Okay, thank you. Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, Ms. Sunkit, we'll give you a few
minutes. You'll let us know when you're ready. Yes, sir.
This is the court reporter. I need to know everyone that's on the
That's on the WebEx.
What do you mean?
What you need to know?
Our names?
Yes, the names.
They should be on the screen or I can send it to you offline.
I can see Sharon's Celia.
Beleta.
Actually, Sharon, they have my face with Sharon's name under it.
I'm changing it now.
your hair looks much better than mine today so i don't mind
uh so okay we'll we'll hold off tanya until tanya's ready
so we i can send a list to dawn if that's what you want but it's going to be different people
does that work yes that's fine okay
Okay. I mean, not doing to whatever the email address they gave me.
Yes, that's fine.
Sharon, again, before we get started, number one is a continuance request.
Number three and six, there are no exhibits.
Number five, no exhibits.
Correct.
So if you call first the actual continuance request, that's number one, number nine, number
14 and number 16.
Correct.
Just want to double check.
All right.
Thanks.
okay I guess we can go forward chair thank you good morning again everyone my name is
Frank DiCicco I'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment I'll be participating
in today's hearing along with our board secretary Mr. Confessor Plaza and board members Mr. Thomas
Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta
are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual
hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, for the benefit of anyone
participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking
or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. Fourth,
for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star
nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone,
if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to
unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. I'll repeat that. To enter an appearance
statement call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at
issue. With that being said we can begin but before Mr. Plaza calls the first case we'd like
to announce the following uh continuing continuance request mi-000241 1227 adams avenue mi-00020
Adams Avenue. MI000203. I'm sorry, Frank, could we possibly call up each case at once? And because
some of them, some of them is not the applicant who is requesting it. So I'm sorry, say that again.
If you could announce the continuance request and then ask if the applicant is there.
Oh, after each one? Yes, please. Okay. I was going to, okay. I'll start again. MI000203.
Excuse me, MI-000241, 1227 Adams Avenue.
Is there anyone, the applicant and or attorney present?
And if you are, are you in agreement with the request for a continuance?
No hands at this time.
Thank you.
This was a request from Councilwoman Sanchez.
We also have no exhibits.
uh mi-000203 2806 north water street the applicant and the attorney present
and i believe this case was uh requested by councilwoman sanchez also
what page is that frank number nine thank you
no hands at this time did you get that confessor 2806 okay next case mi0 mi2020-0013
is that two zero 44 32 north front street number 14 on our list
yes and the request was from the attorney sean ward who may be in attendance
john you can unmute yourself and speak to this continuing
Thank you, Tanya. Mr. Chairman, out of the abundance of caution, we're asking that this
be continued because the property was posted. However, I learned last weekend that the poster
had been either removed, blown away, or somehow discarded. So the property was in fact reposted
this weekend. However, again, under the abundance of caution, we're going to ask that this matter
be relisted anyone object to the request for continuance here i have antonio cruz
uh antonio you can't um speak because your zoom is the older version so it will not allow me to
have you speak other than that i have no one else okay um i i may have read did i read off
the wrong mi number on this case i think so yeah i'm looking at it for some reason all right let
Let's do that one again.
MI-2020-001294.
That is correct.
That is correct.
4432 North Front Street is continued.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
And number 16.
M-I-2020-001442-80 East Sharpneck, S-H-A-R-P-N-A-C-K Street.
And this is Ronald Patterson is the attorney. He's requesting that it be rescheduled. This
a follow-up hearing he's continuing to work on with the community on a community benefits agreement
he's asked that the follow-up hearing be rescheduled for November 3rd or 10th. Dr. Ms. Shunkett yes
I would have to look but currently those dates are swamped because we only have a couple hearings
that month so yeah no we the last few weeks we've been scheduling for that date third end of time
so we'll have to hold off on that that it's going to be continued we just don't have a date certain
yet correct yes if we could come up with a date certain it wouldn't then it wouldn't require a
posting if um if we don't state a date certain it might have to be posted so um maybe it is just a
follow-up meeting for him to report on whether they reached a community benefits agreement maybe
the following week or whatever date works 17th look
date works how's the 17th look we can do the 18th 18th okay thank you so am i 30 i'm sorry
9 30 yes that works thank you mi-2020-001442 80 east sharpneck street is continued
to november what was that date again 18th at 9 30 a.m
um let me go back
let me get my phone here
so number three on our list mi-2020-000654 1455 north 29th street there are no exhibits
is that correct sharon i'd have yes i have no record of having received them
so if you could ask if anyone is here for right if anyone is here this case will be continued
if anyone objects today please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you so mi-2020-000654 1455 north 29th street is continued
Go to number six, MI-2020-000707, 200 West Duncannon Avenue, no exhibits.
Anyone object to this case being continued?
If so, please raise your hand.
no hands at this time thank you so mi-2020-000707 200 west duncannon avenue is continued
i think i skipped over one the
Yes, number five. Number five, right? Yeah. Number five and number seven.
Number five is item number MI-2020-0002791714 Washington Avenue. No exhibits.
anyone have an interest in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands thank you so mi-2020-000279 1714 washington avenue is continued
And number seven, MI-2020-000379, 248 Geiger, GEI-GER Road.
no hands at this time thank you mi-2020-000379 248 geiger road is continued
uh i believe that's all i have on our list are there any other requests for continuances or
withdrawals frank what was that last one number nine uh no number seven i'm sorry okay thank you
no problem excuse me number seven any other requests for continuances or withdrawals please
raise your hand linda krong can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in good morning this is
I'm operating off of Linda's phone. Good morning.
Okay, good morning, Zen. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia 5819103.
We had sent in a request for withdrawal. I would like to verify it is withdrawn.
send in a request for withdrawal. I would like to verify it is withdrawn.
Hold on one second.
Hold on one second please. Oh what's going on now?
Just give me a second. Sure. Yes it's it's number 15 on your list and we did
receive a request for withdrawal. I don't I just I just lost that whole list.
It's I can read it out if you'd like. Yeah if you don't mind please.
It's MI 2020-000280, address 7356 Frankfurt Avenue.
Thank you.
What number is that on our list, Sharon?
Number 15.
It's number 15.
Number 15, thank you. Let me get back to where I was.
All right, let me see.
i apologize folks i'm just having a rough day here with this stuff
oh well
um any other requests for continuance or withdrawals
no more hands chair
thank you and um did i leave anything out
we're going to go vote on the uh delayed list
um i believe you were going to call number two and then go to the add-ons okay um
I'll call you.
Calendar number MI2020-000377126 East Street.
Attorney is Leo Moblehill.
Got any drum rolls, Mr. Chairman?
Well, he may be Dracula today.
He doesn't show up during the day.
There we go.
There you go, our hero.
There you go.
Leo, you saw our friend?
Can't hear you, Mr.
Morning, Leo.
You saw our friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay, go ahead.
and do you
he went out
he's coming back
not working on my computer he's saying that his audio okay okay um let me say that i after i asked
you to move this forward um mr malvahill did send me a return email this morning saying that he is
his building is no longer on the historical commission list so if you would like to go
to the add-ons and get back to him I think that would be fine yes Leo okay
so the add-ons and correct me if I'm wrong because I was making notes here MI 2020-000013
2321 North Broad Street. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no.
Thank you. MI-2020-001233. I'm sorry, can we pause for one second, please?
sure okay i got tom back tom you're back i'm sorry thank you chair okay mi-2020-001233
1347 south hicks i believe were we waiting for the planning commission to weigh in on this
Yes, the Planning Commission is going to give its opinion and or its recommendation.
And we also received a letter from Councilman Johnson in the meeting since the last hearing.
And we also received a letter from Councilman Johnson since the last hearing.
Chairman, the planning commission.
Good morning, Paula.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Paula, Brumbelow, B as in boy, R-R-U, M as in Mary, B as in boy, E-L-O-W, and then Burns, B-U-R-N-S, from the City Planning Commission.
We sent a memo.
Do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
thank you we sent a memo saying that we are not opposed to it i am familiar personally with the
property that backyard it was always assumed to be part of reed street there was a confusion
back in the 56 the 50s or the 60s when the redevelopment authority wrote the deed and
they basically took the front of one property and gave it to the back of another which would
landlock reed street and so but if we don't grant the variance the lot would be unbuildable by city
standards so we have no objection to reed street being a buildable lot thank you
pardon me mi-2020-001233 1347 south hick street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes
did I leave anything off our add-on list
no that's it
that's it so we're going to now go to our regular list
so we start with number two
it's Leo again
is that correct
yes that's what I have
yes that's correct
Okay, so it'll be MI 2020-000377, 126 East Street.
So do we have Mr. Mulvilleville?
No, I don't see him.
Maybe move forward while he gets his audio together.
Can we jump over to number eight, I believe?
Yeah, number four.
I thought number four was...
Oh, yeah, number four.
I'm sorry, number four.
Yeah, we received a letter of non-opposition.
Go to number four, confessor, and then we'll...
MI 2020-000378, 1613 South Broad Street.
And the attorney is Gregory Helniak.
Good morning, do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, we waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy, but I do want
to note for the board, we did alert Ms. Saleta that after meeting with the RCO, the particular
our nature of the relief being requested just related to the type of use has changed and that's
included in our packet but we're going to request the board approve that as part of this it was
discussed with the RCO so it's been subject to the full process. Also you saw in the firm to tell
the truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth? I do. Have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or
referral, photos, and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, we have. Have you met with
the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do. Thank you. Please proceed. Please identify yourself for the
record. Morning. Gregory R. Heleniak, H-E-L-E-N-I-A-K, Zarwin Baum, 2005 Market Street, 164
Philadelphia, PA, 19103. Here on behalf of the owner of the property, 1613 South Broad Street,
which is Lava Finance LLC. I believe also on this call will be with me today John Barasso,
who's the member of Lava Finance, and our architect, Agata Reister.
This property is located on the South Broad Street between Pasquer and Morris. It's a
brownstone typical of this section of South Broad. Since 1944, the property has been used as both
as a mixed-use property. Office on the first floor, residential above. About 1953, I received
a variance to convert to maintain the office on the first floor and permit three dwelling
multi-family units above. Since that time, the property has been in consistent use in that nature.
Since that time, the property has been in consistent use in that nature.
This particular proposal, the owner has initially proposed, as reflected in the refusal that
is before the board, to convert the first floor and the basement area into two live-work
artist studios. After meeting with the RCO in this matter, which is South Broad Street
Neighborhood Association, the applicant adjusted the use to maintain the existing commercial
space on the first floor, previously used as a doctor's office going forward as a professional
office under the proviso agreed to with the RCO. And then the RCO has agreed to allow
conversion of the basement unit into a dwelling unit which would take this
building from a one commercial space three dwelling unit building into a one
commercial space four dwelling unit building conversion of this of
brownstones in this block are typical only eight single-family dwellings as
permitted in this rsa 5 district uh remain on this block um and about a third of the
the dwellings in the block are a mix of commercial and multi-family um if i could share my screen
here for the board for your reference these are all included in our submission packet
this is the property as it looks today these photos were taken last week
this is 1613 south broad as you see a typical brownstone of this this block between tasker
Morris. This is the previous refusal I was discussing, which we were asking for your
permission to adjust before the board as approved by the RCO. This is a plan which is included.
As you can see, the existing conditions are two units on the third floor, one unit on the second
for uh existing commercial space on the on the first floor and the oh my apologies and this is the
and post-seller conditions are a a
basically a student one bedroom apartment which does have access to uh
both out through the first floor through this circular staircase in the front and then direct
access to the outside at the rear. To illustrate our discussion of the nature of this block,
we put together this illustration based on the zoning archives and the OPA records.
The properties here without color are the remaining properties on this block that remain
single family in compliance with RSA 5. The remaining properties all along here are a mix
of mixed use with both multi-family and single family above, multi-family the orange showing up
to six seven units in these buildings and also non-residential a church full office buildings
and a PGW office. So we believe this use as agreed to by the RCO reflects the character
of the neighborhood in both nature and density. There are several other buildings on this
block, like I said, about a third based on this schematic that are an office and then
mixed use above so on the whole this fits with about 80 81 of the block in this area
as i said before the this variance is is a modification based on the changed circumstances
when the initial variance to permit mixed mixed use and multi-family back in 1953
For this property, it was mostly a single-family, low-density block.
In that time, you can see based on this illustration that the block has become much more dense,
and we believe it's appropriate to permit the modification to add an existing multifamily dwelling unit on this block,
as well as allow the use of the office as a professional office.
as a professional office.
I believe Mr.
I believe Mr. Barrasso is on the call
if I can have him step forward.
John, if you're able to raise your hand,
I believe Tanya will be able to recognize you.
You can unmute yourself, John.
I'll wait to be-
Hi, can anyone hear me?
Good morning.
Would you please identify yourself with a record,
spell your name. Good morning. This is John Barrasso, B-A-R-R-A-S-S-O.
Do you want to affirm the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Good morning, John. You are the member of Lava Finance LLC,
representing the owner of this building? Yes. And did you hear my testimony in full?
i did and do you adopt that testimony as your own as true and accurate
i do i have i have no further questions for uh mr barrasso but we're happy to take any questions
from the board mr helenek um would you go back to the floor plan that shows the basement apartment
sure if i can accurately scroll down to it mr chairman
there you go it's this that and the rear the the entrance or the exit out to watt street that's a
staircase that is a staircase yes all right just one let me and and south broad street did not
object to the additional apartment correct correct i have the uh mr helniak this is aaron saletta
would you be able to put the letter up on the screen so the board can see that provides us
Got it now.
You can enlarge that a little bit.
Thank you.
This is a letter from South Broad Street.
They do support with this proviso.
It is my understanding that the RCO did request us to maintain the commercial space, and that's
why the adjustments were made from the initial refusal.
And these are the provisos that are there supporting.
The three existing dwelling units will remain as one dwelling unit on the second floor and two
dwelling units on the third floor. New professional office, which was previously a doctor's office,
will be located on the first floor and one new dwelling unit will be located in the basement
level. And that the plans that we've included here today, which are dated June 18, 2020,
are the agreed upon floor plan layouts for the entire three-story structure.
thank you any questions from the board no no
anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands share thank you planning commission
i'm sorry who's um announcing for the planning commission residential on the conference paula
Mr. Chairman, while Paula works out her microphone, I just wanted to ask that our submission packet
be incorporated into the record.
oh david good morning yes sir um good morning david effecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning
commission swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do
thank you please proceed good morning mr chairman and members of the board
while the city planning commission's district plan recommends multi-family at this location
we feel that the addition of the two units will be that would be used for residential use
and in a home office is an overuse of this property accordingly we recommend against these
variances is it specific to the basement unit or just specific to the basement unit that's right
i couldn't figure that one out myself all right thank you um this is sharon saleta can i ask that
if you um approve this and rather than the language the lengthy
um approve this and rather than the language the lengthy language suggested by the rco
though you ordinarily would not um stamp floor plans that you approve it as approved approval
limited to four dwelling units and one professional office located as per stamped floor plans now
stamp the plans today um mr chairman i just i just wanted to point out based on um mr fecto's
comments i believe that he is uh that rendering that position based on the refusal as opposed to
the revised uh application we have before you today he mentioned the two other dwelling units
As I mentioned, we're maintaining the existing office space and requesting that the additional dwelling unit in the basement be permitted.
We believe that this is in line with the density that is present on this block.
As I mentioned, there are other buildings with five, six, seven multifamily units that are no larger in size.
And I do believe our architect is on this call and she could be able to add some testimony that reflects that this basement unit is raised up out of the ground and meets or exceeds all requirements for light and air,
as well as having that rear entrance,
which we believe is a unique feature of this property
that allows direct access into the basement unit
from the outside as opposed to just from the inside.
Thank you.
And the remapping of this,
which was done as far back as 1989,
which I'm personally familiar with,
was to reduce that type of density
because people felt that there were just too many apartments
along South Broad Street.
But that's the only question in the basement
because the South Broad Street folks
typically have been opposed to additional multifamily
or additional units being added to existing properties here.
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman?
Yes, Tom.
I would like to ask the council a question about the architecture.
Absolutely.
On the basement unit, the second means of egress is circular stairs.
Are you asking?
They are circular stairs.
It's an existing circular staircase in the building that currently runs from the commercial unit down to the basement level.
And that staircase would be maintained.
I have a picture.
it's a fairly wide
a fairly wide
Circular stairs are not permitted
for a second means of egress
I would believe
that if there are any issues
with CO
with LNI
those adjustments
could be addressed
they will flag it
L&I will flag it we'll pursue a CO for the additional unit and you know any anything
that L&I needs us to work out we will we will work that out with L&I or or if needed before
the board of voting standards uh thank you um any other questions from the board
no no all right um
i'd like to recommend that we close the record on this and have a decision
uh at next wednesday's executive session i'd like to have a little further conversation with the
board so if that works if i can get my numbers up here uh mi-2020-000378 1613 south broad street
the record is closed the board will render a decision at uh next wednesday next wednesday's
executive session at 9 30 a.m. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. You got planning
commission's input? Yes, we did. Yes. Thank you. Okay, next one up is MI 2020-000131-257 Lyceum
Avenue. Von Patterson.
Von Patterson, yep.
Stephanie, you've been promoted to panelists. You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Stephanie, good morning. You sort of find to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the
truth? Yes, I do. And do you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. Thank you. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copied the refusal or referral
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, they were submitted on the 14th of October.
Thank you. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do. Our letter is included
in our packet at tab 10. Thank you. Please identify yourself. You may proceed. Thank you.
My name is Stephanie Boggs from Claire Harrison, 1835 Market Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, I also have with me Damir Garcia, who's on the call, who's the project architect, Ronald Glenn, who is the civil engineer, and representatives for the applicant itself, Jacob Bash and Glenn Falso, who can answer any questions if we have them.
So this is 257 Lyceum Street. It's located on the eastern side of Lyceum Avenue between Tower Street and Fleming Street. The property is currently vacant on a block occupied by single family homes, many that have off-street front access parking garages.
It is in the RSA 5 zoning district and also within the steep slope protection area.
This particular lot, along with many other lots on this block, are dominated by the streets
steep slope conditions of the area.
And because of that condition, the specific location of this block and its context in
relationship to the other houses on the block, there's an unnecessary hardship that affects
and prevents viable development of anything on this lot
in keeping with strict compliance of the zoning code.
So we are requesting Relief to be able to construct
a three-story single-family home
with a one-car access parking garage on this lot
to restore it to residential use
and to also have it be consistent
with the other homes along the block
that do have front access parking garages.
We have several letters of support from our near neighbors,
including the next-door neighbor
and many other property owners along this particular block of Lyceum Avenue.
And as I mentioned, those letters to support kind of go with the RCO's letter at tab 10.
That letter was received the day before our last ZBA hearing
and is the reason for our continuance of this matter to today's hearing.
We took another look at their comments and all of the plans themselves,
our architect and our engineer, we reanalyzed the plans
and considered whether any changes could be made to reduce the impact of steep slopes.
We have a letter from our architect included in our packet at tab 12 that speaks to after his re-evaluation of the property,
his opinion that what we are proposing represents the least excavation of the steep slopes required in order to build a single-family home on this lot.
We also have a letter at tab 13 in your packet from our civil engineer who discusses that the ground floor garage that we're proposing,
consistent with the other houses along this block do not require any additional excavation of the
steep slopes or exaggerate that condition based on what would otherwise be required and they will
they can speak to the details of that um in a moment um so in general what we're asking to do
is to restore this lot to residential use to construct a home that's otherwise dimensionally
compliant to minimize the steep slope disturbance that we are proposing and also have it be
consistent with the context and character of this particular block and allow it to have a front
access parking garage. Because of the location and the unique character of this lot, as I said,
we do not expect that that will increase any congestion in the streets. And at this point,
I'll turn it over to Ronald Glenn, our civil engineer, to go through the plans for the
project and explain the extent of the excavation that will be required on the site.
Ronald, if you can raise your hand so Tanya can identify you.
And Stephanie, what does he need?
His name is Ronald Glenn.
No, I said what does he need? Does he need to do something?
If he could share his screen as well, he can pull up the plans
and walk through those while he's providing his testimony. Thank you, Tonya.
Good morning, Mr. Glenn. Please identify yourself for the record. First and last name. Spell your
name please yes uh ronald glenn r-o-n-a-l-d
Yes, Ronald Glenn, R-O-N-A-L-D-G-L-E-N-N.
I'm with Ruggiero Plant Land Design, address 5900 Ridge Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.
Please swear in front of me to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Ronald, just as an initial matter, have you heard my testimony that was offered this morning?
Yes, I did.
Do you believe it to be true and correct based on your knowledge of the project?
Would you adopt it as your own? Yes, I would.
Are we going to see any exhibits? Yes.
All right, so
this exhibit, being the steep slope disturbance exhibit, I'll zoom in a little bit,
shows the the limit of disturbance on the property and how basically demonstrating that
the entirety of the property with exception to the area closest to the the the the right of way
will consist of steep slopes greater than 25 percent um enlarge that a little bit please yes
Yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you.
So this is this is basically the entirety of the building.
The crosshatch pattern on the property is 15 to 25% slope, and the dash hatched pattern is slopes exceeding 25%.
um basically any development that will be proposed on this property will need to ultimately uh
disturb slopes greater than 25 percent and seek relief um our my office believes that any single
family home constructed on this property will result um in similar area of disturbance
depending on the size of the building. We also don't believe that alternative designs
such as raising the building or removing the garage will necessarily reduce the amount
of disturbance area required to install a single-family structure. This is due to, you
still need to install foundations and columns, utilities, drainage from the rear of the property
which will all ultimately result in a similar disturbance area as what we propose right now.
So unfortunately steep slopes disturbance
will be necessary to install a single-family dwelling on this property and I don't think it's
going to be avoided one way or another. And again, just to reiterate, I don't believe that the
inclusion of the single car garage necessarily increases that amount of disturbance.
Can I ask you, what is your plan for runoff?
So runoff right now would be, it's not shown necessarily on this plan,
but right now runoff um draining from here you can see this this would be the rear yard area
runoff would drain towards this wall and there would be a drain provided here
and that drain would be what type what type of drain hasn't been um specified yet but we can make
it um it would be it's a trapped in some structure it could be um an 18 by 18 inch drain or two by
for uh inlet if necessary if we determine that that's going to be required to uh
intercept all the storm water that would be discharging to it you pipe in it to the city
to the city outlet yeah yeah so that that drain would ultimately connect to um interior plumbing
or the roof drains which would have to extend through the building and ultimately connect
there if you could see this there it would ultimately connect to the sewer infrastructure
within lyceum avenue has city approved this we have not uh i don't believe we've received pwd
ur approval yet but that is something that will be required for building permits
thank you of course ronald have we received our technical or i'm sorry our conceptual pwd approval
Actually, this project, since it disturbs less than 5,000 square feet on a barrier and is not within the Derby project,
on area and is not within the Darby Cobbs Creek watershed. It is not required to receive PWD
personal approval. That being said, our plans that are given to the contractors always specify
PWD compliant erosion control measures and that would not change in this case either.
Thank you.
hey um mr glenn if you can finish with your testimony yeah i i think i'm all finished up
now can we please turn it over to zamir garcia who's the project architect for this project
and can explain a little bit else about the layout of our design zamir if you can raise your hand
and and tanya if you could allow him to share his screen as well that would be helpful
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Garcia. Please identify yourself with the record. Spell your first and last name.
Yes, Zamir Garcia. First name is Z-A-M-I-R, last name Garcia. I'm with M-Architects, 4590 Main Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
You're swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
yes hi so this um i've got the the plans here so as ron was stating um we've looked at various
different versions of the iterations of the plan here and we felt like this was the plan which
achieved most of the outlying goals for the client and the request that we when we spoke to
the RCO. The issue with the site as aside from the steep slope is that it narrows down to almost
to right around 12 feet towards pretty far not far into the site so the site's not very deep
so most of the building we've tried to keep the bulk of the building up towards Lyceum
because once you get back further towards the bend of the site it becomes really narrow and
kind of limits the use of the types of spaces you can have back there internally so what we've done
is with the garage at the level at the bottom level we've included the utility space which is
kind of central to the plan so that we can kind of control all that and not have to then go out
further trying to get utilities out further into the site into the steep slope and so everything's
kind of centralized there and goes up the building and splits off from there so we're trying to
utilize that garage as well for consolidation of that on the on the second floor or primary
living level there's a living room a powder room and a family room with a kitchen and then as you
make your way up on the upper level there's a bedroom on the second floor two bedrooms and
two bathrooms with the laundry room all centralized and and then up at the top
level on the there is a the master bedroom with the master bath and a roof
deck and then the roof level has just the rooftop units in section the
building what we were primary goal was to again limit the disturbance so we've
designed this building to be sort of a split level building so that the living
space is split so we're building up with the terrain not building into it trying
to minimize how much impact we have on that terrain and still maintain
relatively from the street side a building that fits within the context of
the neighboring buildings that you know appears more of a townhouse and fits the
character of the neighborhood and and not trying to raise it up higher or make
it look like it's floating above the train trying to kind of build within
that and minimize the impact of it.
are there any questions about the design or questions from the board no no i think
No. No.
I think we can summarize, if you would, Ms. Boggs.
we can summarize if you would miss
Sure. So, like I said, we have letters in our packet from Morrissey Architects and from Ronald Glenn
that specifically address the comments that were raised by the RCO in their opposition letter.
And as I said, we took that letter seriously.
We've re-evaluated their comments and the plans since our last hearing.
And that was the reason for the continuance that we'd have a chance to do that.
And as stated today, and as stated in those letters, what we are proposing represents the least least disturbance of the steep slope areas possible to build a single family home on this lot.
And the garage does not add to any excavation that's going to be required.
And it's specifically proposed because on the context of this particular block of Lyceum Avenue, there are several houses that have front access garages, the house immediately adjacent to it.
There are two homes up the street that have front access garages, and then four townhomes that share front access shared parking as well.
And we have letters of support from many of those near neighbors in our packet supporting the project as designed.
If there are any additional questions, please let us know.
There were questions raised by the RCO about excavation and those practices,
and i do have um jacob bash and gonfalso or mccall who are applicant representatives with
significant experience in excavation work um and demolition work particularly where there are steep
slopes involved so we can have them available if there are any questions about that okay thank you
um again any questions from the board no no thank you anyone else who wishes would like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning david effecto city planning commission
mr chairman and members of the board this block only has six curb cuts for the entire block and
those curb cuts do not follow an established pattern well we have no objection to the proposed
single-family home we do request that the board not grant the front-loaded parking in a neighborhood
where parking is at a premium. Thank you. MI-2020-000131, 257 Lancome Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. I'm sorry, Chair. Yes. If possible, could we make
correction on the street name what's what okay what is it you said lycombe i think it's lyceum
oh you're right i'm sorry lyceum l-y-c-e-u-m avenue thanks for the correction it's tongue twister
it is yeah good luck thank you very much have a good day all right thanks tanya thank you
Okay, next one up is MI 2020-00129829-79 East Shelton Avenue.
i have no hands up on this one okay mi-2020-00129 excuse me um this is sharon saletta i just wanted
to say that the attorney on this is brett feldman and i believe he did send in exhibits so if no
no exhibits you said no we did receive exhibits if we could perhaps move it back one and i can
find out if he's having technical difficulties all right so well confessor we'll move to the next
case next one up it's mi 2020 dash hello brett hellman oh brett hellman okay yeah i'm here
right you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth
i do do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
uh yes yes also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of
ownership proof of tax compliance copied the refusal or referral photos and plans five days
prior to this hearing uh correct yeah also have you met with the rco and have a letter
uh we do and it was uh submitted to the board um thank you please identify yourself for the
record you may yes yes um sorry for any confusion there uh brett feldman 1835 market street philadelphia
pennsylvania 19103 i represent the applicant uh mcdonald's uh in this application for uh two signs
uh two signs uh accessory to an existing uh mcdonald's uh takeout restaurant with drive-through
accessory to an existing McDonald's.
capabilities um with me today also is uh and should be on the call is uh michael geitner
uh project architect from bowler engineering who has uh testified in front of this board many times
We also have the franchise operator as well.
Sharon and Tanya, if I may share my screen.
Mr. Feldman, if I can just interrupt you.
I didn't realize this was a case in Bob McDonald's.
I do some consulting work for them, so I'm going to recuse myself at this moment.
Thank you.
So the confessor will be up to you and Jim and Tom.
All right. Thank you.
Can the board now see my screen? Yes. Great, great. I'll get right to this.
This is location 29 to 79 East Chelten Avenue. It's a long standing McDonald's location. And
I guess over the last year, McDonald's and the franchise operator made a significant investment
in the property. Let me just flip through. We have all the property information, the deed,
tax cert, tax clearance, its own CMX 2.5. Here's the photographs, just real quick. It was a tired
legacy mcdonald's location you know with the the signature roof and uh again as i said mcdonald's
and the franchise operator made a significant investment completely modernized the outside
the inside brought it up to all codes uh and we were trying to finish off the project and um
upgrade the the you know the the drive-through the existing drive-through signs here
and I'll show you this is the way it looks actually right now so right now there's there's
two of these we call them pre-browse menu boards you know those are the ones that have that you
know some of the menu items and then you actually get up to the speaker and you order so the
proposal was to there's two pre-browse one of the menu board the application is is to go from two
menu boards down to one. So we're reducing the number of menu boards from two to, the number
of pre-brows from two to one. And then the existing menu board, we're actually making it smaller. We're
going from existing 43 feet square feet to 20 square feet. For some reason, and I think we're
still trying to figure this out, when Al and I interpreted the sign, the menu boards, you know,
these are usually considered internally illuminated, as I understand it. They designated these as
animated signs, which I haven't seen before. And in CMX 2.5, you can't have an animated sign.
But these are the same menu. Here's the ones, you know, I'm just showing you the ones that you see
all throughout the region, throughout the city. Here's another one of the, that's the pre-browse.
They concluded that the examiner, that this was an animated sign, which typically, you know, is
is movement on a sign, you know, video, I mean, things like that. And that's, that's why we're
here on this case. Not because you can't have the number of menu boards, which are actually
and the number of pre-browse signs, but because for whatever reason, in this situation, the
examiner determined that these were animated and animated aren't allowed in this district.
It's an interpretation we have, we have not seen in any other case, and I've probably done
15 locations in the city and i've been in front of you a couple times on on ones that have come
to the board um we met with the rco uh the um we have their letter of support which i'll bring up
here um they were you know pleased that we've invested the money to upgrade this uh this
location this is from the faith community development corporation um and they voted to
support this project but that's that's what that's what this case is about that no and i for whatever
reason in the situation determined that the menu boards that you see throughout the city and
throughout the region were animated versus uh you know internally illuminated uh like they
always interpreted them to be um so with that uh if there's any questions uh if not i can just
uh ask our project uh engineer uh mr michael geitner uh if you can raise your hand mr geitner
Are you on the call now, Mr. Dugner?
Yes, I am.
Okay. Mr. Jaitner, can you just introduce yourself to the board and provide your address and employer?
Mr. Dugner, can you just introduce yourself to the board and provide...
Sure. Michael Jaitner, J-E-I-T-N-E-R, Polar Engineering, B-O-H-L-E-R, 74 West Broad Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
And I am a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
And I know you have testified in front of the Philadelphia Zoning Board numerous, numerous times. Is that correct?
That is correct.
and you've heard my testimony I have and I will just add for the board that
these are these the verbiage and the information on these signs the main menu
board signs are changing five to six times a day they're not changing on a
rotating basis they're changing basically the menus that are options for
McDonald's throughout the day because of the the morning lunch and dinner
options and then the pre-browse sign is changing um probably once uh every couple minutes uh with
some of the specialty items these signs are in a drive-through area they're not visible off site
and definitely not visible from the street in regards to the location we don't believe that
it presents uh any type of um uh distraction uh to the uh drivers off site and these are again
for the drive-thru related operation only.
And these are the same signs that McDonald's,
as they've fortunately went through and upgraded and renovated
numerous locations throughout the city,
these are the same pre-brows and menu boards
that many of the locations have adopted, correct?
That is correct.
And these signs are 20 square feet,
whereas the prior stagnant menu board signs
were close to 45 square feet in area.
So we have drastically reduced the sign area
on many of the sites throughout the city of Philadelphia.
And again, as I said, the number of pre-browsed menu boards
has been reduced from the existing two to the proposed one, correct?
That is correct.
So with that, we also have our franchise operator.
I don't think it's necessary that...
I think so.
You can summarize.
You can summarize.
yeah yeah no i just uh i think there's yeah there's nothing further that we would add i
just wanted i just wanted for you to know that he is on the line and okay thank you does the
board has any questions no okay is anybody else here to speak in this matter please raise your hand
um here we have charles richardson okay charles good morning mr plaza good morning
Charles, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312, City Hall.
Councilwoman has no objection to granting this variance.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
No other hands.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Good morning.
de defecto city planning commission members of the board this property is indicated for commercial
and residential mixed use in the city's comprehensive plan we have no objection to the
replacement of the menu board of menu board signs at this location that do not have any impact on a
public street or on residential properties. Thank you. Calendar MI 2020-00129829-79 East
Shelton Avenue. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Good luck. Thank you as always
your time and consideration next one up it's mi 2020-001
confessor you muted yourself i'll read it off mi 2020-001090
three three zero zero mantua avenue yes sorry about that friend ah no problem
there were actually three applications i think for mantua but they're different
were two applications for mantua yeah so matthew monroe is the attorney for this
and he's requested that they all be heard okay so next one up is mi 2020-00108833
316 Mantua Avenue two or three the next one Haverford is it
uh so we're gonna have here if possible Mantua first both of those and then Haverford
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Mr. Monroe, you swerve.
Mr. Monroe, you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And do you agree to waive the reading of his refusal to both of these cases?
I do, Mr. Plaza.
Thank you. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, folders and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do. We have a support letter.
Thank you. Please identify yourself. You may proceed.
Good morning, Chairman DiCicco, members of the board.
Please be here today with my clients, Westview Development Partners, along with Harman Deutsch Architecture.
And if I could also request that Rustin Oller be granted access as a panelist, he may be walking through some of the properties.
But just quickly, the documents that we submitted include the deed at Exhibit 1, the revusals at Exhibit 2, our applications for appeal at Exhibit 3, our RCO notices that went out properly along with certificates of service.
In this case, the RCO had requested that we send out plans along with them, and so we did.
We mailed those out as well.
At Exhibit 5, we have our zoning notices posted, and at Exhibit 7, we have the zoning context
sheets and plans, and if the Board agrees to support this plan and votes to grant the
variances, we do have updated plans with a proviso sheet that we also emailed in and
we would request be approved.
The tax certificate, of course, is attached to Exhibit 8.
Chairman DiCicco, this is effectively just a, while we have two separate parcels, you
can see from the cover sheet here, we have two very large triangle-shaped, odd-shaped
parcels.
This is an RSA 5 property.
What we're seeking to do is just complete with five new structures that would include
10 new units so five duplexes uh to complete a development project that began here on
mantua avenue a few years back already with uh existing duplexes um the uh the ask is absolutely
reasonable uh it's not uh certainly not an overbuild uh in this case uh as you can see from
the zoning context sheet we have uh this little triangle shape parcel or actually it's it's three
separate parcels, is nearby an I-2 district, IRMX district, RM1 district. So the requested
use for duplexes is consistent with the multifamily uses in the industrial residential zoning
that's nearby as well as the RM1 zoning. The number of units that we're requesting is
actually less than what we could build on the two triangle parcels if they were appropriately
zoned as RM1. And if Mr. Ohler, I see he's on, if he wants to just walk through some of the design
choices, he can describe why we need the dimensional variances, which is pretty obvious.
He'll walk you through some of the pinch points. But we'll just, because we do have support from
the community, we'll try to move this along quickly. Good morning, chairman members of the
board. My name is Rustin Ohler, O-H-L-E-R, 1225 North 7th Street, Philadelphia, PA. Matt, if you
could go to the next slide. Rustin, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So you can see here, this is just the
overall map giving you the proposed buildings in context. So the first phase of the project was the
four duplexes in the middle with some rear parking. The remaining two parcels are triangles
and very irregularly shaped. So the refusals where you get the rear yard refusals actually come to
the pinch points along 35th Street and the back street. Basically, we're abutting the parking lot.
It's all part of the same development.
It's going to be one HOA, one condo association.
So would this be one lot?
Those refusals technically would not exist.
So it's a technicality.
And then we've designed the buildings to complete the block and turning the last building,
which you see here in yellow, just to give us more street frontage and street face on
Mantua Avenue.
If you can go to the next slide, Matt.
So all the plans are pretty typical.
you basically have a lower unit and an upper unit with access to roof deck,
and the lower units have access to a dedicated rear yard.
and the lower units have access to a dedicated rear yard. Matt can go to the elevations.
So in keeping, you know, basically with the neighborhood and the character of the first
homes, continuation of the sods, you know, bread brick, metal paneled bays, and cement board rears
facing the parking. And Matt can scroll through those elevations for you.
but that's essentially the project in a nutshell
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Matt, do you need anyone else?
Yes, we, from Westview Development Partners,
we have two people, Rick Young, if you could raise your hand
and Susan Callanan, if you could raise your hand.
Folks, if you can identify yourselves for the records
by your first and last names.
could you hear me yeah we can hear you Mr. Young okay Mr. Young please identify yourself
for the record? Rick Young, owner, Westview Development Partners. And what's your address,
Mr. Young? 630 North 35th Street, Philadelphia PA, 19104. Do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. Young,
did you hear the factual statements that I made in my presentation? I did. And were they correct
and accurate? They were. Do you adopt them as your testimony? I do. And I think with that,
we'd be happy to entertain any questions that the board has. Thank you. Are there any questions from
the board? No. No. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise
your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning david fecto city planning
commission mr chairman members of the board these properties are recommended for residential use
in this city's comprehensive plan this proposal came to the planning commission for review from
the Redevelopment Authority. The Commission voted to approve the proposal. Therefore, we have no
objection. Thank you. MI-2020-0010903300 Mantua Avenue and MI-2020-0010883316
Mantua Avenue. My vote is yes on both. Yes to both. Yes to both. Yes to both. Good luck.
Next one up. It's MI 2020-000, I'm sorry, 001089, 3509, Haverford Avenue.
All right.
Mr. Monroe, you're still in the right?
You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do, Mr. Pozzin.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
Thank you.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have, and it's a letter of support.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
all right uh again uh good morning mr uh chairman to chico members of the board um
pleased to be here again with uh westview development partners and their architect uh
russner of harman deutsch and older architects um uh this plan is uh the completion of another
project that was begun it's a street-to-street lot that fronts on uh 3509 haverford avenue
and extends all the way back to Mount Vernon at the rear.
It's a mixed-owning district with CMX2, RM1, and RSA5 aspects.
The plan here is just to build a multifamily household unit.
It's a multifamily building with five units at the rear.
It would be facing Mount Vernon Avenue.
Again, just for the record, we've submitted in our package a deed at Exhibit 1, Exhibit
2, the refusals, our application for appeal, the RCO notices are at Exhibit 4, our Post-it
The RCO notices are at Exhibit 4.
Our posted notices are at Exhibit 5.
notices are at Exhibit 4.
We have our RCO support letter as well.
And then we have the zoning context sheets and plans along with the tax clearance.
Similarly, with this plan, we are going to be, if the board chooses to approve it,
we're going to be asking that the board approve the revised plans,
which were presented to the RCO with a proviso sheet as requested. With this, again, since we
have support from the community, I could turn this over to Mr. Roller, who can walk you through
the plans. Yeah, so basically, as Matt had mentioned, as you can see, our property is split
zone. It's CMX2 in the front and RSA5 in the back. Previously, there was a by-right building
that we designed and permitted with commercial to first floor and residents above on Hammerford
Avenue. This is the rear of that parcel. We are proposing an additional structure on Mount Vernon
Street. Would the entire parcel be zone CMX2? We would not be here for the number of units.
It is consistent with what be allowed in this lot area. And then other than having the second
building on the lot, which faces Mount Vernon Street, we are not asking for any dimensional
refusals for complying with the heightened open area. Matt, if you could go to the next slide.
So here you can see the additional building in context. There are a series of vacant lots and
other buildings running on Mount Vernon Street, including multi-families directly across the
street from us which front on 35th Street. And the vacant lots at the corner immediately adjacent
to us to the east are also zoned RM1 for when those get developed. If you could go to the next
slide. So overall floor plans, we have five units, two at the first floor with some interior trash
storage for commercial trash pickup, and then two units at the second floor. And if you could
go to the next slide, Matt, there is one unit at the third floor, which you just skipped over.
And then next slide from the exterior, we have a red brick two-story facade
with cornice and then detailed like an addition for the top, primarily being that all the buildings
to the west of us on Mount Vernon Street are two-story buildings, and then the buildings that
are to the east of us and across the street are three-story buildings. So we're trying to
blend between those two things. That's it for my presentation, so I'm happy to answer any
questions you have. Thank you. Mr. Monroe, do you need a witness? I do, and again, I'm going to ask
Rick Young from Westview Development Partners and Susan Callanan to raise their virtual hands.
Rick Young, you're still under oath. Thank you. Just identify yourself for the record.
Rick. Thank you, Mr. Young. Did you hear the factual statements that I made in my presentation?
I did. Do you adopt them as your testimony? I do. Thank you.
in any questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning
david effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is recommended for residential use in the city's comprehensive plan this proposal as well came to
this to the city planning commission for review from the redevelopment authority the commission
voted to approve this proposal therefore we have no objection thank you mi-2020-001089
3509 Haverford Avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
next one up is Leo
Mr. Chairman Chico was that with the proviso to adopt I'm sorry how many pages
it's I believe it's just one page sorry about that let's go back and do that apologize
it's going to be two pages sorry oh it's two pages thank you sorry about that all right
mi-2020-001089-3509 Haverford Avenue my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan two pages
approved today yes with proviso yes with proviso and I hate to complicate things but I didn't
catch if, and thank you, uh, on the, uh, on, uh, 3,300 and 3316 Mantua, whether the, uh,
on 3300 and 3316 Mantua whether the approval was with the revised plans and proviso.
I didn't know there was a revised plan but we'll go back and and what was the proviso?
The proviso was simply to adopt the revised plans that were also presented.
How many pages for each? Each one is one page.
And this is Sharon Sletta. Can I ask what the revisions are?
yeah let's see um yeah i can open these up uh just one second rusting i'm sorry i missed that
totally so sorry about that oh no i i i should have caught it in uh in the boat um but here we
can uh open this up and just one moment okay
so yeah yeah i'm sharing uh my screen uh the plan for to provide uh days for the facade
uh actual induction for the facade uh articulation and this is uh for the streets department
with modified access gates i apologize for my dogs um those changes are fine thank you
no worries all right so we have to go back and we have to revote mantua avenue cases correct
okay all right so it's mi 2020-001090 3300 mantua avenue my vote is yes with reviso revised
plan one page approved today yes with proviso to both yes proviso yes proviso i'm going to read
the other one in mi 2020-001088 3316 mantua avenue my vote is yes with proviso revised plan
one page approved today yes for proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso we already corrected
the Haverford Avenue right correct yeah thank you thank you very much apologize again no thank you
very much I'm sorry I missed it the first time no problem next one up is Leo Mulvihill's case
MI 2020-000377 126 East Street
all right good morning chairman members of the board do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth for nothing but the truth i do and do you agree to waive the reading of its
refusal and speculate to its accuracy i do also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the
required documents proof of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral
quotas and plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Thank you. Have you met with the RCO and
have a letter? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. So good morning, Chairman, members of the board.
Commander Leo Mulvihill reporting in from the USS York Street, call sign NCSuite 111 in the
Philadelphia sector. Location is 19125. Members of the board, I apologize for the technical
difficulties earlier. We had some problems with our subspace communications array, but I believe
that our engineering department has now fixed that. Members of the board, we're here today for
essentially the legalization of one All Street parking space. I'll begin with showing a Google
Maps view of the affected property from July 2019 so that everybody can get a better sense as to
what's going on in three dimensions before I get on to my presentation. So members of the board,
what I'm showing now on my screen and I hope you all see is basically a parking stall that's
located in between an off-street garage and a two-story gray stucco structure. It's approximately
20-some feet wide. You see a black Range Rover parked there. That is the site that we're speaking
of today. This property is located just north of Crescent Street. I'm going to rotate so we're
looking north on East Street at this point. And members of the board are now rotating.
So we're looking directly across the street from the subject property where you can see
several new construction homes with both garages and all street parking pads for two
units. Additionally, a little further up the block, we have this box indicated for no parking
for all street parking, next to this white stucco structure with the red door, and rotate
Next to this white stucco structure with the red door, and rotating to the right, we have another driveway on the opposite side of the street for rear access off-street parking.
to the right.
With that put aside, we now all have an idea as to what we're looking at here.
I'll move to my zoning packet.
I'm here today on behalf of SP, as in Paul, D, as in Delta, Investments, LLC.
Principal is Pat Duffy.
Mr. Duffy was unfortunately not able to make it onto the presentation today, so I will be flying solo.
For purposes of the record, I have the refusal appeal and project information form at page 1.
Heria's zoning maps are page 6. This is an RSA 5 district.
Deed is at page 7.
The commercial activity license tax clearance information is at page 14.
My zoning letter and proof of mailing is at page 15.
Letter from the RCO is at page 18. That came a little late.
I received it late Monday and sent that to the board under separate cover, but in this packet,
I have just simply added it to what we have. I have photos of the property at page 20 and then
the plans at page 30. So members of the board, I'm going to move specifically to first the refusal to
address that matter. Essentially what we're seeking is for an existing newly built single
family home, accessory Wall Street parking. That parking pad that I showed you earlier has since
been removed, a new home has been constructed, and whether it was something that the initial
designers missed or decided to change after the fact, now that the home is built, they're seeking
to get that all street parking back in the form of one garage and one all street parking pad.
We've received a refusal for that because this is an RSA 5 zoning district.
What I'm showing now on the screen, members of the board, page six in my packet,
is the overhead shot of the property from Philadelphia Atlas indicated with that blue dot
and the property itself indicated in that dark blue in the RSA 5 zoning district right off of
Crescent Street on east. This is the deed for the property at page 7.
My client's commercial activity license number and the tax clearance at page 14.
17, my notification letter that was sent, proof of mailing at page 17.
We met with the RCO, West Tahitian Neighbors Civic Association, ultimately after our presentation
even though they acknowledged that this was previously a parking pad, the near neighbors
were opposed somewhat quizzically because they didn't want to set a precedent on the
block for all street pad parking. Members of the board, I suggest that the all street parking that
previously existed here had existed for at least 20 years from what I understand from speaking with
members that were present at the meeting. You can see there's a garage directly adjacent to
our property which is accessory to the corner bar at Crescent and East Street and directly across
the street we have several homes that are set back with all street parking and garages. So we're not
asking for anything out of the ordinary here. In fact, all we're asking for is something that if it
been caught earlier, we would have gotten when the initial zoning application was submitted,
when we were seeking to build the house to begin with.
At page 20, this is just a still shot of the previously shown site. Page 22, this is the
zoning notice posted on the property. I'm sorry, page 21 rather. This is page 22. This is the site
as it exists now. The home has been constructed. You can see that parking garage accessory to the
bar directly to the left of the existing home. Where this port-a-potty is currently located
for on-site construction, you can see what will be a garage door to allow for interior
parking. The house itself is set back to allow for a parking pad space as well, which will
not encroach upon the pavement. I'll go move through the rest of the live photos that I
took. This is again looking northbound on East Street, directly to the left of the photo
here on page 23, you can see those all street parking pads. Up the block, that house with that
red door, you can see the all street parking area as well. This is looking southbound towards Crescent.
Northbound with a better view of across the street,
directly across the street indicating the all street parking.
Another shot of across the street down towards Crescent, southbound on Crescent.
this is the property itself again with the setback uh area to allow for all street parking as well
i'm going to interrupt you for if i could i don't want to lose my train of thought what is the width
of that opening and the new construction the home that we're that's already built on this
the pad for the pad the width of the pad now moving to the actual drawing itself right now
members of the board. I'm zooming in on that. Waiting for that. I'm going to compare that to what the width of the.
waiting for that i'm going to compare that to what the width of the pad was prior to the new
construction yeah so the width of the pad prior to the new construction members of the board as i
wait for this pdf to render the existing property width is 21 feet six inches as indicated on this
plan the parking pad was or curb cut was previously about that wide probably about 22 because these
curb cuts are always a little bit bigger than the property themselves what we've done then
essentially is shrink that from 22 feet, give or take to eight foot eight. So we're giving back
parking spot. Yeah, that's where I was getting it. Okay, thank you. And more or less, just looking
at the site plan itself, we have the proposed one car interior parking garage stall, and then the
open area parking stall within the property line. Both of these are of the standard size required
under the code by taking essentially by shrinking this parking pad as it currently existed with the
curb cut and proposing this we're giving one street spot back to the neighbors and taking
two cars off the street so overall it's a net gain for the neighbors based on what had previously
had been there the rest of my packet members of the board are just renderings of the property
and interior floor plans those aren't necessarily germane to our application this rendering kind of
shows what we could do with the property and what we expect to look like at its completion,
including that all street parking pad with a full-size vehicle that does fit without encroaching
on the sidewalk. If you'd like to see the floor plans, I'm happy to show those as well. But members
of the board, essentially all we're asking for is about half of what used to be there. We're taking
cars off the street. There's previous precedent on the block for all street parking, both directly
across the street, directly adjacent, and up the block from us on both the left and right side of
street it's a net gain for the neighborhood overall so with that presented members of the
board i suggest that based on the dimensions of the lot the fact that we're giving back
street parking and taking two carts up the road themselves for purposes of parking that this is
an overall benefit to the neighbors with respect to parking which is always at a premium and i
request that you would vote in favor of our request for allowing the accessory all street
parking interior space and the accessory all three parking pad space is indicated
on page 31 currently on your screens. I'm happy to take any questions you may have at this time,
members of the Board. Thank you. Do you have any witnesses? I don't have any witnesses. Unfortunately,
my client was not able to make it today. No problem. Questions from the Board? No. No. No.
Anyone who would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
We have a caller with the number ending in 917. You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Chairman DiCicco. Can you hear me? This is Joe Bergen,
President of the Neighborhood Association.
Yes, please, Joe. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name.
My first name is Joe. My last name is Bergen, B-E-R-G-A-N. I am the president of the lead RCO
known as Wissahickon Neighbors Civic Association. We did meet with the applicant, as he stated,
on October 5th. Joe, let me swear you in, please. You're swearing the firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed.
I just wanted to keep it very simple. Our opposition as the applicant's attorney did
state is basically it will establish a precedent if we were to agree or disagree and we wanted to
keep a consistent voice and that is our opposition to the pads in front of homes. He is correct it
was a prior accessory use owned by the bar owner Mr. Vaccarelli on the corner who lived
uh at 12080 street it was subdivided in 2019 we acknowledge that um and that's all i have to say
thank you mr appreciate your time but just so you all understand this board uh looks at each
case on an individual basis uh this will not in at least as far as i know as long as i've been
here it doesn't set the precedent i think the precedent precedent has already been set on that
block by the i guess more recent construction across the street uh so again we look at each
of these cases uh on a case-by-case basis but thank you for your testimony is there anyone else
who would like to testify in this case please raise your hand no other hands thank you planning
commission good morning david fecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board
This property is recommended for single-family use in the comprehensive plan.
Due to the existing conditions for parking on this block,
we have no objection to the application,
which will reduce the impact of the curb cut on this street.
reduce the impact of the curb cut uh on this street thank you mi-2020-000377
126 east street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you does that conclude this morning's list yes it does yes any um any unfinished business
No, not for my end. Okay, with that in mind, we'll see everybody at two o'clock.
Take care, everyone. All righty, see you next time. Thank you.
And we're live. If we could wait one second. Yeah, I'm going to wait for you. I just want to announce that. Yes, thanks.
Thank you.
okay chair ready when you are thank you good afternoon everyone my name is frank
de chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating today's
in today's hearings along with our board secretary mr confessa plaza and board members
Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney
Sharon Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our
virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be
administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, for the benefit
of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves
prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding
is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting
star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone,
if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute
yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue i'll repeat that to enter an appearance statement
call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
with that being said we can begin but before we mr plaza calls our first case
i'm going to read a list of continuances and if anyone has a request for a continuance or
withdrawal please raise your hand and if you are in disagreement with a any of the continuance or
withdrawals that i list please raise your hand as well all right i gotta get my list
just bear with me folks
I don't have the list.
i apologize i'm having a little problem getting pulling my list up
um confessor could you do uh read off uh number two on our list that the mi number and the calendar
number and the uh information that the address yep castor avenue
information that the address yep castor avenue i i don't know i'm having all right mi 2020 dash
000 369 60 53 dash 55 castor avenue so sharon help me is that being withdrawn or is that a
continue no this is um councilman sanchez has requested a continuance she said there was no
RCO meetings I also haven't um received exhibits but if we could check to see if anyone representing
the appellant is present sure if anyone is out there regarding this case uh and has a question
concerning concerning the continuance please raise your hand
no hand
hands okay um that case is being continued uh
councilwoman got the age requesting that number five on our list not be continued
no no i'm sorry um this is number five on the list we have a request from the attorney
rachel pritzker that it be continued and councilwoman got the a contacted us to say that
she expected it to be continued okay sorry because i thought i saw where it said no continuance
all right so uh again confession could you please read that
mi 2020-001301 317 north 41st street
here we have rachel pritzker here rachel please identify yourself name and address for the record
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Please proceed.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
So we're just requesting a continuance in order to revise the plans and just want to have a little more time to present the revised plans to the RCO,
and then we'll be back whenever is the next available. Thank you. The case is being
continued unless there's an objection. If there's an objection please raise your hand.
No hand. Thank you.
is there any other
number six on the list
the attorney for the
appellant Henry Clinton is requesting
the continuance
so again
number six
MI 2020-001
262-321
East Worcester Street
that case is being
continued
that's Henry Clinton
Okay, that's it for the continuances.
Okay, are there any other hands up for continuances or withdrawals?
Christopher?
Hello, yes.
You have been unmuted.
Please wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon.
Please identify yourself with a record name and address.
Spell your first and last name.
Yes, my name is Christopher Nyanpen.
First name is spelled C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R.
And I'm calling in regarding address 3522 Arthur Street.
I'm sorry?
And that chaired us the epilogue against Eleni.
What is it that you're calling in for?
so i'm i'm calling in um and because uh this is a property that i i recently purchased um
as a matter of fact i wasn't getting these notifications that there was appeal
against this duplex um the uh are you asking for a continuance though no no no continuance i
okay we're not hearing the case just yet oh that'll be our that'll be the first case on our
our schedule i apologize no problem just hang in there thank you
any other requests
here we have natalie natalie you're going to mute yourself and wait to be sworn in
natalie good afternoon uh please identify yourself with a record name and address spell
your first and last name sure it's natalia it's n-a-t-a-l-i-a last name seriko s-e-r-e-j-k-o
last name Sereko, S-E-R-E-J-K-O. I'm with East Mount Airy neighbors, 7301 Germantown Avenue,
i'm with east mount air unique
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19119. And I am... Just hold on one minute. Do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
so i um wanted to ask for continuance for 109 uh pleasant uh because the zba website um did not have
the two o'clock session as one of the sessions that you could register for so a lot of the
near neighbors were confused about how they should register for this session so they didn't end up
that's number 13 mr chair number 13 i finally got my excuse me chair the attorney on this case is
rachel pritzker okay all right uh just hang in there ma'am rachel are you out there yes
uh you heard the request for continuance so we did mailers to all the neighbors and we had a
meeting and they were provided the information i had no trouble logging on i don't know that
anyone else had trouble logging on or there was information about registering for anything. So
it would not be my preference to continue this.
The problem is that there's usually the two sessions that you can register for the 9 30 or
the 2 p.m. and the 2 p.m. still is not available on the website for anyone to register for.
Actually, excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. My understanding is that it always reads that way
that if you if you sign on for the 9 30 that works yeah it's the same thing every week
and i had no problem registering i've you know i've never had an issue with it so
well in this day and age we're all finding some some issues with the tech the technology
uh what ma'am miss uh surgico i'm not pronouncing that right i apologize
we can either we can we can actually have the hearing and hold uh and and hold off until we get
uh any feedback from the rco we are the rco i know i know but we want to they've provided
feedback in a letter so we've already had that meeting and everything you got met with rco and
have a letter yes sir oh you have it okay yes i think what natalie is stating is that there's not
people to like i guess some people didn't aren't here to speak to it i guess but we do have a
letter from the rco and we did meet with them but opposition or support opposition
and chair if i could just clarify sure only issue would be that the technology as far as being able
to register accessing zoom how however anyone who wishes can still log on to access the zoom
meeting and then when you read into record the google phone number we will take appearance
statement at that number should they have a problem registering as an appearance on the
zoom login if that helps okay all right we will go ahead we'll go forward with the hearing all
right thank you any other requests or concerns about continuance that have been read into the
record? I have no hands. Thank you. So, confessor, we're going to do the appeal against L&I first.
Okay. MI 2020-0007513522 Arthur Street.
and on this one leonard reuter is appearing for the city um i believe the appellant is
appearing pro se and if i'm not mistaken i think mr bertill is also participating
representing the property owner
no i'm i'm the property owner christopher i'm here okay okay who is the appellant here
um hi this is a um leonard reuter for the law department yes i was informed uh earlier uh
this afternoon that mr bertill will not be appearing today that the uh he represents the
property owner um and uh he will not he will not be here today uh they're no longer retained by
the property owner
The property owner, I believe the appellant is Mr. Dlugos.
I believe
So, Sharon, we can still go forward this, can't we?
Oh, yeah.
Yes, you can go forward.
All right.
I would ask Mr. Dlugos to clarify exactly who the appellant is.
Is it you as an individual or is it the other person?
No, I'm representing the Homesburg Civic Association.
hold on one second everybody mr david please identify yourself name yes name and address
yes david delugos spelled d-l-u-g-o-s-z 3526 solly avenue
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes you said you were about to say that you're representing the holmesburg civic association
which you cannot do the holmesburg civic association if they are the appellant will
need an attorney if you're appearing as if you are as an individual the appellant you can go
forward but it would be limited to your concerns not the rcos and we would need um your home
address well we we we went through through the email about the whole attorney thing and that
was resolved you know like this thing's been going on since december november december how
was it resolved it was resolved that we didn't need an attorney we did not need an attorney
previously, you know, I'm more than well versed to do it. I mean, I, I mean, I spoke with me and
I told you that you needed an attorney. Okay. So David, I muted you. Um, and now you can go
forward and respond. Okay. I mean, if I need to go forward as an individual for the sake of
whatever, I can go, I mean, I don't want to go back and re open that can of worms.
if you go if you are representing yourself we need your address and how and what proximity
is your address to the application of 35 22 arthur street that's fine again i'm at 35 26
sally avenue and they're the next block down there's a they're parallel block so i'm here
and they're right there all right um i sharon i i it sounds like he's he can go forward as
an individual as long as it's clear on the record that the rco is not the appellant okay
all right leonard
hi sorry um well again it is yeah i don't know if we swore you when you had no you didn't
please identify yourself name and address name and right uh leonard that's l-e-o-n-a-r-d
middle initial f last name is r-e-u-t-e-r uh senior attorney with the city of philadelphia
1515 arch street 15th floor we're going to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed uh well again this is an appeal against l and i so i believe that
would be the appellant's burden to go forward uh but i do want to note for the record that
the appeal itself was filed by uh mr delugos uh and again sorry if i'm mispronouncing your name
sir so uh we don't i don't have an objection to him proceeding on his own but again we would
object to any representations of what the rco thinks but uh we can go forward you understand
that sir can't hear you uh so you want me to proceed i said did you understand with miss
what mr reuter said that you must be representing yourself no representation to the rco
i i understand obviously i have the knowledge in my head but i will not
you know okay you know i'm just fine yeah all right thank you so please proceed okay so
again uh we received notification of this permit issuance before the eclipse system where we would
get notification on a daily basis of all of the permits issued in our you know you know issued
in the area and we came across this permit being issued and we're confused. This area was remapped
about two years ago. I had conversations with PCPC like yesterday or the day before. I'm not sure if
the people from PCPC are here for that. I mean, I see other people from PCPC here.
and this this block was remapped to be RSA. So the issue at hand is that they issued a
L&I issued a permit by right for a multifamily use in an RSA zone and the explanation we got
And the explanation we got from L&I, and I will share my screen to show the email I got from L&I, or from actually that Bobby Heenan's office got, they got from L&I, was that they accepted an affidavit from the previous owner for past use as an acceptance for not needing to get a variance.
from L&I and I will share my screen to show the email I got.
Now, you know, I just want to speak to Mr. Nyapan about, you know, this is an appeal against L&I. It's not an appeal against you as the property owner. We understand that you bought the property after this permit was issued.
um you know so this is not a matter of if we are for or against a duplex at this address we are
just appealing the fact that l and i issued a permit by right in the first place um that being
said that the history you know i think it'd be best to lay out the history of what happened at
this address you know starting from the beginning is that um the previous owner bought the house
from sheriff's sale in, I believe it was February of 2019.
I have, I mean, I have, you know, the document,
the supporting stuff from the records department
if it needs to be shared.
It was actually, the deed was recorded in March of 2019
from the sheriff's sale.
He proceeded to apply for the permit
for the multifamily use
at which point
and that was I believe in September
he went to
L&I he was
told that he couldn't get
the permit without
either a variance or this previous
affidavit of use
so he went and got a notary to sign
his own handwritten statement to say
that as far to his
knowledge and I have this too I can share
do you want me to share some of these things as I'm talking?
Yes please that would be helpful
I just got to open it
This is the previous owner's affidavit signed on October 30th, and, you know, L&I required him to present this to L&I in order so that they didn't need to come for variance.
uh you know he signed in october but he had only bought this property you know from sheriff's cell
in march you know so you know we contend that this owner had no actual knowledge of what has
happened in the last five years because he didn't own it previously um and then subsequently the
permit was issued uh you know and then after he got his permit issued then mr nyapan purchased
the property in December the beginning of December I believe which is when we had our first hearing
scheduled which then we decided to continue it because we needed to make sure we had the current
owner as party to you know this this hearing um so I mean and so I just want to show you the other
thing where uh where we were where we got LNI's response about why they issued it like this
comes up can you guys see this email yes you can make it a little bit larger that would be helpful
sure and it says stan who is does the zoning for uh bobby heenan's office says that sometimes the
zoning file cannot be located this happens a lot it is the department's policy in his case to accept
documentation the property was built and it's been continuously used as a duplex this issuance
of permit is twofold to document the use of the property for their records and to allow the
community to appeal its issuance if they believe the information is correct. Now, this has problems
in, you know, so a lot of what my issues are is, again, is that this internal policy that L&I has
that allowed for this to happen and that this internal policy kind of goes against, you know,
the common practice of what has been happening in zoning cases throughout, you know, since
I moved to the city a dozen years ago, that number one, it allows any individual who owns
the property regardless of how long he's owned it or how long he's known this property for
to insert this affidavit, you know, without any kind of information.
Number two, it allows that same individual, you know, to make a statement that benefits
you know, to make a statement that benefits them and would not otherwise benefit the RCO to say, well, you know, it doesn't benefit them to say, well, I don't know what it previously was.
them and would not otherwise
It benefits them to just say this is what it was because it allows them to skip the whole zoning board of appeals process.
let me let me if i may interrupt because are you are you is your pro are you protesting the process
or the result of the process by allowing this property if the board were to agree to become a
duplex because i think you said that in your opening statement and it sounds like you're
saying that again right so it at the end of the day is it really just about the process
Or is it, in this case, as the process played out and the impact it has on this 3522 Arthur Street becoming a multifamily?
Right. It's both. So typically...
You have to speak up. Sorry.
Typically. So it's both.
You can't hear you.
I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
Barely.
Up until I interrupted you, I heard you fine.
Okay. I mean, I didn't change anything, so...
There you go. There you go. There you go. Okay, good. So again, it's both. So typically,
you know, what happens, you know, when there's a variance is that there's a process
to allow for interaction between the applicant and the community, you know, and that, you know,
usually that, you know, we would see pictures of what the inside looks like to see if it actually
was a duplex in prior use you know if there was two uh meters or two mailboxes in previous use
you know things to say that if it is or it isn't you know so what i was saying at the beginning is
that i don't mean to say to the current property owner that we are for or against you know so we're
you know i i'm i'm taking neither position if we're for or against the the existing use of the
duplex until we get more information and the only way to get more information is to go through that
regular rco community process understood i mean obviously you know that being said you know i'm
also associated with the crosstown coalition and you know it does raise these other larger issues
understood yeah uh you know so so the policy you know again in general has a lot of issues in that
it allows this guy who bought it off a sheriff sale to to make a statement which he couldn't
possibly know because he only just bought off a sheriff's sale you know he's you know going to
write the statement because it's in his interest to write the statement because it saves this whole
process of going through the community and you know going to the community and you know the
process in order to hire an attorney and come to you know to have a hearing before you
again let me just like i think you said and i'm sorry for interrupting but i don't want to lose
my train of thought right i think you said that there was a letter submitted in opposition
no uh there was i mean there was no letter submitted in opposition because there was no
no hearing no meeting exactly yes right uh you know so the next thing is that if we're going to
make an appeal like we did we have this 90-day time frame to know that it happened and there's
no automatic notification to the community to know there was a permit issued in this fashion
so when with regard to number two in in miss adam's email is that you know it says it allows
us to appeal if we believe the information is correct but there's no way for the community to
know if this permit this permit was issued understood so i want to ask you to hold off
a second i believe miss saletta has something there sharon excuse me you live in close proximity
to this property is it your understanding that it was a single family in the past yes i was
involved with the remapping process with pcpc and we went we went you know block by block and we
looked at these things and it was at that point it was correct yeah because there's four homes
of similar nature that are all right next to each other it looked like one was already split up but
others were single families okay Sharon I have a technical question I'm trying to see if we can
kind of satisfy both sides are we in a position to put this this appeal against LNI on hold
and if the RCO were or the applicant were to post the having a meeting with the RCO at which time
the decision could be made whether the community would support the multifamily or not you know I'm
whether the community would support the multifamily or not.
You know where I'm going.
going.
I'm trying to figure it out.
I do, but I don't believe that you're able to do that.
It's either a buy-write permit or it isn't,
in which case they would have to go in and get a variance.
I just thought that there might be an opportunity
in the interest of time for everyone.
All right.
Can't do it that way.
Sorry.
All right.
I think we got Mr. Lug...
I'm going to mispronounce your name.
excited again i can't hear you delugos delugos yes delugos um okay if you can summarize
and speak up a little bit again we lost your volume okay i mean i'm just gonna speak okay good
so you know with all those reasons you know obviously the process failed and the community
was not notified and you know again we we wish to have i mean i wish to have that process where we
can communicate with with the with you know with the applicant although again the applicant sold
the property so you know that's another doubt a shortcoming of this of this policy that lni has
you know and further that um you know again the community spent a long time with pc pc remapping
you know the underlying zoning of the of our of the neighborhood and having something like this
kind of undermines that that whole process and you know it's it's it leaves kind of like a bad
taste in in our mouth in my mouth at least because of all the time i worked on on that process and
you know so yeah that that's kind of the summary of what i think thank you appreciate that leonard
hi thank you leonard reuter for the city of philadelphia i just wanted to explain a little
bit about um the process uh as the appellant um has has described it um what happens is that
obviously there are you know i don't know probably a hundred thousand different properties in the
city of philadelphia probably more than that a couple hundred thousand and for quite a number
them especially residential properties that are older the zoning files and the zoning documents
that the city has don't go back that far for the simple reason that for certain properties they
predated the zoning code and for other properties one and two family dwellings did not require a use
permit so the question then is if somebody has an existing two-family home and they want to
do something or they want to just document that it's in fact a two-family home whereas previously
there might not have been a use permit required for that what they're doing is that they're
essentially arguing that it's a non-conforming use because the overall the underlying zoning
classification had been recently changed now to RSA 5 which we agree is residential single
family attached dwellings um so what happens is if an owner says no this is a two-family or this is
a historically a two-family dwelling the the procedure is that we do ask the owner to provide
an affidavit or some you know demonstration uh that the property is in fact uh two-family
so that's what happened here the prior owner in october of 2019 submitted an affidavit
saying the property had been two family for at least five years predating him and in fact
predating his purchase I should say and in fact while I don't have a copy of the permit I can
refer the boards to the records which indicate that in fact a rental license for the property
for being two family goes we've had a rental license for the property going back to 2015
so um you know again that's just you know that's in our records so uh presumably somebody wasn't
renting uh the property unless uh they believed that they had the proper zoning for it now that
being the case we don't the city doesn't make a determination uh whether in fact the an affidavit
is complete or correct um you know again given the fact that we had a record history that indicated
that the license uh there had been a um rental license for the property and let me just tell
you the number uh there was a license was in in effect until when uh there's been a license
a rental license for the property going back to 20 april 14th of 2015 in fact previously it didn't
it looks like there uh there had been a lapse in the license there was a violation issued for not
having the rental license uh that violation was issued the case number for that is 397050
The case number for that is 397050, and a license was obtained by a prior owner, and I'm thinking that's two or three owners, back on April 14th, 2015.
and a license was obtained
So there has been a rental license for the property going back to at least April 14th, 2015.
Up until the current, until 2020?
Yes, I believe there was a period where a rental license.
There was no break. There was no three-year break or anything.
There was no three-year break. No, there was a break where apparently the prior owner, and again, I'm thinking this is before the current owner was a Mr. Beckeraj, and he is, I believe it's correct that he did purchase it at Sheriff's sale in 2019, but prior to that person's ownership, I think the prior owner, that is not counting the Sheriff, did also get a violation for not having a rental license, and again, that was corrected.
So, again, we've had – the property has been a rental property going back to at least 2015, and, again, it may predate that.
But we don't have zoning records for most of these one- and two-family residential properties.
That goes back to whenever this was built, and looking at the structure, I would say this probably is, I don't know, mid-60s, I'm guessing.
um it's not super old but it's it it you know again it's it's most properties like this we
don't really have old zoning files people would only get a uh a zoning permit for say a single
family uh if they were like this trying to document the non-conformity uh or um you know
they needed it for some other reason you know bank you know loans or whatever so again you know
as far as the notice to the neighbors that's this is the opportunity to challenge that again
we the city of philadelphia we don't have a basis for challenging the affidavit
um because it speaks for itself and again we have our own records which seem to back it up
but you know the zoning permit is supposed to be posted within five days uh once it's issued uh i
don't know whether that happened here but again that's moot because obviously at some point
The appellant did learn of the issuance of the permit, and here we are.
They filed the appeal.
So, you know, again, I think it's their burden to prove that it was not a two-family since it's their appeal.
And beyond that, I mean, it's, you know, with any case where they're challenging a nonconformity, it's really up to the appellant.
Once the city believes that there's a nonconformity, it's up to the appellant to demonstrate that there isn't one and that this was not a two-family property.
So, you know, and as to that, I would have no information or witnesses that could testify how this property was being used 10 years ago.
All I can say is that it has been a rental property since 2015 at the very least.
In fact, it was used as a rental property without the rental license going back to 2013.
So beyond that, I don't really have anything else to say.
I mean, I think the affidavit, which the appellant has already presented to you, that was presented by Mr. Becker-Rodge to L&I in October, that's basically, that is what we're basing the permit on.
um so i you know it again it's it's the appellant's burden to prove that this was not
uh a two-family property uh historically and you know i'll let uh the uh the property owners
speak more to that all right let's hear it from the property owner hi yeah uh this is christopher
yeah and i think i'm not sure if i swore you in but just give us your full name again
yes christopher and yen pen first name ch-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r last name n-y-e-n-p-a-n
swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed yeah so you know i want to first you know obviously start out by saying that
um you know i recently did purchase a property in in november um you know based off of the
verified or signed
Epidavid that were received from the previous owner
You know, when I purchased the property
I have my rental license
I had all the proper documentation
To purchase the property as a multifamily
You know, which I
Intend to use as such
You know, I myself
Live on one of the floors
Of this property and I've
You know, been renting out the
Other unit
To a tenant
Who, you know, which I'm still
renting out to. Let me do a screen share. I'm trying to find Zoom.
Now you should be able to.
Can you share my screen?
I removed his.
When you were applied for your rental license, did anyone suggest to you that anything about
the zoning or was that did anyone suggest that there there had been a lapse in a and uh rental
licenses prior to your purchasing purchasing this no sir so again we we contend that it was a rental
of of a single family on whole not a multi-family well but he got a rental license for for two
multi-family for two units well i mean i i don't see any record i mean so if i mean i didn't see
the same records that mr rotor found i mean i'm looking on atlas with all the zoning stuff and
it does i didn't see any record of those permits i'm not saying they're not there or there's
an issue with this i'm you know i'm just saying it didn't show up with the regular search let's
finish from the owner thank you actually it shows two units on the um display the permit on on the
current one yes yeah and and and i will i will add so i i went back to uh you know to obviously
i submitted these uh these photos over uh to you guys i think almost a month ago um but on the
physical property itself so this is the property in question here and i just took this picture to
show you that all of these um properties in these rows are all um you know set up as multi-family
properties um they all you know and there are other multi-family property existing you know
just a house over from this one down the block um from my property so uh i don't it kind of
baffled me that we need uh first to you know to get a variance which um you know it's it's a
discussion i i i can't believe that we're even having um but uh for the property itself we have
you know, separate meters in the, you know, for this property, you know, we have the tenant
upstairs have their own electric, this unit downstairs have their own electric, and it goes
the same thing for gas. As you can see, some of these appliances are very old. I believe the date
on some of these dates all the way back into the 60s, you know, for this property. So as it
currently stands, and that is the, you know, as it is built, this property is built, to my knowledge,
as a multifamily, which obviously was what informed, in addition to the legal documentation
that the previous owner had, you know, informed my decision to purchase the property.
So I'm hoping I can keep this property as a multifamily.
I've already, you know, closed on this deal.
I've already, you know, have a mortgage set up for this and everything, you know, to appeal
this and move this back will be obviously detrimental on my end and also to the tenants
that I have.
That's why I said what I said at the beginning, and that's not what we're necessarily after.
here we understand that i understand i appreciate your hard work i know what it's like to do
remapping but uh you know i'm not going to be critical of the process there may be some
obviously some issues there but i think that's going to be for another time and another place
uh any questions from the board
no no anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands up okay planning commission
um pardon me leonard reuter for the law department it's no plan it's an appeal against
l and i so that's right i'm sorry planning's not right thank you thank you uh confessor i
I had it and I lost my stuff
I need the
MI number
MI 2020-000
Arthur Street
Having read that in
my vote is to deny the appeal
Appeal denied
Appeal denied
Appeal denied
Thank you
Thank you everyone
okay um thank you thank you good luck to you uh i think we go now we go to our regular uh
our regular list yes okay mi 2020-001288 5610 lancaster avenue
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
How are you?
Mr. Bertil, please identify yourself, name and address, spell your name for the sonographer.
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, addresses 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, zip code 19103.
You're swearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing? Yes to all of the above. Okay. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We have and
we do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen.
okay uh good afternoon again mr chairman the members of the board um as i stated my name
is steve bertill i'm representing the uh applicant for uh this uh referral for special exception
and a variance request for a refuse whatever you're entered for 5610 Lancaster Avenue.
With me, I have Sean Johnson, who is an authorized representative of the owner and
prospective tenant from Security Vault Works. I'll call him at the end of my testimony to affirm
and adopt my testimony. As you can see here, the property in question is, well, I should start
to say what we're here, the special exception relief that we're requesting is to allow for
the erection of a drive-through automatic teller machine kiosk and for the reduction of 10 parking
spaces in an existing accessory surface parking lot, bringing a new total of the parking spaces
to 160 spaces down from 170.
As I stated, the property in question is 5610 Lancaster Avenue.
You can see a zoning area of the map here.
The property is currently zoned as CMX3, commercial mix use.
Although, as I'll see in a second, the use of the property is actually more in line with
CA-1 or CA-2, any auto-oriented commercial because it's more or less a strip mall.
The main frontage of the property is actually along 56th Street, which is here, although
the address is Lancaster Avenue, and it sits between Lancaster Avenue to the north and
Haddington Lane to the south.
um it's currently photos here here's the area of the parking lot area that's in question where we
will be we're proposing to have our installation of the the uh atm kiosk um so you get a sense from
street view. This is a photo of the parking lot standing on 52nd Street, looking towards
the parking lot here. This just gives you a sense of the commercial uses that will currently
be there. As I said, known as Overpool Plaza, this is entirely commercial for the most part.
There is no mixed use on this property.
Here's another shot of the area that we're referring to.
This is another shot along 52nd Street and it's a standing within the parking lot along
the spaces that we're proposing for the reduction to be in the installation.
As I said, the parking lot is currently 170 spaces.
Lot size is about 165,000 square feet, including all the commercial spaces.
All right, so the proposed installation, as I said, is going to be along 56th Street along
Along the 10 parking spots that run perpendicular to the 56th Street sidewalk, as you can see here, we have the stacking lane running parallel to 52nd Street and then re-entering back into the drive-through lane of the parking lot.
the 10 parking spots that run perpendicular
The kiosk structure will include lighting. There's existing lighting, as you can see,
in terms of a light bulb, but it'll include additional lighting in addition to the street
lighting and the cameras that are located within the kiosk, but also within the ATM itself.
So you get a sense of the dimensions of the physical ATM itself.
and here is just some renderings within the context of the parking lot of what the
ATM kiosk structure would look like. Now we met with the community group
and receive um support for the community group i will be met with them on august 18th the
community group is overbrook west neighbors cdc and here is
letter of support that we received from overbrook west neighbors or own um as they are known
In addition to the letter, you'll see that their meeting summary report is here below.
Here's them indicating their support and their support for this project. There was no opposition
at the meeting or have not heard any opposition since our presentation from any of the new
neighbors. Now, in terms of the referral and the refusal that we have,
just scroll up so you can take a look at the referral. So the first thing that we have is
the referral that was issued for the use of, for the use in the property. Because the lot is
zoned in CMX 3, there is a referral for the drive-throughs, and they require a special
exception. Now, although a special exception does not require showing of a hardship, I would like to
highlight again that this property, although it was a commercial mixed-use district,
is primarily intended to accommodate auto-oriented commercial districts. So this use is actually
more in line with CA use, which would be allowable by right, and therefore this drive-through
referral would not have been issued. Secondly, we have a refusal for the stacking lanes.
due to the setback of the actual lane in the kiosk.
Now, we're set back for over 20 feet from every lot line except for 56th Street,
the lot line that runs adjacent to that.
So one main consideration for the stacking lane setback typically is the impact on traffic lanes
adjacent to that lane, typically the street that you're turning off of.
here will have no impact on the the turn in lanes from 50 seconds for 56th because as i said before
the the entrance and the exit from the stacking lane is the existing drive through
or thoroughfare of the parking lot in addition to that
um let me go to the aerial so you can see the parking lot again in addition to
That, as you can see, the existing parking lot has a green space medium there which prevents
us from actually setting back 20 feet from the property line because we would then lose
double the amount of parking spaces that we're losing now.
Right now we're only losing 10.
We would have to lose parking spaces on both sides to be able to even fit the proper dimension
drive-through lane for the ATM kiosk. In addition to that, we would negatively impact the parking
needs of the existing tenants of this strip mall. As such, we're restricted into which
we're restricted into which parking spots we can lose for this installation and therefore to not
parking spots we can lose for this installation.
impact the thorough lanes of the parking the distant parking lot not to remove additional
parking spaces and to not negatively impact the existing tenants in the structure um we believe
that the the location that we uh we have chose for the installation is the best location that
makes the most sense and as does has a minimal impact and therefore request the variance for
that approval. Thank you. Do you have any witnesses? Yeah, I have Mr. Sean Johnson who
from security vault walks, they'll be doing the installation, but he's also the authorized
representative of the owner being the authorized letter we submitted. So if he's here, if he could
raise his hand. We'll get them all on record so we can adopt your testimony. Right.
Mr. Johnson, if you could raise your hand so Ms. Sunken can recognize you.
No hands.
No hands are up.
Mr. Bertil, as an officer of the court, we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your
testimony.
Any questions from the board?
no no no anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
we have gregory allen gregory you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
mr allen please identify yourself with the record your name and address spell your name
Gregory Allen, 6361 Lancaster Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19151.
You're swearing to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
So as Mr. Bertel said, we met with the community.
We are the RCO, and we are in full support, or at least no opposition.
This plaza has been a very active commercial corridor.
So in addition to being the RCO, we are the Commerce Department commercial corridor manager for Lancaster Avenue.
And the commercial space here and the corridor has seen an influx of business.
And so this is a perfect use for that.
And we're pretty excited to be like Chase Bank's first prototype for this project.
And then finally, in addition, those parking spaces that will be lost are rarely parked in because they border the 56th Street side of the parking lot.
Most of the business happens on the entire opposite side of the plaza, and people don't park there because they'd have to walk clear across the plaza.
So there's really no negative impact to the plaza or to the community.
Thank you, Mr. Allen. Thank you for taking the time to be here today.
You're welcome, Mr. Allen.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
no hands at this time thank you uh planning commission
uh good afternoon uh chairman members of the board ian litwin planning commission staff
i swear you in they swear to firm it's all truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed okay i'm sorry um could we provide the spelling
oh sorry it's ian litwin l-i-t-w-i-n thank you uh the applicant has demonstrated the granting
of a special exception will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood
beyond that which might normally be expected from the proposed use accordingly we have no objection
to granting a special exception in addition we have no opposition to granting the variance for
location of the drive-thru stacking lanes. Thank you very much. MI-2020-001288-5610
Lancaster Avenue. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. All right. Good
up. Thank you members of the board that concludes my business. Thank you. Next one up is MI 2020-000-889-3929
Bridge Avenue.
We have Alan Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson, please identify yourself with a record.
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
My name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia
PA 19109. We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. So you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to
this hearing? I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We are in the process of
planning a meeting with them. So we would like to present this matter today, hold it
for advisement, and then have a supplemental hearing 30 days from the date
of today's hearing, if possible.
For community input.
We need a specific...
Oh, yes. So today is the 24th...
Tanya will tell us. Thank you.
Okay, so the earliest we will be able to do this
is December.
Okay, would December 2nd work or December 1st work?
We can do December 2nd at 9.30, Chair.
Okay, let's go proceed with the case
and then when we close out,
I'll put that in the record, thank you.
Thank you.
All right, may I share my screen?
Yes, please.
Again, my name is Allen Ockamson, I'm here to present 3929, 3931, and 3933-35, Ridge
Avenue.
And in front of you is a packet of materials which included eight exhibits.
The first exhibit are the deeds to the various properties.
The second exhibit, and an agreement of sale for 3933-35.
The second exhibit, let me just get through this, are the tax clearance certificates showing
that no taxes are due on count of any of these properties.
The third exhibit is the notice of refusal.
So these are RSA 5 properties. Even though we're at the corner of Ridge and Allegheny, where the property is currently being used as a one-story commercial unit, this is an RSA 5 property. It's over 4,000 square feet, a combined lot.
and originally we're proposing to put 14 units into this property and two commercial units.
We have had communications with the community where we believe that it's more appropriate based
on community input to have lesser units, so we're looking to put eight dwelling units.
In addition, we're looking to decrease the height in such a manner where it would be 35 feet,
six inches the building structure so we would be eliminating the height variance which is one of
the requests under the notice of refusal and we would also be eliminating the roof decks so that
would that would eliminate the second one the second refusals uh which is the minimum roof
deck access structure setback from the extreme rear building line we still have you're reducing
the residents from eight 14 to eight that's right and we have we have and with this what's the
commercial still staying at two it's still staying at two mr chair yeah i'm just giving you this a
little background yeah we're we're still here because this is an rsa5 property so the pre-existing
use is a commercial a one-story commercial unit uh the person who owns the property is a hair salon
they are going to remain after this building structure is built as one of the commercial
tenants. So we're asking for that variance. We're also asking, given the unique shape
of the lot, for the second variance, which is the minimum rear yard depth, nine feet
is required, zero is proposed. But as you'll see, it's appropriate under the circumstances.
The fourth exhibits are application for appeal along with the project information form and
then you'll see this is where we are in the neighborhood again we're in the corner of
Ridge and Allegheny and as you can see this is in a regular shape combined or proposed
combined lot.
And as you can see there is a hair salon right now on one of the parcels and beauty in
And as you can see, there is a hair salon right now on one of the parcels, N-Beauty, Inc. hair salon, which will remain as an occupant after the development of this building or proposed development of this building.
Here you'll see a picture of the property.
So, again, even though this is an RSA 5 property, it's nothing that you would expect from an RSA 5 property.
It's a one-story hair salon.
You'll see pictures from West Allegheny to the left and the right of the building as
well as to the left and the right on Bridge Avenue.
I will note that across the street, 4001 Ridge Avenue, there was a variance granted
for a 27-unit apartment building with a height of 43 feet high.
Also recently, during this past year, this board granted a 7-unit at 3915 Ridge Avenue
which was also an RSAFI property. I handed this revised proviso plan form completed and
signed by me to Ms. Saleta before the meeting so she's aware of this form that we completed.
And again this is our property again the one for the rear yard setback you can see why we're
having issues because of the unique nature of the configuration of this lot.
and you can you can see from the pictures just going through really quickly uh this is ridge
avenue the salon would be vacant non-residential space number one approximately 1700 square feet
uh vacant non-residential space two would be coming off of allegheny right here uh there's
an open area for the commercial you will also see for the apartment building that when you go in
here there's there's room for bikes as well as there's a trash room if you go up to the second
and third floors uh they're identical so we have four two bedroom two baths and four one bedroom
one baths and then there's the roof no deck any longer and again just you know so that the board
understands we're asking for the board to hold it under advisement to give us an opportunity to meet
with Ross Civic Association, the coordinating RCO for this project.
Now, I do have David Ross, one of the owner's reps on the line.
So, David, can you virtually raise your hand?
Hello, David Ross.
Good afternoon, Mr. Ross.
Please identify yourself, name and address.
david ross at 2509 east norris street philadelphia pa 19125 and your position
uh i'm a part owner of the project thank you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes thank you mr arkinson yes david you heard everything i stated
today correct and is it true and correct yes and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes
thank you any questions from the board
no no anyone else wish to testify on this in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you planning commission
good afternoon chairman members of the board ian litman planning commission staff
uh these properties are recommended for residential multifamily buddy don't forget
to put that uh that thing on my desk okay sorry professor you you forgot the mute
that's all right mr litman continue i'll start over uh these properties are recommended for
residential multifamily and commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan accordingly we do not
oppose granting the variances for multifamily and commercial uses also given the non-rectilinear
shape of the lot and the fact that the overall open space requirement has been met we do not
oppose a rear yard variance either thank you mi-2020-000889 3929 ridge avenue this hearing
will be resumed on December the 2nd at 9 30 a.m at which time we will consider any feedback related
to the RCO's position. Okay next one up is MI 2020-001066 1605 East Pass Yonk Avenue.
anyone present for 1605 east pass yonk avenue yes i promoted joseph council the council
good afternoon board good afternoon sir please identify yourself for the record spell your name
it is joseph console that is c-o-n-s-o-l-e console madison llp the address is one west
third street suite 204 media pennsylvania one nine zero six three and you swear and affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth i do thank you mr you agree to wait
to read in of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do right have you emailed an exhibit
packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the
refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this, Aaron? I have. Also, have you met
with the RCO and have a letter? We have and we did and we do, yes. Thank you, please proceed.
Hey everyone, Joseph Consol, I'm here on 1605 East Paschunk Avenue. That used to be- Mr. Consol,
if I can interrupt you for just one minute, I wanted to let the board know that we also received
a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla. Okay, great. 1605 East Paschalk Avenue,
this used to be a like a baby consignment store that closed my client Jasmine Rodriguez,
owner of Jasmine Ray & Co LLC. Is my screen sharing, by the way?
yes we have it okay uh is is with me today she uh is uh seeking a variance to to use this space
um as a beauty parlor with microblading and cosmetic tattooing uh also with traditional
beauty parlor services uh hairstyling waxing etc because microblading is considered body art
generates the same refusal as does a tattoo parlor. I've been in front of the board
on this kind of appeal a couple of times in the past. The property was refused because
body art services are prohibited within 1,000 feet of another existing regulated use, which
is a tattoo parlor, and also within 500 feet of the nearest lot line containing residential
So I'm sure everyone, at least some of you, know this property, so you can find my picture.
Here's the front of it.
Ms. Rodriguez, her company has a lease for three years on the commercial space at the
bottom.
um there we go
got a picture of the signs to give you an idea of the kind of work she does
i'll show you some photos some microblading work on eyebrows cosmetic enhancement work
we met with the rco two weeks ago we got full support i'll pull their letter up
They had asked that there be certain sunset provisions on this approval to prevent or at least allow them to deal with a potential transfer of a lease to an actual tattoo parlor.
And we were agreeable to what they had suggested.
I spoke to Sharon and I believe she had a recommendation for the board on how best to
handle this because I think that certain aspects of what the RCO wanted to do are not something
the zoning board can do. This is Sharon Saleta. I explained to Mr. Consul that the variants cannot
be linked to ownership, that you can do it for a definite period of time with a definite end date,
but it can't depend on who the lessee is yeah and what is the what are the terms of the lease
currently uh it's a three-year lease and that's going uh began in the uh the beginning of july
or end of july july 2020 july 2020 is when it started okay all right i believe that's also
mr consult told me a renewable lease it is yeah a period of uh it's renewable for a similar period
We suggested perhaps maybe a five-year variance that would allow her to operate and prove
to the community that she's a good neighbor.
all right anything else do you have a witness you want to put on yeah i would just uh briefly
call jasmine rodriguez just to attest to what i said hi i'm here good afternoon ma'am please
identify yourself with the record spell your first and last name sure it's jasmine j-a-z-m-i-n
last name rodriguez r-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-z and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing about the truth yes i do thank you mr council good afternoon jasmine uh did you
hear my testimony today yes i did do you adopt it as your own yes i do okay is there anything
you'd like to add to to the to the board uh no no i don't yeah okay uh thank you no further
Thank you. Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board.
Ian Litwin, Planning Commission staff.
The proposed use will not negatively affect the commercial corridor, therefore we have no
opposition to granting the special exception. Thank you. MI-2020-001066, 1605 East Passyunk
Avenue, my vote is yes with proviso, a five-year lease to end on in July, excuse me, August 1st,
2025. Yes, with Proviso. Yes, with Proviso.
Okay, next one up is MI 2020-000459 1620 North Bailey Street.
the attorney is alan knockamson
good afternoon mr knockamson just identify yourself with a record and you're still under
oath uh yes uh good afternoon mr chair members of the board alan knockamson of knockamson pc
123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109
you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to his accuracy
i do also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing i have uh have you also met with the rco and uh have a letter we do and we have
we do thank you please proceed okay i'm going to share my screen
all right in front of you is a packet of exhibits which include eight of them the first one is the
deed to the property uh showing that 1620 barely street llc is the owner uh the second uh exhibit
is the tax clearance certificate showing that 1620 LLC is not, well, is tax compliant.
Third exhibit is the notice of refusal. So this is an RSA 5 property, but the lot is over 2300
square feet, exactly 2363. And we're seeking to put a six-unit apartment building here,
and we're being refused first for the use and then secondly what we're trying to do is there's
a pre-existing curb cut we're trying to leverage the fact that there is a pre-existing curb cut
by pushing the building back so we're being refused first for the off-street parking but
there you know again as of record there is off-street parking which currently exists and
then secondly because we're pushing the building back 21 feet we're also being refused for that
This board has heard different variance requests quite recently on this block and in the nearby
vicinity. I actually was in front of the board less than two months ago for 1633 North Bailey
Street and 1635 North Bailey Street, which this matter was heard at that same community meeting
for 1620 north valley street the community for 1633 and north valley street and 1635 north valley
street they supported those variances each for three units for a total of six for the same square
footage in terms of lot size you know so they had the the community agreed to six units you know for
you know for you know for 1633 and 35 north valley street for the same lot size with no parking
you know for 1633 and 35 north valley street for the same lot
we're proposing to put six units same lot size but we're including off street parking so at that
community meeting we did receive a letter of non-opposition for 1620 north valley street
Last year, I was here for 1616-18 North Valley Street, where the board granted variants for nine units.
So, and again, you'll see that, you know, for the Oxford Street properties, for North 27th Street properties,
this is a very multi-unit portion of the Brewery Town section of Philadelphia.
After that is the application for appeal for this project,
along with the project information form. And then you'll see where we are in the City of Philadelphia.
We're on North Bailey Street right next to Cecil B. Moore. You can see between Cecil B. Moore and
Oxford Street and then Bailey Street's between 26 and 27 streets. And then you'll see photographs
of the property. Currently it's a vacant lot but you can even see the pictures from the right and
the left this is even though this is an RSA 5 property this block says anything but and
then here are the architectural drawings again we're trying to make something unique and
interesting for the neighborhood again the most important thing is this you know pre-existing
curb cut we thought that this was an opportunity to take advantage of that and to provide some
off-street parking here and then you know here are the floor plans each floor has two units
so we have a common stairwell that's you know that will be accessed uh through the side of the
building and then again you'll just see pictures of the surrounding area you'll see that even though
a lot of these all these properties are designated as rsa5 they're anything but in nature
And then here's our letter of opposition from the Brewery Town Shardswood Civic Association.
So that is our presentation.
I have one of the principals of 1620 Bailey Street.
Can you virtually raise your hand?
You can talk, sir, or ma'am. You're unmuted, so, and I see you unmuted yourself.
Alan in the interest of time as an officer the court will stipulate that your client
would adopt your testimony that is correct Mr. Chair any questions from the board no no no
I just want to make sure did I hear you say Alan earlier that in the when in the past when you had
applications 1633 and i'll have the exact addresses i have the addresses in front of it did you say
that this was also discussed at one of those meetings yeah it was it no oh i was just making
a point that so we actually presented 1633 north valley street 1635 north valley street and 1620
north valley street all at the same meeting so at that same meeting they also supported
the 1633 and 35
North Valley Street,
which is a total of six units.
Yeah, I got all that. I just wanted to make sure I had that.
Yeah, and then at that same
meeting, they're in non-opposition
to this project as well.
Just giving an apples to apples
comparison.
Understood.
Anyone would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
no hands chair thank you planning commission good afternoon chairman members of the board
this lot is zoned for single family residential development and is recommended for single family
development in the comprehensive plan we do not believe the applicant has demonstrated
sufficient hardship to warrant granting of the variance therefore we are opposed to granting
the variance and can you just put on the record your name and department yeah it's ian litwin
I-A-N-L-I-T-W-I-N
Planning Commission
Thank you
Mr. Lipman
Mr. Lippman, would you happen to know what position the board took on the previous applications on this on the 1600 unit block of North Bailey?
would you happen to know
what position the
Mr. Chair, I guess from 2019 there was a nine unit building that was permitted and I have two single family homes were permitted across the street in February by right this year.
They weren't by right.
1633 and 35 were variances.
Again, if memory serves me right,
again, I don't want to misstate anything.
I don't believe I heard the Planning Commission
against 33 and 35.
But I can't be sure for that.
All right.
Understood.
I'm just trying to see if we're being consistent here.
MI-2020-000459.
1620 North Bailey my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck you thank
you okay next one up is MI 2020-001 315 1334 North Hancock Street
anyone here on 1334 North Hancock I just promoted Rachel because her hand was up
Okay, thank you.
Rachel, are you here for this case?
Rachel.
You swear on a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copied the refusal or referral, photos and plans, five days prior to this hearing?
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
No, we're meeting with them on November the 18th.
So we wanted to put the case on the record and then circle back after the RCO meeting.
Rachel, I'm not sure if you did already, but please spell your first and last name.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
i'm sorry confessor did you finish
yes okay thank you please proceed miss bridge okay um i wanted to have um our architect um
gabriel deck um be able to present the plans and then my colleague brandon saverin uh will go
through the refusals and um our hardship argument. So who do we need for what? Is uh Gabriel Deck is
the architect. Right but does he need to be promoted or is he just going to speak? Um no if
he can be promoted to share the plans that would be great and then Brandon Saverin is uh just going
to speak. Great. All right. This is Gabriel Duck. Gabriel Duck with Nome Architects.
Good afternoon, sir. I'm sorry. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name.
Sure. Gabriel Deck, G-A-B-R-I-E-L, last name D-E-C-K. Address is 1901 South 9th Street, room 526.
You're swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
So what is being proposed here is a subdivision of an existing parcel that runs street to
street from Hancock back to Palethorpe into three individual parcels to erect three new
single-family structures. The site plan here you can see we have two proposed
structures facing the Palethorpe Street side and one proposed structure facing
the Pale Thorpe Street side and one proposed structure facing North Hancock.
The structures on the Pale Thorpe Street side will be four stories without a cellar. On the
Hancock side, we have three stories with cellar. The Pale Thorpe Street side will also, we're
asking for garages for a two-car tandem parking. Just to kind of run through the layouts here.
Bear with me.
all right so for the pale throw up street side again two structures that are four stories with
garages um ground floor is essentially entirely the uh the two car garage plus staircase and
and mechanical spaces. Living spaces are up at the second floor with a walkout rear deck,
kitchen in the middle, living spaces in the front. Third floor has a master bedroom suite
across the whole floor. Fourth floor is a bedroom in the front, office in the back,
single bathroom. And then we have a rooftop deck accessed via pilot house. It is worth noting that
we are setting back the proposed fourth floor building face in order to make the four-story
structure a bit less imposing on the narrow block. For the Hancock Street side, we have
ground or first floor living spaces, living in the front, kitchen in the back. We do have a
cellar with a family room and then an office space facing the front. Second floor is a
bedroom in the front, a den space in the back with laundry and bathroom, and then a third
floor master suite. We also have a rooftop deck access via a pilot house at the rear
of the structure. Design-wise, the elevation, this is the Pale Thorpe Street side of the
garage homes, three stories of brick veneer. And then again, the fourth floor is being set back
as to minimize the height of the structure on the block. Our roof deck railings have been held as
low as possible to, you know, limit any obstruction from the neighbor's roof decks and their views
towards the skyline. The Hancock Street side, similarly, is all red brick, three stories. We've
we're planning to align our parapet height with the adjacent structure and similarly holding
our roof deck railings as low as possible to limit the obstructed views. I think that's the
gist of the design. Great. So I'm going to share my screen to go through the refusals
um and then we'll wrap up okay so just to orient the site again this is a large rsa five lot
um on pound thorpe and hancock um as you can see it's this kind of odd l shape the plan is to just
subdivide it um even with this site and then down the middle here to provide three single family
homes oh my god sorry my sorry um and then uh we sort of have generated the refusals just based on
the uh lot size um the setback for the roof which um we can adjust if that becomes an issue but the
idea was so that it could be even with um the rear the rear building line um and then um again for
off street uh accessory off street parking as well um although our lots are not 1440 they do
meet sort of the adjacent um lot sizes of the of the near neighbors um and we've sort of provided
a chart to kind of show um how we are in line with um sort of everything else that's existing
on the block um and again alternatively if the variance was not granted we would have a hardship
have been providing, you know, one giant single-family home in the middle of these lots and would
be more, you know, out of conformity. Accessory off-street parking, I believe, is just on the
palanthorpe sides to provide for, you know, less congestion on the streets and also kind of in
character, again, with existing structures on the block. So I don't know, Brandon, if I missed
don't know brandon if i missed anything if you want to um go through any additional information
anything if you want to
but again our plan is to meet with rco on the 18th and then have to provide a little bit more
of a detailed presentation at that point but at least wanted to get this in front of the board
today i'd like to add just one or two quick items if that's okay yep
um so my name is brandon saverin um it's do we swear you in i don't think so no please spell
your first and last name thanks mr chair it is a b-r-a-n-d-o-n last name s-a-v-r-a-n and i am
also at pricksker law group i swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
true? Yes, I do. Please proceed. So while Rachel has that chart on her screen there, that basically
tells the whole story with the lot areas. We're really trying to just subdivide this into three
lots that match the surroundings. So let me kind of go on to the other two refusals. The reason
we're doing parking in the palethorpe street units is because there's no parking permitted
on palethorpe street um it's it's a situation where some folks will park on the sidewalk
illegally um but otherwise use on street parking on you know other folks blocks so the concept was
to um not contribute to either of those conditions and instead have two spots per unit within the
homes and we have approval um from the streets department on the design of that um that is uh
and then with regard to the pilot house refusal so we don't have any other dimensional refusals
which is to say we're not requesting a variance for height we're for the setback of the building
overall on on either side um oh and i should specify this pilot house refusal is with regard
to only the one hancock street property um on that property the the re the pilot house is sitting
flush with the rear edge of the uh building as a whole and the building as a whole is set back 11
feet from the rear property line so the property as a whole conforms with the rear setback
requirement i think it's uh reasonable to say therefore that the placement of the pilot house
is not contributing to the loss of any air or light of the neighboring properties um essentially
the design allows more space within the home because the staircase serving the roof deck is
to the you know far rear of the house rather than more central within it um i think that's all i
wanted to add thank you thank you uh questions from the board no no no sorry can i bring yeah
i just want to bring my um client brian zubek oh i'm sorry i thought they i thought that was
the your witnesses okay bring them on please thank you uh tanya do you see brian zubek
only if he raises his hand brian can you if you can hear me can you raise your hand
okay we already got his name on record so just have to swear he was already sworn in here
i think he was already sworn in correct no that was no i'm here oh the other one okay
brian please identify yourself name and address yeah my name is brian zubek i'm the owner of the
llc owns the property uh spelled b-r-i-a-n-z-o-u b as in boy e-k and address is 1401 spruce street
philadelphia pa 19102 can't you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
about the truth yes sir thank you rachel please proceed brian have you heard the statements that
i've made today yes and do you adopt them as your own yes thank you thank you again i'll ask the
board any questions from the board no no anyone else who'd like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand no hands are up at this time thank you planning commission
good afternoon chairman members of the board ian litwin planning commission staff
rsi rsa5 zoning does not allow for parking access from the front street palethorpe street is the
front street for lots B and C. Therefore, we oppose granting the variances for
parking except for the front street. However, we have no opposition to
However, we have no opposition to granting dimensional variances since the sub-divided lots are more in character with the adjacent lots than the current arrangement.
granting the dimensional variances since the subdivided lots are more
Thank you. Do we have a date, Tanya?
I'm thinking we can do the same as I gave for.
December 2nd?
December 2nd. We can try.
Yes, 930 AM.
that's perfect thank you okay so mi-2020-001315 1334 north hancock
this hearing will be resumed on december the 2nd at 9 30 a.m at which time we will consider any
feedback related to the rco's position thank you thank you good luck good afternoon all right
Next one up. It's MI 2020-000322, 1400 South 7th Street.
The attorney is Charles Peruto, and we have a letter in opposition from Councilman Squilla.
There are no hands up.
I have an Angelo Peruto.
Angelo, are you the attorney for this or applicant?
So Angelo is technically my first name.
I am not the attorney.
I am builder slash very, very close friend of the owner who's also on here, but I am helping her out with this because I do this a lot.
So I'm confused. I don't know who the person is.
We need the owner.
She is on also. Her name is Chelsea Dalcy.
Is it an LLC or a nonprofit?
No, she is here as the owner.
Hi, this is Chelsea Dalcy speaking.
Ms. Dolsey, please identify yourself, spell your first and last name.
So if we could hold a minute, I can promote her if she's going to be the presenter.
Okay, thank you.
I am not going to be the presenter.
Chaz is.
Angela?
I was going to help.
No, you can present yourself or you can have an attorney.
That's why you're late.
He can assist you with showing exhibits, but you have to present the case.
or if you'd like this case to be continued to
give you some time to retain an attorney we can do that as well
okay are we what are what's the all right i'm just i'm trying to figure out whether or not
because i don't i i wasn't prepared to do the actual presenting um i i mean i'm familiar with
everything enough to speak on it i just i'm trying to get myself together to figure out whether or
not i can actually do this coherently we're gonna have to move on to the next case okay
and cheer if you wish we can come back so that she can make a decision okay next one up
next one up it's uh mi 2020 that's 000 847 1401 north 29th street
i've promoted alan knockamson alan you've already been sworn in so you're still on the oath but
just identify yourself for the record please uh yes good afternoon mr chair members of the board
alan knockamson of knockamson pc 123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109
You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans
five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have and yes, we do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
I'm going to share my screen.
Handed to you or in front of you is a pack of materials which include eight exhibits.
The first is the property showing cash properties unlimited LLC is the owner of the property.
THE SECOND EXHIBIT IS A CERTIFICATE OF TAX COMPLIANCE SHOWING THAT
THE SECOND EXHIBIT IS A CERTIFICATE OF TAX COMPLIANCE SHOWING THAT THE OWNER IS IN GOOD
STANDING WITH THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA FROM A REAL ESTATE TAX PERSPECTIVE.
THE THIRD EXHIBIT IS A NOTICE OF REFERRAL.
THIS IS A CMX2 PROPERTY.
WE'RE LOOKING TO LEGALIZE THIS COMMUNITY CENTER THAT'S IN THE BREWERY TOWN SECTION OF PHILADELPHIA
AND WE'RE SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS A RESULT.
The fourth exhibit is the application for a special exception that we submitted to the ZBA, along with the project information form.
Exhibit five is, you know, a zoning map shows that this is a CMX property at the corner of 29th and Master in the Brewery Town section of Philadelphia.
Exhibit six shows the property in its current condition. As you can see, you know, my client keeps it in good condition.
It's the Parker Family Community Learning Center.
Here are pictures to the left and right on North 29th Street, as well as to the left and the right of Master.
As you can see the interior photos, it's really a learning center.
This Parker Family Learning Center is run by Greg Parker, who was born and raised in Burrytown.
And, you know, he tries to give us back as much to the community as possible through, you know, self-learning as well as expanding the knowledge and depth of the residents in Burrytown through, you know, classes, you know, in terms of financial and real estate investments and things like that.
Exhibit 7 is just a floor plan. Again, this is an open floor plan, you know, with bathrooms in the rear.
And Exhibit 8 is the letter of support. So we met with the Brewery Townshard's Civic Association,
and as you can see, 27 people were in support of this project, only three opposed and seven
in non-opposition. So with me, I believe I have Greg Parker. So Greg, can you virtually raise your hand?
no hands at this time all right um as an officer of the court i will
we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony
questions from the board no no no anyone uh would anyone else like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you cleaning commission
good afternoon chairman members of the board the applicant has demonstrated the granting
of a special exception will not cause detrimental impacts in the neighborhood beyond that
which might normally be expected from the proposed use accordingly we have no objection
to granting a special exception mi-2020-000847-1409 north 29th street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you
up. Next one up is MI 2020-00077-1254 North 19th Street.
This is Sharon Saleta. I believe this is a follow-up hearing and that the original
hearing was held on August 11th. Thank you.
Mr. Feldman can correct me if I'm mistaken on that.
So I have Augusta O'Neill with her hand up.
Good afternoon.
Yeah, I have Ms. O'Neill.
Please identify yourself for the record, first and last name.
Augusta O'Neill.
Shall I please?
A-U-G-U-S-T-A.
my last name is o apostrophe n e-i-l-l and you are affiliated with i'm affiliated with the
applicant miss o'neill is also from claire harrison i apologize gussie for getting that
wrong okay no problem do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes thank you please proceed sure it's a follow-up uh case or yes as sharon indicated
earlier this matter was originally presented this person sorry sure the matter was originally
presented to the zba on august 11th due to the pandemic we didn't get a chance to meet with the
rco for this matter um community land trust corporation until august 19th just to
Community Land Trust Corporation until August 19th. Just to briefly recap what our application was,
I'm not going to do it.
my client had bought this property when it was a store on the first floor. I can show a
image just to recap. This is the property in question. When my client bought the property,
this was a storefront and then there was a residential unit above. And my client intends
to take the first floor unit, which was used as a store, and make this property into two residential
units. This property is in the RM1 district. In a traditional RM1 district, as you're aware,
we could have had two units by right, but due to an overlay that the property is in,
we are required to seek the de minimis relief that we are now seeking. In a traditional RM1
district, there needs to be 350 square feet of lot area, but in this particular overlay,
there's required to be 425 square feet for each dwelling unit. So we're essentially off by less
than 100 square feet. The overlay's intent was to curtail excessive development, but we believe
that by converting this property into a two-unit property, we can bring two affordable units to
this neighborhood. Again, my client's intent is to fix up this property. As you can see,
it's in pretty bad condition. This side right here is actually bulging out.
The surrounding uses in this neighborhood are mostly multifamily. This property has always
been two units, and it's got two separate entrances. The proposed use would therefore
be consistent with other properties that are in the neighborhood. We met, as I said before,
with the RCO on August 19th. And as a result of our meeting, we did get the full support
of the RCO Community Land Trust Corporation for our proposal to convert this into two units.
We have since changed our plans. We submitted proviso plans. We are now going to remove
a rear balcony that had been on the initial submission. And we're also going to be reducing
the fence that we proposed in the rear yard. Previously, it had been a six-foot fence. We're
now going to reduce it to a four-foot-high fence with 50% opacity. And those two changes are in
response to comments that we received from the RCO. And so the purpose of today's hearing, like I
said before is just to vote on the application those changes make have caused any revision to
the plan yes and we submitted proviso plans um i'm sorry how many pages are revised i believe
that there were two pages if i stop my share i can just go through my emails and i can pull up
we sent to Sharon. There's two pages, the site plan and exterior elevations.
Do you have to bring a witness on? Do you need to bring a witness on?
my client is on and our project architect is also available if you have any questions
let's get your let's get your client to adopt your testimony first and then we'll see if we
need the architect sure and if you want to raise your hand
hello hi mr mr ty yes this is hontai yeah good afternoon please spell your name your first and
last name for the record yes that's hontai h-o-a-n last name is t-h-a-i you swear and affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed
did you hear my testimony this afternoon i did was everything that i said true and accurate
yes and would you adopt it as your own yes and was there anything that you wanted to
add to my testimony no thank you any questions from the board no no would anyone else like to
testify on this in this case if so please raise your hand no hands thank
you planning commission good afternoon chairman members of the board Ian
Litwin planning commission staff this parcel is owned RM1 residential
This parcel is zoned RM1 residential multifamily. The area was remapped in 2007 and this parcel
multifamily the area was
remains zoned RM1. We have no opposition to two units on a lot this size and support the
provisos to remove the rear deck and make the fence zone and code compliant. Thank you. MI-2020-000077
1254 north 19th street my vote is yes with proviso revised plan two pages approved today
yes or proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso
thank you okay next one up thank you very much you're welcome next one up is mi 2020
20-001-309, 109 Pleasant Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
Do I have to be sworn in again or no?
no thank you you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate its accuracy
no we do not okay have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of
ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans yes sorry
five days prior to this hearing so yes okay have you met with the rco and have a letter yes thank
you please proceed okay um so this is 109 pleasant street it's actually 109 through 21 pleasant street
um this project generated a couple of refusals mostly what we're here for is um similar to the
prior case that we just did um we're looking to subdivide uh what is over 11 000 square feet of
rsa 5 into nine uh lots to provide single family homes with accessory off-street parking access by
a front street, but also access kind of through a shared driveway for the home.
So I'm going to have Scott, the architect from Design Lens, go through the plans.
Then we'll go through the refusals and, you know, discuss the community portion as well.
Does he need to be the panelist?
Yes, please.
While we're doing that, Brandon, if you're still on, if you want to quickly go through why we don't stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal, and then it'll be a lot more clear and obvious once Scott shows the plans.
Okay, I would be happy to do so, and I assume I'm still sworn in as well.
Yes, you are. Thank you.
okay um if you uh do you want to show the refusal uh scott or rachel who's ever in control the
screen um there are three types of refusals that were generated um the majority of them eight of
them are for minimum lot area and that is actually the only type of refusal that we believe was
issued properly. The other two refusals pertain only to one of the nine planned lots, that lot
being 106 Meehan Avenue. It is sort of the flag piece, as you see there. The refusals for 106
Meehan are minimum side yard width and minimum rear yard depth at parking. And these were
generated because the examiner determined 106 Meehan Avenue to be a semi-detached lot.
But I just quickly want to walk the board through the definitions of attached versus semi-detached
building and explain why we believe the building should rightfully have been determined to be an
attached building. 106 Meehan Avenue is a lot that will be bounded to the west side by the adjacent
property line and a party wall that's 102 Meehan Avenue. On the east side, you'll see the driveway
that serves the rest of the complex runs in a non-exclusive easement area. So the actual wall
of 106 Meehan, the building, is going to run adjacent to the edge of the easement area.
And then the property itself continues to the other side of the driveway easement.
So if you take a look at the definition section of the zoning code, it says that an attached building is, for intermediate lots, a building with both side building walls located on or at the side lot line.
So if you take a look at the definition section of the zoning code.
and furthermore lot line is defined as a boundary line delineating one lot from another lot street
or any public or private means of vehicular or pedestrian traffic so we have an attached building
here because the building is bounded on both sides by lot lines to the west it's bounded in
the traditional sense by another lot. To the east, it's bounded by a means of vehicular
private traffic, which is a lot line under the zoning code, section 14203.178. So if you assume
to the contrary of the examiner that this is an attached building, the two refusals issued
wouldn't apply because table 147011 explicitly states that the minimum side yard width requirement
does not apply to attached buildings in RSA 5 whereas the examiner determined that the side
yard requirement does apply we don't believe it does in addition the rear yard depth requirement
similarly um it's a little unclear actually what the examiner's intent was here it states in the
refusal that divide the non-conformity was minimum rear yard depth but there's actually
code sections that are cited for other things such as parking in the rear yard um i'll address
both real fast even though parking in the rear yard is not stated in the refusal parking in the
rear yard in RSA 5, again, would have been permitted if this was classified as an attached
building. And when parking is permitted, the parking does not sort of disqualify your rear
yard for counting towards the setback. So in essence, if this was an attached building,
we would have met the rear yard depth requirement.
So in grand summary there,
if this is considered an attached building
rather than a semi-detached building or a twin,
which I think it's not both just in, you know,
looking at it and per the definitions,
if you make the right classification,
neither of those refusals should have been issued.
Thanks.
Great.
okay scott if you want to go through the plans that would be great yeah i can get sworn in
we want to do that first sorry before you go any further any uh board member tom do you have any
questions about that no no question okay thank you actually i have a question this is sharon saletta
can you um explain again which refusals remain just for the uh lot sizes
thank you yep so just that one minimum lot area and uh who is speaking now
rachel pritzker no no i know i'm sorry you called someone up oh scott woodruff who is our architect
all right i don't think we swore him in yet or did we you didn't go ahead yeah
please identify yourself with the record name and address by your last name
Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F, 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
So to walk through the overall project, thanks, Brandon, for going over those refusals in depth.
I'm going to go over generally kind of the scope of the project and then go into some of the revisions and things that we did with working with the community to kind of enhance the project a little bit more and kind of fit in a little bit more with the neighborhood.
Our overall goal at the island side of this project from a development was to create single-family homes that had accessory parking and also fit in with the surrounding block face and somewhat with the character of the neighborhood to the greatest extent that we could.
uh so we're proposing nine single-family homes here is pleasant street to the south there's
eight homes uh that face pleasant street and then there's one home uh on the back side of
the block which is mehan avenue that has one home with uh the 12-foot driveway easement
the 12-foot driveway easement that allows parking for all the homes, which is a private
that allows parking
Thank you.
driveway easement for those. The homes are three stories in height, brick facades with
a man-sided roof, going over the lands, three-bedroom, three-bathroom houses, roughly 2,400
square feet, living space in the basement, like medium room, living, dining, kitchen on the first
floor, two bedrooms on the second floor with a bathroom, and then master suite level on the
third floor with a pilot house and accessory roof deck. The houses are 16 feet 6 in width,
depth, which is the lot dimension, by a total of 35 feet 3 inches in depth.
uh looking at the elevation of the homes uh originally
the frozen
we had these homes at sorry about that
I was just saying originally we had these buildings at 36.6.
We met with the community to move them down, so they're currently at 35.6 in height under
the 38 feet threshold, trying to minimize impacts on the neighboring buildings.
Just going over some of the things that were important to the community that we addressed
and things that we did specifically to minimize impacts on the neighbors we actually pushed these
houses back three feet from the front property line and this was really to give some extra relief
to the street frontage for pedestrians as well as added in a three-foot furnishing like grass zone
against the curb as well as a total of eight street trees along the facade so you can kind
see just something something that was very convenient community was having a little bit
more green infrastructure and just a little bit of a greener aspect in the pedestrians going forward
we also revised the facade a few times looking at creating more of a community kind of stoop
porch feel at the front facades we went to a more traditional red brick which fits into the community
as well as sloped back these roofs
from where we initially submitted as well,
again, to minimize impacts on the street feel on the block.
We also revised the Meehan Street side as well,
similarly to the Pleasant Street side,
creating a front porch on the front of the house
to kind of match the adjacent structures.
as well as matching up the the cornice lines with the existing houses on the block and again
wrapping these materials back through the drive aisle creating two faces of the brick facades
and continuing the roof line to give a more attractive appearance to pedestrians and also for
the residents of these homes driving to the rear of the houses.
other things that just to note that were addressed from the community's meetings and standpoint
there was a large concern about flooding in this area so the developers have
committed to doing impervious saving material through the parking area
um and also at this uh yard space back here uh again just to minimize as much
potential impervious uh paving which which was a concern of the community
uh rachel is there anything else you'd like me to go over with the design specifically
um no i think it's just worth mentioning to just circle back to the refusal that we bring up
the sizes of the lots so that we can show that the whole goal of this was instead of providing
six large homes that don't really fit in with this block in particular, that nine smaller single
family homes to keep a more affordable price point and lots that are in line with the existing
uh block was the idea behind this and then obviously we wanted to address sort of the
block was the idea behind this. And then obviously we wanted to address
design considerations that were important to the community so um we kind of took that that extra
step um to sort of make sure that we were able to cover some of that so um if you unshare your
screen i will share mine to show the lot sizes and then um can go through the community part
okay so here we put together a chart um just to show um so 109 through 121 um there are actually
only three lots right now a total of i think 11 800 square feet something like that um and we
instead, again, are creating 11,868 square feet. Instead, we're proposing nine single-family homes
with these lot sizes, 1246, 1201, and you can see sort of the rest, all within 1189 to 1246
square feet. As you can see from the chart, we pulled every other property on our side of the
block. And as you can see, we sort of are right in the middle, if not closer to the bigger end of
what's provided on the block. We have, you know, 1026, 994, 2146 is the largest, I think that's on
the corner, 1207, you know, and as the board can see, we're sort of right in the middle there. So,
and the community had expressed, you know, interest in smaller homes. And in addition,
again, we tried to lower the height of the buildings from 38 feet and some other
thoughtful considerations um you know in order to address those concerns so i'm happy to sort of
um and also just so the board's aware we did provide revised plans to the board as well so
with the proviso form so i want to make sure that that that gets included as well uh brandon i don't
know if i forgot anything or you want to add anything um before we kind of move on to the
community portion sure just a few quick items i promise not to talk about the definition of
attached building anymore um so um just on the areas front um just want to add that what the
design uh sort of grew from here was working with the existing lot depths and then trying to conform
the widths to match exactly what's around them i think we're at 16 and a half feet width uh per
property or thereabouts um if you conformed with the code it would require much larger widths than
anything around us and this is a row home neighborhood so it just it would be out of
context they'd be very large houses um did just want to provide quick hardship explanations for
um the two um refusals that we did not stip to in the event that the board finds that they were
correctly issued the hardship we would float regarding the rear yard depth requirement is
simply that to accommodate a rear yard that some of which is essentially grass not at all dedicated
to parking you would move the space the parking area closer to the rear of that building on 106
mehan which could be done but it would make the the driver pulling out of that space into the
shared driveway have to do so closer to the curb cut on mehan avenue so putting the parking space
in the far rear of that property really creates less conflict between people entering the driveway
from the street and the owner of that home pulling out of their space with regard to the
side yard with we could have avoided that refusal by placing the driveway um into a curb cut on
pleasant rather than mehan but there is an existing curb cut on mehan there are other curb cuts on
mehan um and um there are no curb cuts to my knowledge on pleasant street um so with the
existing curb cut across the street on Meehan and a few others, that seemed to be the more natural
choice. I think that's all I wanted to add. Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. I just wanted to say
that if you are asking the board to independently rule on your challenges to the refusals, this will
have to be continued and resumed at another time when the law, someone from the law department can
come in and present their side of it. Yeah, no, we're just not stipulating to them. Sure, that's fine.
Yeah. No, we're just not stipulating to them. Sure. Yeah. And just keeping that on the record,
but yeah, no, thank you. Happy to take any questions. We did meet with the community
and we have a letter of, I think, opposition, but it wasn't, let me pull it up.
Mostly was relating to wanting a lot of open space and design features that we had already
addressed or tried to address concerns about traffic and things of that nature, I believe
we provided a letter to the board. It was, share my screen again so you can see it.
So it was five in support of three near neighbors and 28 in opposition, 13 near neighbors,
41 people in attendance and the letter kind of says they don't believe we have a hardship
they think that the 106 mehan would permanently impair an adequate supply of light and air to
the building however 106 mehan is only attached on the one side and then there's a dry vial and
then a two-foot alleyway between the nearest property um could you could you enlarge counselor
Can you enlarge that letter?
Yeah, absolutely.
If I can figure out how to do that, sure.
Oh, is that better?
Thank you.
Let's see.
They believed the 12-foot driveway wasn't adequate for cars,
although we did have it stamped off by the streets department.
And again, if we provided a driveway all the way through to Pleasant Street, I think that
that would not be the best way to modify the drive aisle.
If the board is interested, Scott Kent, who designed this project, can certainly talk
through that more proficiency than I can.
They were worried about the Wingahawk sewer shed.
However, you know, in order to address issues with flash, blood-prone areas, we have
decided that we would increase the amount of impervious cover and make sure that some of it
is pervious so that we can address some of those issues. I think the community is just used to
having sort of this infill development there. So we were trying to help with the smaller size of
the homes to address some of that in addition to reducing the height. We also are providing trees.
another one of their concerns was environmental damage and the tree canopy. So we did add trees
and again, we set the properties back from the front so that we could provide more landscaping.
It's also worth noting as per the 2035 plan that this area is designated as a core growth area as
it's like 600 feet away from Germantown Avenue and specifically suggests infill development
in order to help strengthen the nearby commercial corridor. So we felt that all this was also
aligned with that as well um happy to address any questions that the board may have or go into
anything else uh in more detail if if relevant uh thank you can you hear me yep okay i had to leave
and come back because i lost my ability to talk um any other questions from the board yes what
percentage of the basement is in the ground say that again tom what percentage of the basement
is in the ground scott do you know what percentage of the basement is underground
uh yes i believe it's roughly 75 percent
so we're uh raised off two feet six is the uh first floor level um and then there's an eight
foot basement height the basement uh is really meant for accessory man cave media room um
and then also just building utilities coming into the house as well thank you you um
uh any other questions from the board
and okay are there any is there anyone else who would like to
participate in this hearing. If so, please raise your hand. Sure, I have Kelly O'Day.
Tanya, before we go any further, do we have more than one hand? Do we know
on this case? A billion. Yeah, that's what I figured. I didn't want to have to stop the flow
of this to take a break because I assume the stenographer can use a break.
So I'm asking the stenographer, does she need a break?
So I'm asking the stenographer, does she need a break?
I don't know.
Or if you do, just let us know, please.
Okay, that's fine.
All right, because after this, we have one more hearing on the two o'clock list,
and we will certainly take a break before we go into the 3.30 list.
Okay, that's good.
All right.
Okay, thank you, Tanya.
Kelly O'Day can be sworn in Chair.
Hello this is Kelly O'Day. Hi Mr. O'Day please identify yourself spell your first and last name
for the record and give us your address. The name is Kelly O'Day that's K-E-L-L-Y
and the last name is O apostrophe D-A-Y. The address is 301 East Durham Street in Mount East
man area philadelphia you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do and where do you live in proximity to this application uh it's approximately five blocks away
well out of the area um i am on the eastbound area zoning committee and i consider eastbound areas
you know where i live you will with all due respect we appreciate that if you're speaking
on behalf of the civic the RCO then you'll need an attorney no I'm speaking as a individual
resident of East Mount Airy I understand that but you're well beyond uh the the uh allow the
distance is what 250 feet I get it wrong all the time in your neighbors that's correct sir it is
yes it's 250 or the same 100 block five blocks away yes that's correct
you don't allow other neighbors no no we do but you're beyond
charon can you want to help me chair he can speak as a representative of the rco it's only if the
rco is the appellant in the case oh that's right i'm sorry i confuse it with the earlier i'm sorry
mr oday i confuse it with the earlier case please proceed i'm sorry i am speaking as an individual
Yes. Okay. You're fine. Yeah. I misspoke. My apologies.
None taken. I do that all the time. I wonder if I could possibly share my screen. I have several
photographs I think would help the board to understand the 106 million situation.
Is that possible to share my screen?
Anya? Sure. Give me one second.
Thank you.
well while Mr. O'Day is trying to uh share his screen is there anyone else maybe we can move on
to the next person and come back to Mr. O'Day we have Charles Richardson from the council person's
office thank you Mr. Richardson good afternoon good afternoon Mr. Chair uh Charles Richardson
from the Office of Councilperson, Cindy Bass,
Room 312, City Hall.
You're still on the roof from this morning.
Thank you.
Councilwoman is supporting the RCO
and the community on this and her opposition.
Does not feel that there is a hardship here.
By right, they could subdivide the lot into six
as opposed to nine,
and it looks like they're just trying to maximize
the investment that they're trying to do, even though they might be trying to sugarcoat it in
some shape, form, or fashion. It just is really trying to maximize an investment.
Feel as though they have not proven that to be the case, and we are going to support the RCO in
opposition. Thank you. Anyone else? Please raise your hand.
we have nina curlett you can unmute yourself and wait to be some more name
good afternoon miss curlett please identify yourself for the record name and address
spell your name for the stenographer sure my name is nina curlett n-i-n-a-c-u-r-l-e-t-t
i live at 236 east springer street oh there's kelly
all right you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
all right you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed um i would like to make um a couple of points here and actually it is
very much on um point with what charles richardson said um specifically when the community had their
meeting there were many questions about what the actual hardship was because frankly most of the
most of me and street is zoned rsa3 it's not even rsa5 the adjoining block to that is zoned rsa3
and um the lots are actually much wider on me and alone so at some point someone on the chat said
can you please explain the hardship you face which requires eight lots versus six and this is what
Rachel Pritzker said. To address Brian's question, we are not arguing that we couldn't sell six
bigger homes. We were just considering it might be a little better, a context, to provide smaller
homes in conjunction to what's there. It's not about selling or not selling. That's not what
this conversation is about. Can I jump in for a second? Your kind of context, first of all,
you have to read through the whole on these zooms if you read through the whole chat to what brian
said and then what i said so i don't appreciate just part of it being provided um what i had
what he said was well can't you guys sell six homes and i said the conversation's not about
selling or not selling where that's not we're there for obviously um we're there because we
wanted to provide something as you can see from what kelly has up um you know see how small these
lots are versus the mehan lot which we're leaving the same size just putting a dry vial and we're
actually going to be subdividing Pleasant Street the conversation was not about selling or not
selling or investment or money it was more so to provide something more in context with the square
footages of the lot which we've provided so I the board was not there for that and you're not
providing evidence of that I don't appreciate you know and I think I think Ms. Pritchard in her
earlier testimony spoke to the fact that yes they can build bigger homes but they thought the smaller
ones would be more in line with the cost uh of being able to sell these uh they would be more
affordable correct i'm paraphrasing okay correct is was a an effort to try to um disguise the fact
that what they're doing is not necessarily for the good of the community but for the good of
pocketbooks of their i i would have let's i i think that i i i think it's a little bit inappropriate
I mean, it is what it is. Sure, they can build less. They would be larger homes and they would
be selling for more money. The profit margin might be the same. I don't know. I'm not going
to get into that. Okay. Well, either way, I'd like to put this into record. I do have it typed
up and however I can submit that, that would be wonderful. And the transcript is available as well.
I appreciate that. Thank you. Anyone else?
we have dana chair
yes hi um i'm speaking i'm a part of the rco i'm an east mount area neighbor zoning committee
member dana please identify yourself spell your first and last name and give us your address
my first name is dana d-a-n-a my last name is fidelity f as in frank e d e-l-i and i live at
421 Wadsworth Avenue. Thank you. We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do, yes. Please proceed. Thank you. I wanted to talk a few things.
Ms. Pritzker mentioned that the letter and the meeting had a lot of items related to the design
review, which is not completely accurate. We also discussed the details of traffic because what a
lot of people don't realize who don't live in the neighborhood is that Meehan Avenue is incredibly
has a lot of traffic issues that are
Ms. Fideli we're not hearing you
Ms. Fideli the last we heard was something about Meehan Avenue
and having this driveway situated where it is
can anyone can anyone hear me yeah it causes a lot of miss fidelli miss fidelli
can you hear me now yes we can hear you fine okay
miss fidelli with all due respect uh we couldn't hear you and i was trying to get your attention
the last i heard was something about traffic on me and avenue
yes so if you can pick up from that point we'd appreciate it we lost your
So, if you can pick up from that point, we'd appreciate it.
We lost your audio.
Okay, Dana, you can unmute yourself, but you're breaking up pretty bad.
All right, why don't we do this, Tanya?
Let's go back to Mr. O'Day, if he's ready.
Yes, I am.
Thank you.
This map shows you 106, as Ms. Pritzker explained, and then 109 and 121 Pleasant.
I want to talk about 106 for just a minute.
It's a very important part of this.
106 was attached to 108 Meehan Avenue.
And 102, which is the one on the left, I'm sorry, on the right in this picture, was built in approximately 1901.
I can see from the maps that 106, 108, and 110 were three houses built together, attached.
They were there in 1895. I can't tell you how much before that.
The original proposal for 106 was on the property or actually on the on the wall of 102. We pointed out that there is in fact a two foot wide parcel for 104. And so the applicant did move the building so that it was on the on the 104 parcel line, not the 102 parcel line.
The concern, though, is that since the house was originally built attached to 108, 106 always has been an unattached house.
It has three windows, as you can see, on its west side.
And when 106 was there, before it was demolished, there was a 14-foot setback between the 102 west wall and the 106's east wall.
So to put the new 106, it should actually be on the 108 side and not on the 106 side, because it will completely block the three windows, which were there for over 100 years.
If I'm correct, it's a 1901 house. It was there for over 100 years with the three windows having no obstruction.
I'd like to now go to 109 and 121. I want to call your attention I believe you realize this now
that the front footage for Pleasant Street is 132 feet. The applicant is proposing 16
and a half foot parcels eight of them. What we've identified are two by right options that they have
They could preserve the existing house, which is an 1870 house, and build four additional units, restore the 1870 house, and build four additional units, 20 by 72.
It is a 72-foot deep lot, 20 feet wide, would certainly be consistent with the neighborhood, or they could build six of them, 20 by 72, and demolish the 121.
Now, there's been some talk about the size.
Could you go back to that 121?
I want to see it again, please.
What I've simply done is copied the L&I's refusal
and then simply tried to show
that there are two buy-write options there.
Yeah, I know.
I just want to see your...
The layout you show where the Meehan properties,
the width of the Meehan properties
that butt up against Pleasant.
So the width of the Meehan...
well you just had it well okay all right there's me and right there yes all right the width of
these me and properties it's 28 feet why yes 28 feet why that's the frontage that's correct
the me and property is 28 feet no the other no the other properties not not the one and not 106
the other properties i guess it's 109 and 121 right pleasant no the me and properties going
from 106 going oh those are 16 and a half foot wide they would be they would be consistent with
what is being proposed yes that's correct all right what's important on 106 though sir is
that it is a 28 foot parcel dating back to 1901 I get the 106 I just want to make sure that I was
saying this correctly that what is proposed for Pleasant Street is consistent with the same
What is proposed for Pleasant Street is consistent with the same width of the properties on East Millen.
Right. Yes. OK. Thank you. Now, let's go through the property areas.
This is the circle you talked to me about before, the 250 foot circle or the same 100 block.
It turns out there are 206 properties in the circle. We'll call it a circle.
It's not exactly a circle, but for purposes of this discussion, the 1440 is an important minimum number.
It turns out that there are 104 parcels less than 1440 square feet, and there are 102 parcels greater than 1440.
And you can see I've highlighted in blue the three parcels that are subject to today's hearing.
but kelly is it fair to say that some of those are also zoned rsa3 that require larger lots and
and ours are rsa5 just want to make that because that's not um mentioned on these plans so
that's correct this is a mix of rsa3 and rsa5 what i wanted to point out to make sure that
the board understood the context of the 200 foot 250 foot circle is that nearly half of the
properties are smaller than 1440 and nearly half of them are larger than 1440. And we can do the
102 versus the 104 and get the fraction, but I think you'd agree they're both close to 50%.
These houses were all built before the 1962 land use code was adopted. In fact, you can go back
and see them on the 1942 code, and many of them show up on the 1932 code. So they happen to have
been built under previous codes, but I think that the 1440 is a reasonable yardstick for this
immediate area in East Mount Airy. But if we had done it 1440, we can't, we would have,
if you just divide it by six, I think you get closer to 1,978 square feet,
And then you still have a 28-foot wide on Meehan, which we're leaving in place to keep the character.
And to your point, Kelly, most of them across from us and are next to us are under 1440.
So we're trying to stay in character with what's been there.
So if the conversation is about historical context, then that's exactly what we're trying to do.
Instead of put giant homes similar to what you'd find on Gorgas Lane, which is two blocks up from this property.
It's also worth mentioning that the other person who spoke on the call lives about 10 blocks away. So, you know, both of them probably live on blocks that have a larger mix and different characters. So again, the whole point is to provide more affordable homes at around a $400,000 price point, instead of a $600,000 or $700,000 price point more in line with what's there.
In addition, you know, using the extra square footage for the 28 feet and width for a drive out because some of the concerns were about parking that there's not enough parking or off street parking so it's hard to combat wanting parking and then also having an issue with traffic or you know the way that we're providing the parking you can't, you know, it's a double edged sword sometimes so we're just trying to mitigate the bigger concern which we think is the need for accessory off street parking.
Nina lives on, I think she said Wadsworth, which is 10 blocks away.
So I don't want to interrupt, but Dana lives on Wadsworth.
Dana, my apologies.
Dana lives on Springer, which is three blocks away.
Okay, but neither of which live on Pleasant or East Meehan.
Can I establish, try to establish, Mr. O'Day, are you speaking as a representative for the RCO?
I tried to make it clear.
I am speaking as a East Marinari neighbor.
That's all.
All right. Just want to know, because I believe there's a number of other people who want to speak.
And my guess is we're going to hear pretty much the same testimony.
I'm not trying to rush this along, but I hear what you're saying.
You did a lot of homework. I appreciate that, as the other board members do.
So you can summarize. That would be helpful.
Yes. I'd like to just make sure that you see the green color are the ones that are smaller than 1440,
1440 and the brown are the ones larger than 1440 and I just ask that you recognize that between
me and Pleasant there are a mix of both of those that's all I just wanted to get across the point
that 1440 is not a magic size and it you know it's too big I think it there's plenty of them
that have that size that's all but I would ask you to consider very carefully the placement of
106 building, that I believe it should be next to the 108, which was its original location
and not next to 102 which is a completely you know foreign to it as far as that's not where
and not next to 102, which is a completely, you know.
it was originally there you're saying flip it to the other side correct the other side the person
that would allow 102 to still have the three windows unobstructed that's correct which is
what the original design was has that been has that been uh discussed rachel yeah we we did uh
Scott can speak to this. We did look at it. As you're well aware, you're not allowed to put
windows on the side of a property line because if we were to put an attached home here, they would
cover both of the fully attached without any drive out. It would be abutting both the party
wall and that structure. Yeah, I understand that, but I don't know what was there prior. Was there
an alley separating 102 from 104 or whatever next, you know? There was a two-foot alley that
was that was there but then there was also the fact there's still that alleyway then i'm doug
who's the owner can speak to this as well he's uh writing me there is a two-foot alleyway that
will still remain so i can share the civil subdivision plans yeah that that would be
helpful and and just to make sure there's uh there will still be an alleyway um between
so it wouldn't be covering all the light and air from the windows on the side of the property
I would need to have Kelly stop sharing the screen.
Thank you, Kelly.
I'm trying to understand what the real, the meat of the issue is here.
Is it the number of houses? Is it 106? A combination of that? I'm just trying to figure
What if the folks in the community, and I'm not asking them to how to design something, with the landness that you have, what would they come up with?
Mr. DiCicco, I'm not sure if I'm on mute.
Can you hear me now?
This is Dana Fidelli again.
We can.
So what we were trying to say, or what I was trying to say earlier, is that traffic causes a major concern.
There's already a number of accidents that occur in this area.
and putting that driveway on me in the way that it is that they're proposing it to be situated,
there was a lot of discussion that night. And the neighbors also proposed perhaps putting like a
straight through driveway that there's an entrance on Pleasant and an entrance on me and it connects
that way in order to have all directions flow, you know, in one same way and, you know, to stop
all of these issues that even Ellen and I pointed out that there are safety concerns of the way
people pull in and out of those spaces, who might hit another person's car, things of that nature.
The other issues that were brought up is that with over the 60% increase of impervious cover,
this increases significantly the possibility of flooding, which is an issue that we have.
And also LNI had an issue with the density and the neighbors fully support and appreciate LNI
looking out for us and taking in consideration the reason that they, you know, looked at
us for the 2035 and why they've zoned everything the way that it is.
We uphold what LNI is proposing here, and we really think that it should stay that way.
I understand, you know, the complexities of whether or not to introduce parking as a part
of a project, but this is near a commercial corridor.
So that's also something to keep in mind. You know, I know that the city also pushes for homes and other areas, other buildings that are near major roadways to consider that as a factor.
so there's a lot to unpack here and unfortunately all of the information that the neighbors tried
to provide in a discussion as what if you know did you consider this did you consider that
and every answer which I think Nina was trying to say was that basically everything kept boiling
down to it didn't maximize investment as Mr. Richardson said oh I recall the conversation
to be fair dana anyway but look everybody understands it it's not this projects like
this are done because there's an economic benefit to it we that's nothing wrong with that we
understand we understand it's not but when you're saying that there's a 3.2 million dollar profit
for these for this i i you never that is not that is not we the board has no we don't take that into
consideration no i understand that but when you're saying that ms pritzker is allowed to say that
she's providing what she's calling affordable housing at $400,000 to $500,000.
Ms. Pritzker, I'm speaking, please.
All right, hold on, ladies.
Ladies, could you hear me?
could you hear me uh chair i can hear you i muted everyone please be respectful and do not speak
Chair, I can hear you.
I'm muted.
Everyone, please be ready.
over each other we have a court reporter who has to report everything please do not speak unless
addressed by the chair thank you chair whoever you wish to go next thank you i just want to point out
that miss pritzer said they'd be more affordable so you can play with that word as much as we want
she just that was based that's exactly what i heard her say all right uh does anybody have
anything new and different so we do have six hands up chair and new new and different and i don't
mean to be rushing folks um but um as the chair we also have a matter that has to be written to
record soon the law department is waiting on the line um so as you wish i can call now we have
seven people so it's your call james uh could we read that um into the record and come right back
to this hearing it's your call yeah why don't we do that and sharon are you reading it into the
record so all folks can we see if leonard i'm sorry i have the department here yes yeah leonard's
still here so the folks uh who are here for pleasant street just just hold on for a few
minutes, we have some very important information that has to be read into the record.
And Leonard, if you could go ahead and do that, explain what it is there.
Okay, hold on.
Just a second.
I'm sorry, Leonard.
I wanted to pause so that you can get this matter done.
No, that's okay.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Leonard has another appointment.
No, that's okay.
I appreciate it.
So anyway, this, as you're probably aware, the Zoning Board passed a regulation or adopted a regulation back on June 22nd.
That was the regulation that essentially reopened the Zoning Board and also allowed for certain timings with respect to RCO meetings
and whatnot to take place so that regulation expired so we need to basically adjust some of
the language so that we can move forward again with it and I'm just going to read it into the
record and I'm seeing that unfortunately there's a typo here but I'm going to read in read it in
with the correction and make sure that you have that so it's zoning board of adjustment emergency
regulations regarding public hearing notice requirements for zoning hearings and other
related matters. On March 22, 2020, as part of a series of emergency declarations and orders,
the mayor and health commissioner issued an emergency order temporarily prohibiting operation
of non-essential businesses to prevent the spread of COVID-19, quote, emergency order, unquote,
which was approved as a regulation of the Board of Health on March 26, 2020, effective March 27,
of 2020 as this next paragraph is part of a series of emergency declarations and orders
the mayor and health commissioner determined on may 29th 2020 that philadelphia could move to
the commonwealth's yellow phase with additional philadelphia specific restrictions that would
apply in addition to restrictions established by the governor including limitations on outdoor dining
and to implement that decision executed an order entitled emergency order allowing limited reopening
of businesses advising philadelphians that they are safer at home and establishing safety measures
to prevent the spread of 2019 novel coronavirus, COVID-19.
Yellow phase of reopening to become implemented,
that decision effective on the date determined by the governor
and the city of Philadelphia should move into the yellow phase on June 5th, 2020.
On June 22nd, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted an emergency regulation
regarding public meeting notice requirements for zoning hearings
and other related matters.
Pursuant to its powers is set forth in section 8-407 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter and subsection 14-103 sub 4 sub B of the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment hereby amends its June 22nd, 2020 emergency regulations regarding public meeting notice requirements for zoning hearings and other related matters as follows.
uh affected period quote so what we're doing is uh this is an aside we're we're amending that prior
uh regulation by changing some of the dates um so affected period in quotation marks
means this is section one of that regulations being amended so affected period means the period
beginning on march 13 2020 through january 31st 2021 unless further extended uh by the zoning board
January 31st, 2021, unless further extended by the Zoning Board.
So that previously ended September 30th, so that's what we're basically extending to January 31st, 2021.
The Board's emergency regulation of March 18, 2020 is hereby repealed and replaced as follows.
For all matters where the appeal deadline would have fallen between March 13, 2020 and June 22, 2020,
notwithstanding the board's emergency regulation of march 18th 2020 the deadline for filing an
appeal is deemed to have been july 6th 2020 so yeah but last time there was a whole thing
the night we went to use it it was gone i'm sorry that was someone who unmuted themselves
okay you can continue uh for all matters where the appeal deadline falls on a date on or after
June 22nd, 2020, the appeal deadline shall be a set forth in the zoning code, and that's the end
of the sentence. We had given them an additional 14 days, but since June 22nd, which is when you
all basically restarted, there's no reason to give people that additional time. So everybody is now
on the same timeline that's set forth in the code. Based on the mayor's March 11, 2020 declaration of
extraordinary circumstance that allows regulations related to addressing the pandemic
to become effective immediately upon transmission to the department of records this emergency
regulation shall be effective immediately so i'm gonna
if you have any questions just let me know i'm gonna fix the typos but uh i read those in
the way they should be read in i think that leonard do we does the board need to take a vote on this
yes okay so we're going to we're going to vote to adopt yes the was that the resolution or
it's a regulation it's a regulation amending a prior emergency regulation yes all right so i
move that we the zoning board adopt a regulation that had been previously correct me from wrong
leonard um previously adopted yes this would be an emergency regulation um
um uh regarding uh you know the you could just say we move to adopt the regulation just read
into the record by mr just read into the record by yeah that would work yes all right all right
so i move that the board adopt the regulations that have just been read into the record by
leonard reuter of the law department
i get a second i second second favor aye all right we're adopted
uh thank you leonard thank thank you very much and i'll make sure that sharon also gets the
typo corrected copy so thank you very much thank you thank you uh before we begin with
this hearing I'm going to reach out to the stenographer again would you like to have a few
minute break um yes okay all right everyone we're going to take a 10 minute break
if you're back if you're back before 10 we'll start don't rush take your time
Take your time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm ready.
Although other people may not be.
okay uh are we back on yes is everyone ready to proceed
thank you and uh yep again uh i understand there's still a number of people who want to
want to be heard we appreciate their waiting and their patience we just ask and i repeat this i'm
sure after everybody speaks that you uh something new and different um so we'll begin i think the
last person who was on uh I don't know Todd you probably have a better handle I know it was uh
was it Miss Fidelli um I don't see her Mr. Oaday we already heard from Mr.
if you want to be you want to be heard please raise your hand
i have um susan o if she could be heard next because she has a conflict
sure good afternoon ma'am please identify yourself with the records by your name and
and give us your address
okay miss o your zoom is not compatible at the
Okay, Ms. O, your Zoom is not compatible at the moment.
I will promote you to panelists.
Good afternoon, Ms. O, please unmute yourself.
Hi, please spell your name for the record.
Can you guys hear me now?
My name is Susan Oh, spelled S-U-S-A-N-O-H. I live at 108 Nihon Avenue.
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
So I guess I just wanted to start because we are the adjacent lot to 106.
I have three very young children, so my concerns are, you know, just to start, such a long extended demolition and upheaval construction site period in such close proximity to our home, with my kids,
and also the seven adjacent lots and neighbors that would be affecting us for a very long period
of time. The noise, the dust, the debris, the heavy machinery. These are all things that pose
different levels of threat to not just our livelihood, but our day-to-day lives.
Over at best, a very optional construction. None of this is mandatory or necessary.
And myself, our block captain, many neighbors, we've over the past two weeks since we had our community meeting October 7th with the architecture firm, we've been going door to door and it's a pretty, it's a unanimous voice that we just really want this variance denied.
Thank you.
and um you know we we just have lots of we wonder why such um radical development projects
are rarely seen in our very close neighbors in chestnut hill even closer two blocks west where
there's far more land and i understand that with all due respect we're actually need this we need
to focus on this proposal not compared to other neighborhoods i understand thank you for bringing
back um and i'm able to share my screen because i just want to show everyone
please advise what you're sharing um this is the current view of pleasant street
and this is a lot of the we don't have it yet
they're just they're photo of the current street
um oh am i not able to share
um so this is a lot of the tree canopy and green space that we would be losing to an optional
construction decision um as you heard i'm not sure if you heard from kelly's presentation but
the philadelphia minimum tree canopy for each neighborhood is 30 east mount airy is already
way below the minimum of 19.1 percent and this would just be
um a devastating loss of tree canopy and green space on our street that is very little left as it
is oh are you the picture you're showing now are you to the left or to the right you're to the left
i'm to the left yes okay thank you and we did already discuss all the um just the dangers of
during construction and also after with the driveway we have a very busy pedestrian street
lots of children um and the traffic would be due to residents not even living on mehant on our street
which we don't see
why that should even be.
Mr. Softee truck again.
All right.
I'm sorry.
That's okay.
So we do see these as very imminent threats to many, many people during construction, after construction.
So we do see these
as very imminent
These would be permanent devastating damages to us as a community just within our block.
So I'm only speaking on behalf of me, Anne.
and uh we're really really asking unanimously as a as a street to please
deny this variance i understand you
you're about to say oh no that that was it thank you could you actually announce
one more time how to raise your hand through your phone um no you can contact us for that
information miss uh tanya real quick uh are there more uh people to testify yeah position yes we
think this case been uh we've been hearing this case for over an hour i think in the limit was
an hour if i'm not mistaken yes you're correct chair and we have that goes to show how important
Susan, please do not speak unless directed by the chair.
Thank you.
I think our best bet is to probably continue this case.
I actually had a sidebar, not to interrupt your confession, with Sharon about that.
I just think there are a couple of things I'd like to get done before we do.
I think we may have to continue this.
I'm not sure.
i uh could rachel could you pull up the uh artist renditions showing pleasant street again please
the the artist rendition well the rendition i'm sorry the uh oh scott can you pull up
the renderings no it's okay artist rendition all right i need a break no i yeah all right
so you got one two three four nine nine houses here correct eight here and one on mehan nine
counting mehan correct uh what was the reason why you decided to use the property on mehan street as
the driveway into the rear of these properties on pleasant as opposed to as an example
taking maybe
this property here to the left
not building on that
and making that the area of ingress and egress
to get to the rear
if that's feasible
Sure, Scott can
Yeah, sure
I can see that a little bit more
And you can still build a house on Meehan Street
But you wouldn't have the driveway
and that's what I'm trying to figure out
So Meehan
is a one-way going this way. Pleasant Street is a one-way going this way, and then Musgrave
is here, so we're about three in from this direction. Let me actually pull up. It's a
little bit easier if we see it through this. John, if you can speak a little more clearly
into your microphone you're a little sorry um so a lot of uh vehicular traffic uh if you will
most likely is coming from the commercial corridor on germantown ave um and or the other main artery
which is through the neighborhood is uh you know gorges lane so coming down through either mehan
or Gorgas to Musgrave and then into development made the most amount of sense with the vehicular
traffic getting in and out. That was our rationale in putting the drive aisle on this side specifically.
It just seemed like the better location. There was also more curb cuts on Meehan than Pleasant
Street. So Pleasant Street, there's really no curb cuts at all on the block. And there seemed
to be a more substantial parking issue on the Pleasant Street side than there was on Meehan
Avenue. So our rationale was that the curb cut would be better served on a block that had more
curb cuts, as well as it has less of a parking issue on the street. I can appreciate that. I'm
just again what is the width of the 106 pleasant and the driveway combined 28 feet 28 feet
28.09 for 28.09 all right um
Tom anybody have anything to say on the board no I have a concern you say that
no i have a concern um you say that the uh basements is 70 percent in the ground
correct correct and we we pushed them down a little bit further because there's a there's
a height concern that was brought up by the neighborhood um initially but yes currently
they're they're about 70 into the ground you happen to know what the water table is
the water table level?
I do not.
I know from doing other projects in this area
that there typically is a large formation
of Wissahick and Schist.
That's around six to seven feet.
Just from projects I've done a few blocks away
in this area, there was no water on this.
But I do not have an up-to-date geotechnical
for this exact site.
Well, that's pretty much a flooded area, isn't it?
i i can only go by what the the neighbors have said i i have not seen any flooding issues uh
specifically but uh you know it is it towards uh more of a hill i would say chestnut hill
eastbound area is at least somewhere in size uh locations that um i'm not sure i i don't want to
I'm wondering if you, the reason you have so much basement space is to have enough floor space for the building, to increase the floor space of the building?
I think that's one reasoning was to just provide some accessory living space.
um typically with the developments uh we find that we need to go down uh you know at least
five or six feet to get to suitable soils which makes sense to just go another two to put a
basement that's typically the reasoning uh putting in as long as as well as utility space for
water meters water pipes sprinkler pipes uh hvac hot water heater is usually better served in a
in a basement space than on a first floor space okay thank you and just to remind the board we're
proposing i under 38 feet so that was some of the consideration was to keep in consideration that
the neighborhood wanted um you know not 38 feet so you know there's a balance with trying to
include some living space and also trying to make sure that the height is not
at 38 feet, which, you know, we're permitted to do by right, but wanted to reduce the height,
given the comments.
Sorry about that. Rachel, I'm sorry, I didn't hear your last statement.
I was just reiterating that these are under 38 feet in height. So that's also why, you know, we're trying to increase other areas of living space to kind of combat the desire of the community to not have 38 foot high, although that's permitted by the code. So, you know, we're trying to balance out all of that.
so again i'm not going to you know obviously redesign this i was just asking about the curb
cut being on the driveway being on pleasant as opposed to me and if you eliminate the driveway
on me and you got a potential to build two homes there i'm not saying that would get approved but
that's that potential so what you lose the one you lose on mount pleasant or two you lose on
mount pleasant whatever that comes to pick up on me and i'm going to offer an opportunity for the
developer uh do you think there's any benefit and continue in this case and having further
discussion with the community um i mean i can let i would like to at least let doug speak
um who's the owner and he has you know um been very involved with walking around and trying to
talk to neighbors and things like that so i'd like to at least give him the opportunity to speak and
then um if he's up for that um i mean i'm happy to do that if he's up for that however i you know
again we're just here for the sizes of the lots so i understand so anything but you know it would
be nice if we can figure no one gets 100 i said that many years ago when my other job that i had
at city hall and i always thought there's a way of coming up with a compromise 99 of times we did
come up with a compromise so that's the offer i'm extending on behalf of the board uh we'll
hear from doug and then we'll make that decision yeah absolutely and we're happy to do what the
board thinks is best thank you um tanya do you see doug bomar there's no hand up
there's no hand up
I'm asking okay now we have them thank you Mr. Bomar
Mayan hi please identify yourself for the record first and last name
Doug Bomar d-o-u-g-b-o-m-a-r thank you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed uh rachel yeah doug i just wanted you to
share kind of what the idea behind the smaller lots was and the price just reiterate on the
price point and um the idea was pretty simple i mean we looked at the block and saw
two two huge lots and it didn't seem contextual at all it didn't seem like
something that was appropriate and we wanted to build something that was appropriate
and something not only that was appropriate in design, which is really
where we start, but appropriate in price point too.
So if we looked at an as a bright option here,
it would be 132 feet divided by, you know, it would be
22 feet, it would be over 4,000 square foot
houses, which is not at all what's going
on on the block. And it's just not something that we thought made any sense. And I don't
think it, again, made any sense from a design point of view or an economic point of view.
So that was how we ended up where we ended up. I mean, with the driveway on the Meehan
side, if we were to put two houses over there, they would be actually even more narrow and
it just didn't seem to make sense. We wanted to keep a consistent street wall on the pleasant
side and have it be more of something that was better for the block and better for the
neighborhood. So that's really where we're coming from. Can you also speak to two things? One,
isn't there a pocket park or city-owned land right next door to this that we have agreed with
the neighbors that we would be supportive of helping them to get support from the city
to be able to keep some green space on the block?
Right, yeah, we certainly have talked to, we talked to the council person, I guess Bass
about the park next door in an attempt to see what the city's plans were there.
The city owns that site.
But I think our position is we would like for it to be a permanent park, and we've stated to the neighbors that we would support any effort that the neighborhood undertakes to make that happen.
Did you also talk to Susan about any construction concerns that they had, and do you have plans to help mitigate that with the neighbors?
as obviously whether this is approved via variance or by right there will be construction on this
and it's true that no matter what whether there's a variance or not there will be construction here
and so that's absolutely i understand that that's uh difficult for for neighbors and what we've
done in all of our projects is try to you know minimize the disruption do everything we can you
know put phone numbers up on the site to make sure that if people have issues they can give us a call
um uh you know we we want to minimize disruption and that's that's the bottom line and we want to
be quick with our with our construction too is it also accurate to say that you guys also own
property nearby on Springer Street and so would be in your best interest to make sure that the
construction etc is um yeah we we want to be good neighbors i mean i've i've i've walked up and down
the blocks uh many times and and last uh most recently last week and and talked to the neighbors
and you know i want to hear people's concerns i want to make sure that we consider their concerns
and i think we've done that uh to a to a large extent i mean that scott the architect here can
can certainly I think uh agree that we've made a lot of changes that he has been aggravated with
because we continue to ask him to change things based on our conversations uh with the RCO and
both you know there are two conversations with the RCO so yes but to answer your question yes
we do own property on Spring Street also and and we want to be good neighbors and have you heard
my testimony today in front of the board and do you adopt it as your own yes thank you okay
yes thank you okay you have anybody else rachel because we no okay good um i didn't get a clear
you have anybody
answer um i understand that from your client that he's been making an effort to talk to folks
as recent as his past week um so uh i'm gonna make that offer that we continue this case to
a date certain go back to the community and see if there's any way we can resolve some of their
issues again as i said most likely both sides neither side will come out with 100 but it may
be a place where we can get these properties developed get them on the city's tax roll
and move forward so if tanya can give me a date and time if that's amenable to you rachel
yeah i think um we're happy to have another conversation um and see if we can get uh anywhere
Okay. December the 15th at 2 p.m. December the 16th. 15th at 2 p.m. Thank you, Tanya.
so mi-2020-001309 106 million and 109 through 121 pleasant street this hearing will be resumed
on december the 15th at two o'clock p.m at which time we will consider any feedback related to the
rco's position thank you thank you all confessor i think we have one more case on the two o'clock
list correct we have two more uh mr two more all right next one up is mi 2020-001304
117-21 spring garden street
i'm promoting stephanie boggs
good afternoon stephanie just please identify yourself for the record you're under still under
oath good afternoon thank you my name is stephanie boggs 1835 market street philadelphia pa 19103
as attorney for the applicant.
Here with me today, I also have Jim Brett from Form and Signs
and Lenzales from Paynote Bank,
who can speak about the application.
Stephanie, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit?
No, go ahead.
With the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral,
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
yes also have you met with the rco and have a letter yes we do and their letter please proceed
um i just wanted to say this is sharon saleta we also received a letter of non-opposition from
councilman squilla i was going to ask about that in the letter from the civic association
i'm sorry rco is that a letter of non-opposition or support yes it is and the reason i'm asking and
sharon i think is asking for the same reason uh everyone seems to be in agreement with this so
if you can give us the a brief description we can move on absolutely um so this property is at the
corner of spring garden street and hope street it's directly adjacent um i can share my screen
and show you this is directly adjacent to the i-95 overpass um can you see that on the screen
chairman can you see that on the screen yes yes um so the part of the building is here it's an
existing mixed-use building with commercial tenants on the ground floor including queen
owned bank our client um who is proposing to put accessory signage on the building to identify their
location there are two signs they're proposing um both wall signs accessory to their use
One will be on the Hope Street frontage of the building, as shown here, and one will be along the I-95 intersection.
We are requesting variance relief for the height of both signs here to allow this sign to be at the third floor windowsill.
There is an existing utility pole at the second floor that prevents construction at the second floor,
and we're also proposing it at the third floor to allow people who are traveling west along Spring Garden Street
to actually see the sign as they're approaching the building with some warning.
We're also proposing a sign on the I-95 side of the building with requesting an area variance
for that as well as the height variance to put this at the fifth floor windowsill so
that it's actually visible to passers-by along I-95, and the proposed sign is shown here
on the plan.
Are there any questions from the board?
are there any questions from the board uh do you have a client that you need to
Do you have any questions?
have sworn in yes i do i'm jim brett from form and signs if you can allow him to come in
jim can you please raise your hand
and jim when you get on please identify yourself first and last name and your
status with this application hi can you hear me yes yes hi jim have you heard my testimony today
yes hold on hold on hold on uh jim yes first and last name please jim brett that j-i-m-b-r-e-t-t
with foreman signs in philadelphia thank you swearing for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do thank you stephanie yes hi jim have you heard my testimony
today yes you believe it to be true and correct yes i do would you adopt it as your own yes thank
you thank you any questions from the board no no anyone else wish to testify would like to
testify in this case if so please raise your hand no hands thank you planning commission
uh good afternoon chairman members of the board um the applicant has not demonstrated
just identify yourself i'm sorry ian litwin planning commission staff it's been a long
meeting um the applicant has not demonstrated significant hardship to warrant the granting
this variance accordingly we are opposed to granting the variances we're requesting both
signs so that they're visible to passers by particularly on spring garden street given
the width of the street and its traffic and particularly along i-95 so as again we are
directly adjacent to i-95 so that side of the building is not viewable passers-by traveling
east along spring garden street and it's specifically designed to make sure that it's
visible to people traveling along i-95 i'd also say that the record the area request specifically
is minor in scope and consistent with other signage in the neighborhood
Thank you. MI-2020-001304, 117-21 Spring Garden Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you. Next one up is MI-2020-000322, 1400 South 7th Street.
So we have Ms. Dulce, who's available to unmute and speak to whether she would go forward
with this case on her own.
I would like to request a continuance if I could to get an attorney.
Was this the 1400 South 7th?
Correct.
All right, let me go back to that, hold on.
what number was that on our sheet number seven
I'm sorry
Professor would you mind
I'm having a hard time
My number
MI 2020-000322
1400 South 7th Street
This case is being continued
I heard you say that there was a letter sent by
Councilperson Mark Squillow
Did you say that was in opposition or non-opposition?
Opposition
Thank you very much
Thank you
okay confessor we got
we on the 3 30 you guys taking a break or you want to continue uh i don't know i'm good here
tanya how about staff um whoever's available can continue if we could just move forward because
the 330 people been waiting for a while understood thank you kindly all right i gotta read the
statement good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of
adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our board secretary confessor plaza
and board members mr thomas hollowman and mr james snell board administrator tanya sunkett and
board attorney sharon saletta are also in attendance for those of you who haven't yet
participated in one of our virtual hearings. I'll go through some of the basics of what you can
expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
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.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must first raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
finally to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue i'll repeat for anyone to enter an appearance statement
call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the property at issue before mr
plaza calls our first case uh we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance
or withdrawal at this time please raise your hand and i believe there were some continuance
requests on the list that i sent earlier that included both the two but i misplaced them so
if you don't mind could you read them into the record for us so what i have here on a 330 list
No. 4, Larchwood No. 4 case.
No. 4?
Mm-hmm.
Give me a second.
MI 2020-001065, 5409 Larchwood Avenue.
A continuous request came in from the Councilwoman's office.
Any others?
um well did we want to check the c yes i found it i have it um i was going to ask at the end
all right sure number four on your list oh wait no tanya that's what you just read large hood
isn't it yes yes okay um okay we if you could check to see if anyone is here for number
two i have no record of having received exhibits
i have no hands up at this time for either okay so uh mi-2020-0004624 long ford l-o-n-g-f-o-r-d
street we have no exhibits that case will be continued and if anyone objects to uh the two
that have already been read into the record for continuance please raise your hand are there any
other requests? I have no record of any. Neither do I, Chair. You can go forward. Okay. So
there's no objections. Having said that, confessor, please read the first case. Remember
the first case. MI 2020-001271, 1704, Frankfurt Avenue. I'm promoting Adam Laver.
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board adam laver of blank rome one logan square
adam you swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth
yes mr plaza i do thank you you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do thank you also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans
five days prior to this hearing? Yes, Mr. Plaza. Thank you. Have you met with the RCO and have a
letter? Yes, we have full support from the coordinating RCO as well as an additional RCO.
Thank you. Please proceed. Now, having said that, Mr. Laver, if you could give us the basics of your
application we'd appreciate that yes i've been with you and and i want it to be faster than usual
for sure for your sake uh can you see the aerial photo that i have up on the screen
yes very good uh my client is c properties uh keith daly is the principal he's with us
and rustin oler is the architect uh where you see uh 1704 frankfort avenue which is a three-story
gray structure just to the left of a larger industrial structure on
Frankfort Avenue that is the subject property Keith purchased it two years
ago it was built by another party he found out that it didn't have the zoning
it was built by another party he found out that it didn't have the zoning approvals in place
amazingly the refusal that is before you is for two reasons one refusal we've taken off the table
that was we're in a cmx2 commercial district and on the first floor due to ada issues
Keith thought that we had to change the use registration to residential.
However, he's worked with the community and the bid and is going to be able to lower the floor to grade level.
And so we're taking that refusal off the table.
And we are agreeable should the board be inclined to grant relief for a condition to the permit at the first floor,
floor, the entire first floor, the commercial as permitted in the district.
The uses above are one residential apartment per floor for a total of two residential apartments.
The second refusal concerns height.
The three-story structure meets the code requirement, it is not greater than 38 feet.
However, if you see the hand sign, I'm indicating at the back of the structure there is a pilot
house.
That pilot house, which was built by the prior owner, is not set back the required five feet
from the rear, although you will see quite clearly in this photograph that the setback
from the front is very significant.
And I should also note that in terms of meeting the intention of the code behind this aerial,
there is a rear yard that's 27 feet.
So effectively, we believe that we've taken off one refusal.
We believe that the second refusal regarding the pilot house issue is a technical refusal,
but actually meets the scope and spirit of the code.
And we've submitted the two letters of support from all interested parties.
I could continue should the board wish, but I'm going to honor the request to be brief.
Thank you. Do you have your client that you want to bring?
Mr. Keith Daly, if you could please raise your virtual hand.
Ms. Sunkit, the administrator of the board, will be allowed, will be able to promote you.
so that you can be sworn in sir when you get on would you please identify yourself spell your
first and last name and my name is keith daly uh it's k-e-i-t-h last name's daily d is david
a-i-l-e-y did you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do sir thank you adam please thank you mr daly have you been present for the
entirety of my presentation to the zoning board this afternoon yes I have and would you adopt
and affirm it as your own absolutely thank you Mr. Daly thank you thank you any questions from the
board no no anyone else anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please raise your
chair i have sloan folks from the council person's office thank you mr folks good afternoon good
good afternoon councilman i'm sorry chairman chico zba board sloan the f is a fire or lks
Yes, Office of Councilwoman Maria Cameron Sanchez, Room 508, City Hall.
And you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
The applicant, having met with the RCO and received a letter of support, our office offers their support to this various requests.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case?
No hands.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Hello, Mr. Chairman.
This is Mason Austin, M-A-S-O-N-A-U-S-T-I-N, from the Planning Commission.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
The property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan and is known for that use.
However, given the change in plans to provide ground floor commercial and in deference to the support of the coordinating RCO,
the Planning Commission has no objection to the granting of this variance.
Thank you very much. MI-2020-001271.
1704 frankfurt avenue my vote is yes um excuse me there's going to have to be a proviso requiring
1704 Frankfurt Avenue, my vote is yes.
Excuse me, there's going to have...
that i'm sorry requiring that there be ground floor commercial use and two units is that correct
yes miss saletta i'm sorry sharon would you repeat that yes there has to be a proviso
stating that the approved use is ground floor commercial with two residential units above.
We're agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Am I? Yes, Reproviso. Okay. Yes, Reproviso. Thank you.
Yes, Reproviso. Yes, Reproviso. Thank you, members of the board.
All right. Thank you. All right. Next one up. It's MI 2020-000015106 Park Street.
I have no hands for Sparks.
MI-2020-000015 106 Sparks Street is continued.
This is Sharon Saleta. I can tell you the woman, the appellant in that case is pro se,
and she did submit all of her exhibits, so perhaps she had to leave.
but next one up is mi 2020-00106760 north 23rd street
professor i think did you read that number again please yes mi 2020-00106760 north 23rd street
I thought I heard one, two, six, seven. All right. Thank you.
I'm promoting Gary Clark, attorney.
Mr. Clark.
Hello. Good afternoon.
Hi. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself with the records by your last name.
Yes. I'm Gary Clark, G-A-R-Y-C-L-A-R-E. I'm Paul Ewing.
My address is 1500 Market Street, Philadelphia, 1910.
Thank you. Do you swear in front of me to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You agree to rate the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copied the refusal or referral, photos and plans, five days?
Sorry.
Have you also met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm the attorney for the applicant, the Giant Company, in the matter of 60 North 23rd Street.
Along with me is a representative from the Giant Company, as well as our project architect, in case there are questions for them later on.
So, oh, also, I'd like to note that we have revised plans. We had two RCO meetings with LSNA.
I've already submitted the revised plans as well as the proviso plans form.
And so in this...
Can you tell us, were those plans accepted by the RCO?
Yes, they were.
The letter you spoke to, is that a letter of opposition or support?
The letter is a letter of non-opposition to the revised plans.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
So, during the presentation, I will be presenting the revised plan sizes.
I'll make reference to the original, sorry, revised sign sizes.
I'll make reference to the originals when I discuss the variances so we can see what the changes are.
So, first, I'll give an overview of the location.
I'll talk about the signs that we want to erect, a few details.
I'll discuss the variances and then open it for questions.
so the property is located in the location of this green square it's bounded to the west by
the scoople river to the north by cherry street 23rd street to the east and to the south is where
arch street would be but arch street cuts off at 23rd street i'd like to note that giant's new
store is going to go into the new Riverwalk development which is a very large mixed-use
residential retail development. It also encompasses this parcel to the south where I'm moving the
It also encompasses this parcel to the south where I'm moving the cursor.
cursor.
The project is going to consist of two towers.
Mr. Clark, excuse the interruption.
We don't see your exhibits.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay, do you see them now?
Okay, my apologies.
So this green square is where our parcel is located. This area that I'm circling to the south comprises the rest of the Riverwalk project. There's going to be two towers. The construction is already underway. We are in the north tower over here. The south tower will be here.
The project in total will have about 700,000 square feet of residential units and about 70,000 square feet of retail, of which the giant store will make up about 65,000.
And this will come up later, but our building itself is roughly 400,000 square feet.
I'll just take a walk around the building and briefly discuss the location of the signs.
So here, sign A is facing the Scoople River. This will be a large giant sign.
The purpose of this sign is to identify the store to motorists coming off of the expressway.
On the northern elevation facing Cherry Street, this sign F is to delineate the entrance to the parking garage on this side.
There are two entrances, so this is one on Cherry Street.
sign c is a small giant direct sign that is directly underneath sign b which is a red giant
sign just to identify the store to folks coming from the north along the 23rd street elevation
we have sign e which is a starbucks sign to identify the coffee shop inside the supermarket
Sign B, there are two of them at the corner, again, along 23rd Street and here where Art Street would be.
This is the main entrance to the store.
So, you know, we have one sign facing east and one sign facing south to properly mark the entrance.
And then here, sign D is a giant direct sign above the second entrance to the parking garage,
which is internal to the Riverwalk project, but facing south and Arch Street.
So just to give some better context, I'll show a few renderings that give an idea of what the signs look like on the building.
So this is the view from the north coming down 23rd Street here.
And then you can see the giant store identification sign here, along with the smaller giant direct sign immediately below.
this is a view from the south so again this is where Art Street would be and
this is 23rd Street here this is the main entrance to the store and again you
have a giant store identification sign facing south and another one facing east
and then this is the giant direct sign over the parking garage entrance that's
internal to the site this is a view from the west so this is the giant sign
facing the expressways for wayfinding for motorists. It's about 44 feet high.
And then finally we have a sunset shot from the north. Again this is Cherry
Street just giving an alternate view view and alternate lighting of the giant
sign, Giant Direct, and then this is the parking garage entrance sign on Cherry
Street. So I will briefly give some key dimensions that will come up during the discussion of the
variances. So this is the elevation facing Cherry Street. This giant identification sign here is
approximately 44 square feet. The originally proposed size was about 80 square feet. But after
discussions with neighbors and an attempt to minimize the impact, we have almost halved the
square footage of this sign. Below it here, it's maybe a little hard to see, but that's the giant
direct sign facing north, and then this is the parking garage entrance sign for Cherry Street.
Now, this is the south elevation facing arch. Again, here, this is the giant direct sign
at this parking garage entrance, and then this is the main entrance of the store,
and this is the south facing giant sign. Again, this is 44 square feet, approximately reduced
from the originally proposed 80 square feet and then this is the east elevation facing 23rd street
again the entrance and this is the identification sign facing east again 44 square feet reduced from
80 and this is a starbucks sign here and then finally this is the west elevation facing the
river and this sign is approximately 80 square feet and uh 44 feet in elevation and just one final note
and 44 feet in elevation. And just one final note about the identification signs here. Not only do
we reduce the square footage, they were originally proposed to be 14 feet high and we've reduced
the height to 11 feet. So we've gotten three variances, sorry, three refusals to this application.
We're in zoning district RMX3. So the first refusal was for the maximum sign area along the
west and south frontages. Again, this is west facing the river, south facing where Art Street
would be. Because there are no streets on those property lines, we're not permitted any sign area
there. What we're proposing to the west is just under 80 square feet, and that's for the large
giant sign. And what we're proposing facing Art Street is 60 square feet. We were originally
proposing 95 our second refusal is for sign area on the east and north frontages rmx3 permits 24
square feet per street frontage and what we're proposing to face 23rd street is 57 square feet
and we're proposing 76 square feet to face cherry street and we were originally proposing 92 and 111
respectively. And the final refusal is for the height of the large giant sign. We're permitted
to place it at the second floor windowsill. We're proposing to place it at 44 feet above grid.
Now, we think these variances are appropriate for a number of reasons. First, whether it's 24 square
feet or zero square feet per frontage, it would really be insufficient to properly identify a
store that's 65,000 square feet, and we'll be attracting the number of customers that it will.
Specifically, if we had to eliminate the signage facing west and the signage facing south,
folks approaching from those areas simply couldn't identify where the store was. We believe that's
obviously an issue. And further, if we had to reduce to 24 square feet the total signage facing
23rd Street and facing Cherry Street. Arguably, there isn't really a difference between not having
any. It would be very hard to see. As we've seen with the renderings, the size of the building and
those facades would simply dwarf signage that's 24 square feet facing those areas. We believe it
would at least lead to confusion as to where the store is, as you wouldn't be able to see the signs
until you're essentially at the store already, and it could potentially lead to traffic congestion.
For example, if folks had to suddenly break in order to turn into the parking garage when they finally saw the sign.
And we require the additional height on the west elevation to provide visibility and wayfinding for motorists along the expressways.
Again, the proposed sign areas have been revised in response to community input, and we believe that these really are the minimum necessary signs in order to provide enough support for the retail operations there.
So as I alluded to before, because of the size of the buildings, again, 400,000 square feet for our building and 65,000 square feet for the store, we believe the signs are of an appropriate scale for their context.
And further, I'd like to point out that the entire Riverwalk project, the building's approval was obtained by Wright because in 2017,
council approved some amendments to the zoning code to allow for our building to be built without variances on an RMX3 lot,
which indicates that, you know, the council has deemed that entire site appropriate for CMX size type development.
And the signage we're proposing is well below what is permitted in CMX 5.
And in fact, if the giant store were in the South Tower, we would only need a variance for the height of the sign facing the river and not any for the area.
Further, we think that we've reduced the impact to neighbors as much as we possibly can by almost having the size of the lower giant signs,
moving them closer to the sidewalk and closer to the corners where we can.
And as noted in the letter of non-opposition, the RCO does not object to the sizes or locations of the revised signs.
However, the letter does contain a request for a proviso that none of the signs facing Arch, 23rd Street, or Cherry Street be illuminated.
However, the applicant respectfully requests that the board grant the variances without
that proviso in place because for the purposes of the store, we really do need the illumination
for the purposes of the store we really do need the illumination and further the illumination
and further the illumination.
is permitted by right and we think that for a number of reasons the illumination of these signs
will not have adverse impacts on the neighbors first these are red internally illuminated channel
letters and generally red light is less impactful than white and perceived as less bright if there
are more questions related to that we can have the architect jump in because he's more knowledgeable
about those particular issues than I am. Further, the small giant signs, again, the ones facing
Arch 23rd and Cherry Street, are each less bright than a standard HDTV. So their light emission is
290 lumens, whereas a standard television is in excess of 1,700 lumens, meaning that if a neighbor,
if instead of that sign being across the street, there was a neighbor who kept their television on,
the television would probably be brighter than the sign. Further, the white store lights coming
from the storefront itself would probably be brighter, will almost certainly be brighter than
the sign, which is another reason why we need the signs to have at least a little illumination so
they're not watched out by any background. And finally, the illuminated signs will be turned off
when the store closes. And right now that's contemplated to be 11 p.m. So even if someone
were bothered by what we feel is a very small amount of light emission from these signs,
they wouldn't have to see it after the store closes. And so we believe that it's not really
a material issue. Now, could Howard and Joe please raise your hands so I can have you sworn in
to affirm my testimony and offer any additional if you have.
We have both Howard and Joe available to be sworn in cheer.
Thank you.
Gentlemen, whoever goes first, both of you, please identify yourself for the record.
Spell your full name.
Yep. My name is Joe Lacadina, J-O-E, last name L-A, capital C-A-G-N-I-N-A.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Clark?
No, my name is...
Oh, okay.
My name is Howard Liebold, H-O-W-A-R-D, L-E-B as in boy, O-L-D as in David.
Thank you.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Clark.
All right.
Thank you.
And I'll start with Howard, who is our project architect.
Howard, do you affirm that my testimony has been true and correct, and do you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
And do you have any additional testimony to offer?
I don't think at this time.
All right.
Thank you.
And Joe, do you affirm my testimony as true and accurate?
And do you affirm it as you're adopted as your own?
All right.
Thank you.
And do you have any additional testimony?
No, thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Clark, you mentioned Arch Street, 21st Street, and I missed, I think, one or two of the others where there was concern about the illumination.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
So that was Arch Street, 23rd Street, and Cherry Street.
third street and cherry and what are the hours of operation uh so uh joe can you uh please tell
the chair the hours of operation hours of operation are contemplated to be 6 a.m to 11 p.m
okay thank you all right uh any questions from the board no
no in this case if so please raise your hand are you hearing me yes yes okay no the reason is it
just said I was muted but I'm not okay I have Dennis Boylan you can unmute yourself and wait
to be sworn in i'm unmuted it's dennis boylan d-e-n-n-i-s b-o-y-l-a-n i'm the president of
the logan square neighborhood association which was the coordinating rco for this zba issue and
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please
proceed uh thank you mr chairman uh as councillor clark uh mentioned in his review um there's an
important proviso in the letter we submitted which regarded the illumination and the times
uh it was felt very strongly by the two uh of the immediate near neighbor buildings uh one immediately
Two of the immediate near neighbor buildings, one immediately to the north, which is the Riverview, and immediately to the east, which is the Westminster Arch, that the illumination would cause problems for the residents there, even with the limited hours.
to the North.
The Riverview building is approximately 19 feet across the Cherry Street from the proposed sign,
so it's very close to it. So with the near neighbors along with the full presentation to
our board, the vote was 24 to 1 to come up with a non-opposition to the signs as presented in
their reduced size, and I'm specifically talking about signs Foxtrot, Charlie, Bravo, and Echo.
we have no issue with the alpha sign facing west for illumination but the other signs it was it
was deemed that not to have them illuminated because it would cause undue disturbance to
the adjacent neighbors and that's all I have to say. Those signs you're referring to about causing
issues for the neighbors are Arch Street 23rd and Cherry? That's correct sir. And even with
the limited hours there's still opposition that is correct sir thank you anyone else who would
like to testify in this case please raise your hand yes we have stephen you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in
stephen state your name and spell it please
Stephen are you there okay chair we're going to move on I have Michael Michael you can unmute
yourself and wait to be sworn in I'm here yes please identify yourself first and last name
and your address michael ekstein 2301 cherry street you swear to firm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you please proceed thank you mr chairman
and members of the board um i am a member of the lsna board of directors and i am also a resident
of 2301 Cherry Street, which is River's Edge. As Chairman Dennis Boylan said, we are a grand total
of 19 feet across the alley. And I do say alley because quite honestly, Cherry Street is only 19
feet wide. And many people on this presentation, your driveways and bedrooms are bigger than 19
feet. But basically what we are contesting are these signs on the north side as well as the east
side having to do with illuminations. So we have no problems with the presentation that Mr. Clark
said and his design and his dimensions and his presentation today regarding the south and the
west side. But regarding the north and the east side, we actually have residents that are facing
directly into those areas. And we feel very strongly that there should be absolutely no
illumination whatsoever regarding those signs. This is not a suburban mall. This is not a large
expansive area. We have a 65,000 square foot supermarket being built in a very compact
neighborhood setting and any type of illumination facing residential areas will in fact detract
and in fact minimize and in fact decorate the quality of life and the profile of the character
of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, we have Daniel. Daniel, you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in. Daniel, give us your first and last name. Spell your first and last
name and your address. My name is Daniel McElhatton. My address is 2000 Market Street,
suite 1400 philadelphia 19103 my last name is spelled m small c capital e l h a t t o n
and you're testifying mr chair pardon me i have not been sworn i am going to swear you now you
swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do
And you're in the office building? What is your involvement with this?
I represent Stephen and Elizabeth Rain.
Okay, that's where I was getting at.
Stephen is trying to get on, but he's been unable to unmute himself.
They are the owners of the building directly across the street, 23rd Street.
They are the owners of the building directly across the street, 23rd Street, from the giant store in their entrance.
It is a 90-unit apartment complex known as the Westminster Arch, approximately 100 residents there.
The compromise that was made in reducing the size of the signs and permitting the signage agreement to the signage on the west and south sides were part of the compromise that Logan Square Neighbors Association has made and proposed.
We think it is reasonable. To have signage on 23rd Street, which is probably 40 feet wide at most, and it only has traffic southbound, two lanes of traffic southbound, to say that a sign on, an illuminated sign on 23rd Street would help people understand where the Giant is, is, you know, defies belief.
Everyone's going to know where the giant store is.
It's a giant store.
And the west-facing signage will show people where it is.
And the signs that are being proposed, being illuminated, would not go into the new residences that will be above that.
They will be out on the neighbors.
This is a residential area.
It is essentially these apartments and then up the street there are residences.
And it's out of character for the neighbor.
It's out of character in Center City. If you look at what Whole Foods did north of the parkway and what Giant has done on their stores on 23rd and Bainbridge and out in West Philadelphia, they've got small signs. People know where they are. Trader Joe's doesn't have an illuminated sign out on Market Street and on 22nd Street.
So it's really inconsistent with the residential area.
The renderings that were shown were very nice, but it shows 23rd Street as being really pretty wide.
I live right around the corner.
I'm not here as a resident objecting and protesting, but as council.
But I know the area, and I know that 23rd Street is not nearly as wide as the rendering showed.
We compromised.
We could have opposed and could still oppose all of the requested variances, but we felt it was fair to compromise because I've been before the board before, and I know that the chair has suggested parties try to come to some accommodation.
And what the LSNA has done is provide what we believe is a reasonable accommodation, particularly for the 23rd Street facade and the Cherry Street facade.
It would be unfair. And one of the witnesses testified that, you know, the hours, they're contemplating 6 to 11.
Well, that doesn't mean that they're 6 to 11, but even that, if a resident is in their house at this time of the year, it's getting dark now.
And, you know, so they're going to have a red light right outside their apartment.
That's unfair. 6 o'clock in the morning, that's unfair.
So, we would ask the Board to approve the variances as LS&A has articulated them and do so with the proviso that we agreed to.
And I hope that Mr. Reins can join in. Technical issues may have prohibited him doing so, but I really have nothing else to add.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
You're welcome, sir.
Is there anyone else who would like to testify in something new and different?
That's all we have, Chair.
Mr. Clark.
Yes, Mr. Chair, may I ask one question each of the applicant and the architect, and may
I offer one more remark?
Thank you.
Howard, we've heard some testimony regarding the distance of the signs from residences.
I believe I stated before, and you adopted this as true, that the brightness, the actual
brightness of the signs is not very much and will almost certainly and will not almost but
it'll be dwarfed by just the ambient light coming out of the store so and you know in our opinion
the signs themselves won't pose their own independent issue uh howard can you just give
us a few uh data points as to the brightness of the sign at various distances from the sign
So say, like, you know, if Cherry Street is 19 feet wide, how much light is the sign emitting at 10 feet away, for example?
So a couple quick points of clarification there. Cherry Street may be a 19-foot wide street.
Howard, excuse me, did we swear you in?
Yes, you did.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed.
Cherry Street may be a 19-foot wide street, but the distance from building to building is at least 40 feet in that location.
And it appears that the distance across 23rd Street from face of building to face of building is almost 50 feet.
almost 50 feet. The proposed giant signage on average for each of the individual letters
The proposed giant sign...
emits about 300 lumens of light output. As Mr. Clark mentioned earlier, a typical high
definition TV puts out about 1700 lumens of light output, which is almost six times as
much light output as compared to the letter or the proposed signage. What's really important
to understand in relationship to the actual signage is how far that light actually transmits
in foot candle levels. And so when we take a look at that 300 lumens of output, at a distance of
10 feet it actually becomes 0.2 foot candles and at a distance of 20 feet it becomes 0.02 foot
candles and at a distance of 30 feet that light can no longer be measured in terms of actual light
output. So let me add the lumens you're speaking of the 300 lumens is that for the entire
sign G-I-A-N-T-S or is that per letter? That is per letter. They act as individual
letters. They average about 300 lumens per letter. So cumulatively, G-I-A-N-T-S,
that's six times, that's 1,800 lumens? Five, so it's 1,500 lumens, but they don't combine
together. In terms of how far that light actually transmits, they transmit light independent of
each other. Okay, I'm not to interrupt you. I just, do you have, Mr. Clark, do you have
a rendering of what the sign will look like? The signs we're talking about that would
face 21st Street, Cherry Street, and 23rd. 23rd.
Is that it in the lower right-hand corner? Yes, it is. So this is the giant sign in question.
sorry facing 23rd my fault that's facing cherry facing 23rd street is this sign okay all right
now let me get that those are each of those letters illuminated yes
is there a way in which lighting could be behind the letters and not have each letter illuminated
and it would still kind of show the giant sign
but not as prominent as the 1,500 or 1,800 illuminators are?
Was that ever discussed?
I don't know if you know what I'm talking about,
lighting behind those that would, you know,
accentuate the, if that's the correct word, the letters,
but not be as bright as having each letter emanating 300 luminaires?
So, Mr. Chair, I'll give the preliminary answer, and I'll let Howard fill in any gaps.
We have looked at alternate lighting schemes, either backlighting or uplighting,
and what we found is that generally they would likely be perceived as brighter than what we're proposing.
I think Howard's description of each letter pushing out 290 lumens gives the impression that the total light output can be gained from adding all of the letters together, when in fact it's more that each letter is independent.
They each push out 290, and for each letter, once you get to 30 feet away, you can't measure the light coming off of the sign.
Now, I'll turn it over to Howard if you have anything to add with respect to the alternate lighting options.
Yeah, I think it's important to note that Giant is a tenant in another building development,
and they're going into what is essentially, as you can see by the rendering, an all-glass storefront.
So there's really no way to backlit these lights or these proposed signs.
And as Mr. Clark has stated, lighting this signage from the outside actually reflects more light away from the surface than the internally illuminated signs that have a translucent front that cuts down on the amount of light emitted by 50% right away.
Okay, so you can't do backlighting. What about front lighting, where each letter would be illuminated by, I'm not sure what the correct term would be, but if they each had...
You would need to hang some sort of external light onto the face of the building.
You would need to hang some sort of external light onto the face of the building, which is an all-glass facade, so there is no way to attach that lighting to the facade, and it actually, in that case, more light gets reflected away from the signage than the internally illuminated letters.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
um anyone else mr clark because we have we have other hearings we're running way way behind here
okay so uh mr i just wanted to add one more uh comment um you know there was
in conjunction with the legislation to um uh to permit the building to permit the approval
of the north tower in which we're going there was a neighborhood a development agreement
made with, you know, LS&A, interested neighbors, and signage and lighting were addressed in the
agreement. And lighting effects on neighbors, especially across Cherry Street, were addressed.
The concerns were headlights in the parking lot. There were other ambient lighting issues. But then
And also there was a separate section where the neighbors affirmed and, you know, essentially said that they knew that there would be retail tenants and there would be signage.
And I'll just note that there were no objections to illuminated signage, despite the fact that, you know, they did prohibit non-accessory signage.
So certain things were addressed.
This particular issue was not.
And, again, in our opinion, you know, the light is not measurable from the signs at 30 feet away.
Each building that is complaining about the illumination, the building faces are more than 30 feet away.
So, in our opinion, they're really – the signs themselves won't cause an issue,
and the ambient light coming from inside the buildings is going to be, you know, way brighter than these signs will be.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. Mr. Raines had been trying to get on,
and I think that he has been able to access the system. So if he has something new and different,
with all due respect, fine. If not, we'd like to move on. Well, he says he has something new.
is he okay okay all right we'll get him on here's that he's having technical difficulties
um he's on my cell phone can you hear him it's nothing but feedback
Steve, try to go ahead.
First of all, I appreciate and my family appreciates the board's consideration.
And I've been sitting here for the last...
So, Chair, I'm going to have to mute them because I can't allow the rest of the members to hear this.
All we're getting is feedback.
You're just being her.
So how about we do this?
Have him mute whatever device he has and then talk through your phone.
All right.
Mute whatever you have, your device, your screen.
I can hear you fine, but when I put you on speaker, there's feedback.
So you've muted yourself.
I will put you on the speaker on my cell phone and see if they can hear you.
All right.
Try that.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah, go ahead.
Yes. Can the rest of the board hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. First of all, thank you for your
patience. I've been coming out of my skin. All right. Don't get out of your skin yet. We need
you to spell your first and last name and give us your address. Steve, you need to spell your
first name and your last name, and then you'll be... My name is Stephen Rains, R-A-Y-N-E-S.
And your address?
My address is 1845 Walnut Street, 20th floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Are you representing someone?
I own, my family owns the Westminster Arch Apartments at 23rd and Arch Street.
My father-in-law built it 40 plus years ago.
all right we have uh 90 uh apartments and we have a okay mr wright you have to get to any
new points you want to raise that i didn't raise or the lsna did not raise and i gotta swear you
in quickly he's going to swear you in first i'm sorry you're gonna affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
but the truth? I do.
With all due respect, Mr. Raines, we need you to speak on behalf of yourself and not other neighbors.
We own the apartment building on the corner of 23rd and Art Street.
We have 90 apartments, and we have a nursery school on the first floor.
It's a residential neighborhood.
It is a neighborhood. It's a building that my father-in-law built 40-plus years ago.
With all due respect to Giant and Mr. Clark, I found that to be a very disingenuous presentation,
and I had to bite my lick through the whole thing without being able to unmute myself.
The only reason that we agreed to the increase in the signage from that which is permitted under the variance
is conditioned upon it not being illuminated because illuminated would go right into our
nursery school and go right into affecting 100 residents and completely impact the neighborhood
it's a billboard it's a lit up billboard they want up 17 hours a day they didn't have our
agreement or approval to do it they're selling something and the whole foods on the parkway
is not lit up i don't think they have any problem selling food at the whole foods on the parkway
so they went in for a gigantic sign and they want credit for going down to a smaller sign
which is still very big no one's going to not know where the giant is and they don't need it lit up
17 hours a day glaring into uh impacting a nursery school and 100 residents and turning this into a
billboard and the entire neighborhood association was against it so this is not something that
we're going uh hand in hand with them we are vigorously opposing it okay thank you thank you
all right uh any questions i don't know where i left off any questions from the board
uh yes uh mr chairman from looking at the rendering it looks like the sign is uh
second floor below the second floor between the first and second floor is that correct
yes so if the sign is lit it wouldn't really affect the daycare which is uh closed at night
would it
there's no daycare at night
I believe I no one's answering you Tom but that's correct it's the daycare center it's the
Montessori school it's closing so the lights are on at night not so it really doesn't affect the
school and it's only at the second floor level it wouldn't affect the 30th floor the 15th floor
the 20th floor it wouldn't affect many residents and the building next door with a building
directly across the street, it would. The Montessori school is up at the north end of
the building. There are all apartments directly across from where the sign would be.
Apartments at the first and second floor?
Well, what about the floors above?
Well, surely it would because the radiant light goes up there. There are only, I'm
not sure, I think there are seven or eight floors. I'm not sure if it's even that high.
not a multi-towered building well they could put the fuses on it to have it shine uh downward and
not upward upwards yes sir yes they could mr holliman but they they've proposed this and and
it's they they want the illumination that they want and the terms and conditions and the lsna
agreed to allow them larger signs and frankly agreed to have signs on the south side and the
west side. The west side is really where they need it and want it most of all. If you look on the
rendering that's on the screen, cars coming down 23rd Street, they're not going to see the giant
sign that is being pointed to right now. They won't see that. Coming down Arch Street, they
have to turn there. There's no vehicular traffic going north on 23rd Street. So that size of a
sign is superfluous. Everybody knows where Trader Joe's is. Everybody knows where Whole Foods is.
You know, Giant has their heirloom store on 23rd and Bainbridge.
They've got a tiny sign. Everybody knows where it is.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't find Trader Joe's. It took me a long time.
I know where it is now, but I could not find it.
Well, Mr. Chair, Mr. Holloman, can I add one point of clarification? It's very quickly, very quick.
Just that the signs were characterized as blaring into windows across the street.
Just the signs were characterized as blaring into windows across the street.
Again, as we have testified, at a level of 300 lumens, the light emitted by the sign is not detectable at a distance of 30 feet.
Both building faces across 23rd Street and Cherry Street are in excess of 30 feet away.
Let me ask you this. What is a luminary for the stoplight? Do you know that?
I do not. Howard, do you know typical stoplight illumination numbers?
Unfortunately, I do not. I'll see if I can find them very quickly, but I would guess that they
are much brighter. It's directional LED light with no shielding where the translucent face of
the giant letters, already cuts down 50% of the illumination right away.
Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Anyone else? Any other board member have any questions?
Planning commission?
uh mr chairman this is mason austin from the planning commission um sorry uh this property
is indicated for residential mixed use in the comprehensive plan and is currently zoned for that
use in keeping with the letter submitted by the coordinating rco the planning commission has no
objection to the granting of these variances with provisor request provisors requested by lsni
thank you um
i would like to suggest that we have further discussion that the board has further discussion
on this case so mi 2020-00106760 north 23rd street the record is closed
the board will make a will render a decision at its next wednesday morning 9 30 session
week from today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the board.
Next one up is
2020-001146
5843-55 Catherine Street.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
I believe the woman for Spark Street, the pro se appellant,
she wasn't able to sign on, or she wasn't able to somehow let you know
that she was here, unmute herself, but I believe she is still here.
Yeah, I sent it to confessor.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Let's do Catherine Street first, and then we'll go back to Spark's.
Does that work?
Yes, Chair.
Okay, thanks.
Anyone here on 58, 43, 55 Catherine Street?
I'm promoting Attorney Beth Grossman.
Thank you.
Tanya, are we okay with you in terms of staff?
Yes, Chair, however long you need as we're here.
Okay, thank you.
good afternoon miss good evening miss grossman please identify yourself for the record
good evening mr chairman members of the board miss zoletta and miss sunkett beth grossman
on behalf of applicant caring people alliance attorney id number 71666 you swear to affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copies of refusal or referral,
photos, and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
and just for the record we received our letter of support from the rco yesterday and i emailed it to
the board today
you're good you can proceed
thank you very much i'm sorry i was muted uh you have a letter of support you sent from the rco
yes i we received it yesterday and i emailed it today sir okay thank you and if you could
do your best to summarize we'd appreciate that i will keep it short and sweet like my stature
do your best to summarize, we'd appreciate that. I will keep it short and sweet, like my stature
and personality. So I represent Caring People Alliance, which is a 501c3 nonprofit in Philadelphia
that's been in existence since 1932. And it provides child care through at various locations
throughout Philadelphia. So with me this evening is our president and CEO, Dr. Jerry McDonnell,
and our Senior Director of Community Outreach, Brandon Gilmore.
We are seeking the Board's approval for a use variance for the property at 5843 through 55
Catherine Street, which is currently the site of the Sharon Baptist Church Community Center.
And I will pull up my documents.
okay this is the property
and currently um caring people alliance is has executed um an agreement of sale with the
sharon baptist church which was executed on may 18th of 2020 um which is i do note um which i
highlighted on page five of the document five and six is contingent upon cpa um actually receiving
approval for this use variance of the property and the proposed use of the property is a daycare
center with after school care summer camp and a boys and girls club along with permitting
athletic events to be held in the gymnasium along with meals prepared in a commercial grade kitchen
The area is zoned as RM1, and the property, which is approximately 25,000 square feet,
is located here on the corner of 59th and Catherine Street. Under the zoning code,
because Caring People Alliance, this property, what we are proposing for the property would be
deemed as a child care center as it will provide services for 14 or more children, which presuming
to the zoning code would be prohibited in the zoning district. On May 21st of 2020,
we applied for, I'm sorry about that.
We applied for a use permit for the property with L&I, and on May 22nd of 2020, the application
was denied. And then on June 18th, on behalf of the Caring People Alliance, I filed, we appealed
the denial, which was a refusal of the use permit. And we are again requesting to seek a use variance
from the ZBA. And I just note that going back in the zoning archives hearing with regard to
Sharon Baptist Church, that in 2006 they too applied for a zoning use registration permit
for which they were granted a variance, as you can see here, for the same purposes that
Care and People Alliance is, which included a daycare center, preparing and serving of food,
as well as using accessory offices, a kitchen to prepare meals, and their athletic events.
So, and that was granted to them. The only thing different from our use to theirs is the fact that
we will not have obviously religious services there. And so just real quickly, we did submit
it, and we had a very positive meeting with the Cobbs Creek Neighbors Association. They
sent a letter in support with no objection. And just quickly, this is the, going through
the pictures, this is the community center, and it will be called our West Philadelphia
Community Center. And that is facing north. So the area really is residential with a couple
of corner stores anchoring the various corners of Catherine and 59th as well as further down
on the lower the other side of Catherine as you can see it's primarily residential
and then these are classrooms that we would do there would be no exterior construction
or renovation just inside these are classrooms we will make a little playground area for an
closed outside area that faces 59th street. Let's see outside again. And this is our lower level
that we would divide up into classrooms. This is where they had their place of worship.
That's another angle. This is where we would permit it, where they had a commercial grade kitchen and they outlined it. And we will set that up there in that area.
That's another angle. This is where we would permit it, where they had a commercial
And as I like to say, the piece de resistance is the gymnasium, which is a fabulous facility that we would be more than happy to open up to the community to use for athletic events on evenings and weekends.
We are also, as discussed with the RCOs, we will keep the place open as a polling place,
and we really look forward to integrating Caring People Alliance within the Cobbs Creek community.
So the only thing that I have left is just one more document,
and that was just the letter that we received from Cobbs Creek Neighbors in support,
and we will continue conversations to figure out to allay their worries and make sure that we
integrate fully with them, including having activities for seniors and helping out smaller
independent daycare centers. So with that, I would just ask to call Dr. McDonald just to adopt my
testimony and then unless the board has questions, that's it. Thank you, Dr. Hello. Hi, Dr. Please
identify yourself name and address for the record please uh jerry mcdonald j-e-r-r-y m-a-c-d-o-n-a-l-d
uh 1628 jfk boulevard philadelphia 19103 thank you you swear and affirm to tell the truth the
truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed thank you dr mcdonald you heard my testimony today
before the board is that correct yes and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
yes it is and would you adopt that my testimony what i represented before the board as your own
yes i do okay and with that we would just ask to move all our packet into evidence and we would
rest no no thank you miss grushman any questions from the board no no anyone else who would like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand i have an emma earl are you here on behalf
of this case you're going to meet yourself ma'am please identify yourself with the record spell
your first and last name and provide us with your address no unmute chair we can move okay
can you hear me hello okay my name is emma earl e-m-m-a-e-a-r-l-e and i am of the third ward
republicans rco as well as the 5800 block of catherine street block captain do you swear
and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i affirm thank you please
proceed yes as per the queries of the block captains in a one block radius the overall
consensus of the residents is a no as to the business as well uh as it will adversely impact
the neighborhood due to the parking situation which is high density uh the people's alliance
and uh said approximately 20 30 people would be employed 100 children serviced and um other
children bused in from other areas uh this area cannot absorb any more vehicles as it will have
the residents virtually prisoners in their own homes unable to go out in their cars there are
many days where you pull out of a space and somebody's right there to pull right in. Some
of the residents said no because of the zoning change and gentrification issues as well as the
possibility of loitering issues from the influx of the children as that location is surrounded by
stores on each corner. There were a few people that you know wanted to hear more but other than
that you know it was my responsibility to put forth what the residents want. Thank you. Anyone
else who would like to testify in this case please raise your hand. That's all chair. Thank you. Planning
Commission. Mr. Chairman this is Mason Austin with the Planning Commission. The property is indicated
for single family residential and the comprehensive plan and is currently zoned for multi-family
residential however due to the support of the coordinating rco and and because it would address
a significant need in the area the planning commission has no objection to the granting of
this variance thank you mi-2020-001146 5843-55 catherine street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you so we go to spark street thank you thank you mr chair you have that calendar calendar number
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, you have that calendar number.
I don't have to pay for it.
I have it.
MI-2020-000015, 106 Sparks Street.
Is there an attorney present for this one?
I believe the lady is representing herself.
No, she is pro se.
Promoted.
Ms. Barton.
You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Ma'am, please identify yourself with the record.
Spell your first and last name and your address, please.
Give us your address.
Ms. Barton, are you there?
all right let's go down to clinton street oh here she is hello miss barton uh you need to unmute
yourself nope can't hear you
so you're unmuted but is the volume up on your device do you have a microphone
if if miss barton isn't able to get her sound to work would you want to call and i'll put her
on speakerphone she's been waiting why don't we do this well we'll wait we'll go to the last case
and then come back again maybe we can have it straightened out by then all right okay thank
We're going to go to Clinton Street.
That's MI-2020-001170931 Clinton Street.
I'm Primordi Vern Anastasio.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Vern Anastasio, good evening.
Please identify yourself with the records.
Spell your name for the stenographer.
Good evening, sir.
Vern Anastasio, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006 Philadelphia, 19107.
Good evening, sir.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Of course, sir.
Thank you.
Do you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I also agree that I've sent out a package to the ZBA at least five days prior to this hearing.
You keep it up.
you're going to take my job see well that's what i'm doing great that's you know oh my goodness
also have you met with the rco and have a letter i do it's all in the packet all in the packet
you'll see you better give some thought to the fact that we don't get paid over time
we don't get paid by the hours frank frank i'm gonna go as quickly as i possibly can okay
Just to interrupt for just one minute, we also have a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
Thank you, Sharon.
Thank you.
Yeah, Frank, I'll go as quickly as I can.
Four homes is what we're proposing here at 10th and Cyprus.
It's behind 10th and Clinton's multifamily dwelling.
They each have off-street parking, and we're here to discuss.
let me let me pull this up if I can that's not what I wanted to hold on there it goes yep
we're here for refusals for the multi-family dwelling again it's already on a piece of
property that's a multi-family dwelling. We're just asking to add four single-family homes on
Cypress Street. Cypress Street is a dead-end street. If you take a look here, you'll see
what I mean. And I'll have Rustin walk through the project actually for you. But it's the rear
part of Clinton, which I know the chairman is very familiar with. There's nothing going on
on Cypress Street. These will be the only homes at front Cypress Street. It'll be a nice way to
activate that space. And as you can see here, I think which is a great way to look at it,
it's one, two, three, four homes along Cypress. The corner property will have a two-car garage
The corner property will have a two-car garage, and then each home east of that corner property will have a one-car garage, and it'll certainly be a nice addition to the space, to the area, and we met with the community.
and then
Here's a drone look that I took.
There'll be basically four homes in this area right here.
We have, of course, we've met with the community more than once.
And we met with the committee.
And then we met with the general community.
And we've got overwhelming support from Washington Square West Civic Association, all non-opposition.
And of course, we've gotten a letter of support or non-opposition from Council Member Squilla, dated 18th October, just a few days ago.
With that, I'm going to leave it up to Rustin if he wants to talk about the interior space, if you're interested.
I'm not sure of that for the moment.
Do you have anybody else to bring in?
None other than I just ask that one of my clients raises his or her hand to be recognized.
Why don't we go to your client first?
Yeah, thank you.
If one of the owners or partners can raise their hand to be recognized, I would appreciate that.
Thank you.
hello this is
do you think who's please identify yourself for the record rafael licht r-a-p-h-a-e-l-l-i-c-h-t
for the owner rittenhouse property associates llc thanks rafi
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Vernon, please proceed.
Thanks, Frank.
Rafi, could you put your address on the record, please?
301A Catherine Street, Philadelphia, 19147.
Rafi, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
I did.
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it was.
And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
That concludes my case tonight, Frank.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No. Would anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
And this is Sharon Sled. I had a question. Mr. Anastasio, am I right that if this is approved
it's with revised plans two pages? From my understanding that the plans may have been
revised. I believe the architect is on online as well and they could submit that
contemporaneously, yes.
Hi, Rustin Oller, Harmon Deutsch,
architecture, last name O-H-L-E-R.
You're still on the road.
Yes, Sharon, you're correct.
Revised plans, two pages.
We've reduced the volume of the building
by adding dormers at the top floor.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sharon.
Planning commission.
Mr. Chairman, this is Mason Austin from the Planning Commission.
The property is indicated for multifamily residential use in the comprehensive plan and is currently zoned for that use.
Because the proposal will not significantly impair the existing conditions of the public realm,
and due to its location in an amenity-rich neighborhood that is well served by transit,
as well as the support of the affected RCO, the Planning Commission has no objection to the granting of this variance.
Thank you.
MI-2020-001170-931 Clinton Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Revised plan, two pages approved today.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Thank you all.
Have a good evening.
Likewise.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Back to Spark Street, Ms. Barton.
The appellant is on my cell phone.
I have her own speaker phone.
Okay, Ms. Barton, if you can hear me, would you please identify yourself?
Spell your first and last name.
I'm Elison Barton, E-L-I-S-A-N-E, B-A-R-C-O-N.
And your address?
5723, Ocon 7, Philadelphia, PA, 19141.
and do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yeah miss barton can you can you mute the device that you were on just mute it and
Can you mute the device that you were on?
Just mute it and then continue to talk through the phone with the attorney.
I think I'm muted.
No, we're getting the feedback.
Okay, hold on.
Ms. Barton, are you still on the phone?
Yeah, I didn't set this up, my husband did, and he left for work.
I don't even know how to turn off his equipment.
I'm trying to look everywhere I can here.
Pull the plug out, the electric cord out.
Yeah, shut it down completely.
We're not going to be able to see her exhibits, correct?
Tanya, I'd like to be able to help this woman out. Is there a way we can get her on maybe
I can't hear her, can't see anything.
Sharon, I'm muted you.
I can't take the noise.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Mrs. Barton, if you can stop talking for one minute.
If we could, if you could perhaps take her oral testimony, I can then share all of her
exhibits with you during the week, and you can resume the hearing with any final questions
you have for her.
Would that work?
I'm trying to have somebody turning off right now.
Or I can give her a one-week continuance.
Why don't we do that, all right?
Sharon, explain to Ms. Barton, we're going to give her a one-week continuance.
I'm going to turn it off now. Hold on.
Sharon, I'm sorry I keep muting you. I just can't deal with that.
You don't have to apologize to me. It's screeching.
it's still yeah let's continue this uh ton do you have a time and date we can do it next week
at 3 30 uh next wednesday right correct and that's the october the 28th 28th all right mi-2020-000015
106 sparks street is continued till october the 28th at 3 30 correct 3 30 p.m
uh any other business nope that was all okay sharon no other business i apologize folks but
one of those days no problem frank good night
appreciate everyone board members everyone and our court reporter thank you good night
great job gang see you be safe good night everyone
is that holy