? Just one?
Yes, that's correct.
And also they've designed the system so that the vast majority of the water, the stormwater that normally ran off this site onto the backs of the residential homes has now been pitched back toward Ridge Avenue so that it no longer goes there.
So that not only have they done the rain garden for water quality, they've also substantially reduced the amount of water that drains toward the residential neighborhoods.
And they've designed it so that there are reductions in the various storm water runoffs as per the water department's requirements.
In other words, there's actually going to be a reduction of the amount of runoff that goes on to the neighboring properties.
In your testimony, I wasn't sure if you mentioned that there was a retention basin here.
Is there a retention basin?
A retention basin.
I'll object because that's a question for David, but if he can answer it.
Yeah, I think it's best.
Normally, there is a stormwater system designed into these to retain the various storms that are required under the city code.
does anybody mind if david answers that question i mean he's on the call he's on the call
he's our engineer i don't mind if i could um the stormwater management system consists of
regrading of the site to direct water back out toward ridge avenue rather than toward the back
of the site the permeable pavement which you've seen which we've discussed all of the ground level
pavement is proposed to be pervious, pervious asphalt and permeable pavers. There is the
rain garden that was just pointed out, and there is also the subsurface stormwater infiltration
basin, which is just behind the first three buildings in the driveway. It's being pointed
to now. And I think all of that goes to the robust stormwater management design that Ms. Brumbelow
talked about originally. And that's why the Planning Commission believed that this project
met the requirements of the Wased-Hicken watershed, and even regardless of the
condition of the permeable paver, determination on the permeable paver, met
the requirements to allow additional impervious cover in the Wased-Hicken
to allow additional impervious cover in the West African watershed.
Thank you.
So she talked about that directly, and that's right in the code, and that's a 2015 code.
Mr. Plant, in terms of the permeable pavement, what exact type of material will the pavement be made out of?
Well, the driveway portion is proposed to be permeable asphalt pavement, and all of the walkways are proposed to be permeable brick pavers.
So, Mr. DeMarco had testified that there is a spectrum of permeable surfaces. Even ground is impermeable to a certain degree. Have specific materials been selected for the pavement and the asphalt?
Well, the asphalt meets the specific water department requirement for permeable asphalt.
There's a specification for that.
And basically, the fine material is left out of the asphalt so that there are more pores in the surface for water to run through.
And so, Mr. Plante, for the water department's regulations, what's the rate of infiltration for the porous asphalt?
you just referenced they do not uh specify that by rate they specify it by the asphalt mix
and what type of asphalt mix is being proposed here well it's a permeable asphalt mix uh i don't
have the the exact percentages of materials in front of me but as i described effectively
most of the fine material is left out and that is what leaves the pores making the material
And Mr. Plante, do you have spec sheets for the type of materials that would
identify the perk rates and the various qualities for stormwater management?
If you're talking about the permeable asphalt, as I just described, there isn't a set
permeability rate. It's specified by the mix and that mix is stated on the final stormwater
management plan was approved by the water department and as mr demarcus said there's a
there's a spectrum it could be have very little porous elements to it and it could be very porous
depending upon the specifications the manufacturer the type of materials right it's the same it's the
same mix that is specified across the city for permeable asphalt meeting the water department
requirements but you don't know exactly what those requirements are well uh i can't tell you
the exact percent passing each sieve size if that's what you're asking i'm trying to understand what
was shown to the water department what was shown to the planning commission and they supposedly
gave their approval well the permeable pavement meets the the water department standards for
permeable pavement. I understand you've said that many times now, but what exactly was
shown, Sam? What type of material? Permeable asphalt for the driveway and permeable brick
pavers for the walkways. But you're not able to identify? We haven't selected a manufacturer
because there are many manufacturers but they must meet the water department standards for example
the um the permeable pavers the brick pavers have to have a 10 opening in the surface area of the
covered paved area that those voids or gaps are filled with a permeable gravel mix so that the
water can run through off of the surface of the brick into the gaps between the
brick and through the gravel into the 8 to 10 inch deep storage bed of stone
that's beneath the brick. So let me add it just a different way. Did you did you
show the Planning Commission or identify a specific type of material or did you
just agree that you would comply with whatever regulations they had?
an objection but go ahead if you can answer yeah we specified permeable pavement permeable asphalt
permeable pavers and without a detail we would never provide a um a construction detail for
that to the planning commission i'm not sure that they have the expertise to review that
so essentially you told them that you would use permeable pavers and you would comply with
whatever regulations they provided well that we would comply with the the water
department requirements permeable material and that was included because
we had the even at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the zoning plan
Even at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the zoning plan, they had an approved conceptual stormwater management plan specifying that.
Gentlemen, can you hear me now?
I can.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I had to leave and come back in.
We are way over time.
So what we'd like to do, we can resume this hearing next week.
Tanya, I believe you said Tuesday?
That is correct, Chair.
at what time 2 p.m 2 p.m gentlemen is at work that works for me i have two other cases but okay
well you'll be here anyway okay good yeah all right so uh mi 2020 that's 001458
519 ridge avenue will resume next tuesday which is november the 9th i believe at 2 p.m
that would be the 10th chair 10th oh that's right i'm thinking today i'm sorry november the 10th
at 2 p.m thank you thank you very much for your time sorry fellas but we got just so many cases
left to hear okay thank you thank you thank you for your number mi 2020-001516 2000-24 market
i'm promoting stephanie boggs
good afternoon ms boggs you're still under oath i am thank you just please identify yourself
Yes. Stephanie Boggs, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.
Professor?
Yes. Stephanie, you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, photos and plans, five days in advance
of this area? Yes, I have. Also, have you met with the RCA and have a letter? Yes, I did. It's
included in your packet at tab two. Thank you. Please proceed. Sure. So this is for the property
at 2000 Market Street at the corner of Market and 20th. It's an existing office building with
ground floor retail, and we are proposing one freestanding sign in the front of the building
to identify the address of the building within an existing landscaping berm. Let me interrupt you
if I may. We do have a letter from the RCO? Yes, I do. Their letter of non-opposition is in your
packet, the tab two. Do you know of any opposition from anyone? No, I do not. Okay, so you can give
us a brief statement, and then I'll ask if anyone in the audience has anything to comment on, all
right? Absolutely. So this sign is a freestanding sign to advertise the address of the building.
The plans and the dimensions of that sign are included within your packet. We are requesting
a variance for the area of the sign. This is in the CMX4 district, where a sign, the freestanding
sign is permitted to have up to four faces, each with a frontage of 50 square feet, and we are
proposing a one-face sign with an area of 96, a little over 96 square feet. So it's designed to
be consistent with other signage that's located along Market Street, and particularly designed
with this area so that it's visible along Market Street to passengers and pedestrians who are
traveling along there. It's consistent in size and scope, particularly with signs like it could be a
convention center and 30th Street Station. So, you know, it complements and is consistent with the
character of the existing building, won't have any detriment to the public welfare, and won't affect
the character of the neighborhood. So, we are asking for approval, and as I noted, the letter
of non-opposition from CCRA, the coordinating RCO is in your packet, the tab two. I do have
representatives from the owner and from the sign company here if there are any questions hold on
please any questions from the board no all right do you want to miss boggs you want to get one of
your witnesses on well to accept you adopt your testimony and then we'll move on to the sure if
i could have um dominic urbani from urban neon raise his hand
and be made and able to testify.
Mr. Urbani, please identify yourself in the record.
Spell your first and last name.
Hello, this is Dominic Urbani, D-O-M-E-N-I-C, Urbani, U-R-B-A-N-I,
and I am a project manager here at Urban Neon Sign Lighting and Graphics,
and we were contracted through Nala Capital to manufacture and install the proposed signage.
proposed signage. Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
Thank you.
You swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
truth? I do. Ms. Boggs? Hi, Dominic. Have you heard my testimony this afternoon? Yes. Do you believe
it to be true and correct? Absolutely. Would you adopt it as your own, given the opportunity?
Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone who'd like to testify in this case, if so, please raise your
hand. No hand. Thank you. Planning Commission. Peter, please identify
yourselves by your full name. My name is Peter Bernard. B as in boy, A as in
Apple, R as in Roger, N as in Nancy, A as in Apple, R as in Roger, D as in dog. Planning
Commission staff. This property is indicated for commercial mixed use on
the comprehensive plan we have no objection to the granting of the variance all right i'll swear
you in now though i'm sorry swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do no problem no problem all right you were sworn in uh no other questions mi 2020-0015
excuse me, MI 2020-001516, 2000-2024 Market Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
MI 2020-001561, 905 South Shell Street.
Chair, I have promoted Steve Masters for you to swear in.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Masters.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Let me change my virtual background here.
I look familiar we're standing next to.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
members of the board, Steve Masters from the law firm of JustLaws.
Are you swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal,
or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Mr. Masters, as you know, we're running late, so I'm not trying to minimize your testimony,
but there's no opposition from the RCO.
Is that correct?
That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
I can be very brief.
I appreciate that.
This is a single-family home, new construction.
The hardship here is that our lot is only 319 square feet.
feet, so we can't meet the dimensional requirements of the open space and the rear yard.
There was an additional refusal for the setback of the roof deck, but in fact our plans show
that we do meet the five feet setback from the roof deck.
So in terms of the variances, we have a hardship for the number two and number three that I'm
showing.
We met and had a great meeting with the RCO, Bella Vista Neighborhood Association, and they
requested that we revise our plans to meet certain style and dimensional requirements and harmonize
our construction with the rest of the block. The proviso plans that we're submitting today
have five basic changes. We reduced the depth of our bay window to be similar to the bay windows
on the block. We rotated our front steps and we removed a landing. The front door swings in now.
We clarified that our roof deck setback was according to the code and we indicated on our
revised plans where the trash storage would be in the basement. We submitted revised plans to
the council for the board with along with our form and these plans with red
little bubbles show the the the different corrections so the changes that we've made
to the plans and I'm I don't know if the board would like to look at the plans in any
detail, we'd be happy to show you those, or I could ask the owner, Mr. Mello, to adopt my
testimony. Before you do that, how many pages? One page? Two pages. Two pages? Okay, thank you.
One page?
Two pages.
Two pages?
Thank you.
You can bring your witness.
You can bring your client on, please.
Okay, sure.
Mr. Mello, can you raise your hand so you can be brought into the hearing?
your heat is available to be sworn in
good afternoon sir please identify yourself with the records by your full name steve mellow
last name is spelled m-e-l-l-o we're in firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes thank you mr masters sure um mr maldo you've heard um my testimony this afternoon on
this um on this project do you um agree with uh the truthfulness of it and adopt it as your own
yes thank you um one last thing mr chairman um we have an issue with the tax clearance
um there is no actual um problem with the taxes on this property but apparently the revenue
department hasn't associated the social security numbers of the two individual owners with the
property so we are don't have a tax clearance for you today but we mr masters excuse me this
chair all that we need is the printout from the revenue department on this property
oh i mean that there's no taxes due yes yes oh okay we can definitely provide that for you
okay thank you let's send that over appreciate it uh any questions from the board no no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential use in the comprehensive plan
the proposal is largely consistent with the comprehensive plan and adjacent properties
accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you mi 2020-001561
905 south shell street my vote is yes with proviso revised plan two pages approved today
yes sir proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
next one up mi 2020-000316 44 1 44 16 germantown avenue
This is Sharon Saleta. We have a request from Councilwoman Bass for a continuance. Also,
I have no exhibits. Okay, anyone object to the request for a continuance?
You're going to get continued either way because we don't have any documentation.
So MI 2020. Yes. No hands at this time. Thank you. MI 2020-000316
4416 germantown avenue is continued next one up and my 2020 dash zero zero one five one two four
eleven west eason street that's using h-e-w-s-o-n um the attorney is alan knockamson we have a letter
of opposition from councilwoman sanchez
sir knockinson
good afternoon mr chair
you were still on earth from this morning thank you please identify yourself
alan knockinson knockinson pc 123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109
sir knockinson you agree to wait to read in of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copied the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Again, my name is Alan Ockamson.
I'm here to present 411 West Houston Street.
Street. It's not uncommon for this part of town, Norris Square, to have a request of
this sort. We met with the Norris Square Community Alliance and this is not the first time that
we've been in front of this board, even on the 400 block of West Houston Street. Before
I begin my presentation, I want to show you some of the documents which are in front of
uh which are in front of you let me just share my screen
Let me just share my screen.
screen mode all right so i handed you a packet of um exhibits which include eight the first is
the deeds of property showing 411 west houston street llc is the owner of the property uh the
second exhibit is the tax certificate of tax compliance showing that uh they um are in good
standing. Here are proof of payments of those checks for the balances due under the real estate
taxes. My client recently purchased this property, which is a vacant lot, and is looking to develop
it into a three-unit condominium building. This is an RSA-5 property. We're not seeking any
dimensional variances. The only variance we're seeking on this lot, which is over almost 1,200
square feet is to convert it into a three-unit condominium building. I would point your direction
or your attention to this. These are recently granted variances surrounding 411 West Houston
Street. And I have been a part of the last two of these. So 409 West Houston Street, this board
granted in July of 2020. In 1917 North Lawrence Street this board granted actually almost a year
ago today November 6th of 2019. If you look at the square footage of our lot which is 1260 square
feet and we're asking for three units and you compare it to the lot size and the units for the
surrounding properties including 409 West Houston Street we fall in line with what has been
previously approved by this board, been recommended by the Planning Commission, and actually has
been supported by this community. Here's our application for appeal for 411 West Houston
Street along with the notice of refusal and the project information form. Here's where we are in
proximity to Norris Square. Here's 411. Here's 409. Again, this board is smaller lots per square
foot approved a variance right here and further up is where they approved right here, 1917
North Lawrence Street. So right here and right here they approved it. Again, here's our vacant
lot from different angles in the neighborhood. And here's our architectural plans. Again,
Again, it would be similar, exactly the same as 409 West Houston Street, brick facade, modern feel and touch.
Again, it's a three-unit condominium building with no dimensional variances.
You know, you walk into an open floor plan, which has a first floor and a lower level.
Second floor would be its own unit, and then the third floor would be its own unit.
And I would just point to the fact that there is a letter of opposition, but it has nothing to do about any zoning-related issues.
They had no objection to the fact that this would be multifamily, similar to what I presented earlier today with V2 Properties regarding 2240 North 2nd Street.
For whatever reason, during this meeting, the talk was all about providing jobs to local residents.
And just like V2 Properties, this client had no issue.
They actually, it's funny, V2 Properties contractor, general contractor, and the owner's contractor for this property are the same general contractor.
And similar to testimony that you heard earlier today from B2 Properties, they use contractors that are actually situated in the Norris Square area.
So I don't know where the disconnect was in terms of whether we're going to hire locally, but this owner at 409 West Houston Street intends to hire locally, just like he hired locally for the other Houston Street property.
And if you can see that just last year for 409 West Houston Street, they were in support
of this project, 10 to 3.
And they were in support of North Lawrence Street as well.
And here's a copy of the Wren notice to the community regarding this meeting and proof
of mailing.
so again just to reiterate this board this the planning commission in this community has previously
supported projects within the vicinity i don't understand and it was a close vote it wasn't that
off although 40 people attended only 14 people voted
five in support and nine opposed but given the past history of this board
five in support and nine opposed but given the past history of this board the planning commission
in this community um and and the fact that there weren't zoning related issues that were discussing
the reason why they're against it which are not even accurate we would request that the zone we
would respectfully request that the zoning board grant this variance now with me i have keith
alias from the uh ownership group keith can you virtually raise your hand
Pete, and when you get on, please spell your full name, first and last name, and then I'll
swear you in.
Sure, he's available.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name.
Keith, are you there?
So actually, my client just, you heard a ring of my phone in my office. He's having problems, like, actually.
Not to interrupt you, but we'll stipulate you being an officer of court that your client would adopt your testimony.
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
uh questions from the board no no uh anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand no hands thank you planning commission good afternoon board this property
is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan the applicant is requesting
in variances that may be eliminated
if the number of requested units be reduced.
Additionally, we do not feel vacant land
represents a hardship.
Accordingly, we object to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
If I could...
I'm sorry, if I could ask that the Planning Commission,
please state your name and your department
before you give your recommendation.
I appreciate that.
Sorry about that.
That was Peter Bernard from Planning.
Peter Bernard from Planning Commission.
Thank you, Tanya. Mr. Notkinson, in the prior hearings, I think 409, I think you said, was approved and supported by the community. Do you know what the Planning Commission position in those cases were?
I don't want to state. I don't remember. I don't remember. I do believe I thought they recommended, but I don't want to state. It's something I don't remember 100%.
You don't know, you don't know. That's fine.
Because I'm looking at this list again of the number of multifamilies in and around this site.
Okay. MI 2020-001512, 411 West Houston Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
My vote is yes.
Thank you. MI 2020-000303, 3643 North 19th Street.
Chair, I'm promoting attorney Leo Movahill.
good afternoon mr mulvihill you're still under oath from earlier today
please identify yourself for the record yes good afternoon chairman members of the board
leo mulvihill 2424 east york street street 111 philadelphia 19125 here today on behalf of the
owner and applicant for the property at 3643 york 19th excuse me mr mulvihill this is sharon
so that i have to let the board know that we do have a continuance request from
councilwoman bass yes and i'm going to address that momentarily so members of the board we
appeared at a required community meeting um so i'm going to ask the board to hear and hold
this today the issue is this we sent out our notices we had a meeting scheduled for october
29th at 5 30 p.m i appeared all in all um there were maybe two people in attendance other than
board members. The chairman of the RCO, Mr. Karn, indicated that Ms. Bass's office, or perhaps the
RCO itself, requires a minimum of 10 people to hold a meeting. So we appeared and did our best.
We were told to come back. I would nevertheless like to present, hold the vote, and then allow
for community feedback whenever we are scheduled again. Fine, continue please. Thank you. So members
Fine. Continue please. Thank you. So members of the board, we're actually coming back.
of the board, we're actually coming back. Here, you agree to win.
You agree to wait to reading of his refusal and stipulate to attackers?
It's a referral in this instance, but yes, otherwise I do.
Okay. Thank you. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the referral,
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
So members of the board, we're here. We were last here in 2017 for this project. I represent
Ms. Phyllis Johnson. She's the owner of Hosanna Personal Care Home, which is supposed to be moving
into this property once renovations are completed. Hosanna Personal Care Home is a personal care
assisted living facility for those with the, excuse me, disabilities. Sorry, it's been a long
day. So that's what we're here for today. I've included in my packet a handout explaining what
it is exactly Ms. Johnson tends to do, and it's really to provide a community outreach
program to allow folks to live in this house, to have a structured daily schedule with events,
to go on vacations together when we're all allowed to do this again, provide for assistance
with personal care, et cetera, et cetera.
For purpose of the record, I'm showing again my packet of materials, including the refusal
appeal and project information form at page one area zoning map at page six this is an rsa 5
district deed is at page seven tax clearance is at 13 zoning notification letter is at 16 we do
not have an rco letter because we were asked to come back due to lack of attendance at the community
meeting i have a copy of our prior temporary permit that was issued by after his hearing with
this board back in 2017 it was a three-year permit that's why we're back again i have photos of the
property at 24 and plans at 36. So I'm showing right now the refusal, which is in the page
number three of my packet. It's a personal care home, which requires a special exception in this
district. The house itself, as you'll see, members of the board, is a large three-story Victorian
style for a maximum of 12 occupants in six units, providing assistance with bathing, dressing, diet,
financial management, etc. I'm showing now overhead an area zoning map. Members of the board were
indicated in this blue area right here. Like I said, it's an RSA 5 district located around RM1
and CMX 2. We're right off of Erie Avenue. It's shown on the screen right now. It's the
sheriff's deed where my client purchased the property at page 7. The tax clearance information
at page 13. For whatever reason, we were not able to get a tax clearance through the system.
There was an outstanding balance that was due of 714 that had since been paid, so we are clear at this point, members of the board.
So my zoning letter at page 16, proof of mailing at page 18, indicating that 115 letters went out as of October 17th.
page 19 is a copy of the permit for purpose of the record it's permit number 714340 issued 330
2017 or pardon me 330 2017 after a hearing by this zoning board of adjustment for a temporary
three-year permit coming back to try to get a permanent permit for that
showing the photos of the property page 24 is the sign i posted
This is the property as it currently exists. It still does need interior alterations before
it's ready to be used as the personal care home. This is looking towards Erie Avenue, page 27,
and these are just going to be shots rotating down the block showing the adjacent properties.
Now back up the block towards Erie Avenue at the properties across the street.
these are the plans members of the board i know it's difficult to see because this is a smaller
screen for these sorts of plans but these are the existing conditions basement first floor plan
there's currently an office dining on the ground floor the second floor there's three bedrooms and
a bath and on the third floor three bedrooms and a bath what we're seeking to do
just renovate everything so we have a place that's a little bit more conducive for a personal
care home that will be housing up to 12 people in the basement we have laundry facilities with
a folding table along with the utilities for the entire building the ground floor we're having the
porch in the front nice living and communal area to the front community and dining with an accessible
unisex toilet in the middle the kitchen to the rear and then stairs that lead into the rear yard
On the second story, we have several bedrooms. Unit 2A has two beds, allowing for two people.
We have several bedrooms. Unit 2A has two beds, allowing for two people. We have an office space
for the employees, including Ms. Johnson herself. Bathroom. Another bedroom unit to the rear of the
property, again with two beds. Moving on to the third story members of the board. Bedroom to the
front with two beds. We have a one bedroom unit in 3B. Then in Unit 3C, we again have two bedrooms,
and there's a bathroom that's common on the floor.
There will be someone on site 24 hours a day,
as indicated in our prior presentation,
which I don't expect you all to remember at this point,
as that was so long ago.
But assuming we receive the special exception,
Ms. Johnson would like to continue the service
to representatives and residents of the neighborhood
who are in need of help with the tasks of daily living
and who are otherwise developmentally disabled.
Ms. Johnson, are you on the line right now?
if so please raise your hand chair she's available to be sworn in thank you miss uh johnson barron
i believe uh please identify yourself for the record spell your full name and provide us with
your address yes phyllis johnson barron my address is 4963 north franklin street philadelphia pa
19120. We're infirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. For the court reporters benefit, it's Phyllis, P-H-Y-L-L-I-S, next name, Ann, uppercase A-N-N,
Johnson, uppercase J-O-H-N-S-O-N, hyphen, Barron, B as in boy, A-R-R-E-N as in Nancy.
That's correct. May I proceed, Chairman?
Yes, please.
Ms. Johnson, will you briefly describe your experience in dealing with folks with disabilities such as this?
Yes. I have well over 15 years of experience working with those with special needs.
My experience is that a lot of times those who are higher function individuals need more of a step down place to reside.
um currently right now as we all know there's a shortage of homes uh good homes
to um actually place people with special needs but i have well over 15 years of experience i'm
also a licensed personal care administrator as well through the state of pennsylvania
okay miss johnson at this site itself the maximum number of people that will ever be housed there
is 12? Yes. What's the approximate age range of the people who will be living at the facility?
We're looking from age 18 to 55. And do you know how many employees you intend to have at the site?
We're going to have around-the-clock care, so approximately 12 staff.
Is there anything you'd like the board to know at this time to supplement my testimony
or the testimony that you gave at the previous hearing, which I understand was quite some time
ago? Only that it's needed. I believe a lot of people do understand those with special needs
individuals. A lot of people are afraid of what they don't know. However, we are prepared. My
daughter, she's going to be aboard, and she's a licensed clinical therapist or a licensed clinical
clinical director um and we're going to make sure that we have those with special needs
that they're not going to have like drug and alcohol issues or those with um if they've been
incarcerated of any sort we're going to screen our individuals um we we want to be able to do a good
job and and and just uh by us doing a good screening process we'll be able to have the
the uh special needs individuals that we feel so would be uh good for for us and the neighborhood
all right thank you ms johnson i don't have any other questions for you at this time but members
of the board we're happy to take any questions uh from you if you'd like thank you questions from
board no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
um chair i have charles richardson from the council person's office but before before you
swear him and i just would like to put on record i do have a letter of opposition from representative
rosita youngblood thank you
good afternoon please identify yourself for the record and i'll swear you in
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
good afternoon mr chair and members of the board charles
Charles Richardson of the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312, City Hall.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
I believe you may have heard Mr. Moro at the onset suggest that we hear and hold.
Yes, I did.
I just wanted to make sure that he is aware of the email that was sent to him yesterday from Mr. Charles Karn, setting up a meeting on November the 19th at 5.30 p.m.
Mr. Mulvihill, are you in receipt of that?
Because there was no response to that email yesterday.
Yes, I did receive the email, and I was going to respond as soon as we had a new rehearing date for this,
so I could advise Mr. Karn and get those new letters out to all community members
so they'd be able to attend and add whatever testimony they may like at the additional hearing.
Okay, but as I stated, as we just discussed, 13th Ward, RSEO, has rescheduled the community meeting,
going to be at the Mercy Ministry Center on Thursday, the 19th of November, 2020,
gives the address of 1939 West Venango Street at 5 30 p.m. So since that is the is the date then
perhaps it can be scheduled thereafter. Okay we're going to need a date after the what was that the
19th? 19th yes sir. So I think that's going to bring us into the end of the month if not mistaken
right, Tanya? No, we're going to be able to do it December 2nd. December 2nd. Okay.
Any other individuals wish to be heard on this case? Just two more things, Chairman. Ms. Sunkett,
I haven't received a copy of this letter of opposition. Would you be so kind as to forward
it to me? Because I was unaware. Yes, I sent it to you as I stated it on record. Great. Thank you
very much uh my second request is simply this members of the board if for whatever reason
there are there's an insufficient turnout at this next community meeting as well
for whatever reason i'm just asking that we'd be allowed to proceed and we don't continue this case
again only because it cost my client several hundred dollars in posted fees every time we
send them out and we made every effort to attend the last meeting noted thank you anyone else would
like to testify in this case please raise your hand no hands chair you can proceed thank you
planning commission i'm sorry a hand just popped up okay we have a shamika you're gonna mute
yourself and wait to be sworn in okay ma'am please identify yourself with a record spell your first
and last name and provide us with your address yes my name is shamika sparrow my first name is
spelled s-h-a-m-e-k-a last name is sparrow s-p-a-r-r-o-w your address my home address is
368 east church lane philadelphia pa 19144 where was that in practice excuse me you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and chairman for the record
miss sparrow is related to the project she is the licensed uh therapist that my friend is
johnson referred to okay uh unless you have something new and different ma'am because
we're going to hold this case until the rco meeting okay um no i was all right okay thank
you anyone else planning commission good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential use in the comprehensive
of plan we do not feel the proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding community
accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the special exemption
thank you MI 2020-000303 3643 north 19th street this hearing will be resumed on is that a Tuesday
what day is that Tanya Tuesday December 4th no it'll be December the 2nd Wednesday December
the 2nd at 2. Wednesday December the 2nd at 2 p.m at which time I just wanted to state for all
involved that this would not require new posters to be posted on the property okay and again this
will be resumed on December the 2nd at 2 p.m. at which time the board will consider any feedback
related to the RCO and the Councilwoman Bass's position. Thank you. Thank you members of the
board you have a good afternoon you too thanks
M-I-2020-000-330-2566, Belmont Avenue.
2020-000
Hi, Chair.
I have Gary.
Gary, are you, you can unmute yourself.
Are you the applicant, owner, or attorney?
I'm not the attorney.
I work for the organization we need the owner or his or her attorney
Mr. Kerr you've been promoted to panel
good afternoon Mr. Kerr please identify yourself for the record
and I'll screw you in okay good afternoon Mr. Chairman members of the board William Kerr
High Swartz 40 East Erie Street, Norristown,
19404 for the applicant.
English Housing.
And your last name is spelled K-E-R-R?
That's correct.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Is there a way to read in of its refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents,
proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance,
copied the refusal or referral photos and plans
five days prior to this hearing? Yes, that was all forwarded last week. Have you met with the RCO
and have a letter, sir? We have met with the RCO and that letter of, it's a letter of support
actually. It's number two in our exhibit packet due to some technical difficulties. I can't share
my exhibits today, but it is in the exhibit packet which we had submitted. This is Sharon
Saleta. I can confirm that we've received that. Okay. That RCO meeting was held on September 18th
of 2020 there were 15 attendees and all 15 voted to support the um the application and that was
the winfield residents association so uh probably makes sense to have mr bramnick testify he's just
gonna he's gonna adopt my um statements in a couple minutes but not testify but be sworn in
at this point mr bramnick please identify yourself first name last name
Gary Bramnick, G-A-R-Y, B as in boy, R-A-M as in Michael, N as in Nicholas, I-C-K, address 2600 Belmont Avenue, Philadelphia 19131.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
And your involvement in this?
I'm the Director of Marketing Communications for the Inglis organization.
Thank you.
Okay, so Inglis Housing Corp is a nonprofit.
Their main function is to provide housing and related services to the physically disabled.
They also provide those kinds of services to other folks with other disabilities as
well but primarily physically disabled.
This particular location is fully developed at this point.
There are two buildings essentially.
Each of the buildings has 40 residential units for physically disabled folks.
There are also they also have what they call their innovation center there and those are
that's where they provide the services in various offices throughout the campus.
The services relate to training folks just providing therapy and they have an accessory
physician's office with physical therapy. One of the issues that they have is just directing folks
from the street and internally to the various doors where the various functions
happen. So what we're proposing, there are two existing signs. One is out on Belmont Avenue,
which says English Housing, I believe. And we're proposing an additional freestanding sign out on
Belmont and some internal signs on the buildings which will again just identify what it is that's
happening there. If you go to tab six that's probably the easiest way to understand what
we're talking about. Tab six the first page there contains is it is it possible Tanya for you to put
or do the board members have that exhibit?
We do not have, we need it on the screen please,
if you have it.
I can share my screen if that's helpful.
That would be helpful, thank you.
Yeah, and I apologize, my computer went out
about a half hour ago, so I'm not sure,
I was not gonna be able to get it back up to share.
May I be given rights to share my screen?
Can you see the screen?
yes okay bill just tell me what tab you want me to get to go to tab six yeah so keep going that
way go keep going down um yeah these are just some photos of the property
zoning notice okay keep going keep going i think you're almost there
right there okay tab six all right now this first
page and exhibit in tab 6. You see that we have, that's the property. If you can center that,
Gary. You're better at this than I am, so it's a good thing my computer went out, I think.
A little bit lower. The Belmont Ave is to the top. There are two entrances. One is to the north,
to the left, to the south, to the right. There's an existing sign which is designated as E01
at the upper left of the screen. That's an existing sign, which is a freestanding sign,
which will be refaced. And we have some diagrams in the packet. N02 is a new sign which will go
in the front of the building. N01 is the freestanding sign at the southern entrance coming
in off of Belmont. Then to the left of the building, the first building, there you see
N06. That's again another new building sign. Then if you go back behind that building on the other
side we have E02 which is an existing directional sign essentially in the parking lot. Then we have
NO4 again on the facade of the rear building and NO5 on the facade of the rear building.
So if you go flip go down to the next
this is just an aerial it shows
the existing property, and you can see Inglis House. There's another Inglis House facility
just to the north there on Belmont. So this is part of a campus. Okay, next. Go down, Gary.
Okay, now this just shows the location. These diagrams show the locations on the building, but
But what we'll do, since we've already gone through that site plan, this is the existing sign number one.
This will be refaced to look like this.
That's the freestanding sign out on Belmont.
Okay, second is existing sign number two.
That's the sign that's sort of in the landscape area at the top of the parking lot there as you're coming in off of Belmont.
Again, that's to be refaced.
Now, the rest of the signs are all new.
This is an N01, you see up in the top upper left-hand corner, that's new sign number one.
That's the new freestanding sign in the photo.
And then to the right of the screen, you'll see the actual sign face that we're proposing.
And again, it's primarily for the Innovation Center and to indicate the various programs
which are happening in the Innovation Center, the Enhanced State Program.
Mr. Kern?
Apologize for the interruption.
That's fine.
Because we're up against a clock here.
If you can summarize, do you know of anyone who, and I'll ask this question further on,
if anyone who has objected to this, you have a letter of support from the RCO?
Yeah, we have a letter of support.
Everyone at the RCO meeting supported it.
We have heard no objections.
So that's the summary.
All right.
You can summarize that.
And if you need to get your client on, we can, is that Mr. Karamick?
That's Mr. Brownick.
Yeah, the rest of the signs are all internal.
So this was the key sign I wanted to get to.
So Gary, you hear me, Gary?
Yes, sir.
You've heard my statements to the board over the last couple of minutes?
Yes, sir.
And they were all accurate?
Absolutely.
And you adopt them as your own testimony?
Okay, that's all.
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Kerr.
Questions for the board?
Anyone like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
We have no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, board.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for multifamily residential on the comprehensive plan.
We have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-000330-2566 Belmont Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Kerr.
Before you go, Confessor, just hold off a minute.
Sonographer, do you need a break?
We've got about six more cases.
I have two minutes that's all I need. Take five. All right thank you. Okay we'll be
I have two minutes. That's all I need.
Take five.
All right.
reviewing in five minutes. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Thanks everyone. Thank you.
Whenever you're ready.
I'm ready. Okay number 10 on our list Wharton Street correct? Yep. MI 2020-0015
4576-1730, Wharton Street.
Chair, I have promoted attorney Meredith Ferlinger.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Ah, there you go.
Listen, I got a party with me today.
got two of them today i do whammy all right hi guys hello all right um please identify yourself
with the record you know spell your name and address and we'll proceed to swear meredith
ferligerve delworth paxton uh 15 f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r 1500 market street suite 3500 e
And do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Thank you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal,
or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, to all.
Great.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We have two letters, in fact, yes.
great thank you please proceed uh kalfani if you want to hit the raise
hand button we can just get you sworn in now
kalfani leslie
cal if you can spell your name and address
name kalfani leslie k-h-a-l-f-a-n-i last name leslie l-e-s-l-i-e and your address
1834 pemberton street philadelphia pa19146 and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth you thank you please proceed thank you good afternoon mr chairman
members of the board. Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger of the law firm Dilworth Paxson.
I am here today on behalf of Pelican Point Investments, the owner of the property that
is represented here today by Kalfani Leslie. Now this request is going to come as deja vu
to the board and for good reason. The property before the board today is 1730 Wharton Street,
which is the former Friendship Baptist Church at the intersection of Wharton Street and South
18th Street and East Point Brees. Now as is reflected in tab 6, which I put up on the screen,
the property was just before the board in March of 2019, where you did approve the conversion of
this church into 10 residential dwelling units. As you may recall, this is a historic building that
is on the local Philadelphia Register. The original proposal met with overwhelming support from the
community. And that letter of support is shown in the original letter of support at tab two here.
The proposed revision that we're bringing before you today also received support.
Now, just this past March of 2020, my client, Cal Fani, and his entity, Pelican Point Investments,
purchased the property. Cal and his team immediately began the process of working
with the Historic Commission on the exterior renovations. Now as they started vetting the
previous approved plans, they noticed something peculiar that I'll explain further in a few
moments. Now as a result of this discovery, we're before the board today to ask for four more
additional units on top of the original 10 that you previously approved. This will be for a total
of 14 residential units that are intended for condominium sale. You previously had approved 10.
Now with respect to the application, we did receive one refusal.
As it was when the board first saw this proposal, the property remains zoned RSA 5.
Accordingly, the underlying obvious hardship to converting the property to single-family use
remains. However, the main concern before the board today is not necessarily the multifaceted
However, the main concern before the board today is not necessarily the multifamily use, which was previously approved, but the reason for the additional four units.
I'll first refer you to some photos of the interior so you can get an understanding of the magnitude of the size of this nearly 10,000 square foot structure.
So I'll scroll through these relatively fast. So this is how it was when it was originally sold.
And now that construction has begun on the interior based on the prior approval, you'll see
just how large this structure is. Now please take note of the shape of the roof as I now refer you
to a section that was prepared during the original approval. Now here was the peculiar
discovery that was made. As you can see, the way this project was originally approved,
the second floor units here would have had at a minimum 19-foot ceilings at some points.
On the mezzanine level, the ceiling heights are over 20 feet high. Now Cal had his engineers
assessed this design and they were understandably concerned that if they are to close off that space
to make the ceiling heights a little bit more reasonable and rational that it would then leave
a significant void in the upper part of the historic structure. Now not only is this an
inefficient use of this unique space but this would may also lead to significant
maintenance challenges that will ultimately impose a burden on the eventual condominium
association that will be tasked with maintaining these common areas. Any unoccupied space in a
historic structure can pose a risk to the integrity of the building. Instead, as you can see at tab
4, this empty space is so large that it can accommodate a full third floor and four additional
units. The units are comparable in size to the previously approved units, which range in size
from 670 square feet to 1,410 square feet. The new units are bi-level and are also between 890
square feet and 1,150 square feet. You can see that even with this design, the ceiling heights
are still high and will result in very unique living for the eventual owners. We do submit
this as the least minimum variance as still no dimensional variances are necessary. The number
of units here is carefully crafted to ensure the maximum use of this space and to ensure the
preservation of the historic structure by mitigating unused, unmonitored, empty space.
Now, by way of comparison, if the property had been zoned RM1, it would have allowed for 12
units by right. So the 14 units that we are proposing is not a significant deviation from
that theoretical by right figure. We submit, of course, this will not increase local congestion.
the board did previously approve this structure for multifamily use, and the additional four
units will not impose significant added burden. Will not impair light and air or negatively
impact surrounding properties. This is a historic structure. No changes are proposed to the exterior
envelope that has existed for over a century. The building sits among primarily residential
uses, and this use will closely align to the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
we submit the variance complies in full with the provisions of section 1430380 of the code
as is further detailed in my memorandum of law submitted at tab 11 now with respect to the
community as i previously mentioned we met again with east point breeze neighbors they again
supported the additional four units here and are thrilled that the new owner is continuing with the
uh renovation reuse plan of this building uh cal have you heard all of my testimony here today
yes and would you agree that testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were
your own yes i would mr chairman and board if you have any questions we'd be happy to answer them
uh questions from the board no no
anyone else prepare to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
Good afternoon, Board. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan. However,
the proposal is for an adaptive reuse of an existing building that would help maintain
the existing character and scale of the neighborhood. We do not feel the proposal will have negative
impacts on the surrounding community. Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the
Thank you. MI 2020-001576, 1730 Wharton Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you everybody. You're welcome. MI 2020-001580-1705-41, North America.
you're talking about my next journey Richie's yeah she
Hercules are you there
uh chair i'm promoting hercules griegos thank you good afternoon mr griegos please identify
yourself for the record spell your first and last name and then i'll swear you in
good afternoon hercules griegos 1835 market street
but off your PA.
Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth?
The whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I'm sorry, I just wanted to ask for Hercules
to spell his name.
That's
H-E-R-C-U-L-E-S
last name
G-R-I-G-O-S
Thank you, Tony.
Do you agree to wake the reading of his refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do. We do have a plan change that will reduce one of the refusals, but we'll get to that
in our presentation quickly. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, photos and
plans five days prior to this hearing? We have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We do. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you very much.
as i said i'm here today representing oz alpha llc equitable owner of the property located at
1705 north american we're here today with an application for construction of mixed-use
multi-family building with ground ground floor retail and accessory parking i have with me
today michael scanapico owner developer as well as shimmy zakin the project architect
property is approximately 38 000 square feet located in the middle of north american street
which goes through to phillips street just north cecil b more if i may i will share my screen
and i will look for the
everyone see that
um so um just quickly uh properties site zoned icmx um let's see if i can
through this. We designed toward a standard of IRMX. The site is the former Drexel food site,
as well as a large portion of vacant land. Design teams sought to put together a design which
incorporated a large public plaza, open to the sky, generous ground floor retail, almost 10,000
square feet, as well as pedestrian connections through the site to Phillips Street. Appropriate
parking based on proximity to transit um and new construction of 179 multi-family units 42
accessory parking spaces um access from a curb cut on north american onto phillips street just to
orient everybody with the site 1705 north american it's actually uh one property off
of the corner of Cecil B. Moore. In terms of process, we began meeting with South Kensington
community partners to discuss design back in January. We were inevitably delayed because of
the shutdown. However, we persisted and met with them on two more occasions in, I believe, October
and August. The project received positive feedback from Civic Design Review and we're proud of the
community engagement which resulted in a letter of support as part of the
community process we removed a story from the building from seven to six we
reduced our floor floor heights and our overall building height we set back to
sixth floor I'll just go through some more of the aerials
I'll just go through some more of the aerials.
Here's the site zoning.
Here's the existing conditions.
This is the surveys you can see.
The large North America Street with the bioswale
backs up the Phillips Street
and we're slightly off of Cecil B. Moore.
These are some of the important things
that were from the design team.
here's the sort of massing of the site again maximum height 73 feet reduced from 77 feet
that's the top of roof with an additional pilot house above that to 83 feet in total height to
the top of pilot house ICMX has a one to two parking ratio we designed it to an IRMX
parking ratio with the parking reductions for share car share and bike parking here is your
ground floor commercial space on either side large open plaza commercial cafe entrance off
of north american to a parking back out off to phillips street
this is a section and you'll note um the height 73 feet along north american our commercial and
back off of philip street we have a setback 62 feet and then the sixth floor is recessed
and again here's our ground floor plan unit mix etc landscape plan lighting plan
um so as i said we as part of the process we removed um a story um we added planners along
phillip street to screen the parking we added electric car parking and car share spaces we
added three uh five three bedroom units um to the unit mix um and we are including uh 10
percent affordable residential and approximately 4 000 plus square feet of the commercial will be
set aside as reduced rent affordable for local businesses
in terms of variances we have three use icmx does not allow residential although as you are aware
north american street is changing with similar scale multi-family buildings
ground floor commercial parking as you know icmx requires a one to two parking
ratio for residential while irmx is three to ten we're in the spirit of irmx
with the appropriate reductions for car share with 42 spaces again height
originally it was to top of pilot house at 91 feet we've reduced that to top of
pilothouse at 83 feet top of roof is 73 feet and as you know the width of North
American Street at I believe it's 120 feet allows for massing of the size with
that this is the minimum requested variance will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood as you know large mixed-use projects are the
future of North American Street and in character of what has been built will
not impair appropriate user development or adequate light and air, will not substantially
increase congestion, and the branding variance is relatively small based on the cost of bringing
the industrial site up to code. So we believe that this is appropriate, and I'll just show you
some other renderings of the building. As I said, we have a letter of support from South Kensington
We worked really hard to meet with them and respond to their concerns.
And I think CDR praised the project as well.
We were in one meeting and I'll just scroll to the final conclusion of the letter.
And I don't know if Michael Scanapico is on, but I would ask him to adopt my testimony.
Thank you. Mr. Scannapico, when you get on would you please identify yourself with the
records by your last name and I'll swear you in. And with that, as we wait to find
Mr. Scannapico, if the board has any questions, I'm happy to answer any questions. Did you say
you have revised plans? And we do have revised plans which were sent to two pages, I believe.
it is two pages yes okay thank you can you guys hear me yes mr scanapico please identify yourself
Yes, Mr. Scannapico. Please identify yourself. Spell your last name for the record, please.
spell your last name for the record please
Sure. Yeah. My name is Michael Scannapico. Last name is S-C-A-N-N-A-P-I-E-C-O.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Grigos.
Michael, have you heard my testimony and do you adopt it as your own?
And we're happy to take any questions from the board.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, I have Sloan Foulkes.
Okay, Mr. Foulkes, you're still under oath from earlier. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, ZBA Chair and ZBA. My name is Sloan Foulkes, S-L-O-A-N-E, Foulkes, F-O-L-K-S, Office of Councilman Maria Quinones Sanchez, Room 508 City Hall.
uh the applicants having met with uh the coordinating rco and received received a
letter of support the councilman offers her support for this various request thank you
thank you very much planning commission i'm sorry anyone else beside the mr folks
no hands chair thank you planning commission good afternoon board peter bernard for the
planning commission. This property is indicated for industrial commercial residential mixed use
in the comprehensive plan. The applicant worked closely with staff of the planning commission
through the civic design and review process in development of the project. We feel the new
this new project will have substantial benefits to the neighborhood. Additionally an overlay
district that allows for multi-family residential along American Boulevard was approved by council
in 2020. Accordingly, we support the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001580
1705-41 North American Street. My vote is yes with the proviso revised plan. Two pages approved
today. Yes for proviso. Yes for proviso. Yes for proviso. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
and my 2020-001-460-1419 West Grange Avenue.
Mr. Nockinson, good afternoon.
Please identify yourself with a record.
You're still under oath.
Yes, Alan Nockinson, Nockinson P.C.,
123 South Grodd Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Mr. Nakasom, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and
plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I have not met with the RCO. I'm asking for the board to hold this under advisement and have a
supplemental hearing. My understanding is that they're capable of making a decision within the
next two weeks. This is Sharon Saleta. Can I say that Councilwoman Bass requested that this be
CONTINUED? I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE HAVE HELP TO HAVE A HEARING, HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING JUST
FOR COMMUNITY INPUT. WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR SOME TIME FOR THE COORDINATING RCO, WHICH IS THE ONLY
RCO FOR THIS PROPERTY, TO GET BACK TO US. WE FINALLY HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH THEM AND I JUST WANT TO
HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROCESS. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING,
it will keep the deadlines intact. I feel like if we ask for a continuance, it's going to ask for
another continuance and another continuance. So this is actually, even though this is a large
project, it's a pretty straightforward project given what's allowed as of right and given the
previous use of the property. So I would request to just present this and ask for a supplemental
hearing and and we have made extreme efforts to to reach out we'll go forward all right thank you
uh i'm gonna share my screen
um never mind
tanya uh no i'm sorry i thought we discussed this and we were no longer doing this
because i could do a short continuance or i thought we can uh hold oh okay yeah he hasn't
you're right we decided to discuss this yeah yeah I apologize Mr. Monarkinson I apologize
So we can do a short continuance. If they're going to meet, we can do a tourney moving party. Mr. Nockinson can immediately contact me and I can squeeze it in somewhere.
so we can do a short continuance um if there
I think based on what Mr. Nockinson said, I think a tourney moving party might be the better, quicker one.
Well, so the only thing, I would just like a date CERN because I feel like that will hold the RCO accountable.
so they asked us they said that they can come to a decision within the next you know two weeks
um i didn't know if okay so let's do this then let's do the end of the month
so we can't we can't do the end of the month we're not going to be here
um december 2nd we can do it at 2 p.m okay must be heard yeah it'll give you three weeks right
or a little bit more maybe because you got the you got the thanksgiving holiday in between
all right so we'll do december this december what december 2nd at 2 p.m chair 2 p.m thank you
must be heard mr chair must be heard thank you mi 2020-001460 1419 west grange avenue
is continued to december the 2nd at 2 p.m must be heard and mr notkinson are you there yes i am
i'm sorry i lost would make every effort if you haven't already done so to contact the council
woman's office uh she may not be aware of the difficulty you've been having to get this meeting
set up all right thank you mr chair uh do i need to repost her yes it's a continuance okay so we'll
at that as well okay thank you yes jace jason will send it out to you quite soon okay all right
thank you have a great day thank you okay uh confessor did i lose everybody can anyone hear
me no chair we still here we hear you no i lose my screen goes blank every so often and i don't
I don't know if anybody knows them around yet.
Okay, confessor, Columbia Avenue.
We may have lost confessor.
So MI 2020-001515, 1421 East Columbia Avenue.
Here I'm promoting attorney Ron Patterson
for you to swear in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Patterson. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Oh, sorry about that.
Okay, Mr. Patterson.
Good afternoon, again.
My name is Ron Patterson with Claire Harrison Law Firm, 1835 Market Street,
filled out to PA 19103 on behalf of the owner, developer, applicant.
And do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, and photos of the property
of photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
And have you met with the RCO?
And if you have, do you have a letter?
We met with the RCO.
I haven't seen a letter yet.
Do we have a letter?
And do you agree to waive and stip?
I agree to waive the reading.
uh there's a minor correction on the refusal which i'll get to uh during the presentation
have we got the letter i am checking i haven't found it yet okay so let's proceed
all right oh could i i'll share my screen please
so uh this application regards 1421 east columbia avenue it's located slightly
east of frankfort avenue it is actually the last portion of a large development repositioning
project uh performed by roland cassis back in the day behind this area here is a tall
warehouse that was converted into um residential here is driving down columbia avenue uh this
these were the first houses built part of that uh project and then here is the building we're
project, and then here is the building we're talking about today, 1421 East Columbia Avenue.
talking about today, 1420.
So back on April 26, 2018, we applied for and obtained a by-right zoning permit to construct
this five-story building located in the IRMX Zoning District. On floors two through four
are 16 single-family residential dwelling units. On floor one, we had approved a non-profit
residential commercial slash industrial space as required by the IRMX at equal to or less
equal to 50% of the floor area equates to about 1,266 square feet plus a five-car
parking area in the rear. So we're really here to talk about this space here.
So, as I mentioned, it's almost been three years, well, maybe two and a half years, as the project was being designed and developed.
Our owner intended to have that space run out for commercial and industrial.
He hired two brokers who worked on it for a long time and found that there was really no interest for a number of reasons.
It's too small of a space.
And as you'll see, going through these other pictures here, this block is really not conducive,
at least right here, to any commercial or industrial.
This is across the street.
These are residential homes, of course, and here's a funeral home, and here's farther
down the street.
I want to take you to the site plan.
And here's the area we're talking about right here.
this little industrial area we had here for use here on columbia avenue so again as i mentioned
marketed the property started construction at a certain point you have to make a decision what to
do move forward still with no interest we decided to then file this application seeking use variance
relief to put in one additional single family residential dwelling unit bringing the total up
to 17. The refusal says 18, which would have meant that we were proposing two units here
and that that is not the case. Here's the rendering is pretty close to what it looks
like now and here's our refusal as I indicated by not providing the commercial or industrial
use on that floor as I mentioned we did meet with Fishtown neighborhood association on
October 13th. And despite, you know, all our marketing efforts, there's just no viable use
for that. But yet the proposed use that we want to do here is to convert that space into a
residential dwelling unit is within the character and the context of the area and will cause no
adverse impacts on the public health, safety, welfare, or traffic. With that said, I'd like
for you to allow Anuj, A-N-U-J, Koshla to enter, as well as Carl Amberger, who's our architect.
So I could ask them some questions.
Gentlemen, when I recognize you, would you please identify yourself,
spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
I don't have those individuals with their hands up. I do have a Patel.
Is that it?
Shreed
Patel? That's all I have.
All right, Mr. Patterson.
Yes. As an officer, the court will stipulate
that your clients would adopt your question.
And so we
met with, I should say
since I don't know if there's a letter from Fishtown, we did
meet. It was generally accepted, understood
the issues about, you know, how
it would fit in with the block.
There were a few persons, I'm not sure
where they live had raised issues insinuating that this was planned, that this was some kind
of nefarious scheme of ours or mine to never do the industrial commercial space. But that
surely is not the case. We filed supplemental submissions explaining our position and the
efforts that were done. And it's part of my record and my package. Again, you know.
and it's part of my record and my package again you know we waited two years to make the decision
and finally move forward so that's what I would have to say about that understood questions from
the board no anyone would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
Chair, I have a Sheree Patel
Mr. or Mrs. Patel
Ms. Patel or Mr.
I'm sorry, this is actually a note to close
I guess my computer
because I was given a calendar link
by my associate Sheree
But I don't need to say anything.
Just please give us your full name and spell it.
Anuj Khosla, A-N-U-J, Khosla, K-H-O-S-L-A.
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
If I may, I'll just ask him to certify.
Anuj, you heard my testimony, which you agree it is true and accurate and you would adopt it?
Yours?
Okay, thank you.
Anything else to add to what I mentioned about your marketing?
Anyone else?
Here, I have Andrew Miller.
You're going to mute yourself and be sworn in?
Good afternoon, Mr. Miller.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, my name is Andrew Miller, N-D-R-E-W-M-I-L-L-E-R.
My address is 1405 East Columbia Avenue here in Philadelphia, just down the block in this property.
Thank you.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Just a couple things I wanted to say.
I'm disappointed that the FNA did not send a letter because there was quite a bit of discussion of this at that meeting.
um as as uh mr patterson alluded to a little bit there was some discussion as to when the decision
to pivot from the industrial use of that first floor space to doing it residential was made
um as well as the the issue how the issue of the by right a building it relates to all of this
one of the concerns raised that they were only given they were only by right able to build as
high as they were because of the commercial industrial space on the first floor and if it
were 100 residential there would have been different requirements there was also later in
the meeting can i interject that is not true opposite that is not true ron let him finish
okay thank you sorry um so so that was that was that was stated early early in the meeting right
towards the end of the meeting the opposite was said i don't know i don't know where the rules
of by right are so i'm i'm not an authority on that um but so that that issue was raised um the
i know that there were some photos that were given to uh the fishtown neighborhood association
that that were i would was assuming was going to be part of the letter they were sending to you
um there was framing done i believe it was i believe the picture was from june 3rd
uh and you could see that the framing was already being done as resident i'm going to
object to the relevance of interior interior framing and we can address that sustained thank
mr miller yeah so so so i my main point i guess is is the clarification of the by right
issue whether whether their their height variance would have been required for a 100 residential
building or if because at the meeting it was unclear what the the details of that by right
characteristic is okay thank you uh mr patterson yes so it was a by right meaning that it conforms
with all the dimensional requirements
of the IRMX zoning district.
Yes, you are entitled to seek a height bonus
if you add in larger spaces on the first floor.
We chose not to add a larger space
and we did not seek nor did we need a height bonus.
I'm confused by, I just don't understand
how that relates to the differential
between the industrial use and the residential use.
If this building was 100% residential when it was initially proposed, would it have needed
would it have needed a height variance for it no that's what i just said no that's that's what
a height variance for it?
No, that's what I just said.
No, that's what he said.
he's saying was by right no iphone i i'm sorry i didn't understand that those details no problem
it was a by right okay thank you anyone else no more hands thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for industrial mixed use in the comprehensive plan
This block is largely residential, and we do not feel the proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-001515. 1421 East Columbia Avenue. My vote is yes. There's no revised plans, are they, Ron?
No, just to add that it's a total of 17 units, not 18.
Right. My vote is yes, with the proviso, maximum 17 units.
Correct.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2020-000302-15002 Endicott Street.
I'm here, I'm promoting Xin Jin.
Good afternoon.
Mr. Jin, I believe we swore you in earlier today?
You're still under oath.
Please identify yourself with the record.
Thank you.
Xin Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N,
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838,
Philadelphia PA 19103.
Here on behalf of the applicant,
the applicant is a tenant at this location. Mr. Jinn you agree to wait to read in of its refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, photos and
plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Excuse me this is Sharon Stiletta if I can interrupt for one
minute. We also have a letter from Councilman O'Neill who wrote that he is not opposed so long
as indoor seating is removed and industrial use be exclusive to baking. I'm not sure how this
proviso would work given that it's an application for a sit-down restaurant, but Mr. Jin can explain
that. I'll try to clarify in my presentation. I'm going to share with the board my exhibit packet.
So, in this exhibit packet, there is the refusal, we have both a letter from Somerton Civic
Association as well as the letter from Councilman Brian O'Neill's office, photos, plans, tax
turns, again, my client is a lease tenant, the deed, application, PIF, and the calendar
hearing.
The refusal itself is a little bit confusing because the way the examiner refused everything, what this application is, is for a bakery.
My client wants to use the CMX1 space, which is actually part of four total spaces.
It's one of the spaces within that.
as essentially a specialty bakery. She and her husband both are trained as bakers and savory
cooks. And this is going to be a specialty bakery utilizing their own ingredients, their own formulas
and their own menu. So it was refused because in the way the plans were presented, my client
indicated that they would have a space of about 800, not 100 square feet total, but that they are
looking to have the baking section here, a counter for over-the-counter takeout, and a small seating
area where the vacant area is shown here. When we explain to the community, my client's vision is
that for breakfast time there would be warm pastries and bakeries don't not necessarily
donuts actually something much more specialized in that but warm pastries available to people
that may want to buy it at the counter but sit down to eat it one of the biggest concerns for
the neighborhood is that they fought and obtained a decision against the sit-down restaurant in the
past. And their biggest fear is that because sit-down restaurant was mentioned in this refusal
that this will open the door to future use by another tenant who will come in and put
a sit-down restaurant in the space. My client is only looking for bakery. Anything that she is
My client is only looking for bakery.
Anything that she is going to have relating to the, quote, restaurant use under the code would still want to be limited to bakery and baking goods.
I don't know if that's something we can work on provisal to limit the overall use to bakery.
The limited industrial also is raised by the examiner because she is making the bakery products on site.
So that is considered a limited industrial use because you're making something on site, even if it is just cooking bakery goods.
I can show you the photographs to better show the space.
So this is actually for what is commercial nature spaces that's always been commercially used at the corner of Southampton Road and Indicott.
My client is only getting one of the spaces here.
We agreed also to remove this old rooftop sign that is not part of this application.
So it's a space.
Did we have this case with this property once before?
There was a, on the refusal, you can see that there are mentioned prior case, one of which
is the denial of a sit-down restaurant, which actually was to relocate lot lines.
it was trying to make a much bigger restaurant than this particular space, but it was included
as part of that application. And I think many of the neighbors and even the councilman's office
still has concern of future attempts to kind of slide in a full service sit-down restaurant.
Now, my client is looking to operate the bakery here long term. She only wants some seating
accessory to the bakery use certainly no intent to have a full sit-down restaurant of any sort
and we're open to any way the board wishes to restrict this because we did agree with the
councilman's office that if words come to words yes no seating being permitted inside would be
something my client would accept although i think even a takeout restaurant will allow up to four
seats accessory to a takeout restaurant type use. So that's the struggle here is to try to make
sure the community will not have any way to have a sit-down restaurant kind of backdoor into this
application. Let me ask this question, Mr. Jen, your client has a lease? Yes, my client does have
a lease. How many years? The lease right now, I believe, is for three or five years. I may want
to have my client verify that information. 25-month lease presently, but I believe there's
option to extend as well that's built into the renewal terms. And she's looking to operate
long term. I'm looking at expires February 28, 2022. So it's less than less than two years left.
The renewal term here that would apply under the option three
and would notice she can get option to extend the lease.
and and i think if i were to put her on her testimony would be that if unless the business
is failing her intent absolutely is to renew it um one of the suggestions from the community is that
uh the permit would run unless there's a change in the use away from bakery
i don't know if that's something that the board can possibly work with as a
Mr. Jin, would it be possible to state a specific number of seats and provide that they are accessory to the bakery use only?
We had told the community it would be no more than 15 seats and it would be accessory only to the bakery.
their concern is that of course i think i can i can understand the limitation on on the seats i
just don't know how you uh enforce bakery because a lot of things can be baked you can make baked
lasagna all right i'm not being first it's just bakery i'm not opposing i'm just saying
i don't know how you just bakery limited to pastries uh yeah i mean i don't i don't know
how you enforce that.
We can do the seats and do a temporary
as it relates to the lease.
Mr. Jin, is this going to require a significant amount
of interior renovation?
It is going to require interior renovation.
Right now, the level renovation is basically a framed out space.
Right now, the level renovation
is basically a framed out space.
So my client is putting a substantial investment into this.
I'm scrolling down to the interior photos.
As you can see, she's going to have to put substantial amount of investment in to make the space and put in the equipment for the baking, among other things.
So this is not, even though the lease is two years, because when you start a new business, no one can be sure and they don't want to face a 10-year lease amount of potential liability.
I think if she opens this bakery, this is not intended as just a two-year small.
So what was the start date of the lease, the current lease?
Starting date is January of 2020.
she's been you know you're almost a whole year almost gone all right so it was january 2020
and expires 20 february 22 i believe yes 25 month lease uh based on the lease but you already lost
a month that's what i'm saying i mean a year almost you almost lost a year she did yes okay
all right i didn't mean to interrupt i'm just trying to figure this out okay uh do you have
anything else to add? Again, I just want to point out the community voted overwhelmingly in favor
of the bakery. It's this particular issue of the sit-down restaurant possibility that's the
biggest concern, both from the councilman's office as well as from the community. Mr. Jin, would it
make a difference if there was a proviso stating no table service so that people would only be
able to go to the counter and get? Yeah, I think that would not make a difference to my client
because she believes that the customers will be getting it from the counter
and taking it just to have a place to sit.
That's really the intent, just to give them a place to sit,
not a full-service restaurant at all.
So if there's no table service,
that would prevent it from turning into a traditional sit-down restaurant?
I would agree.
I would certainly ask my client to also verify if she would agree with that.
But I think based on our prior conversations, and she is here with us.
Okay, so why don't we ask her?
Okay. Tanya, if you could look for Mr. Ms. Madeline Suarez.
She's available to be sworn in.
Okay, great.
Chair?
Are you there?
She's available to be sworn in.
Okay, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record. Spell your full name.
i'm madeline suarez that's m-a-d-e-l-i-n-e-s-u-a-r-e-z you're swearing a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do okay you've heard some of our questions
mr jen yes yes and mr jen you asking them can can i clarify um the lease agreement so the lease
started as of February the 1st of this year to 2020. The lease was going to be for two years
and this is a purchase lease to purchase agreement so after the two years I am planning to purchase
this building. Okay thank you. So Ms. Suarez we have discussed limiting the seating to not permit
it to be full service it would just be free to your bakery takeout business would that be something
that you can accept as a limitation under any decision from the zoning board ah yes and it
would be no more than 15 seats correct no more than 15 uh the intentions are just to have people
come into the counter and this is like a bake shop complete food service bake shop uh baking
breads pastries making sandwiches out of the breads that are baked and the seating purpose
was for people to come in and just have a seat if they want to drink a cup of coffee with their
pastry just eat that and then go okay so your current lease expires february of 2022 i believe
so it's two years all right so you've lost a year already okay
and there will be an option to purchase the property should you have a successful well
we're gonna we'll do a lease that'll give her enough time and give her the extra year
because with this pandemic things are changing quite rapidly in the food business so we'll give
her the extra year if she decides to purchase it before the end of the lease that we're putting in
then so be it okay um i'm sorry can i just ask a question uh chair yeah were you thinking of a
temporary yes okay so i was gonna ask sharon if you can jump in typically our agreement with lni is
Okay, so I was going to ask Sharon if you can jump in. Typically our agreement with L&I is not temporary as if it's extensive work that has to be done inside the property. So I just wanted to pick that out.
I know I thought of that, but I'm trying to be somewhat helpful here.
um chair there are i think there is an accepted definition of a bakery um that would limit it to
bread and pastries and service of coffee with i don't know limited seating and no table service
that would probably accomplish but again of course your call yeah i hear what you're saying i think
we're all on the same page here i was just trying to give a little bit of uh uh extra time for the
applicant in the event that you know again because of the pandemic a lot of this this stuff may get
shut down again hopefully not but we're heading in that direction so i think i'm getting the
understanding from sharon that if if it's not restricted in time if we're restricting it to
the bakery use with accessory seating only, no full service, we would accomplish the full
intent. The community wanted a restriction on time, mainly again because of the concern
with future sit-down restaurant. All right, why don't we do this? Okay, your client adopted
your testimony, I believe. Ms. Suarez, you heard my presentation to the board and the facts as
presented. Can you verify that they're true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm going to ask the board if there are any questions.
No? No. And Sharon, if you could, I'm going to ask, does anyone else have any,
would like to speak on this case? Please raise your hand. Here I have Sandra. Sandra,
you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn. Good afternoon, Ms. Sykes, I believe it is.
That's correct. Now, please spell your first and last name and provide us with your address.
My name is Sandra Sykes. My first name is S-A-N-D-R-A. My last name is Sykes, S-Y-K-E-S.
I live at 15013 Endicott Street. Are you swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Hi. I was involved with the last
restaurant that was asking for a variance at this. This corner is located at Somerton Youth
Sports Field. It has a pizza place and it has a deli and it now has the two buildings that you
were talking about before were supposed to be merged together for a sit-down restaurant
which we came in front of the zoning board for and it was turned down because we do not have
the parking on this street. There is no parking lot, and this corner already has a parking issue.
So we did not want a sit-down restaurant because the additional pressure this would place on it.
To have somebody come in and pick up an item and leave is one thing, but to sit and have 15 people
sitting there. We already have a hairdresser that's there that gets hair straightening where
they can sit there for two hours, we have a pizza place, and we have a deli, and no parking.
And then Somerton Youth when the sports fields go on. So that's why we requested no sit-down
restaurant. I also personally have an issue concerning the light industrial, just because
I don't know what it would open that up to. And I don't understand why you can do a limited food
establishment that does not require a light industrial, I believe, it can actually be
done out of the home. So they're my concerns. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We also did
talk to, we were trying to get a meeting together to be able to talk about this
with Somerton Civic, with just the immediate residents, because we do get parked in
constantly into our driveways.
I'm a little confused.
You said you were trying to have another meeting.
There was already a community meeting, wasn't there?
There was an online.
And we were trying to see if we could get together
with just the immediate neighbors.
Mr. Jen, it sounds to me like
there might be some opportunity
to get some folks behind
some of the things we talked about?
So I think
So I think I think the issue here is part of the parking issue I understand was brought up.
the issue here is
part of the
I believe it was addressed also in the community letter. Again if so what it sounds like to me
ultimately again it's considered the light industrial we have explained to the community
multiple times that it is triggered because we're creating pastries on site. It triggers
that light industrial designation because you're making something. Even though it's not,
she would have ovens and flour because you're making it from raw materials. It triggers a
light industrial. But again, it will be limited purely to the bakery use. It's not a light
industrial that's going to allow in instantly other light industrial uses.
So we actually did have sets of questions that we responded to through the community.
I actually did a video presentation that was actually left on their site for I believe
over a week or two weeks for people to have feedback.
So it was actually pretty extensive discussions.
I understand Ms. Sykes' request is for an in-person meeting, which did come, I believe, just last week.
We were told by the council office's representative that that might be something.
And then the community RCO representative apparently felt that another round of questions may be able to resolve it.
That's why we're here today with both letters from the community as well as from the councilman's office.
right and again that letter from the councilman's office stated what no seating their main concerns
is seating correct and again if if that is um something that the board is also uh entertaining
if this would resolve the concerns for the neighbors i have spoken with my client i think
we can accept that to move this forward because she's again been delayed uh quite extensively so
far and you know given the current situation uh moving this forward is critical to her
success as a business in the future so no seating would be this is this is sharon again the i can
quote from the council councilman's letter it is quote indoor seating is removed and industrial use
be exclusive to baking okay okay anyone else like to testify no chair you can proceed
Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Board Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
We do not feel the proposed use will have a negative impact on the surrounding community.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-000302, 15002 Endicott Street. My vote is yes with the following proviso, and correct me if I misspeak. No, indoor seating is not permitted, and industrial use limited to bakery purposes only.
That's right.
okay to vote yes supervisor yes thank you thank you okay good luck next one up is mi2020-0015361322
2 Rockman Street.
Attorney is Henry Clinton.
Good evening, Mr. Clinton.
You're still under oath from earlier today.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Henry Clinton, Queen Memorial Building,
1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia PA 1914.
course. I'm here today on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Clayton, you agree to waive the reading of
his refusal and stipulate towards accuracy? I do. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the
required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, photos,
and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have
a letter? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm still under oath
from this morning. Yes, you are. Thank you. Ms. Sunke, can I share my screen?
Sorry, yes, Mr. Clinton.
Sorry. Yes, Mr. Clinton.
Thank you.
I'll just make it larger.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, this property is at 1332 Robin Street.
I attach my presentation binder, exhibits AA through A11.
My appearance statement, the refusal.
Refusal concerns two issues.
One is, this is a request for parking in the front of a new single-family home on a lot that has been a two-car parking, just flat, open lot for at least 30 to 40 years.
The second refusal concerns are stairs from the rear yard to the second floor, and I will show you that on the plans.
uh this is my letter of non-opposition from washington square west civic we met with them
there was some concern about construction staging noise protection of adjacent properties
but there was no issue with regard to the
to the garage in the front of the home here's the results of the vote eight to zero non-opposition
Here's some photos to give you some perspective.
Arriving Street is between South and Lombard.
As the board knows, this is a shot looking east.
This is the north side of the street with existing front load of parking.
And this is the flat open lot that has been used for stack parking for, as I said, 30, 40 years as far as we've been able to tell.
And you can see from the sign here, there's no parking in the street whatsoever.
However, again, some perspective photographs to give you a view.
This is looking at the lot directly on facing south, and this is also facing south.
Again more garages in the front of properties, especially on those streets where there's
no parking on the street.
This is the site plan, pretty direct.
We have no issues with regard to open space, height, or rear yard area.
It shows the height of the building is below 38 feet or at 38 feet.
These are the stairs in the rear yard that resulted in a refusal.
Floor plans.
The sensor is going to be a garage on the front.
It's on the slab.
The mechanical room is in the back half of the basement.
First floor plan is the car, a little den area.
second floor living dining room kitchen then two bedrooms on the third fourth floor with a master
and a rooftop deck I wanted to show you the drawing this is a rendering I want to use typical
red brick the fourth floor is set back and the architect has used different style materials
to offset the look of the elevation on Rybin Street that ties in with the other properties
on the street. You notice the corner line, cornice line, excuse me, is being carried over.
And we also have windows on the second floor and third floor. Just showing the shadow lines.
Agreement of sale, tax certification, our appeal, and the zoning map. This whole area is zoned RM1,
unsurprisingly to me, but that's what the zoning maps show. This is our letter that we sent to all
the neighbors and sent out over 97 pieces of mail. And here are zoning records I pulled from the
archives just showing that this has been a parking space for vehicles, two vehicles, for some time,
at least back to 96. And you can see the renderings that were in the file.
and there's some records back from the 30s in 1937 referring to garage so basically we have an
open air slab lot that has been used for parking for numerous years it's a single family residence
block three-story homes front loaded garages there's no parking on the street we believe
this practice is in conformity with the code it's in conformity with the wishes of the community
group and i'll stop talking to see if the board has any questions and if not i would ask my client
stop talking and see if the board has any questions.
And if not, I would ask my client to adopt the testimony
since I believe Tom's family is on the line.
Get your client on and then we'll ask for questions.
Tom, are you on the call?
I think he is, but he can't get in, Mr. Chairman.
May I stipulate that he would adopt?
Yeah, we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony.
I'm on now, and I do adopt a testimony.
Well, let's get your full name, sir.
My name is Thomas Famoletti, F as in Frank, A, M as in Mary, I, L, E, T, T, I.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Tom, have you heard my testimony?
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you, Tom.
thank you questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please
raise your hand here we have ryan mcintyre ryan you're going to mute yourself and wait to be sworn
in good evening sir please identify yourself with the record spell your first and last name
and provide us with your address uh yes hello my name is ryan mcintyre r-y-a-n-m-c-i-n-t-y-r-e
my address is 521 south juniper street uh we are the house you can see there with the fence in the
back let you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank
Thank you.
Please proceed.
We have an objection to the garage parking based on there are two utility poles that
are not pictured here.
One of them carries all the Verizon Fios signals to everybody in the area.
And also there are several trees on the street that just this year alone have been hit.
um just from the increased traffic and well we objected parking i don't know well that isn't
that site being has been or is being used for parking now i've been here five years uh the
first year there was a lady who parked there maybe once every couple days that was it and we have
quite a few kids on the street.
So I don't really want people
backing out of that space.
And not to be argumentative, but there
are some other garages, front-loaded
garages on that block, correct?
There are. They are not near any of the
utility poles.
The utility pole issue may or may not
have to be moved. I mean, that's something they
have to work out with people.
relocated, I should say.
That'll be determined by the streets department
as it relates to the radius of the ingress and egress.
If I may chime in, the streets department did review these plans.
Our architect is on here, and he can attest to that.
And I believe they did review the utility pole on the turn radius,
and they were fine with it.
We have an eight-year-old son, and he uses our back area to play.
Understood.
Understood.
thank you that's our objective anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your
hand that's all chair you can proceed thank you planning commission
good afternoon board this property is indicated for multi-family residential use in the comprehensive
plan the proposal is largely consistent with the plan and adjacent properties accordingly
we have no objection to the grants. Mr. Clinton not to belabor the point but is there a way in
which we could your client would agree to put maybe there's you know there's ever see those
mirrors at the entrance of a garage that shows if anyone is approaching from either side of the
property? Yes Mr. Chairman. Something you can consider? Yes my client will consider that and
install a mirror yeah i think it's a safety not only for the residents but for also whoever lives
in that property to make sure they're not coming out onto the street with people walking and or
cars coming but maybe it may be a mirror on this pole right here wherever it has to be but normally
you know what i'm talking about a lot of garages have mirrors on either side of the entrance
so when you look at the mirror you can see if someone is approaching
Yes, that's a good idea, Mr. Chairman.
All right, so do that, please. And having said that, MI 2020-001536.
having said that mi2020-0015361322 rodman street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes that concludes the 3 30 session
uh want to take a few minute break folks or not okay i need about 10 12 minutes okay
Make it 15. We'll see you back here a little bit past 545.
Good evening, 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 board secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza,
and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Our board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett, 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, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, 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.
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'll repeat to enter an appearance statement call
Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that being said, before we call the first case, we'd like to ask if anyone
is requesting a continuance or withdrawal of an appeal listed for this afternoon's hearing.
If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, there are two cases that should be read in as continued, 19th Street and Mannheim Street.
I'm sorry, I walked away from my desk for a minute and don't have it.
Number three, 1924, 19th.
That's correct.
So MI 2020-000298, 1924 South 19th Street is continued, and MI 2020-000743-219 Mannheim
Street is also being continued.
Thank you.
I just wanted to confirm, Sharon, that was from the attorney or applicant?
Yes, it was from Vern Anastasia.
Okay, very good.
i didn't have that thank you gotcha thank you as anyone uh objects to those continuance or is there
anyone else who would like to request a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand at this time
uh chair if i could i do have a request for continuance for number six on your list
but if i could request of you that this be must be heard because this application was um
from May the 8th, 2019.
Okay, all right.
MI 2020-000645,
549 East Luray, L-U-R-A-Y Street
is continued till we have a date.
No, I don't have a date.
it's just um just say continue must be heard okay correct all right continued and must be heard
any other requests uh now we have sloan well now we have sloan folks good good evening mr folks
you're still from earlier please identify yourself for the record good evening first i want to
apologize miss sunkett i raised my hand and lowered my hand from one issue i was going to
bring up on ancillary no worries my name is sloan folks uh spelling s-l-o-a-n-e f-s in fire
o-l-k-s the office of councilwoman maria quinones sanchez room 508 city hall
the office of councilman maria quinones sanchez room 508 city hall i am requesting a continuance
for uh meeting number m i two zero two zero zero zero zero zero two two one three five one zero
k street uh the applicant has not met with the rcl okay thank you any objection to this case
being continued if so please raise your hand excuse me the attorney is sean ward and he did
submit exhibits all right mr ward has been unmuted so he can be sworn in good afternoon
mr ward please identify yourself for the record and i'll swear you in sean ward attorney for the
applicant, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D, 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA-19053.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Of course I do, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
There was a virtual meeting held with Harrogate Civic Association, and I do have a copy of
their letter.
Mr. Folks, was your request for the continuous based on what you believed was not, the applicant
did not have a meeting with the RCO? That is correct, Chairman. We have not, we reached out
to Harrogate and they had not responded to us. So that if there is a letter and it has been heard,
we do not want to hold up the meeting. Thank you. Sharon, do we have that letter?
um i don't is it in your exhibit packet mr ward i can look for it if it is
it did not make it in my packet but i know that ryan keller did in fact send it to the board
because i was copied on it i do have it available and sharon if need be i can email that to you
right now why don't you do that because your case was going to be about two cases away and
we'll address it at that time yeah there might be a new president by the time i'm hurt
well i'm not going to be political but i hope it's not the current one uh okay let's uh let's
move on any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
chair i have a france pierre from the council person's office who's ready to be sworn in
Thank you, Mr. Pierre. Good evening. Please identify yourself with the records by your name.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and fellow board members. My name is Franz Pierre Jr., Councilmember Johnson's office. That's F-R-A-N-T-Z. Last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Thank you. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth? I hope you've nothing but the truth.
I sure do.
Please proceed.
yes i was having some technical difficulties earlier and i didn't hear if 1924 south 19th
street if that was continued or not it is at the request of the of the attorney
wonderful wonderful well that uh concludes my business everyone have a good evening and uh
i won't we lost you at the last minute but thank you and stay safe any other requests
no chair ready to proceed thank you uh mi2020-0006501001 north 46th street
Anyone here for 1-0-0-1 North 46th Street?
Yes, Chair, I promoted Donnell Ebron.
Yes, I'm here.
Good evening, sir.
Please identify yourself with the record.
Spell your first and last name and provide us with your address.
Donnell Ebron, D-O-N-N-E-L-L, last name E-B-R-O-N,
1001 North 46th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19131.
Do you swear in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And you are the owner of this property?
You're not an LLC?
No, okay.
Before we begin, I'm going to begin by asking you, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents?
Proof of ownership?
Proof of tax clearance?
compliance rather a copy of the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing i did and you agree uh to stipulate yes thank you uh please
proceed um i'm sorry we didn't ask if he met with the community and i don't have any record of
um i'm sorry we didn't ask if he met with the community and i don't have any record of having
having received
received a letter from the rco i left that out i'm sorry have you met with the rco uh we said we
send them uh email they uh emailed us back stating that they're super swamped and they can't get us in
in time for a hearing but they i have their their email that they sent me back
but they didn't take a position right they just told you that they can't get to it yes
yeah i'm sorry if i do recall uh mr ebron have you been sending me emails saying yet you've
been trying and trying to get in touch yes i do recall this case and typically with cases like
this chair um sharon and i discuss and usually tell the applicant to be prepared to go forward
it's always your call but they've made a good faith effort to reach out to the rcos thank you
for that clarification we will proceed with this case thank you thank you mr abron yes just give
us a brief description as you can as to what you're requesting of the board well uh basically
it's it's uh a water ice stand for the uh for the neighborhood i'm always been involved with
the neighborhood and my wife and I we have a storefront in our home and we want to just put a
little mom-and-pop water ice there you know I'm sorry for interrupting I apologize do you happen
to have any photographs or any drawings uh yes I submitted that with the package are you able to
share them with us electronically uh give me my son is helping me I'm not yeah yeah so you're
like me boss I can't figure this out either okay can you see that yes okay yes that's the
interesting it's a it's a take out only it's it uh you'll serve the water ice through the
side have two side windows right there right there yes those two sides and this is the front door
where you would enter and it has it's designed for a bathroom and this would be our little storage
area and it has exit uh exit door and it's everything is on the first level okay do you
happen to have a photograph by any chance of the property uh if not it's not no problem if you have
one fine i think it's pretty no i don't okay no no worries no worries all right um any questions
from the board no okay um anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you planning commission
hello this is mason austin speaking for the planning commission thank you
please spell your name for the record m a s o n a u s t i n you swear in the firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed thank you mr chairman
uh this property is indicated for neighborhood commercial mixed use in the city plan
given the site's history and context we have no objection to the granting of the special exception
thank you my man's doing some fist pumps back there okay mi2020-000650 1001 north 46th street
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes i'll see you in the summer thank you thank you guys
all right good luck which one we're doing next number two number two mi 2020 dash
zero zero zero nine eight seven eighteen hundred dash eighteen north fourth street
here i'm promoting augusta o'neill attorney okay good evening can everyone hear me
good evening ms o'neill please identify yourself spell your first and last name
Augusta O'Neill.
My first name is A-U-G-U-S-T-A.
Last name is O-N-E-I-L-L.
And do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to attack your seat?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I did.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I did, and one was sent in on Friday.
Thank you. If I could, I'm just going to pull up my exhibits.
Good evening, members of the board. I'm here with a proposal to subdivide and relocate
lot lines on the property located at 1800 to 18 North 4th Street to create 10 lots with
one residential dwelling on each lot. The property is bounded by Kedwalder Street to the west
and North 4th Street to the east. Presently, the property is an empty lot, as you can see from
these pictures. This project received a refusal on September 11th of this year on three separate
bases. The first refusal that this project was received was for the lot size for each
home, as this RSA 5 zoning district requires a minimum lot size area of 1,440 square feet.
And as you can see, we were just about under 100 square feet off on each lot. The other
two refusals that this project received were for the height of each of the homes and also
for the parking garages that we had been proposing under each of the houses. We met with the
coordinating RCO for this project, South Kensington Community Partners, on four separate occasions.
The first time that we met with the RCO's committee members, we had renderings which
showed the parking garages under each of the houses, as you can see from this rendering.
The feedback that we received from the RCO's committee was that they typically don't support
projects that have those front-loading garages. So in response to the comments, our project architect
Ryan Donahue went back and removed those garages and also lowered the heights of each homes.
So as a result of those changes, we are now only seeking one dimensional variance for
the lot size of each of the homes, and we were able to eliminate the other two refusals
that we received.
So we went back before the RCO for a final meeting on October 28th, with the renderings
that you can see at this page, my exhibit packet, just zoom out a bit.
The feedback that we received from the RCO and from neighbors was that they like this
project and they want to see it come into their neighborhood.
Marco Guarini of South Kensington Community Partners did provide a letter of support to
the board, which was emailed in on October 30th.
In the letter, he explained what the RCO's initial concerns had been and what we had
done to change our project in response to their concerns.
So, as I said before, we're now only seeking approval for the de minimis dimensional variances
for the lot size for each home, a copy of our proviso plans and the proviso plan forms
were included with our application materials.
If the board has any questions, both my client and his in-house architects are on today's
call and available to answer any questions.
And with that being said, I would just like to call Joseph Burnup so that he can adopt
my testimony.
I'm sorry, did someone raise their hand?
Joe, could you raise your hand?
Okay, Chair, he can be sworn in.
please provide us with your name spell your first and last name yes joseph byrne uh j-o-s-e-p-h
b-y-r-n-e you're swearing to firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do and your interest in this uh application uh i am the owner of record thank you please
proceed joe did you hear my testimony this evening i did was it true and accurate
it? It was. And would you adopt it as your own? I would. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. O'Neill,
do you have revised plans? I do, and I sent a link with some revised plans to Sharon.
I do and I sent a link with some revised plans to share in this afternoon.
How many pages? Yes I have those three pages. Pages okay. Questions from the board? No.
No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand.
chair we have sloan folks good evening again mr folks please identify yourself for the record
you're still on the roof good evening chairman chico zba board sloan folks office of councilwoman
maria quinona sanchez room 508 city hall the applicant having met with the coordinating rco
and receiving a letter of support the councilwoman offers her non-opposition to this request thank
thank you thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
that's all chair you can proceed thank you planning commission uh this is mason austin
from the planning commission the property is indicated for residential use in the city plan
given the existing character of the block and the support of the rco staff has no objection to the
variance for minimum lot size provided that the project plans are amended such that parking is
not accessed from 4th street and that no variance is required for height. Thank you. MI 2020-000987
1800-18 North 4th street. My vote is yes with the proviso revised plan. Three pages approved today.
yes proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso okay that we're in mr ward's case number five
thank you so much thank you the number five yeah uh am i what i'm sorry confessor um mr ward did
send me a letter of a copy of the rco letter and is that letter and uh what what's the result of
letter. I'm sorry, it's a letter in opposition. Opposition? Okay, thank you. Mr. Ward, please proceed.
MI 2020-000221-3510, K Street. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Sean Ward, on behalf
of the applicant my address is 331 east street road trevos pennsylvania 19053 i believe you're
under oath already thank you mr you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of
ownership proof of tax compliance photos and plans uh five days prior to this hearing yes i
I did.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I believe so.
You may proceed.
Yeah, as previously discussed, I just emailed a copy of that letter to Sharon Suleta.
It is a letter of opposition, which I will address.
But in the meantime, can everybody see my screen share?
I just refreshed my memory.
When we started to hear this case, was there concern about requesting a continuance?
or no there was a request for a continuance by the councilwoman's office uh allegedly as we had
not met with the rco okay however we did in fact meet with the rco harrogate civic association
and i just sent that letter to sharon and i have a copy uh for screen share uh for the board's
information thank you all right mr chairman members of the board i include my exhibit
packet, my customary exhibit packet. Housekeeping A1 is the notice of refusal. It's a permit for
a non-accessory surface parking lot. Resulting one refusal, non-accessory surface parking is
not permitted in RM1. Therefore, we seek a use variance today. A2 is the ZBA application. A3
is the project information form. A4, proof of ownership. And A5 is proof of tax clearance.
very quickly. I'll show you those. There's the refusal, application for appeal, project information
form, and a copy of the deed. The deed is dated September 30, 2016, and the property is owned by
1352 Wagner Avenue, LLC, a Pennsylvania LLC. It is my recurring client, George Menosis, who is
It is my recurring client, George Minosis, who is generally represented by George Groves.
general
However, George had, I believe, a hip surgery or knee replacement, something to that effect.
So he is unavailable at this point.
I do have on the line today our project engineer, Ian Smith, who the board is well familiar with, as he appears before you quite often.
And he will verify and adopt my my representations to the board today.
Here is the tax compliance proof showing that taxes are paid through 2020.
Basically, what you have here is.
I can get it up. There you go. Basically, this property is situate.
K Street runs north south to the east of the property.
It does front out onto Tioga, and it is located at basically the intersection of K Street, Tioga, and Kensington Avenue, directly across the street or attached to abutting the Tioga-Market-Frankford elevated line station.
The applicant seeks approval today for a variance to provide surface parking on this lot.
As you can see in the photographs, let me blow this up.
Again, here is the Tioga train station.
The parking lot comes in from Tioga, I mean from K Street.
It's a one-way circulation coming in through K Street out towards Tioga.
These are dated photos from Google Earth showing that this was a rubble-strewn lot that was, at one point or another, used as garages of some sort.
Again, looking at the lot coming in from K Street, you can see that it comes in and turns left out the Tioga.
My client also owns, through another entity, what is now a renovated triplex.
Those individual tenants in that triplex utilize the off-street parking, as well as, if you look, again, this is the renovated triplex adjacent to 3510.
This is known as 3512-14 K Street, again, renovated, permitted as a triplex, as a matter of right, because the property is owned RM1, as you can see by the permit.
They also are the owners of 3500 Kensington Avenue, which is located around the corner.
That is a permitted personal services.
It's a nail salon on the first floor with two residential dwellings above.
It's an odd-shaped triangular piece, which is typical in the Kensington-Harrogate area,
especially properties abutting on Kensington Avenue.
You've got many of those triangular properties.
But as you can see, Mr. Minosis made some painstaking renovations and restorations of that property,
And it is now currently occupied. Those folks, again, utilize the parking at 3510 K Street in conjunction with those uses.
As far as the property itself, again, you'll see this here is 3500 Kensington Avenue, and this property here is 3510 K Street.
When you look at the photographs of the before and after, you can see that it was a surface, you know, concrete surfaced a lot at one point in time.
And then this is looking in from the Tioga Street side.
Again, you can see the hard surface with the fenced in lot.
My client took painstaking efforts to replace all the concrete along Tioga Street.
You have nice detailed ornamental fencing with you'll notice the the lighting on top of the posts provides a security lighting for not only for the sidewalk, but for inside and the parking area as well.
As far as zoning history, the only thing we could find on this was an old zoning card.
And the last registered use in that file was from 1954.
It was a processing and distribution of frozen foods, so there was some sort of commercial use on this property dating well back.
So there was some sort of commercial use on this property dating well back before our times.
With regard to the Harrogate Civic letter, I would point out to the board that their position, I believe, is retributory in that the only reason they're opposing it is because he paved it without prior approval from the city of Philadelphia.
However, my client, believing that it was a hard surface lot and he improved it, was permitted to do so by Wright.
They also discussed the fact that it was rezoned to RM1.
And again, our adjoining property is RM1.
It was a renovated property.
We are providing this lot to provide the parking for that RM1 lot, as well as the 3500 Kensington Avenue property, which, again, has a permit for the personal services, i.e. nail salon, as well as the two residential dogs above.
of. I find it odd that, you know, in this day and age where people, you know, usually they're talking
about not providing enough off-street parking. And in this particular case, they're objecting
to the fact that we are providing off-street parking, albeit the improvements to the lot
were made without the proper permits. However, I think the photographic evidence indicates
in and of itself the efforts and the improvements and the investment made into the lot with
replacing sidewalks adding ornamental fencing security lighting and you know in effect providing
off-street parking uh for the adjoining parcel uses um so at this point we would ask this board
um you know just you know not not disregard but take take into effect the uh the value of this
letter and give it the weight and authority that it deserves um in addition uh you'll see the
certification of mailing, 108 pieces went out. They indicate in our letter that 16 members were
present and opposed the application. I recall less than a half a dozen participating actively
in the conversation and a lot of their concerns dealt with other properties owned by my client
and not necessarily the fact that there's going to be off-street parking on this RM1 property.
So, at this point, I would ask, if you haven't already done it, Ian Smith, please raise your hand so you can verify and adopt.
Good evening, Mr. Smith. Please identify yourself with the records by your name.
And I'll swear you went.
All right. Good evening. I'm on the meeting.
My name is Ian Smith, I-A-N-S-M-I-T-H, operating at 322 East Thompson Street, 19125.
And Ian, you are the design professional for the property owner, is that correct?
And you've heard my representations to the board?
Are they true and correct, to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
and would you adopt them as your own testimony yes thank you very much just to be clear mr ward
yes sir no demolition on that site uh is that correct or not other that is correct there weren't
any were there ever any structures were there when since your clients own it has been structures on
those parcels no there has not there was uh you know a hard a hard concrete surface uh coming in
And there was some rubble, some rubble from the structure that had been there, but he did not demolish the building and acquired it as pretty much a vacant lot.
So basically, he made improvements to what was an existing flat surface.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Here we have Sloan Foulkes, who can unmute himself.
Mr. Foulkes, welcome back.
Please identify yourself again for the record.
Once again for the record, Sloan Foulkes, Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez,
Room 508, City Hall, 19107.
I just have two questions before the Councilwoman weighs in with her opinion.
Not questions, but statements.
Actually, one of the issues that we've had prior was that our office requested a continuance based on...
that our office requested a continuance based on not having feedback from the coordinating RCO.
The coordinating RCO that the councilwoman had designated was impact RCO.
The appellant met with Harrogate RCO.
I'm just curious as to how they came to meet with Harrogate RCO as opposed to the coordinating RCO
that the councilwoman designated as impact RCO. Mr. Ward was that at the direction of the planning
commission? I recall receiving the RCO notification from the planning commission
directing us to meet with Harrogate Civic. Just as a point of record I have a document here
that directs the appellant to meet with impact RCO as the coordinating RCO. Now I will submit
that to share in Saletta as soon as I am able to probably while we, before the end of the evening.
More of, but secondly, we appreciate there was a community meeting that the community was able to
weigh in. And in as much as the community was able to weigh in, the councilwoman is not
supporting this BME's request.
Anyone else would like to testify in this matter?
Mr. Chairman, I would just follow up.
I would just like to follow up by saying,
you know, my client purchased this derelict property,
invested a lot of money into it,
along with the adjoining property at 3512-14 and at 3500.
I believe it is not contrary to the interests of the community, nor a adverse impact upon the safety and general welfare of the community.
And I would ask that the board grant the variance.
Understood. Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, this is Mason Austin from the Planning Commission.
The property is indicated for multifamily use in the city's comprehensive plan.
While the property is irregularly shaped, there's adequate frontage on two streets and there do not appear to be any physical characteristics that justify a claim of hardship.
Non-accessory parking is incompatible with the neighborhood context and introduces pedestrian automobile conflict directly adjacent to a Market-Frankford line station.
Accordingly, staff recommends against the granting of the variance.
No, I think I would agree. It may not be the highest and best use, but what I see is a
purchase of a piece of land that has not been kept, made a lot of improvements,
so with no disrespect to the councilwoman's office, MI 2020-000221-3510 K Street, my vote is yes.
anybody else voting board members
professor jim tom stop this thing
they all went out to dinner
just hang in there guys we only have one more all right all right thank you thank you very
much folks and have a great evening thank you okay all right thank you a little while ago i
was the hose man i couldn't get back uh frank our number number seven last one
i'll read it off mi2020-0002345123 viola street um this is sharon saletta the attorney on this
is Darlene Threat and we received a very enthusiastic letter of support from the community.
Okay. Ms. Threat, please identify yourself with the record and consider yourself still
under oath from earlier today. Ms. Threat, you can unmute yourself.
here we go good evening commissioners darlene freed on behalf of the applicant theresa gardner
please again spell your name for this uh sonographer please d-a-r-l-e-n-e t as in
thomas h-r-e-a-t-t 2101 pine street philadelphia ta 19103 and remember you're still under oath
So, confessor, please begin.
You agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof of
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax...
tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing
i may not have been quite five days but yes okay have you uh met with the rco and have a letter
yes thank you may i share my screen
yes you may
can this go in the oven yes no
commissioners um miss theresa gardner who's on the line now has run a family daycare from 5123
biola street for approximately 19 years i have a package of information for you here today
I'll just go through it very quickly. I inadvertently labeled this a refusal. It's
actually a referral. Here it is. For the daycare to have 12 children,
it requires a special exception approval in this zoning district.
Here is the application submitted by Ms. Gardner.
here is the lower ordinance concerning uh family daycare pardon me miss three we're not
able to see your exhibits you can see my exhibits okay let me try again
how about now
you hit the screen share because we don't have that it's being tapped you tap that
I'll tell you what miss three could you read us that very enthusiastic letter of support you
why certainly commissioner uh we received a very enthusiastic letter of support from the
parkside association of philadelphia dear uh mr chico as president of the parkside association
the coordinating rco in the above matter please accept this letter of support we met with the
applicant on july 30th we are pleased to write this letter in support of june bugs garden
daycare center application for extension. This daycare center is an important part of the
community and we are very pleased to witness both on the outside and in the inside the significant
and positive improvements that have taken place over the past several years since the establishment
originally opened. With regards to this application, we very much support the extension.
We want the zoning board to understand that it is important that this existing and extended daycare
be maintained, along with the proposed extension improvements. We are pleased that the owner is
willing to maintain and extend such a wonderful business that provides nutritional, educational,
and safety to children and families all year round. Thank you for your consideration of this
request. That was enthusiastic, I will admit. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. All right, good.
But do you have a client you want to bring on, Ms. Street?
Ms. Gardner, are you available?
If not, we'll accept you.
She's available to be sworn in here.
Good evening, everyone.
Hi, good evening, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your first and last name, and provide us with your address.
My name is Teresa Gartner. It's T-H-E-R-E-S-A, last name G-A-R-D-N-E-R, and the address is 5123 Viola Street.
Do you swear and affirm, ma'am, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you, Ms. Threatt.
Ms. Gartt, commissioners, I believe my package is up now. Can you see it?
It's okay. We've got that letter, that enthusiastic letter. That suffices.
Very well, then. Commissioners, I'd ask you to approve the extension of a family daycare to a group daycare, which would allow for 12 children ages 2 to 12 to use the facilities here for daycare and educational needs.
This daycare has been a staple of the community for over 19 years. It gets very, very robust support from the community. It provides a great service that's needed in this community.
and we ask that you allow Ms. Gardner
to extend the use of June Bugs Garden Daycare.
June, Bugs, Garden, Daycare.
Would you ask your client?
Would you ask your client if she will adopt your testimony?
Ms. Gardner, if you were to testify today,
would you adopt the testimony that I just put forth to the board?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hand.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Mr. Chairman, this is Mason Austin with the Planning Commission.
The lot is designated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan
and is currently zoned for that use.
Given the context, the need for this use, and the enthusiastic support of the RCO,
staff has no opposition to the granting of this special exception.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2020-0002345123 Viola Street, I enthusiastically give my vote a yes vote.
i second that my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you very much commissioners
thank you and i thank my board members for staying awake i appreciate the everyone's
involvement today thank you everyone all right fellas great job