and we're live I'm sorry we're live now sorry the court reporter is here okay
very good I'm here thanks you're right oh good good
yes anyone out there in cyberspace please begin signing on
Well, Frank's cheering, so he's going to be the one to say stuff, right?
Carol, you're not muted.
I muted her.
You want me to be muted?
No, you were talking.
We could hear you, so.
Okay, it looks like it's a go, Frank.
Okay, 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 the Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere,
our Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
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'll begin this morning's hearings by reading a list of cases to be continued.
If you believe any announced cases being continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond.
After reading the continuance list and receiving any feedback, we will then take any additional continuance requests.
then once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued
vice chair tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session
when a case is called we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other interested
parties in the matter please identify themselves for the record we'll then hear the applicant's
presentation followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties
interested parties and members of the public not represented by council will then be given an
opportunity to testify we will finally hear the recommendation of the planning commission
at the hearing's conclusion we will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion
in executive session any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled
Wednesday meeting at 9 .30 a .m. Please note the following changes related to the virtual format.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to 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, 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. Again, if you're participating
by phone or wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to
unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google pound 267 -270 -5548. That's
Pound 267 -270 -5548
and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue.
With that said, we will begin.
But before Ms. Tenere calls our first case,
we'd like to announce that the following matters
are being continued.
Calendar number 4 -0 -0 -0 -0
1722 Master Street, calendar number 40099, 1800 Master Street, and calendar number 4001.
And calendar number, 4 -0 -0 -0 -1, 5 -9 -5 -1, Kimball Street, K -E -M -B -L -E Street.
Sharon, did I leave out the one for Adam, or does that come next?
No, no, I cast her out. I'm sorry. I'll hold off for a minute.
All right, if there's anyone believes that we call the case to be continued in error,
please raise your hand at this time.
no hands up chair thank you are there any other requests for continuances or withdrawals please
raise your hand we have verne anastasio you can unmute yourself and speak
Good morning, Mr. Anastasio. Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your name,
please. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O, 1315 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, 19107. I just wanted to confirm, Mr. Chairman, that I heard correctly.
1720 and 1722
Master Street are both being continued. Is that correct?
1722 Master and
1800 Master are both being continued.
I think I put a request in for 1720
and 1722, sir.
I don't represent the other 18.
Tonya, could you help us out? Because I don't have the other, the 17.
It was on the same letter of request.
What's the calendar number on that one?
400000.
Was that one listed for today, Vern?
Both were listed. 1720 and 1722.
what was the calendar number 1720
one second what is the calendar number
I'm pulling it now
I don't have the letter in front of me but I'm searching
it was all in the same
continuous request letter
but let me take a look right but I don't have it listed that's why I was
wanted to make sure that you saw it listed understand there is another
master street property that was announced just continued and that and
burn is not the attorney in that case that's right the 1800 1800 right that's
correct. I'm pulling it up now. I only have the calendar number ending in 147 on this letter,
but the address is the letter dated July 23rd of this year.
But that other address is not listed for today?
Both were listed for today at 930.
We don't have it listed, Vern.
I'll check into it.
It looks like it's listed for August 18th.
So if you want those to be listed together and heard together,
and you can just send that to me but that one wasn't listed for this morning. I understand
thank you very much sorry to tie you up. No problem. So we don't need to read it on in the
record because it's not on the list anyway correct? Correct. That's correct. Okay anyone
else requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand.
so i would think that we should state uh or resend the continuance of 1800 right sharon
i'm sorry the um 1800 is leo mulbehill's case and he did request a continuance
Okay. That's not Vern's case. It's a separate case. Yeah. Sounds good. So I have a Rosemary
Thomas with her hand up. Rosemary, you have been allowed to speak. You can unmute yourself
and discuss your continuance request. Hi, my name is Rosemary Thomas. I'm the
Hi, my name is Rosemary Thomas. I'm the president of the Old Richmond Civic Association. My address is 2621 Memphis Street. I want to thank you for your patience.
president of the Old Richmond Civic Association.
Ms. Thomas, excuse me for interrupting. Would you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
um i am just here to speak to uh 2501 east haggard street the decision to the vote was
held until this week so uh our civic and the development team could come to an agreement
on a community benefits agreement this is sharon saletta the board's attorney
um that matter will be voted next we understand that a um that no agreement has yet been reached
that it's still expected one will be reached but the board will be voting it this morning
okay thank you there's no opportunity to give more time for an agreement to be reached
no i think one week was what was permitted okay thank you thank you miss thomas anyone else
wish to
ask for continuance or withdrawal?
No hands up at this time,
Chair.
Thank you, Tanya.
Okay, Carol?
Okay, calendar number 38666
East Haggard Street.
And again, the status
at this point is
that the agreement has not yet been reached, but the parties continue to work on one
so the board can go forward and vote.
Let me get my notes here, what I do with this.
All right, calendar number 38666, 2501 East Haggard Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
thank you that's it okay calendars numbers four zero zero nine two and four zero zero seven four
1404 and 1421 napa street the attorney is brett feldman
Brett, you've been promoted to panelists.
You can unmute yourself to speak, and you can also share your screen as necessary.
Mr. Feldman, would you please put your name and address on the record?
Sure. Good morning, members of the board. Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. I represent the owner and applicant of both properties, 1404 South Napa Street and 1421 South Napa Street.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do on both cases.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Okay, you may proceed. Sure. Again, these are consolidated cases and can the board see
my screen right now? Not yet. Not yet.
One second here.
Can you see the screen now?
So these are, let me just start at the beginning here.
The board might remember back, it seems like forever now, but back in the late fall, early
winter we had we were in front of the board on ten other cases on this block
10 other cases on this block of South Napa Street.
of South Napa Street this is a block that's located
This is a block that's located in the Grace Ferry neighborhood between Reed and Dickinson.
And you'll see at exhibit tab four, we were here back, again, back in the late fall, early
winter for, I think it was 10 other single -family homes on this block, which is zoned single
family.
And the board approved the exact same design as proposed today for these two single families.
We tried to get these two single -family cases on that agenda, and we couldn't get that through L &I.
So that's kind of what's going on here.
You'll see the exhibits.
Exhibit one is the, and I'll just take you through this slowly here, is the deeds.
These are the deeds for the two properties.
Tax clearance is right here for 1421 and for 1404.
And this is maybe the, just to best orient the board, what you're seeing in front of you here, all the red is what the board previously approved. This is a single family block, and it was 1400, 1407, 1409, 1411, 1929, 32, 45, 46, and 48 South Napa Street, all in the red.
the two blue, both on the zoning map on the left and the aerial on the right, are the cases that
we're here for today, which are, again, the same exact single -family homes. Like those earlier
cases, the primary relief that we're seeking here is on the rear yard. You need nine feet in the
rear yard. We're at 5 .8. And like the other homes, we match up with the proposed homes that were
approved as well as the other homes that were here. It's just these are, you know, relatively
small lots. So the additional feed contextually made sense for the homes as well as on the block.
And what's interesting here is you'll see on both of these properties, the 1404 and the 1421, there's a shared driveway used in the rear, which is actually part of our property, which with a quirk in the zoning code is not counted as part of your rear yard, despite the fact that that's another six feet of our rear yard that we have here.
So we actually have, I think it's 12 feet instead of what you required, the nine feet.
So I'll move the board and I'll show you the rest of the photographs here.
Here's the block.
These are where the homes are prepared.
There's the posting.
There's a zoning notice.
We've worked closely over the last six to eight months with the community group,
Tasker Morris Neighborhood Association.
They had strongly supported the first set of 10 homes, and you'll see at exhibit tab
three, you'll see the strong letters of support again.
This one is for 1421, and the next one is for 1404.
We did have a Zoom meeting back on July 2nd, which we presented these homes as well and
had this expression of support.
You'll see at exhibit tab four, here's the prior approvals and the zoning permits.
for those other homes. And let me just get you to the actual refusals. And here is the actual
plans themselves. This is what the homes look like. They're three -bedroom homes. They're rear
loaded for the parking in the rear that comes down that shared driveway aisle. They've got a
little outdoor area in the front, which provides some outdoor space, a small balcony at the second
floor and a roof deck atop. And that's the home at 1404. Here's the one at 1421. Here's the floor
plans, again, showing that layout. And here's the renderings, which, again, are identical to those
other, I think, 10 homes that the board approved. We have our project architect on the phone,
Logan Dry who is available to talk about any of the details of the homes
themselves and we also have our client utility two by USC Abraham who is
available Logan is there anything that you wanted to add to my presentation as
far as the homes themselves and how we've tried to work these into the
existing fabric of the neighborhood. Okay. Any questions? Is there anyone who wishes to testify in this matter? If so, please raise your hand now. Any questions from the board while we're waiting?
any questions from the board while we're waiting no um we have a hand up yasi avram
yeah he's he's the clock he's the client i made the client yes and then we have logan dry
logan's our project architect yep and we have a frank garcia is he with you as well
No, I don't believe so.
Now, I believe Mr. Garcia is here for the case that was already voted, Haggard Street.
Yes, I was.
Sorry, Tanya.
I had a question for you in the chat, if you could answer that, just about my entering
of appearance.
That was just still up from that.
All righty.
Thank you.
No other hands up?
no that's all for this thank you planning commission it's good morning this is Ron
Ednar BEDNAR properties listed at 1404 and 421 Napa Street are indicated for
residential use on the city plan given the properties constraints and the
compatible design proposed we have no objection to the granting of dimensional
variances for both thank you thank you could we just swear him in for the day please yeah
i'm i'm so used to not doing he's standing in a room and i'm standing up with his hand up okay
ron do you testimony you give and you will continue to give during the day do you swear
and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you ron thank
tanya all right calendar numbers four zero zero nine two and four zero zero seven four
1404 and 1421 napa street my vote is uh yes on both
yes to both yes to both yes to both
thank you for your time and consideration thank you
Carol, you have to unmute yourself.
Can we get your vote?
I don't think we got her vote on that one.
My vote is yes on both.
Thank you.
Appeal number HA2020 -001194, 1436 South Front Street.
The attorney is Rich DeMarco.
This is an appeal against Illinois.
Can we also determine whether anyone from the city is here to appear on this?
Just get anyone from the city on the appearing on this case.
If so, please, please let us know.
Identify yourself.
Mr. DeMarco, you've been promoted to a panelist.
You can share your screen and speak as necessary.
hi everybody can you hear me okay yeah and rich i think you can identify yourself i'll swear you in
and then uh okay do that first sure richard de marco uh 2005 market street uh 16th floor
philadelphia pa 191 19103 most you know my new firm affiliations arwin bomb
um and i swear to tell the truth nothing but the truth okay let's we do not have anyone tanya is
that correct from the city no one has raised their hand chair all right so you can be very brief if
you'd like oh i'm happy to do that uh mr chairman this is uh the client so casey lafferty is is is
is around in the zoom somewhere uh i'm not gonna i don't think i'm gonna need him especially
with your comments to be brief. This is, let me, it's an administrative review. These homes are
done. We've had some minor changes. This is actually the second administrative review. This
is Brent Selleck, former Eagle Development. He's unavailable. He's in a charity golf tournament.
Casey is available should it be necessary. He's also on vacation and is participating
live from his destination. Anyway, I'll share my screen and show you exactly what we're talking
about. I don't understand why this couldn't have received administrative review. Let me show you
what we're dealing with here. Can you see my screen? Yes.
This is our appeal application. Because the zoning classification is I2, I believe that
because the the um zoning classification is i2 i believe that's why the examiner was uncomfortable
granting the administrative review but let me show you exactly why we're here and why we had
to take this appeal i'll go to the site plan in red you'll see it's one of the finished homes
it's this home on the corner here you can see it's a much squatter uh home um the architect
left out this portion when it was originally designed, this little trapezoidal piece here.
This is only what we're talking about. This is like about 15 to 20 square feet of additional
floor space for this home. It actually matches the original foundation. The only thing I can
suggest as to why Al and I wouldn't grant the administrative review that we filed was because
of the i2 industrial designation this was an old warehouse that was demolished and brent uh brent
selick and casey received uh or use variances back in 2014 uh from this board i believe that might
have been uh jim moylan oh no no that's not right i'm sorry this probably was the prior board excuse
me anyway it was supported by excuse me it was supported by the rco supported by the councilman
uh we did send an email on monday or friday i forget when uh just telling them what we were
doing if they're asking if they had any comment this again was was this whole development was
supported back when it was approved approved excuse me sorry i have a frog in my throat
Here's the piece again. This is the piece that we are asking to include. And you can see the floor plan, it's a little bit squat. We do need the additional floor space. And here it is again.
so it adds you know it while it might seem like a not that much it's what it's
important to the floor layout and that's it we would say to you that it really
does meet the standard for administrative review there are no new variances
required a use variance was already granted the dimensional variances are
very liberal if you will in the i2 there's no additional variances needed
dimensional, and the use is consistent. So we clearly meet the standard, and that's it.
So let me see. Casey, Tanya, has Casey raised his hand? I'm just going to ask him to confirm
my testimony. Casey, you can unmute yourself and speak.
okay so you there yeah i'm here oh great hey c would you please identify yourself spell your
name for the stenographer my name is casey lafferty c -a -s -e -y -l -a -f -f -e -r -t -y
sorry i'm sorry you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do casey did you hear my testimony of the board and uh and do you adopt the factual testimony as
your own testimony today i do okay that's all i have mr chairman thank you questions from the
board no no no and no anyone else wishes to testify on this matter please raise your hand
no hands are up cheer thank you appeal number h as in harry a as in anthony 2020 -001194
South Front Street
my vote is to appeal
appeal granted
appeal granted
I did get a
may I just mention one thing Mr. Chairman
sure I did just get an email
from the RCO that they have no objection
Thank you. So noted for a record. Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Calendar number 38718M, 1514 Tasker Street. The attorney is Michael Lambert.
Thank you.
Mr. Lambert, you've been promoted to a panelist.
You can unmute yourself and share your screen as necessary.
Mr. Lambert, good morning.
Can you put your name and address on the record?
14, 15, 14, Tasker, and good morning, Madam Assistant Schiffer.
Mr. Lambert, Mr. Lambert, do you need your name? Spell your name for the stenographer, please.
Yes, good morning, Mr. Jefferson. My name is Michael Lambert, M -I -C -H -A -E -L -L -A -M -B -E -R -T, and good morning to everyone.
Good morning.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I am here.
My client also swears to.
Okay, that's great.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Absolutely, ma 'am.
Thank you.
You may begin.
You can lower your hands.
Thank you.
You know, my client says she's nervous,
but I feel like I'm the one nervous.
You took my advice and didn't wear a stiff shirt and tie today, did you?
I sure didn't sit there, Bruce, but I'm still sweating, Your Honor.
If I may, if I may, this is the guys of 1514 Tasker. Thank you very much.
This we're asking the board to approve a special exemption so that my client can open her cold sandwich food shop.
We have submitted emails to your office, sir, and that should have included our packet.
And I think we were told we had to resend it because it was three emails and we submitted it back to two.
Does the panel have those emails?
The board's attorney has those emails.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
So if I may proceed, essentially we're asking the panel to approve for opening this food shop for cold sandwiches.
In 1954, this place was approved as a beer distributor, so there was a commercial presence there previously.
As a panel will see
The community board
I mean the RCO rather
Sent a letter
This is
East Point Breeze
And they approved it on October 16, 2019
And we have no opposition from the community
And we have submitted the lease
And we are just asking the panel
To consider approving this
So that my client can open a sandwich shop
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lambert.
You happen to have any floor plan showing where this.
That was submitted, your honor, also in the email packet.
I do have a large version.
I also submitted photographs.
We're not able to see that.
So maybe you can speak to Ms. Sunkit and in the future, figure out a way of putting that on the screen for us to review at the same time you're testifying.
Yes, sir. I've spoken to my staff about that this morning, how I look versus all the other lawyers. So we'll have that fixed next time, Your Honor.
Thank you.
I apologize.
If I may, I don't know if the panel can see. No, you cannot see this.
No, forget it.
I'm so sorry, sir.
The bottom line is at least it's pretty much everything is in place based on the photographs. It's really simple.
It's a U -shaped countertop for cold foods with a refrigerator and its tables.
Obviously, now it's probably going to be a lot more takeout than sitting in or outside seating or delivery,
but it's basically two exits, the front and the side,
and there's a basement and two units upstairs that were previously approved, residential units.
Thank you, sir.
thank you um anyone any excuse me any questions from the board no no here i do have a couple
pictures here if you wanted to see you i i think we're okay now i just mr lambert like i said may
want to have a conversation with you about how to be able to share floor plans with us sounds good
is there anyone else out there who wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
no hands raised thank you planning commission yes this property is indicated
yes this property is indicated for commercial use on the city plan
for commercial use on the city plan given the site
given the site's history we have no objection to the granting of the special exception
thank you thank you calendar number three eight seven one eight fifteen fourteen tasker street
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you thank you very much thank you very much and
have a big day everyone thank you thank you so much thank you calendar number 39881 6615 ridge
avenue this is an application for a gym personal personal services in the same building with an
existing 22 dwelling units multi -family dwelling in an existing structure this proposed use is
refused because personal service is prohibited in this zoning district good morning i'm here
applicant oh okay i didn't see your name on there so you're over you've already been sworn in so
please proceed thank you mr chairman uh this is uh i'll share my screen in a moment let me
just give you a brief intro. This is an already completed structure with a vacant commercial space.
The building was completed last year. We received a permit for this building two years ago
approximately with a commercial space included. The commercial space was included because the
zoning district was CMX2 at the time when the application was filed. Therefore, we were required
to have a commercial space in order to be able to receive an over -the -counter permit for the
construction since then the property has changed to rm1 therefore any new application for the
commercial space uh would be uh refused since the residential district would not allow the
commercial space but the building was constructed to comply with the code as it existed at the time
So we are stuck with the commercial space that was empty in the now
residentially zoned district
So the building was constructed in such a manner that this space is laid out as a commercial space
So obviously that's my argument as to why there is clearly a hardship
This the change in the code is what created the refusal
My client and Eric Marshall is on the zoom call. I believe with me. I just texted him
um he'll verify what i'm what i'm about to say and what i'm saying uh it's they were unable to
rent the space mr chairman and members of the board they did try to market the space um it's
it's a hard time to do that for one but number two you know it's it's an unusual situation um
So what the solution was, is that they would create a gym, a private gym, for the residents of the building only. It's not a public gym. They basically are just trying to do what they can with the space. It's dead space. It will be fully, you know, socially distant.
there's going to be max required and again it's not public you won't have a lot of traffic
it'll just be a few people let me share my screen i'll show you a layout um briefly here
so hopefully you can see my screen can you see it
yes my sharing screen okay mr chairman yes okay so you see here it's rm1 it was cmx2 though
when it was built I'm not sure why the examiner didn't put that information on
the refusal but let me show you the layout it's not a huge space in a minute
here that's the new building this is the the windows and you can't really put
residential in here because there's there's all front windows there's no
windows in the back there's only one bathroom it's just not laid out for
residential so and plus if even if we wanted to add a unit that would increase
density and you know we might have problems with the community and doing
that this is the floor space you can see how it's a commercial space about 1500
square feet that's the two bathrooms and this is a rendering of the interior you
know the equipment's going to be pretty spaced out people are going to be able
to work out without being close to each other and we'll have masks and I'll just
So we had our RCO meeting before the shutdown, right before the shutdown, an in -person meeting, and the RCO has submitted a letter based on our testimony.
an in -person meeting and the rco has submitted a letter based on our testimony of um support
and that's the certificate of mailing and here's the rco letter so let me see if i can get eric
marshall on the call he hopefully has his hands raised he's listening he says um
i hope let me tell him to raise his hand just so he can verify eric you can unmute yourself and
Oh, good.
I'm here, yeah.
Thank you so much.
Oh, he's here.
Great.
Eric, did you hear my testimony?
I did.
Did your testimony as your own?
That's correct.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Pretty straightforward.
Mr. Eric, would you please identify yourself, name and address for the record?
Eric Marshall for 6615 Ridge Avenue, Philadelphia, 19128.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed, Mr. DeMarco.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
We clearly meet the standard.
This was an unfortunate situation.
The building was constructed to comply with the code.
The code has now changed.
They have been unable to get a tenant.
So clearly they meet the standard for unnecessary hardship.
As this property was built to have a commercial space here and the zoning has changed, therefore, this is the best that we can do now under the circumstances is to have a private gym.
so we'd ask for your uh uh your vote in favor
questions from the board no no no questions anyone else who wishes to
testify in this case on this case please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair okay planning commission
since this property has been recently remapped for residential use
city plan we have no objection to the granting of the variance
thank you calendar number 39881 6615 ridge avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you that concludes my business
everybody stay safe thank you for your time thank you thank you appeal number h a two zero two zero
zero zero zero zero five seven the address is 98 98 east roosevelt boulevard the attorney is
Hercules, Griegos.
Augusta, you've been promoted to panelists.
You may now unmute yourself and share your screen as necessary.
Thank you, Tanya.
Can we swear her in?
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Sure. Augusta O 'Neill. My address is 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
You're here for 98 East Roosevelt Boulevard.
That's correct.
Good morning, everyone.
I'm here representing the owner of 9898 East Roosevelt Boulevard, known as the Red Line Plaza.
Our application is for a use change to put a dental office in an existing shopping center.
The dental office is for Aspen Dental, which has over 800 offices all across the United States
and offers a variety of dental procedures and services, from veneers to tooth whitening to
crowns and dentures. Each Aspen dental practice is owned and operated by a licensed and local
dentist. Their hours of operation for the proposed location will be from 8 a .m. to 5 p .m. They will
have between 9 to 11 employees on site, depending on whether or not they have an oral surgeon on
site that day. The property is zoned CA2 and is in the far northeast overlay, just as you can see
from this zoning map. In that overlay, medical offices, medical office uses are prohibited in
order to prevent certain medical practices from opening up. We previously met with the
We previously met with the Greater Busselton Civic League on July 8th of 2020, and we did receive their support for this project.
Greater Busselton Civic League on July 8th of 2020.
With me today is Eric Wolf of Finmark, who is redeveloping the property, and also with me is Lauren Russell -Wood, who is here to represent Aspen Dental.
They are both available to answer any questions that the board may have.
Thank you.
Are there any questions from the board?
no no no is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you planning commission
property is indicated for commercial use on the city plan we have no objection to
annual variance. Thank you. Appeal number, H as in Harry, A as in Anthony, 2020 -000057,
9898 East Roosevelt Boulevard. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. Thank you. I think that concludes the 930 session.
no there's there's one more there's one more chairman
i apologize thank you very much calendar number three nine one two eight six nine zero six castor
Aveno. Mara Rose, you have been promoted to a panelist. You can speak by unmuting yourself
and share your screen as necessary. Okay. Good morning. Are you an attorney? Yes. My name is
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
No problem.
My name is Mary Rose Roach.
That's spelled M -A -R -I -R -O -S -E, Roach, R -O -A -C -H.
That's attorney ID 205 -225.
My office is located at 6950 Caster Avenue, and that's Philadelphia PA 19149.
Do you also swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, one last question. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you. You may proceed.
Okay, so I do want to apologize. This is my first zoning
Board of Adjustment virtual hearing and I did submit all of my documents ahead of time.
I'm trying to figure out now how to share my screen, but if I can, I believe you have all the documents I submitted.
So if I'm unable to share, I can just go through what I submitted, if that's okay.
All right.
Hello?
All right.
So just go through.
This application was appealed because there was a refusal for the business professional use proposed.
There are two lots that sit on the property of a church.
One lot is a church that will remain religious use and remain holding services, religious
services.
The other lot is a smaller lot, and it was the rectory of the church, and we're proposing
that it continue single -family use and also be used as business professional use.
So we would be asking for a special exception.
In addition, there was a refusal based on parking space requirements.
there's a total of seven parking spaces needed for the church and one parking space needed for
the the other lot which is the rectory and proposed business professional use. The refusal
also includes signage one flat wall sign on the rectory as well as signage a single -sided signage
in front of the rectory. And there are, we did provide layouts and drawings that reflect the
same. If we go through, I have, I've submitted postings of the, oh, yeah, you have it right
there. Okay, great. There are postings, the zoning board of adjustment, adjustment notice of hearing.
If you scroll down, we have the project information, form, required, tax clearance, if we just
continue to scroll out.
I'm sorry if I'm going too fast.
Concilio Arbol, International Cristiano Arbol de Vida owns the property and the deed follows.
Concilio Arbol, International Cristiano Arbol de Vida owns a -
So it was purchased back in March 2015 and the use has always been the same.
What they're proposing is that with the subdivision of the property separating the existing lot into two separate lots,
one for the church one being for business professional and residential that the zoning
board of adjustment were consider their appeal and granting a special exception
for business professional use in the smaller lot which is lot d
proposed small
we did have a meeting with the rco back in february of 2020 and there was no objection
to um our plans um the relocation of lot lines the business professional use or the signage
and like i said we did provide the relocation of lot lines um that shows how the property would
be changed from one property including a church and a rectory to two separate properties one being
the church, one being the rectory with business professional use. And the descriptions are also
included. That was provided by Philadelphia, City of Philadelphia's streets department.
I also provided the layouts for the rectory of the church
where the first floor will be residential use. We're not going to change any structural,
anything structural within the rectory of the church that will remain residential use.
Living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry room will remain the same
and there are pictures of that if you continue to scroll.
And then if we move forward the second floor, some of this was renovated but if you continue
to scroll down, it's bedroom, bathroom, residential use for that main floor.
I'm sorry, the second floor. And then finally, the bottom floor, which is the basement.
This area was used as a home office in the past, and the objective would be to have more office
space in the basement. There would be four offices down there as well as storage. And if you continue
you to scroll through you'll see the pictures of what that space will be used
for finally there is signage proposed as of right now there is a sign that was
on the property that was used for the church it would be the same signage no
difference there I do have to apologize we did work with fast signs to get the
plans put together for this zoning hearing and they are they're no longer I guess working with
the public or the people that we were working with because of COVID they had to shut down so we
we lost track of them and we didn't have time to get professional plans drawn up but I mean
the actual sign that was approved on the church property will just be moved down to the parcel
uh d the other property where the rectory is so it's the same lot just moving that sign down
um in front of the rectory of the church excuse me this is sharon sletta again um that was not
part of your zoning application is that correct oh well it was so the zoning application had a
flat wall sign affixed to the rectory of the church as well as a sign on the street
um and that is let me just look through here on the refusal it does say that okay it says a flat
wall sign and one single -sided freestanding sign that's the single -sided freestanding sign
okay but right now you are i think suggesting that the sign is going to be moved to another
property um just didn't want any it you to believe that the board is approving that
So the single -sided freestanding sign, this was approved for the existing property at 6906
Castro Avenue. Because there'll be a subdivision, I mean, essentially the sign could stay there,
but because there's a subdivision, it's actually not in front of the right building.
Okay, I understand. Thank you.
No problem. I'm sorry if that was confusing.
um so finally there was there not was there is an issue with parking as far
So, finally, there was, not was, there is an issue with parking as far as the city did refuse the fact that a variance would be required.
I just make the argument that this building has been used as a church for several decades.
The only change is that there's going to be about 940 square feet of business professional use at the property.
And that would include, you know, law firms, like a law firm type business, like where you're seeing clients by appointment only. So what they're requiring is that there would be, you know, in total eight spaces.
So we did have plans drawn up, but the cost and the construction to do something like this, although it wasn't opposed by the RCO, would create a hardship.
And we would just argue that there hasn't been a change in the use.
The small amount of usage for a business professional isn't going to create an additional need for parking.
and that we would ask that you grant our variance and not requiring that the parking be required
with our appeal. So finally, it's just a proof of mailing that we sent out all the mailings
to the surrounding community. Did you have any questions, board?
we have a recommendation from the RCO we do and that was Paige let me just um
you see I can pull up the exact page you don't have to go through everything
they in support of no not in support of so they did send a letter and that is
they did draft a letter and I know that they provided it to the zoning board as
well that's page 26 of the presentation so there is as far as they're being
support I wouldn't just say that there's no objection to opposition no opposition
right and that's page 26 and 27 of the packet that i submitted
any questions from the board no no no anyone else wishes to testify in this matter please raise your
hand we have hillary emerson hillary you can unmute yourself and speak hello can you hear me
Yes, Ms. Emerson, please identify yourselves by your name for the record.
Sure. Hillary Emerson, H -I -L -A -R -Y, Emerson, E -M -E -R -S -O -N. Here on behalf of Councilwoman
Sherelle Parker.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Hillary.
I actually first had a question. The Councilman is not opposed in this matter, but I was a
bit confused um with the testimony because the refusal notes that the the um single family
household living is on the second floor but it sounded like there were two floors in a basement
and the office use was in the basement so um could could um this roach just clarify
what parts of the building are proposed for the office and what part is for single family living
of course that's not a problem so yeah if and i won't try to get you back through the
the um that's fine yeah but um so the second floor would be used for residential
the main floor would be residential that's where the living room uh kitchen uh laundry room is
located in the bottom floor which is the basement would be used for business professional okay so
there so there are three four so the refusal is a little bit incorrect here it looks like
because it sounds it says the second it says the single family household living on the second floor
um and it notes it's a two -story dwelling but there's a basement and that's where the use is
being proposed right um i don't know if that should maybe be specified in the in the decision
just to clarify since the refusal is incorrect um but as i mentioned um the the councilman's not
um opposed to the proposal here um this is a commercial use um proposed on a commercial
corridor caster avenue uh the community was not opposed um there is parking you know on caster
avenue and um and on the side streets and i believe that this um the proposed use would
you know require it would have minimal traffic
Frank you have to unmute yourself anyone else
Frank, you have to unmute yourself.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands up, Chair.
Calendar number 391286906.
I'm sorry, Planning Commission.
this site is indicated for residential use on the city plan given the property's history
and the reconfiguration we have no objection to the granting of variance and special exception
thank you counter number 391286906 caster avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes okay does that conclude the 9 30 session it does yes it does
thank you all right see everyone at uh two o 'clock okay you see you guys see you guys bye -bye
Thank you.
hi Sharice I'm sorry I didn't speak to you this morning
oh that's okay how you doing I'm good thank you if you need a minute just chat with um
me and then I'll make sure that I inform the chair okay thank you so much
You're welcome.
Bye -bye.
Hey, it's 2 o 'clock.
Are we going live yet?
Yes, we're ready, Chair.
And then, Tanya, I'll give you a minute or so, correct?
It looks like everybody's present for the moment.
Anybody who wishes to get in should already have done so, so you can move forward as you wish.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco, and I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing, along with Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere,
our Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members Thomas Holloman and James Snell.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit and Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who have not yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we'll begin this afternoon's session by reading a list of cases to be continued.
If you believe any announced case is being continued in error, please, will you please give us the opportunity, we will give you the opportunity to respond.
I apologize.
We will give you the opportunity to respond.
After reading the continuance list and receiving any feedback, we will take any additional continuance requests.
Then, once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued, Vice Chair Tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session.
When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other interested parties in the matter identify themselves for the record.
We will then hear the appellant's presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public, not represented by counsel, will then be given an opportunity to testify.
We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
At the hearing's conclusion, we will either vote the matter out immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session.
Any case held for discussion will be voted on at the next scheduled Wednesday morning session.
Please note the following changes related to the virtual format.
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...
For the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we would 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 will repeat, if you wish to
testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, to enter an appearance statement, call Google
pound 267 -270 -5548. That's pound 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address
of the property at issue. With that being said, we can begin. Before I call the vice chair
Tenere, before our vice chair calls cases, we'd like to announce that the following matters
are being continued. Calendar number 37897, 700 East Allegheny Avenue. Calendar number 38501,
6606 Woodland Avenue. Calendar number 39621 2512 Alder Street is being withdrawn. If anyone
believes that we have called the case to be continued in error, please raise your hand at
this time. No chance. Hands are up to you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who's requesting a
continuance or withdrawal. Please raise your hand at this time.
No hands are up. Thank you.
Ms. Tenere, you may proceed. Calendar number
38800, 755 East Allegheny Avenue.
The attorney is Robert Cole.
Again, we would ask, could you raise your hand to identify yourself so we can put you
in place of the board as a panelist?
Mr. Cole, you have been promoted to panelists.
you can unmute yourself to speak, and you can share your screen as you wish.
Mr. Cole, can you hear me? I can. Please state your name and address for the record and spell
your last name, please. Yes, my name is Robert. Last name is Cole, C -O -L -E. My office address is
1301 North 2nd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19122.
Two more questions.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
I represent Philadelphia Shalom LLC, current owner of 755 East Allegheny Avenue.
The LLC purchased the property from the original applicant, Kayla Garcia, back in November of 2019.
By correspondence dated June 30th of this year, I sent by email and requested that Philadelphia Shalom LLC be added as applicant to the current petition.
Hopefully that has been done to the board's satisfaction.
Good afternoon, chairman and board members.
It's been quite some time since I've appeared anywhere.
So I'm glad to be back. We did upload a week or so ago documentation regarding our request to have 755 East Allegheny Avenue variance permitted for a two -unit rental as opposed to the current RSA 5 one -unit rental.
in accordance
In accordance with the request, we did submit the refusal by the Department of Licenses and Inspection, the Project Information Form, an RCO approval letter dated January 24th of this year, Philadelphia Shalom LLC's tax clearance,
with the request
we did submit
a copy of the deed evidencing Philadelphia Shalom LLC's ownership interest in the premises as of
November of last year. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Cole, were you sharing your screen?
Yeah, I was just going to ask the same question, Mr. Cole.
Share with me just a moment. I thought I thought I was at the beginning.
Excuse me. I thought it was just me, but apparently no screen is shown.
so you might want to come out and go back in because all we see is your zoom oh i see that
too now
i don't i don't want to lose you i must i must confess my
limited knowledge as to using Zim, so if you, I would ask the board members to bear with me
momentarily. We definitely will. Are we better? Not better. Now, all we see is, okay, I stopped
your sharing now if you will try again you go in and share hit the share button
and then go to your actual file okay I show that I am sharing my screen not now
you are okay now you're good and now go to your file because you keep going to
the actual internet where your zoom comes up okay i'm sorry forgive me i show that i am screen
sharing uh you are where are your files on your desktop i'm sorry the files that we uploaded
the files that you want to share your screen on a screen are they on your desktop because then you
can minimize what you currently have up so that you can go to your desktop to get the file.
Oh, I'm sorry. They are. I was, forgive me. We sent them by email a week ago. So I,
I thought you were referring to me not being visible on the screen. My apologies.
um we see you we don't see your files i i i understand i i wasn't i wasn't attempting to
show the files i didn't realize that's that's something i needed to do um forgive me again
so how i they are on my my desktop so how do i so minimize
this here particular screen right click on the minus button and then as you go
to your desktop hopefully oh no correct
then if you can find it there just open that up and that's what we'll see okay
Thank you.
now I have one of the documents open and I apologize they're not in a folder there
individually because I assume that's how the the board wanted them. I haven't
opened one particular document the tax certification but I don't I'm afraid I
don't know how to share it. You're actually sharing it. You're sharing. Okay.
May I inquire how best I can show the documents that I've just referenced. Would
you like me just to open them one by one or are there any requests as to the order in which I
by one, or are there any requests as to the order in which I show the board the documents?
You can just proceed with your presentation, and whatever documents you have
that you want to discuss, you can put them up. Now, if you want, I can try to locate the file,
if you feel better for me to try to share the screen, is your option.
well i if if i locate them one by one it's going to take some time that i'm sure that the board
members don't want to afford to me um they're on my desktop um may i inquire does the board
wish to view any of the particular documents that i've referenced or shall i just
shall we just i think of floor plans if you have that would be helpful
photos any photographs you have that would be helpful certainly
Oh, there you go.
I found a folder.
We do have two blueprints.
Frank may I ask a question yes how long has this property been a two -family dwelling
my client has indicated when he purchased when when the LLC purchased in
uh november of 2019 uh it was set up as as the blueprints indicate he hasn't touched the property
so it is some point before he took ownership his his company took ownership interest in the
property um i i will say from consultation with the client that there is uh one tenant on the
first floor only second floor has never been used as a residential tenant unit
since my client has owned it may I offer the second blueprint that we do have
Yes, please
And again, I would state,
this is the current status of the two units. My client has not performed any
work and has not had anything done. He took the property as he found it and had
the blueprints drawn as the property exists today.
And you've met with the RCO.
That's correct.
I will be glad to.
And I can confirm, this is Sharon's letter.
I can confirm that we do have a letter from the RCO, a letter in support.
It is impact RCO.
hopefully it is on your screen from January 24th of this year there was a
unanimous approval by the RCO thank you thank you
certainly I'm sorry yeah oh you you can summarize it if possible summarize please
yes Philadelphia Shalom again purchased the
philadelphia shalom again purchased the property uh in november of last year uh subsequent to
prior owner having uh filed the uh the instant application uh the intent by the prior owner and
the concurrent attempt by Philadelphia Shalom, LLC, the principal being Sergio Geraldo.
He is, I'm not sure if he's with us at the moment, but he is waiting patiently to join
in if necessary.
He is present at the conference.
Tent was in a Kensington area that does need affordable and safe housing units to make available an extra unit in a good building that his company owns.
And he has gone through this system in order to request the variance to make it a two -unit rental rather than the one -unit rental.
And I think it's significant to understand that he has not sought to rent the second unit during the pendency of this appeal.
He has simply waited for his time to have this hearing in order to request the second unit be approved.
There's been a longtime tenant in the first unit.
That tenant pre -existed Philadelphia Shalom's ownership.
That person will continue to reside in the premises.
But Mr. Geraldo, through his company, Philadelphia Shlomo LLC, is seeking to have the two -unit rental approved in order to increase the viability of affordable housing in this area.
And I certainly thank the board's time, my struggle in providing the documents necessary.
And again, Mr. Geraldo is available, I assume, on standby.
Should the board members have any particular questions that they seek to ask that I may not be able to answer?
he has been unmuted so he's available to speak if he or he has been allowed to speak if he wants to
unmute himself i am unmuted uh good afternoon the board um sir excuse me please identify
yourself with the record spell your name my name is sergio gerondo a president of philadelphia
Would you please spell your name for the stenographer?
Sergio S -E -R -G -I -O
Last name Geraldo
G -I -R -A -L -D -O
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Cole?
Sergio, have you heard all of the information that I have provided the board here this afternoon?
Yes, I have.
Do you agree with everything that I've said?
Has everything I said been true and correct to your understanding and knowledge?
Yes, it is correct.
And you also saw how badly I offered the documentation that you provided me to the board member?
Yes, I did.
And I can offer myself to provide all the documents as I have them also in my, I can share it if the board allows me.
Thank you, but I don't think that's necessary.
Can I interrupt for one minute?
This is Sharon Soledda again.
Mr. Cole, I actually should apologize to you.
Generally, when we receive documents as individual exhibits, I write to the attorney and ask that they merge them into a single document.
I checked.
I didn't do that with you, and I apologize.
No, none.
My fault for not understanding the system.
My apologies.
Thank you.
Thank you both.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else wish to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
chair i have sloan folks from the council person's office sloan you have been able to speak you can
unmute yourself and testify good afternoon chairman of the board uh and uh zoning board
my name is sloan folks s -l -o -a -n -e folks that's an i -r -o -l -k -s councilwoman maria canina sanchez
Mr. Sloan, do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is true to the best of your ability?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Being that the applicant has met with the local RCO and has garnered a letter of support from the RCO,
our office also offers our support to this various request.
Thank you very much. Planning Commission. Chair and members of the board, David Fecteau, F -E -C -T -E -A -U for the City Planning Commission. This property is zoned residential single family. The comprehensive plan of the City of Philadelphia recommends residential multifamily, and the property is only one block from the market Frankfurt lines Allegheny Station. We do not believe the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the block, so we have no objection to the granting of this variance.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
Chair.
thank you very much and could we chair please if i may ask that we swear mr fecto in for the
rest of the afternoon i i fail i thought he already did i apologize so will the stenographer please
identify yourself again sure david fecteau f -e -c -t -e -a -u for the city planning commission
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do thank
you very much calendar number three eight eight zero zero seven five five east allegheny avenue
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you very much board members and chairman thank you thank you
if i may indulge the uh the board's time for about 10 seconds um is the board conducting
executive sessions i have another matter that's almost a year old that has been delayed
would you send that to the board administrator please
just send it to ms sunket and she'll she'll work things i shall thank you i'll send an email and
i apologize thank you for your time no problem thank you thank you very much would i be able
would i be able to leave the uh would i be able to leave the uh the meeting now yes all right
thank you very much you guys have a good day thank you all right calendar number 39536 3310
welsh road the applicant is antonio hatch this is an application for a takeout restaurant in the
same building with existing two -family dwelling as previously approved in an
existing structure. This proposed use is refused because the take -out restaurant
is prohibited in this zoning district.
Mr. Hatch, you've been promoted to a panelist so you can speak and you can
share your screen as necessary. Thank you all very much. Hello. Good afternoon
everyone. Good afternoon, everyone. Mr. Hatch, please identify yourselves by your name for the
stenographer. Yes, sir. My name is Antonio Hatch, A -N -T -O -N -I -O, last name Hatch, H -A -T -C -H.
And my name is Dana Hatch, D -A -N -A -H -A -T -C -H.
Do you both swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is true to the best of your
ability? Yes. Please proceed, sir. Good afternoon, everyone again. Excuse me for being a little
nervous over this. This is a little odd as everyone sees it. We're seeking a variance
for the property at 3310 Welsh Road. We filed the appeal for the variance on December 24th
in 2019. And unfortunately, due to COVID, time in May was backed up until today.
We're looking to bring an ice cream parlor, a hand -dipped ice cream to a community neighborhood
that we've lived in for the last decade. The property was, well, and before I go there,
We have the support of the community, full support of the community.
We've met with RCOs on several occasions.
We have their support as well.
And we're not making any structural changes.
We're just bringing in some refrigerators and freezers
and just trying to make an ice cream parlor
and bring the community some smiles.
And jobs.
And a few jobs.
Mr. Hatch, are you looking for a takeout window since we don't we don't have any plans in front of us?
No, sir. And that's primarily because our the way that our building, if you if I can bring up some of the photos, that would be helpful.
Thank you.
Okay, um, would someone be able to help direct me how to share this photo, this screen?
At the bottom of the screen, you'll see a little green box that says share screen.
Okay, give me one second.
You're going to hit that box, but then you're going to go to the actual file or document
that you wish to share?
So do you have your file open already?
Yes, ma 'am.
Okay, now hit the little green box at the bottom
that says share screen on the Zoom.
Unfortunately, Ms. Sunkett, it doesn't show us that option.
Okay, now when you submitted your documents to the ZBA,
did you have the pictures and all in there?
yes ma 'am okay I'll see and I'm sorry to get back to your point I got council
members is that I know it was not as far as all take out there's no sitting so
at capacity there's about maybe three to four people that will be able to fit in
there with social distancing safely at a time and the average time that a person spends in the ice
cream shop is about five to seven minutes not to excuse anything we have everything that's going
in place with COVID -19 and all our sanitation restrictions but as far as building the takeout
window we wanted to look at that down the line once we were able to achieve possibly you know
be granted the variants to open. We have put quite a lot of heart and hard work into,
you know, a lot of things that the community wants and sees there and totally supports. And
also that the zoning was changed on that a few years back, but it has two windows,
as you guys can see from the photos hopefully that is uh two huge windows where it was already
a hair salon and from 1957 to 1992 it was a uh it was a takeout deli um it serves the children
of uh i'm sorry to high school seniors a father judge high school um it's in a highly highly
communal area and uh we just looked into uh about a year ago prior to covid my wife and i said the
world is not smiling and we said uh what can make the world smile and we decided you know
old -fashioned hand -dipped ice cream cones and and flavored waffle cones and flavored
i scream you scream we all scream for ice cream okay any uh thank you any questions from the board
no no and no don't wish to testify in this case please raise your hand at this time
no hands are raised at this time thank you tanya uh planning commission
uh chair and members of the board this property is zoned for residential single family the city's
comprehensive plan recommends residential single family when we go out and do zoning map changes
we always check with the community associations when a use like this has gone out of business
and evidently in this case the neighborhood association asked for the use not to be able to
be continued we have nothing against ice cream but we do believe that takeout restaurant would
be better suited for frankfort avenue which has several vacancies on it so we are going to ask to
oppose this variance but this is on welsh road right but frankfort avenue is a nearby commercial
corridor right okay maybe the number the calendar number 39536 3310 welsh road my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck thank you
much. Thank you all so much. Good luck to you. Thank you. Make sure you stop by and get some
ice cream. And make sure you charge us. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Calendar number 394061019
Arch Street. Attorney Zeng Jin.
Mr. Jin, you've been promoted to a panelist. You can share your screen and
speak. Hi, Mr. Jin, can you please put your name and address on the record and
Hi, Mr. Jin. Can you please put your name and address on the record? And then I have two more questions.
then I have two more questions.
Zen Jin, Z -H -E -N, J -I -N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Here on behalf of the APKIN 1019 Arch Street LLC.
And do you swear to affirm?
Yes, I do.
To tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
You may proceed.
Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm going to share the information regarding this application.
This is an application for an existing partially built structure in Center City CMX4 District.
There's a lot of history to this property, so I think it's important to understand how we got here with this particular variance request.
This building was at one point approved for a five -story structure, 72 -foot height, and a 400 -plus percent floor area ratio coverage.
However, when my client hired the contractor to build the building,
the actual building that was built contained seven total floors. My client is an accountant.
He basically has his own business in Chinatown and he was not really aware of the construction
in the things, he was told by the gentleman that was running the construction, Mr. Tony
Ren, that everything's fine. We're going according to plan. Don't you worry. He started worrying
when the city came and shut his construction down. At that point, he started investigating
into it and working with the city on the court trying to lift the various violations. And
And there are more problems to this building than just what we're here for zoning.
But they're all slowly but surely being addressed.
What we're actually looking at here is a building that was originally built.
And what I'm going to do is scroll down to the original permit.
The original permit from years ago said that it would be built according to this plan,
which as you can see, they're actually multiple floors looking like seven, but they're actually
design said there's only going to be five floors within the building so when the building was put
together structurally there ended up being seven actual floors as you can see each of the floors
are only partially completed but that brought us to essentially a 700 percent floor area ratio
When my client started working with new architects, the plan is to reduce as much as possible the floor area ratio back towards 500.
What prevents us from going completely to 500 and under is that this is essentially set up like a seven -story structure height.
and some of the building floor area in the plan has to be left in order to make sure that the
structural integrity of the building stays. So what the architect did is he cut out parts of
floor 6 and floor 2 and made them into what is essentially mezzaneums which allows the space to
still maintain structural integrity, but they're demoing part of the floors. They're demoing part
of the stairs and moving the staircases. Everything is done in a way to make this building
as structurally sound as possible. After we did the reductions based on the architectural
recommendation, there are parts left that are essentially a mezzanineum point in the floors
where the second floor used to be and further up which led to the 590 % that
we're asking for before the board. If the board looks at the refusal carefully
you can see that the calculation for 500 to 590 % for this building is about a
2 ,000 square foot difference in total. Also the original plan actually called
for 12 residential units. The new plan, my client wants to use second floor essentially as his
office and the mezzanineum portion as his office. So we reduced the total residential usage to nine,
maintaining the restaurant use on the first floor. So density standpoint, that extra 90 %
standpoint, that extra 90 % is not going to impact the neighborhood in any significant manner. What
is not going to impact the neighborhood.
it does allow him to do is to not have to demolish the entire building to rebuild it
in a structurally sound format. We presented this to Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation
and we understand why they ultimately issued an opposition. Their opposition essentially is saying
that they don't feel there is enough hardship based on the fact that the building was not built
originally according to plan and that it would be a bad precedent for them to support it in that
in that case again we explained to them that my client himself is not a developer this was
one of the first times he's invested in a building like this I mean he's a successful
our accountant and he's done very well for himself but he is as much a victim in this situation
as anyone else that was involved with this building and again he's doing everything he spent
almost double his budgeted amount into this building to try to get this building into code
and into compliance so there is hardship to him in that sense for this request and again
we're asking for a coverage of about another 2 ,000 square foot in an over
15 ,000 square foot of floor area. So I would ask the board to take into
consideration this situation and rule favorably in this variance request. I'm
happy to answer any questions. I'm going to scroll back down to the plans as so
it's easier to take a look at them again if needed.
jen just go back over your opening remarks your client purchased the building correct me if i'm
wrong in this as -is condition or he let me clarify my client hired um a contractor builder to build
the original building uh based on plans that were approved at the time which is similar in height
I'll go back to that actually that portion because so at the time the
building was originally built with my client it was approved through a
different architect and it was approved for the same height about 71 feet and
it was supposed to be a five -story structure but if you look at the plans
even submitted then this is the view of this was the front facade view that was
presented with those plans you can see that even though it looks like a seven
story structure it was supposed to have five floors with some with a tall
second -story structure because it's a commercial type building for the first
few floors what was actually built the contractor put in this floor and that
floor after the fact of the approval. This was caught when the city came in and started doing
inspections so the construction didn't really get totally completed and that's when it's all
stopped and it's been in litigation to kind of fix these issues since. As you can see the building
itself is still under construction. There was a there was a bay that's placed in that has to be
removed so the facade will eventually change completely again. I'm going to
reduce the size here so we can see the pictures clearly. So this is right off
of one of the parts of Arch Street that is very active. I'm sorry I just realized
what I'm doing wrong here. So as you can see the building is partially
constructed it's not complete so this has been a multi -year saga to try to get this building built
too cold and completed and filled so this because the way this building is built because it was
built as it's essentially a wooden structure despite the height the structural integrity of
the weight that is being pressed onto the building requires the additional bracing at those floor
levels and that's why the architect, the current architect, wanted to keep what is essentially
mezzanineum type flooring level to keep that structure. So this is how it looks from a design
standpoint. They're keeping some of the flooring as mezzanineum pieces. This is exactly what is
what is causing the additional floor area ratio in this building.
causing the additional floor area ratio in this building.
But it is also important to make sure the walls are pressed out and stays in its current condition.
This will prevent the need for us to, again, look at the engineering and potentially further redesign the building.
Was there a cease order issue?
Yes, there was.
And is it still in effect?
It is, it is, the cease is not in effect in the sense that it's, the court is supervising the lifting of any violations that exist on the property. So there's been ongoing work to make sure it's up to fire code, building code, but zoning is a critical component of moving forward because without the floor area ratio being correct, further construction is not permitted at this point.
And explain to me, explain to the board again, what PCDC's objection was?
PCDC felt that the, when the building was constructed, I'll go back to their letter.
so if you look at PCDC so PCDC actually approved this original building back in 2013 and my client
at that time proposed the building with the prior permit and plan the board I referenced to the
board earlier it was not constructed according to the drawing so the
contractor the gentleman who did the construction is well known in Chinatown
Mr. Wren and he's the one that took the entire project and built the building
but of course he did things that were not within the plans yes it's still my
client's building yes it was my client's project but my client never was involved that directly
with the project until the city came and inspected because Mr. Wren reported to him regularly saying
everything's fine you're doing great this is a multi -million dollar project for my client
so at this point what what he's really looking for is to make sure that he can complete this
project at this point even though he has probably invested another almost the same amount of money
that he originally did to keep this project going. As you can see PCDC primarily feels that
there's no hardship because my client could have built and completed the building as approved
but we did explain to PCDC that the structure of the building is already up. It's not something
that if you want to take it back to that plan we would have to demolish the
building at this point so it's a complete reconstruction for basically a
two thousand square two thousand eight hundred square foot difference in floor
area coverage within the building so if the board were to approve this would we
be approving something of that is not yet still in compliance with the
building code it well if the the plans that is being approved by the board are
the same plans that are being presented to the common police court through the
law department so law department and it is involved with this project heavily
at this point so if the board approved these specific plans and requests that
this be the plans that are built all further inspections and court reviews
would follow that particular plan.
Courts are relying on the zoning board?
Am I misunderstanding that?
Because it sounds to me like there's still an open -ended question here.
Regardless of what we do, that the court may,
obviously the court has more power than we do,
that they may overrule what is being requested of this board.
This is Sharon Stoletta. May I interrupt for a minute?
Sure, please.
Chair, the building permits can't be issued until there is a zoning permit. So you would be the first step.
I get that. But unless I'm hearing it wrong, they're already in court for building code violations.
are they one in the same or are they exclusive of each other meaning are is
the what what would be permitted under the variance is that does that become
questionable in terms of what the code would allow I don't know if that makes
in terms of what the code would allow I don't know if that makes sense I'm
obviously I'm not a lawyer I'm just trying to it seems to be very convoluted
here may what the in my client to do is to comply with if you're breaking up
I'm sorry what the court is asking my client to do is to comply with L &I
requirements, which involves building permits and zoning use permits. In order for the court to
approve that the violations can be complied and lifted, L &I has to accept a zoning design
approval as well as issue building permits based on it and then inspect the actual construction
itself. So do we know if they would approve this building design? Well, they asked us to make this
application l and i actually asked us to and all the dimensional requirements that are in this
are what l and i had suggested no the requirements are what the architect after reviewing what's
existing and what can be done to maintain the structure proposed
god did you have any more to anything else to add
no it's nothing else mr chin explained it
uh question from the board no no no no okay is there anyone else here who wishes to testify
in this matter if you if so please raise your hand at this time uh my client is uh here with
us, I believe. I have a Yu Wu. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, ma 'am. Please spell your name for the
stenographer. My name is Yue Wu, Y -U -E -W -U, and I represent RCO, Philadelphia Chinatown Development
Corporation. Right, and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
about the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. So I'm here to represent
the impacted RCO, Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. In 2013, we approved
the owner's proposal to build a five -story mixed -use building. But after the zoning violence
was granted, the building was not constructed as proposed. It was built illegally seven stories
and the building was built with wood frame which is not allowed for buildings more than five stories.
So after the owner presented the revised plan to our RCO committee, we believe it didn't
demonstrate the unnecessary hardship and the applicant could have built and completed the
building according to what they proposed in 2013.
And the attorney showed original drawings to us today.
And during the public meeting, we requested,
the RCO committee requested the original drawings
to be presented.
But we never received the original drawings.
and we decided that the this kind of behavior was that a very bad example in our neighborhood in our
community and in the city that if someone the developer can build a illegal building
and then get the approval from zoning board and other city departments just to get away
from the following the rules it will be really bad for future development in the
city and granting the zoning variance for this project is unfair for other
developers who actually follow the zoning rules and regulations. So PCDC's
RCO does not support this kind of behavior. Additionally, we find recently
that there were construction activities going on in this building.
And if I can, I can show some photos, but I don't see option for sharing screen.
Can someone help me to share the screen?
I think it will help you, I'm sure.
Sorry?
Maybe Mr. Oh, I see it now.
I've stopped sharing. I don't know if it would interfere with the...
I've stopped sharing. I don't know if it would interfere with the
Yeah, I can do that now. So this is photo we took in late July, around July 27th. This
is a building we were discussing right now and there were construction activities going
on without zoning or building permits visible to the public you can see there's no building
or zoning permit and there's a video from the back of the building during that construction
activities going on if you if you see the cover outside and again this building
has been instructed to be made safe pending final design so some of we had
actually uh how do you build a building prior to getting final design as well i'm not sure
and you also mentioned that i think you said that a five -story building would have been permissible
and that was part of the original plan original plan had a 71 um building so the building on the
original plan was essentially the size as this one is it okay for a five story five floors right
five floors correct inside so when you you say that this wasn't this isn't approved they'd have
to tear the entire building down because couldn't they just take off the top two two levels or
whatever levels it is to get it back down to compliance without having to disturb the entire
building well it would mr chairman you are correct you just have to take off the two floors to get
the SAR down to 500 instead of doing mesoline right and if I can interrupt for a minute this
is Sharon Saleta again Mr. Jin may have already explained this but the only variance required in
this case is for the floor area ratio not the height not the use it's one dimensional refusal
permit it is a 500 percent floor area ratio as um proposed now it's 590 .1 oh if he reduced if he
reduced the by the the nine nine was a 590 got it back to the five
i mean tom i'm i'm i guess i'm asking you tom this so there there's a
What he's trying to do is do mezzolines to reduce the floor area
instead of taking the two floors off to reduce the floor area.
Is it reconfiguration of the interior at the upper floors?
Is that what we're saying?
That's what he's trying to do is reconfigure the interior
instead of taking the exterior two floors off.
so if we look at this um this design uh side view uh if we were so what we're doing is you
have first floor there's a current second floor that's going to be removed so there's one tall
second floor and then there's second floor mezzanine that would have been the third floor
then third fourth fifth floor in mezzanine i understand the board saying what if you just
take floors off by doing believe and this is a discussion again I'm not the
architect expert here but I believe it's gonna be a far greater burden on my
client to take two complete floors off and then reconfigure all the floors
below then to have they because all these floors all seven floors are
currently in so what Jim with all due respect didn't your client cause this
probably this is it he caused the problem he or his architect somebody
caused it well the builder the builder caused the the actual issue here by
building it that way the builder basically built without following plans
my client actually obtained from the architect so that is that is Brad with
the existing building this is a again this is a dimensional variance for about
2 ,000 plus square foot of floor area. I think the 2 ,000 plus what is the plus? Well it's about
2 ,800 square feet. That's almost 3 ,000 square feet. I'll go with 3 ,000. So about 3 ,000 square
foot. This building has over 15 ,000 square foot total of floor area due to the size of the lot
in the side of the building. When it's a dimensional variance like this, the
dimensional variants like this, the ultimate additional cost to my client in this situation
ultimate additional cost to my client
is in itself a hardship that should be considered. I understand that, but he caused this problem.
That's what I'm saying. I mean, look, you're doing your job for your client. I get it.
But to make it like, you know, we got to be sympathetic towards your client. He caused this
problem in the first place. If he would have stuck to what he should have been doing when it was first
approved in 2013 we probably wouldn't we wouldn't be here today I I think it
might be worthwhile to hear from my client as to what happened is he gonna
tell us anything different I think he can explain a little better his
relationship and how this construction happened without that we ended up with
this building that he because I know the board saying my client is the one that
built the building because he's the owner but ultimately he was being kind of bamboozled as
well by the contractor who's charging him additional money on this building saying I'm
building something for you I'm building something for you but actually what he was doing is building
something that was completely off from the plans. I sympathize with that but I don't think that
we didn't create the hardship the community didn't create the hardship created by his
builder and he's paying him and i can't believe that he had no knowledge of what was taking place
i find that very hard to believe in a building of this size but that's just my opinion so i will
answer any questions from the board no no no yes in my opinion it would be more costly
to reconfigure the interior
to the mezzolines
than to just take off the roof
and the two floors.
That was my first question.
I figured that would be easier.
But anyway, all right.
Appreciate that, Tom.
Anyone else who wishes
to testify on this matter,
please raise your hand
if you haven't already done so.
We have Kenny.
Kenny, you can unmute yourself.
Yeah, I'm here.
hello yeah my name hello yeah i'm kenny zhang i'm the owner of the building
kenny please please spell your name for the stenographer
okay hokun h -a -o -k -u -n that's my first name kenny that's my english name my last name is
z -h -e -n -g do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Okay, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I want to say something about that.
I have been the owner for this building six years, almost seven years.
I am a victim for this situation, for this building.
I have no idea to build an illegal building.
I was misled by the contractor the builder we have original contract and
later we change it again and again because he say he can build a better
building for me and then I count on him I didn't have any idea about like a this
is a violation I cannot get it in this way or not until the second season of
operation okay now i terminate the contract this is him i talked to l and i i wasn't mislead
i want to cooperate with l and i 100 100 absolutely i want to complete the building as
an as soon as possible i need the help from all the people around me okay that's a nightmare for
me okay i want to cooperate with l and i i want to get this job done as soon as possible i am not
the person to cause the problem i am the victim for this situation for the building now i really
want to have it complete even though it's beyond my budget it caused so much trouble to me i really
want to complete it so i can move in my office to the second floor i have been in business in
Chinatown for 26 years. Okay, I'm a nice guy in Chinatown. Even though I didn't have a good
relationship with PCDC, I don't know why they misunderstand me in this way. I never do anything
wrong to the community, whatever. That's not my idea to build an illegal building like this.
This is a nightmare for me.
I want to be connected, okay?
correct it okay complete this building as soon as possible please help me that's
Complete this building as soon as possible.
what I say thank you is there anyone else here which is to testify in this
case no hands are raised at this time mr. chairman and members of the board we do
not believe the applicant has sufficiently addressed the impacts
related to the proposed project accordingly we recommend the requested variants not be granted
thank you mr jen before i call a vote have mr jung just affirm my testimony
yes please uh mr jung are you there
kenny you have to unmute yourself to speak
Kenny, are you there?
I'm sorry.
Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?
Yes, yes.
Hi, Kenny.
You heard my testimony to the zoning board.
Can you verify that my testimony is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Before I call the vote, do you think there's any possibility that your client would be
willing to make some adjustments?
Yes, I think we would certainly work with any suggestions from the board, as well as
the community, to try to make this work.
I mean, here, the main concern here for him is major changes, again, will further delay
trying to get this building together.
I think we understand that. I think that's been made perfectly clear. But again, who caused the hardship? And if he's saying it's not him, and it was the contractor, it was the architect, he has legal recourse, as far as I'm concerned, if they went beyond the scope of what the project should have been, how it should have been built.
That's my opinion, all right?
I'm only one person.
And I don't think that we should be in a position
to making these kinds of decisions
because people we hired, you know,
did not follow through on the plans
as were originally presented.
Although I have a question in my own mind,
somebody knew what was going on here.
I find it very hard to believe
that additional floors and whatever is put in
and almost 3 ,000 more square feet.
And no one saw this during the time of construction.
I find that very difficult to believe.
So we can hold it or we'll take a vote,
whatever works for you, Mr. Jim.
Trying to be somewhat cooperative here.
I would ask the board to hold the vote on this
so I can go back with my client
and see if we can work out some additional changes
that would alleviate some of the concerns here.
Sharon and or Tanya, what's the procedure now?
Tanya, is there a date in approximately 30 days
on which Mr. Jen can come back and report on
whether he has either made progress
with the community organization
or has changes that he would like to present to the board?
um how about we do september 16th
thank you gives you ample time mr james thank you so this case is being held till september
the 16th and tanya will give you the date i mean the time of that hearing thank you thank you
thank you is that me with the approval of the board by the way i'm sorry yes sounds good yeah
That sounds good.
Yes, Senator Tickler -Telver.
Sounds good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
So, Mr. Jin, may I ask that you just turn your camera off until you come back for your next case, please?
Thank you.
Calendar number 39679 -1307 East Moya -Mensing.
The attorney is Jared Klein.
Mr. Klein you've been promoted to panelists. You can unmute yourself and share your screen
as necessary. Mr. Klein can you put your name and address on the record please? Yes. Jared
Klein. It's K -L -E -I -N from Blank Rome. 130 North 18th Street. Do you agree to do you
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. And I stipulate to the accuracy and waive reading of the review.
Yes, I do, and I stipulate to the accuracy and waive reading of the refusal.
And waive the reading. Thank you. You may proceed.
And waive the reading.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
I'm going to share my screen.
Can everybody see that at this time?
So good afternoon, everybody. I am here representing Quinti USA.
I'm joined on the Zoom today by Ella Zhao, who's one of the principals.
1307 East Moyamensing is unfortunately another property with somewhat of a complicated history,
as in the case that we all just heard.
But I'll try and move through it as efficiently as I can in consideration of the board's time.
The property, as you can see on the aerial photo, is located here.
It is on the same block face as some other commercial businesses.
Cafe Valentino is here, and there's a pub and drinking establishment here, along with a dry cleaner and a garage on this 1300 block of East Moyamense.
The property itself in 1960 was granted a variance to be used as a triplex.
my client purchased the building in June of 2018 and at that time in June of 2018
she obtained the city certification statement that I've just shared on the screen
and as you'll see that city certification statement which is dated in March of 2018
indicates the property was legally registered for use as a three -family dwelling
unfortunately and completely unbeknownst to my client in March of 2018 the property was not
a legal three -family dwelling despite the city certification statement to the contrary
what had happened with this property is in 2015 or 16 the then owner had applied for a building
permit to fit out the property as a triplex and the Pennsport Neighbors Association had
appealed that building permit, and there was a LERB case that was then followed by a ZVA case,
which was then followed by a Court of Common Pleas and Commonwealth Court hearing.
All of that resulted in a determination that the 1960 variants had been legally abandoned
by the prior owner, and therefore the property had reverted back to its single -family RSA -5
base zoning designation. Unfortunately for my client, the seller of the property in June of
2018 shared none of this with her. So she had no idea of this legal history, and she purchased the
property as it was marketed as a three -family dwelling, and she obtained the city certification
statement, which she relied upon in her understanding that the property was a legal
three -family dwelling. Just so the board understands the administration and timing of
how the city certification came about, it became my understanding after filing this case and
conversation with the city law department that in March of 2018, the Commonwealth Court decision,
which had been decided in December of 2017, was pending appeal before the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court. And as a result of that appeal, the city didn't update the certification record
because the legal process to determine the abandonment issue had not been concluded.
So although the city was aware that there was a question about the legal use status of this
property, what they were putting out to the public prior to my client's purchase was that it was a
legal three -family growing. We now understand that that abandonment case has taken place,
and so what we're asking the board for is for a variance to allow the property to be continued
as multifamily use. One of the things I'll mention here, while the application that we
submitted requests use of the property as a triplex, we do understand after meeting with
Pennsport that they are in opposition due in large part, I think, to the history of the property and
the legal battles they went through with the prior owner. But one of the things we would like
to advise the board is we would like to reduce our ask from a triplex to a duplex. And if the
board is inclined to grant the variance, we would welcome a proviso that capped it at a maximum of
two units. That is, although my client believes that she is the victim of the seller's malfeasance,
we're trying to the extent we can to address some of the community concerns with the property.
We're trying to the extent we can to address some of the community concerns with the property and reducing the density count we thought was a good way to do that.
In terms of the property itself, I will pull up some photographs just to orient the board.
This is the property here fronting on Moyamensing Avenue.
And the interior of the property looks as you would expect a multifamily building to look.
There are multiple kitchens.
There are bedrooms.
The finishes are decent finishes.
This is a photograph of some of the surrounding area.
just to orient the board to the fact that this is not a purely residential block there is a beer
garden here there's a restaurant here and if you look at the zoning archives which I had attached
to the exhibits you'll see that there are a variety of other uses at 1301 East Moia Benzing
it was zoned for the maintenance and repair of consumer goods which was a dry cleaner
1245 South 3rd Street is the mixed is the the bar that I was just showing so the immediate
surrounding area while a lot of it is zoned RSA 5 there is a commercial presence directly across
the street and on the same block face which we think that context is important to an understanding
whether multi -family of this property is an appropriate use. And I'll put up here the floor
plans that were developed prior to our RCO meeting. Again, our idea is to reduce this to a duplex.
And so one of the units as shown on these plans would become a bi -level as opposed to having its
own floor. And with that, I would like my client to raise her hand so she can be sworn in and adopt
my testimony. Ella, can you raise your hand? You can unmute yourself and speak.
Oh, yes. Yes, that's her. My name is Ella Lei Zell.
Can you spell your name, ma 'am?
L -E -I is my first name, last name Z -H -O -U, Zell.
Thank you. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir. Thank you. Please, Mr. Klein.
Thank you. Ella, did you hear my presentation that I gave to the board?
And do you adopt my statements as true, correct, and your own?
Okay, thank you.
I expect the board and some neighbors may have questions, but I will turn the floor back to the chair at this point.
Thank you.
Two questions before we go to the other witnesses.
The offer of reducing from three to two, was that made known to the Pennsport Civic?
It was not.
That was a conversation that my client and I had in the immediate aftermath of the RCO.
And then with the COVID shutdown, we never convened it.
As of today, this is the first time that offer is being put on the table, correct?
That's correct, Mr. Chair.
And you said that if that were approved for two -family unit, second and third would be
a bi -level.
How many bedrooms would be in that bi -level unit?
I believe it would be three.
Anyone who wishes to testify in this matter, please raise your hand.
Richard DeMarco, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Thank you, Tanya. Can you all hear me?
Yes, Richard. So, you know, identify yourself for the record.
boss way in richard demarco um i'm here uh because i was the attorney that litigated the
earlier case for the penn sport civic association i do not represent them today
uh but i'm i'm here to uh relay to the board um the circumstances of that and penn sport i believe
is participating as well so why don't we hear from the part of me i only have a few things to say
mr chairman okay well let me swear you in did you swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed yes and of course i'm going to defer
to penn sport uh on the offer by uh jared to uh allow duplex uh i don't know how they'll handle
that I appreciate the offer personally, but I don't speak for them.
So all I wanted to say, and I'm on here because I wanted to listen
and make sure that the things that were said there were accurate.
the things that were said they were accurate. I do appreciate that Jared did relay an accurate
I do appreciate that Jared did relay an accurate.
description of the history. I want to guess the only thing I can add is this.
This was like two and a half year litigation, as I recall. What's upsetting to me personally
is that the applicant, when we filed the appeal to the issuance of an over -the -counter permit
for the triplex. I believe this was Jim Moylan's board, but if you recall, the testimony was clear
that the use had never been actually converted. Even though there was a permit for a triplex in
the file, there was never any building permit pulled, and the owner of the property continued
to live there in a single -family home. The testimony that the board heard and the reason
why this board granted our appeal and reversed the issuance of the permit for the triplex
is because the testimony was that it had always been single family. We actually had
testimony from neighbors who were inside the property and verified it was single family all
their lives. What upsets me though is that the prior owner, not this applicant, but the prior
our owner, continued to complete the transition to a triplex while our appeal was pending.
I specifically mailed a copy of our appeal to the owner so that the owner knew that there
was a pending appeal, and the owner continued to work because we did not seek a stay and
really could not because it was an administrative appeal and we couldn't afford a litigation
at that time, the owner continued to convert the property while our appeal was pending
and completed the transition of the property from single family to multifamily.
And while the ownership has changed, and I do see the city certification, and that is
outrageous.
I don't know how after two years of litigation, which was successful by the neighborhood group,
a city cert could have been issued to this buyer verifying the 1960 permit after we had litigated
that for that long and one hard -fought battle I don't know how the city would issue a city cert
but be that as it may this applicant now steps into the shoes of of this prior owner who is
and malfeasance is an appropriate word. I appreciate that characterization by Jared.
That's absolutely right. The prior owner, talk about malfeasance. Not only did he complete
the conversion of this property to a triplex while our appeal was pending, he then sells the
property to this applicant without telling her that he lost in three different venues, this board,
the court of common pleas and then the commonwealth court and i believe is that you know the files in
a box because i've moved from uh laletta but uh this applicant the prior owner actually petitioned
the supreme court for review and lost um so it is unfortunate for this buyer um i don't know how
she would not have known of such a long and convoluted uh history but but it should have
been clear to everyone, including the city, that this property is single family. And we fought long
and hard for it, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry that Jared's client has stepped into this situation.
But unfortunately, this applicant takes the shoes of the prior owner, and there's simply no
hardship. He illegally converted this property, lost in an administrative appeal, and then sells
it to her without telling her, why should the community have to have gone through this
and then have to deal with it because of another buyer saying I'm innocent and
I deserve relief because I was in the dark. I just don't see it. I'm sorry that that happened
to her. And Penn's portal speak for themselves, but it's just very frustrating. And I got
to know that the few neighbors who were involved in the hearing, they have been very upset
about this. They're upset right now to have to have fought this and won and then have
this come up. And I guess I'm speaking for them specifically. So I'd ask you not to grant
it based on that. And I'm here to answer any questions. I'll defer to the other neighbors.
And thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Bonnie, do you have anything or want to wait for the other witnesses?
I would just like to briefly respond on the hardship issue that Mr. DeMarco raised just by pointing out two things.
The first item is that in terms of a finding of a hardship, this property was granted a variance in 1960.
The first item is that in terms of a finding of a hardship,
While we all acknowledge that situations on the ground can change over time, a zoning board finding was made in 1960 that this property met the standard for a variance and granted a use variance.
And so I would I would offer that the situation on the ground today still supports the finding of a hardship that was made in 1960.
The other point I'll make just I touched on this during my earlier presentation, but that this this particular property is not located in a purely single family block.
There's a mix of uses on that black face and directly across the street, making it more appropriate contextually for multifamily use.
Primarily residential.
Primarily residential.
Actually, it's probably more residential now than it was 10 years ago.
There are garages that have been where the bar is.
There was a dry cleaner.
There was a garage next to that.
But anyway, I don't want to belabor that point, but it's more residential today than it was 10 years ago.
Right. And I just put up the...
And the other question, you may have said this in your...
When was the... The classification went to RS5 at the time.
When did that occur?
I'm not sure when the property was mapped.
I think that probably happened somewhere between 1996 and 1999.
You would certainly know.
Okay, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I'm sorry.
That's okay. I was finished, Mr. Chair.
Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this matter?
If you haven't already raised your hand, please do so now.
Patrick, you have been allowed to speak. You can unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, Board. My name is Pat Fitzmaurice, spelled F.
Patrick, would you spell your last name, please?
spelled f -i -t -z -m -a -u -r -i -c -e and patrick do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you patrick please proceed good afternoon board uh i'm here
as the president of the fennsworth civic association um i think mr mr klein and mr
demarco's comments have been um pretty accurate to the history and and what has happened uh with
this property. I just want to note a few things, and I hope to not repeat what's been already said.
As it's already been noted, this exact same relief was sought only a few years ago.
To my knowledge, DBA denied that relief, and the denial was affirmed by the courts.
From everything I've heard today, nothing has changed, and there's been no explanation of any
changed circumstances regarding a multifamily use from last time. I understand and sympathize
with the owner, but the solution is not to ignore precedent and the neighbor concerns to bail out
you know to bail out an owner there are other avenues available to make the owner whole
I appreciate the suggested solution of making this a duplex but I don't think that really
solves the multifamily concerns that we have and I would note that the ZBA denied a multifamily
duplex use on the next block just a few months ago at 1231 moyamensing due to the concerns
for multifamily use and neighbor opposition. So I think it would be inconsistent to now grant a
multifamily use. I appreciate Mr. Klein's comments about the hardship that may or may not have
existed in the 1960s, but we don't know what that hardship was or whether circumstances have
changed in 60 years since then to alleviate the hardship. And we don't know what the standard for
a hardship was in 1960. I would note that as Chairman DiCicco said, for the last project that
was heard. The community did not cause the hardship here. And again, as he noted, there is
a legal recourse for this owner to seek relief. I would note that I do believe, and he can correct
me if I'm incorrect, but I believe that the RCO meeting, Mr. Klein represented that there was no
title search performed on this before the purchase. That may or may not have triggered
awareness of the court history of this. You know, I think Mr. Klein represented or
characterize this as a continued use as multifamily, I think that kind of skates over the issue that
this is not supposed to be a multifamily and hasn't been supposed to be a multifamily for
decades. And I think that I understand that there's other uses in the area and Mr. Klein
seems to focus on that. But if you look at the map that Mr. Klein just had up of the surrounding
area, that map is overwhelmingly yellow, meaning overwhelmingly residential. And I think that
you know nitpicking the few non -residential uses kind of skirts around that i think
you know, nitpicking the few non -residential uses kind of skirts around that.
I think, I think Chairman DiCicco is aware of the,
the overwhelmingly residential use in this area as he,
his questions seem to reflect. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I think that's all I have for now.
Thank you. Any questions, Mr. Klein for Mr. Fitzmaurice?
No, thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to testify?
No chair, that's all.
okay all right uh questions from the board no no no planning commission mr chairman and members
of the board this property is zoned residential single family we do not believe the applicant
has sufficiently addressed the impacts related to the proposed use accordingly we recommend that
requested variants not be granted um chair i apologize but it seems like we have a late hand
raiser okay if you wish please uh pat you can unmute yourself and speak to this case
um thank you can you hear me yes ma 'am please identify yourselves by your name for the stenographer
Sure. My name is Pat, P -A -T, Castanera, C -A -S -T -I -N -E -I -R -A. I am the next door neighbor
of the property in question. And first, I'd like to -
Okay, I need to just swear you win, ma 'am.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I want to thank Pennsport and Rich for all their hard work and the neighbors
who have banded together that do not want this our whole block on our side is nothing but single
family homes on our side and it's been more than two and a half years fighting this it's almost
five years that we've been going through this because the other owner just kept appealing and
peeling and peeling and then when he lost he just decided to sell it and i'm sorry that this person
bought this without the understanding that she says she doesn't understand that it was
not a triplex. I'm not so sure about that, but I just don't want to see another five years go by
of fighting this again. The neighbors are against this, and I hope you take that into
consideration. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else who wishes to testify?
If you haven't already raised your hand, please do so now. That's all I see at this time. Thank you.
Calendar number 39679 1307 East Moy Metzing Avenue. My vote is no.
My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
thank you all for your time appreciate it thank you thank you calendar number three eight four
two two one five four zero north 7th street the attorney is zen jin and he's already on their
oath so we don't you don't need to swear him in mr jen do you agree to wait the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do name and address
I'm going to go ahead and share the documentation related to this case.
This is for an application for use as a triplex on the block of North 7th Street.
it is zoned as RSA 5. This is a vacant lot that is being developed by my client.
The area of this neighborhood is completely built as a multi -family area
because at one point this block was actually RM 1. I believe the current
block is the current lot is RSA 5 partially because it was vacant when
rezoning came through. As you can see, 1527 RM1 approved as four units, 29 coming towards my
client's property, also a five -family multi -family dwelling. Then as we get closer, 31, 32, 34,
36 all the way to 38 are all triplex properties multifamily dwelling. We're
also proposing the same concept because essentially we are my client's
Because essentially, my client's property is in the middle between the corner properties and the other properties further down the block, all of which are triplex multifamily.
properties in the middle between
There is a church across the street, and there's also buildings in the back on the other block behind us that are multifamily.
So this lot is sandwiched essentially in an entire block of multifamily use.
When we went to the RCO, this was brought up with the RCO.
Their primary concern, there were three individuals who appeared at the meeting who opposed this project.
Their primary concern was they said that the block has been flooding and that the proposed basement would be an issue.
They wanted us to not build a basement or do something to prevent flooding happening in this particular structure.
I believe that's a legitimate concern if there are, in fact, flooding issues on the block.
However, it is not necessarily a zoning issue that should be addressed at the design level
when building permits are being pulled as far as water, preventing water overflowing into the basement.
We made the same documentation to them that everything around the building on both sides are, in fact, triplex multifamily buildings.
While I understand that some other blocks nearby are completely RSA -5, and this lot has been rezoned to RSA -5 because it's been vacant, to kind of squeeze a single RSA -5 building, a single -family building on an entire block of multifamily would make it really not a very viable building as far as being able to be sold, which is the intent here.
This is designed and I'm going to jump now to the plans. This building is designed
essentially to be used as condominiums and sold in the future. Let me try to get this
at a more reasonable size. So the basement level is part of a bi -level unit
where the bedrooms are above on the first floor and the living space and kitchen
was designed in the basement. The second and third floor are front and back by levels as well
again to give a feel of having two floors like a small house rather than one single large floor
apartment, the stair system leads all the way up from the bottom allowing a
walkway to go all the way to the rear of the property as well. So this allows all
three units to have a common area space hallway that allows them access the
rear yard where trash can be placed. So when the design was made, the
consideration is that ultimately each of these would be counterized into its own
unit and sold and also it is consistent with what is now on the block which are
entirely on this side multifamily properties. With the big church across
the street we don't feel that the facilities or light and air is really
being impacted by this structure. The facilities of the area is already there to support multiple
buildings built in the same way. There's no real use impact to the neighbors because they already
have multi -family use. This is not a three -family being jammed into a single -family block where
there will be a very different set of uses as compared to the neighbors.
parking and and other issues were not brought up by the community as a concern their primary
concern was this issue with flooding and the design of the basement ultimately to try to
prevent flooding becoming even bigger issue so in this case because of the surrounding area and
how it is composed of all multifamily buildings we submit this is consistent
with the neighborhood makeup and this would not be a hardship to the
neighborhood if it is approved as a triplex at this location
it is approved as a triplex at this location. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I put the
community notes up here on the screen so that if the board has any questions based off of their
particular questions. I'm looking at their letter, basements are common and however
you scroll down i'm only could see up to number three yours there four all right four
they'll be for sale a little further this will be for sale yes that's the end of the questions
from the community and is there any is that it on the letter yes number four and it ends okay
yeah uh is there any letter from the district council person in the file
we never received the letter from the district council office
um we got the um letter from apm some time ago before things shut down for the pandemic
uh questions from the board you know
anyone here wishes to testify on this case please raise your hand if you haven't already done so
i believe my client is here you can bring your client on um it's uh mr mr michael haddad here
I don't know if he's
and you said what what was his name again
Mike Al -Haddad
yes I'm here
I'm sorry
oh is that
is that who it is
I don't know if the name is
yes I am
please ask your client
to identify himself
Michael
go ahead
please give the board
your name and address
Michael Al -Haddad
1000 West Gerard Avenue
Philadelphia PA
please spell your last name
Al -Haddad, A -L -H -A -D -A -D.
You swear in front to tell the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Sorry.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Al -Haddad, you heard my testimony before the board.
Can you verify that it's true and correct and adopted as your own?
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
no hands chair you can proceed thank you Planning Commission mr. chairman and
members of the board this property is owned residential single -family the city
changed the zoning maps for this neighborhood in 2017 however the nature
of this block has changed since then it is now primarily a multifamily block so
we have no opposition to the granting of this variance thank you very much
calendar number 38422
North 7th Street
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
thank you
thank you very much
good luck
thank you
the next case is appeal number
5, and the address is 1550 Lardner Street. The attorney is Frank Turner.
Before Mr. This is Sharon Saleta. Before Mr. Turner begins his presentation, I just wanted
to explain that this is on remand from the Court of Common Pleas. In December 2018, the board
denied a use variance for a business and professional office in the basement of an existing
to family dwelling at the time the planning commission and the rco opposed the use that
was appealed to the court of common pleas and in july of 2019 it was remanded to this board
the court order and i'm quoting from it's after oral argument on the appeal by the appellant
from the decision of the zoning board of adjustment this matter is remanded to the
Zoning Board of Adjustment for reconsideration. The Zoning Board of
Adjustment shall provide supplemental findings, facts, and conclusions of law
as appropriate. There was no more detail in the order. It's unclear whether the
appellant was to be provided with an opportunity to present additional
information. I would therefore, I think Mr. Lardner then can explain procedurally
where we are, and if the board would then like to hold close.
if the board would then like to hold close the record but hold the case for decision for at
least two weeks in order to review the record that was submitted to the court and for the
board's counsel to present to prepare supplemental findings if required thank you thank you and when
was the when was the board decision to uh it was in 18 you said 2018 it was 16. december 2018.
uh mr turner yes uh please identify yourself with a record certainly um my name is frank
turner i'm the uh attorney for joshua bonagre who is the uh owner of the property 1550 lardner street
Sir, do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. I'm an attorney, but yes, I do.
I would ask, too, Mr. Turner, if you can come closer to the mic.
You're a little low. Thank you.
Okay, sorry. I'll try and speak up.
That's perfect. Thank you.
Great. And so if you guys are ready, I can give you guys a little bit of background here.
Please proceed.
Great. So this is a semi -attached RSA 5 building. It's situated on the corner of the street next to, and it abuts against Roosevelt Boulevard.
If you can share any, I do have some documents that I can share, and let me look at how exactly to do that. Bear with me, share screen, and let's see, sorry, bear with me one second, files.
This is a, oh, they're not here, okay.
Give me one second here, hang on, come on.
You guys can't see that.
I'm just pulling up the correct document.
Okay, can you guys see that? Okay, here we have the plans for the building and let me make this
little bit smaller so you guys can see the whole plans and I'm trying to
rotate this but you should be able to see this is the property itself and what
we have is a this is a violation for a an office being a basement in a
residential property being used as an office
and my client also put up a sign for his insurance office that he opened
there out of this basement that's
under normal circumstances that might be a little odd but based on the
you know this shape and orientation of this property it actually is the it's
actually the best use economically for my client when he purchased the property
and to in the year 2000 the basement was already finished out with separate
rooms as you can see here with like a little break room and existing offices
and there are two uh egresses right next to each other uh going directly from uh the um alley
which uh feeds out onto roosevelt roosevelt boulevard here uh this alley right here is
actually um there's parking here uh all along the back of the alley the the rest of the properties
along this block of Lardner Street here. But these two doors face Roosevelt Boulevard kind of an
oblong way, really making the property very well suited.
way, really making the property very well suited for commercial use and for signage
that would be visible from that major commercial accord or Roosevelt Boulevard.
Mr. Turner, I'm going to have to interrupt you for a minute. The notice of refusal that
was originally issued for this note to ZBA, no sign on this application. So that application
is not before the board.
No, I understand.
Sorry, it's not.
I understand.
I understand.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sharon.
Right.
Our second application for appeal
included the,
I believe,
included the signage.
So putting the signage aside,
the use of this property
as an office,
in this case,
an insurance office,
it does abut a major thoroughfare it's on the corner of the of the block here of this RSA 5
block it's a uniquely large property for that block and also if you can see all this area around
the property is actually the side yard so there's a lot of extra side yard space here
there was a question of parking to have a an office an insurance office where clients visit
there actually are two parking spaces directly behind the building in front of these two egress
doors there's street parking on lardner street and the very street over behind this on the other
side of this alley um which would be around here uh on the map um there's street parking there as
well and that parking feeds and uh it's a one -way street this street here is a one -way street um
burke street i think is a one -way street that feeds uh from roosevelt boulevard um so
So they're parking here where clients would be able to park on this street here and just walk along the sidewalk to my client's office.
Mr. Turner, I apologize. I have to interrupt again.
This is not the original hearing on this matter.
Right. Oh, okay.
Are you, are you?
It was remanded.
Remanded to the board is appropriate when the original record was incomplete.
were you able to present these same arguments at the original hearing? Were you somehow
prevented from making a full record? I apologize about the confusion,
I was not the attorney. My client was unrepresented in the original hearing.
The record was incomplete at the original hearing in that there were not plans presented.
my client then had plans drawn up and then appealed to the Commonwealth Court
and that came back I'm sorry I see the quarter common pleas and that came back
remanding back to the zoning board to review the same argument with with the
plans is that's I mean the order as you mentioned is there's not a lot of
detail in it so it my understanding is that because there were no plans the
last application for zoning variance was denied plans were drawn up taken to
quarter -con please and sent back down to ZBA thank you for the explanation but
again I would recommend to the board that we held for two weeks so that's you
can we're just for discussion and review of the original record great that's I do
not bear with me for one second while I consult with my client
and thank you for your patience there I spoke to my client um one issue with
And thank you for your patience there.
this um case is that it's been pretty excessively delayed my client the file
was originally denied in a 2018 in July of 2019 it was remanded back we put in a
new application in on November 18th of last year and I actually remember having
to call the zoning board and try to try to contact the administrators there to
see the status of the RCO notice or the notice of hearing which never occurred
that was still being delayed I believe in January or February I managed to reach
Miss Souleta who's very helpful in getting the starting to get the the
ball rolling on the hearing and figuring out what the what the issue was and where it got stuck after
the remand um and then the uh pandemic happened um and now it's six months later um my client has
been unable to uh run his business um since uh he applied for a variance um in 2018 uh he had not
received any violations until um uh september of last year uh actually that's me because uh he
after he um made his initial application for a variance it was denied because of the missing
plans um went through the appeals court and was remanded back uh the he received violations and
cease work orders um and was uh has been uh effectively out of business um since that time
uh the an additional two weeks like any additional delay um my client uh would um object to
respectfully mr turner i understand that my concern here is that because the court order
references supplemental findings I really think that the board should that I should draft them
that the board should adopt them at the same time we can't do that today and in order for it to be
the vote to be complete I think that will have to be done okay we will guarantee it will be done in
two weeks from today thank you that's my client and I certainly appreciate that guarantee thank
you thank you Sharon thank you thank you yeah are there any questions from the
board no no no anyone else here wishes to testify in this case please raise your
hand. Chair, we have Sloan Foulkes from the council person's office. You can unmute yourself
and speak, Mr. Foulkes. Again, good afternoon, Councilor, I'm sorry, Chairman Chico. Mr. Foulkes,
that's a fun um you were sworn in earlier so you're still on the roof yes uh we'd also i
also councilman maria quiona sanchez would also like uh this uh request held for discussion we
do understand that uh it's been a two -year process for the owner uh we don't want to uh cause any
further undue uh challenges uh to the owner but we also understand we've also the rco uh according
RCO at the time. We haven't heard back from them. We'd just like for them to have an opportunity
to put their feelings on the record, either written or verbally, whatever the ZBA chooses
to hear. And this is Sharon Saleta again. Mr. Folks, we will be helpful for you. I would be
glad to send you the findings, transcript, and record from the appeal that was filed to the
Court of Common, please. Thank you, ma 'am. I appreciate that.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? Please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair. So, Sharon, does the Planning Commission weigh in at this time?
I believe the Planning Commission recommendation is already part of the record, and unless we submitted plans somehow change that recommendation, it isn't necessary.
I believe the Planning Commission recommendation is already part of the record.
All right, so calendar number HA2020 -000895 -1550 Lardner Street is being held for two weeks
for a final review with plans for the board for the board to review the record and prepare
supplemental findings to adopt at the time of the vote
be part of the record thank you for your statement
okay uh that concludes the uh two o 'clock list
it does
finish business at this time for the two o 'clock list
are you guys still there yes all right uh we're going to conclude and uh take a break
10 minutes and we'll begin the 3 30 list okay great thank you
You can take your screen down and there you go. Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of
adjustment. I'll be participating in today's hearing along with Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere,
our Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members Thomas Holloman and James Snell.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunken and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who have not yet participated in one of our virtual meetings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we'll begin this afternoon's
session by reading a list of cases to be continued. If you believe any announced cases
being continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond. After reading the
continuance list and receiving any feedback, we will take any additional continuance request.
Then, once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued, Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session.
When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other interested parties in the matter identify themselves for the record.
We will then hear the appellant's presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
interested parties and members of the public not represented by council will then be given an
opportunity to testify we will finally hear the recommendation of the planning commission
at the hearing's conclusion we will either vote the matter out immediately or hold it for
discussion in executive session any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled
Wednesday morning session. Please note the following changes related to the
virtual format. 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 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, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting
star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement,
call Google pound 267 -270 -5548. Again, that number is pound 267 -270 -5548,
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that being said, we can begin.
But before Ms. Tenere calls our first case, we'd like to announce that the following matters are being continued.
But before Ms. Tenere calls our first case, we'd like to...
Calendar number 37814, 2321 North Broad Street, and calendar number 39312, 919 Diamond Street.
I'll ask at this time if there's anyone who believes that we've either called a continuance out in error to please raise your hand.
No hands are up for the 3 .30 matters.
I will now ask if there are any other requests for continuances or withdrawals, please raise your hand now.
um if we have verne anastasio mr anastasio good afternoon mr chairman
verne anastasio representing the owners of 2321 north broad calendar number m i
2 -0 -2 -0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -3
2321 North Broad Street. Okay, and you're asking for a continuance? I am, sir. We were scheduled to
have a third and final RCO meeting with the 37th Ward during the pandemic, so we were unable to
meet. I've spoken to both the president, I mean, I'm sorry, the leader, Ms. L. and
Denise, the secretary of the ward, and we are coordinating another meeting.
Thank you. Is there any objection from anyone regarding and continuing this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands.
Thank you. Calendar number 37814. 2321 North Broad Street is being continued. With that,
we'll call that first case time that you mentioned.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
And that was calendar number?
Calendar number 38501.
Ms. Gleason, you can unmute yourself.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, ma 'am. I'm sorry, but I've sat through the whole thing and I didn't
realize that when you stated about who was being continued, I didn't realize that. But I'm not
sure why my case is being continued. Did you, I sent a response to your question on the question
and answer did you submit your exhibits five days prior to this hearing
oh that's the reason why yes that's the procedures oh man so you'll be continued
and a new date will be submitted to you via email oh thanks chair thank you thank you
Ms. Gleason. Thank you. Carol. Calendar number 39323, 1526 Tasker Street. The attorney is
once again, Zen Jin. Tasker Street getting a lot of action today. I know. So Zen.
Mr. Zen. Hi, how are you? Good. You can promote your screen as you wish.
Thank you.
Name and address for the record, please.
Zen Jin, Z -H -E -N -J -I -N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia EPA 19103.
Here on behalf of the applicant, the owner is Bing Gan, B -I -N -G -A -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay you may proceed. Thank you. I'm sharing to the board my screen which contains the refusal
in this case. This is an application to add an addition to an existing corner property.
What this property is is that it is a corner shop with a garage attached to the rear
and the upper floor is currently much shorter. My client met with East Point Breeze neighbors
and they actually know and visited the site. So essentially the variance here is because the first
So essentially, the variance here is because the first floor is already 100 % coverage, my client is proposing an addition above to extend the residential portion of this property, and by doing so, it triggers a variance because any non -conforming status of an existing property being extended above is a variance in and of itself.
the reason my client is asking for this addition is because they own the store on the first floor
and they live above as you can see the existing space above is very small and they have quite a
large family so the requested additional space the extension is to give them more living space
within their existing building so this is an owner occupied building being
extended for owner occupation so the neighborhood having known the space know
about the property and knowing that the proposal is to simply extended above
found that there's really no negative impact based on this proposal and they
were in support as a result the other building that's behind here behind her
building, they're separated by an alleyway, but the party wall that is facing the back of their
property has no windows. So their view, their light and air is not being impacted. We're not
increasing the user density, so there's no impact to parking or other factors that are normally
considered when use density is increased. In this case, there will be no density increase. The
The family already has, I believe, three kids living with the parents, and they just want an additional bedroom because the kids are getting older.
My client is also here with us, so any questions from the board, I'm sure they'll be happy to answer.
I'm going to zoom into the plan a little bit so we can better see the proposed addition.
Now, the addition itself, again, is going over the existing store here and garage.
Right now, the upper floor is, this is the first floor back, and this is basement store.
I'm sorry, I messed up here.
This is the basement storage.
So, the seller is just storage.
First floor is where the existing business is.
And then the proposed addition allows this portion, which is currently a roof, to be converted to a residential space, changing it essentially to an additional bedroom here and leaving the roof being a deck area.
so now they have outdoor space for the kids to be outside. The entire deck is
however set back from all directions that face the street in conformance with
code requirements to make sure also that the people on the street would not have
to see the deck or that the occupants of the deck would be too close to the
edge of the roof. I'm certainly happy to entertain any questions relating to this.
The variance, as the refusal indicates, is simply for the fact that the extension itself is not conforming to the code requirement for open space coverage.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jin. Do you want to get your client on the record?
I believe Mr. Bingan should be with us. I noticed he asked a question earlier about being present.
Here, would you please raise his hand? If not, we'll move on.
You can take your screen down now.
Mr. Gan?
Hello.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Gan, please spell your name, identify yourself for the record.
uh my name is being gone uh you spell it uh spell it b -i -n -g -a -n first name last name g -a -n
yes you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes thank you mr gun uh can you give your address for the uh record uh 1526 teska street
Philadelphia TA -19145. Mr. Gan, you heard my testimony to the
zoning board. Can you verify that it is true and correct and adopt it as your
own? Yes. Thank you. Okay, any questions from the board? No.
any questions from the board no no no anyone else who wish the wishes to
testify in this case please raise your hand no hands are up chair thank you
planning commission good afternoon board so we're gonna ask that we swear him in
first yeah peter would you please identify yourself for the record my name is peter bernard
p -e -t -e -r -d -a -r -n -a -r -d and i'm representing the planning commission this afternoon
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive
plan the property is currently occupied as mixed use and occupies the entire site
the proposal does not create new adverse impacts accordingly we have no objection to the granting
of the variance thank you calendar number 39323 1526 tasker street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you
i'm shining off for a while carol okay calendar number 39326 1520 font fontaine street the
attorney wow is zen jim now you're in another block oh gosh so you've already been sworn in
for the rest of the month do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. And name and address for the record. Yes. Zenjen Z -H -E -N -J -I -N 1617 John F. Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103. Here on behalf of the applicant, 2300 North Park LLC.
This, I'm going to go ahead and share the information with the board on this application.
this is a property that is located in a I'm sorry let me unclick that it's located in a
RM1 district this entire block has slightly subsized lots so the deeded lot size is 812
square feet my client is proposing a duplex so because of the overlay in the area a duplex
would normally require 850 square feet total lot size. We are short by about 38
square feet on the lot size itself for this particular request. In addition, we
are requesting some variances because some of the structures on the block are
two -story structures and we happen to be abutted on both sides by two -story
structures. A setback, a front setback if required on the third floor, would also substantially
further reduce the footprint of the third floor and therefore the ability of the building to be
used in the proposed manner. With regard to open area and rear yard depth, these blocks,
most of the constructions on these blocks have very short rear yards. My client's building
actually would be lined up to the building to the one side, although the existing building to
the south side of the property would be a little bit shorter. However, when we met with the community,
that was not particularly an issue because most of the block are in fact multifamily and are
rentals for student housing. The one thing the community required us to do is to work together
with them on regular trash pickups and also work with them on sanitation to make sure
that trash is contained and would not be left outside to gather once the building is occupied.
As a result, we do have non -opposition from the community. The proposal itself, as you can see,
the block has some mostly two -story structures but it's also facing three -story structures on
other parts. The building proposed will sit essentially in a rectangular shape whereas the
current existing building has a little bit of a different shape with a small extension in the back.
The proposal is to have the buildings used as the basement would be
I'm sorry, the basement level would be a living space and kitchen. The first floor would be a
two -bedroom unit, which is leaving the bedroom all at least on the first floor. The second and
third floor unit has a master suite with its own bathroom in the front of the third floor. A second
with its own bathroom in the front of the third floor, a secondary bedroom in the back,
and the second floor is living space, kitchen, and a bedroom in the back. The intent here is to have
a setup that can be used for any kind of occupant, whether it be student or family,
and the bi -level is particularly intended to have more of a family feel. That's why the design
actually calls for a master bedroom setup rather than all individual bedrooms, individual bathrooms
in the hallway as you see with many of the student housing. The design was well liked by the community
so we overall have obtained non -opposition from the community on this particular design.
I also want to point out that while there are some existing single -family houses
sprinkled throughout the area, a majority of the houses on this block are in fact
student housing and multifamily as well. I'll be happy to answer any questions
from the board regarding this application. Is there anyone who would
like to testify? Yes, my client is here, Mr. Michael Haddad from earlier. I think
it's under a different name on the screen though
Mike can you raise your hand
is he there
i'm not i spoke with him on the phone i believe he is
mike are you there or here he has been unmuted so he can now speak
mike can you put your name and address on the record
michael al -haddad address is
1000 west gerard avenue in philadelphia pa 19123
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Now, I think Mr. Chin has a question for you.
Mr. Al -Haddad, you heard my testimony to the board.
I heard that it's true and correct, adopted as your own.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Does the board have any questions?
Was that Tom?
Okay. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, board.
You've already been sworn in. Just put your name and address on the record, please.
Peter Bernard, PCPC, 1515 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
And your position is?
This property is indicated for residential mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
The applicant is requesting zoning variances that may be eliminated if the request for the overuse of the property by having too many units included in the application.
Accordingly, we object to the granting of the variance.
How many units in total, Mr. Chin?
Two units.
This is a multifamily district, but again, with the overlay, we're about 38 square foot short on the lot size.
to meet the two unit by right. Okay, and you do have the 32nd Ward RCO in non -opposition?
That is correct. Okay, calendar, is there anyone else who wishes to testify?
No hands up, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Ms. Sunkit.
calendar number three nine three two six one five two zero fontaine street my vote is yes
my vote is yes yeah i'm gonna vote is yes
thank you is jim here
okay i guess you're done for the day mr jim thank you
good good evening have a nice evening calendar number 39335 2131 north 5th street the attorney
is isaac slepner
Hi, sir, can you put your name and address on the record?
Yes, good afternoon, Ms. Tenere and members of the board, everybody.
Isaac Slepner, S -L -E -P -N -E -R.
Isaac Slepner, S -L -E -P -N -E -R,
Matione Limited, 100 North Independence Mall West,
Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia PA, 19106.
I am counsel for the owner, property owner,
2131 North 5th Street, LLC.
Okay, and sir, do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you also agree to waive and skip?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Okay. Good afternoon, everybody.
If I may, with me today is Menachem Schechter, who is the principal of 2131 North 5th Street, LLC.
And I'm sure he's around here somewhere and he can raise his hand.
But if I may, I would like to share our materials with the board and walk you through our items.
so without further ado i will uh begin so you should see on the screen before you that's a
table of contents but we'll just jump right in uh exhibit one is our notice of refusal it was um
issued on 10 23 19 refused for use as a two family and also minimum open area percentage
Exhibit two is, and I'll turn the screen too.
Will I? I'll try.
I'll turn the screen so we can, there we go.
Exhibit two is our zoning site plan and elevation and some site photos.
So as you can see, it would be a basement, three stories and roof deck type of property.
That's the site plan.
What is in the basement?
The basement, well, hang on. The floor plans will show you the basement. The basement is a storage room and like a living room type of area with a laundry room and the HVAC, a half bathroom.
This page shows our floor plans. The two units would be the basement and ground floor would be one unit with the ground floor having access out to the rear yard, and the second unit would be the second and third floors with access to the roof deck.
And you can see the site, the floor plans in front of you. And if you have any questions, we can come back to those. Exhibit four is our elevation front, rear and side elevations.
um you can see it's a pretty standard um three -story duplex exhibit five these are photos
now we're getting into site photos so the first photo is a photo of the site as it currently
appears it's that vacant lot the new construction to the right of it is 2129 north 5th that
driveway over there is 2133 North 5th. 2131 is that flat dirt lot that is straight ahead of the
camera. Second photo, and I'll turn the view back. Bear with me. Rotate. Go back. There we go.
That's a little bit closer up of our property. A little bit closer up of our property. Let's
twist it again. Here we go. There's our property. This is a view from across the street, so you can
see the surrounding properties. That's 2129, which is the new construction, 2131, which is ours,
which is vacant. 2133 is the driveway, and 2135 is the neighbor's house. They own both, 2135 and 33.
Exhibit 5B are more pictures of the surrounding neighborhood. So this is the view looking
northbound on Fifth Street, about mid -block, pretty much directly across the street from our
property. You can see there's a number of vacant, there's a number of occupied, there's some new
construction going on. Here's another view of new construction and vacant on the same 2100 block of
North Fifth. This is a shot from a little bit further south on Fifth Street, and you can see
there's a number of, again, new construction, existing construction, vacant, and some occupied
existing homes. Same shot looking northbound on Fifth Street, but from the other side of the
street. That's a close -up of the other side of 2129. I'm not sure why I took that, but just kind
of to show you the conditions, what's going on on the block. And that is a shot actually from our
property directly across the street so i i think that would be 21 30 or 21 28 north 5th that new
30 or 2128 North 5th, that new construction in that empty lot there.
construction in that empty
And there's another shot northbound.
That's from standing directly in front of our property.
Shot northbound on 5th.
And again, a shot across the street showing there's a new construction,
empty and occupied.
New construction and vacant along North 5th.
And some more homes and vacant on North 5th.
some more of the surrounding blocks. I took a lot of pictures that day. We were out there for a
while. And then that's just an angle looking at our property. It's the fence furthest to your right
and that's the neighbor's and then the other neighbor's house and driveway. And those are
our site photos. Okay, so as we go on to Exhibit 5C, 5C are the pictures of the orange
zoning notice taken on July 28th of 2020. There's photo one at our site, photo two and photo three.
Exhibit six, we did some research into surrounding properties and there's at least one other
multi -family on the block. 2160 North 5th was, this board granted a variance for a two -family
structure in 2018 to the owner of 2160 North 5th, and that is currently used as a two -family.
I believe it was finished construction at some point in late 2018. So that's the permit,
uh that's the use permit for 2160 and at some point 2159 north 5th which is at the corner of
5th and susquehanna also known as 444 446 west susquehanna also applied for a permit as a um
multi -family and that's the application that we found on file in the zoning archive and i believe
that was in i'd say the 90s or early 2000s uh that they did that it was in december of 2000
Exhibit 7 was the project information form that we filed at the time of filing our appeal.
This proposal again is for a two -family, a duplex. Exhibit 8 is the affidavit of service
from when we initially sent out notice to the neighbors per the code. That was in December.
December 12th of 19 was when it was notarized and our server signed it on December 11th of 19.
That includes our letter to the neighbors of December 11th, 19, notifying the neighbors of
a meeting of the RCO, NARA Square, in February and a copy of the notice of refusal and the
several hundred addresses that we mailed to in December. It's pages upon pages of addresses.
Exhibit nine is the RCO letter from February 12th of 2020.
Exhibit, I'm sorry. I have a question. The home next to where you would like to build,
is that a single family? The one, the new construction house? Yes. Yeah, the new construction,
I believe is a single family at 2129 North 5th.
And the older one, were they also on the garage parcel?
Is that single family?
I believe that's also a single family, yes.
And there's only one other on the block or in the area?
Well, let's put it this way.
There's one other on the block that we have a permit of.
um i wasn't i didn't i i didn't knock on doors um but i did i took photographs and i did notice
that there were some that had multiple multiple bells multiple uh mailboxes um in terms of what's
on record with the city um there's one and that's a 2160 that is a multi a multi -family
there are other multi -families actually i i have other clients in the immediate neighborhood that
are applying for variances for multifamily in the immediate blocks, one block north,
one and a half blocks west, one block south. So there are other multifamilies in the neighborhood
and there are other multifamilies that are coming up for variances and zoning board hearings in
the near future. So there are... The main opposition is the multifamily. I would...
Because the minimum open area is off by 5%. Tom, can you lend your expertise to this?
Can you lend your expertise to this?
He can reduce the number of units.
And make it a single family.
Well, that's what it would make it.
So how do you feel about that?
Well, that would be more of a question for my client.
Manaham, are you on here?
um there this is sharon saletta that would be by right so there would be no need to
grant a variance for single family
um okay thank you okay so it can speak he's been unmuted oh menachem are you there excuse me mr
Mr. Slepner, I apologize for interrupting again, but as the chair, I believe, noted,
there would still be an open area, dimensional variance required.
Correct.
Correct.
And again, that would be a question for my client.
You know, he's the owner.
I can, like I said, I'm just offering what, you know,
what I've discovered in terms of my research
and my travel to the property.
Is your client there?
Is he present?
Yes, I'm here.
The Norris Square Civic Association opposes this
and there's only one other multifamily in the area.
It doesn't matter how many applications are going to come before zoning.
This is an RSA 5 district.
So how do you feel about building a single family?
It's very hard to do a single family, especially if I want to lower the cost for rental.
I'm trying to bring down the cost of rental.
Around the corner and a few blocks down, actually, very, very close to the property,
There's lots of multifamily.
When I approached the RCO, they noted that the most important thing for them is for me to bring down the cost for neighbors to be able to come into the neighborhood to be there and stay there.
That's my main goal right here, is to bring the cost down.
If I build a single family, I'm sort of stuck and my hands are tied behind my back, and I won't be able to do that.
So I'm trying to do whatever I can to work with the RCO and to work with all the neighbors.
I believe we have some neighbors that are actually here with the Zoom.
That's actually, that can speak.
I'm sorry.
Could we swear him in and make sure we get his name and spelling on record?
Sir, name and address.
My name is Menachem Schechter. It's spelled M -E -N -A -C -H -E -M. Last name Schechter, S -C -H -E -C -H -T -E -R. Address is 10907 Lockhart Road.
And sir, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Do I understand there are other neighbors there?
Correct.
I do have a Pedro Martinez. You can unmute yourself.
Hi, how are you?
Good. Sir, can you put your name and address on the record?
Pedro Martinez, P -E -D -R -O -M -A -R -T -I -N -E -Z, 2140 North 5th Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed.
Yeah, hi. I moved on to this block recently, and unfortunately, there's a lot of empty lots and drugs and robberies.
My neighbor just got robbed last week, and I would love to see these lots developed.
and Mr. Schechter approached me
and explained what he wanted to do
and based on the cost of the lot
how he felt it would be best to have multifamily
I think it would be great to have more people
the more people the more it'll push out the drugs
and such and I'd love to have neighbors
and see the place built up
these empty lots are just
terrible grounds for no good
Okay, thank you very much.
okay thank you very much okay i'm sorry i'm another neighbor my name is roman guzwa can you
can you hear me i tried to unmute earlier but yes can you go ahead tanya yeah yeah no i'm sorry sir
sir you'll be granted a moment to speak please wait a moment thank you oh you can go ahead
so the other individual is finished sir can you put your name and address on the record
the next person up to speak your name and address please phone number ending in 649 now you can
speak. Okay. I apologize. My name is Roman Guzwa. R -O -M as Mary, A as an apple, A -M as Nancy.
Last name is G -U -Z as zebra, H as Harry, B as a Victor, A as an apple.
Do you swear or refer? Oh, go ahead.
2015 North 5th Street.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Proceed.
Yes. So I'm just second what the other person said.
There's been a lot of crime happening in the neighborhood.
And I have been to the meeting and I've noticed the RCO meeting and I've noticed the way the votes happen.
Majority of the votes coming from people who don't even live on a block.
They're only living near the Fifth Street.
And the way the votes happened, they were just being influenced by one individual during the meeting.
And again, no one who voted, I haven't seen before on a block or even near the block.
And I'm pretty sure they're living, you know, far away.
So the vote, the way that happened, everyone who lived on a block, there was a few individuals that voted, you know.
And it just hurts to see when, you know, the judgment gets passed on things that needs to be developed for obvious reasons, and it gets turned down.
So I strongly, you know, I want to see things happening on the block.
Like I said, there's been a lot of crime happening there.
There's been, yes, there's been development, but they need more.
We need more happening on the block.
We need to make sure that every lot is filled with something, because I've seen drugs been dealing on a block, you know, especially on a lot.
It's been difficult to deal with RCO in support of anything.
You know, every time a vote comes up, it's just been voted in opposition for no reason at all.
So this is just my two cents I wanted to bring in.
Thank you. Is there anyone else?
No, that's all.
Does the board have any questions?
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, board.
Name and address, Peter.
Peter Barnard, 1515 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, representing PCPC.
this property is indicated for residential use in the comprehensive plan the surrounding
properties were built and maintained as single -family homes we feel this application represents an
overuse of the property and that the applicant has not provided an adequate hardship accordingly
we object to the granting of the variance at this location thank you is the board ready to vote yes
yes yes okay calendar number 39335 2131 north 5th street my vote is yes for single family only
yes reviso yes what provides up yes what provides them thank you
all right thank you members of the board sure
that concludes the 330 hearings
thank you all have a good night oh thank you tanya thank you court reporter
thank you
thank you bye everybody thanks sharon thank you bye
bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye thank you bill for everything i peace
my job to say goodbye
Thank you.