Mr. Jacoby, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter?
Michael Jacoby, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-J-A-C-O-B-Y.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, for sure.
Proceed.
I just wanted to say I live a block away.
I drive down this block every day.
In the past couple of years, I mean, I've lived in the neighborhood for quite a while.
And the last couple of years, I've seen a lot of plans come through for this lot.
And I think that this one is the best one.
So I definitely support it.
Um, and the, the fact that they have a lot of single families, I think is going to be great
for the community. And the fact that there are also some triplexes there that add some diversity
would be fantastic. Um, it's a large lot that's been empty for quite a long time. It leaves much
to be desired to say the least. And I think that it will certainly be a great addition
to this part of the neighborhood. So thank you for calling Mr. Jacoby. Thanks for calling in.
is there anyone else in the virtual audience we have someone with their hand up by the last name
stewart mr stewart can you unmute yourself and wait i'll get to you in a minute brandon
okay thank you mr stewart could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
Hey, how are you guys? My name is Brayne Stewart, B-R-Y-H-E as in elephant, M as in mother, Stewart, S-T-E-W-A-R-T.
hey how are you guys my name is brain stewart b-r-y-h-e as an elephant m as a
I've been a neighbor in the...
Wait a minute. Wait one minute. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I affirm to tell the truth.
Thank you, sir. Proceed.
Okay, like I was saying, I've been a neighbor for almost 30 years in that area.
I've seen that area transition a lot. I support this project 100%.
I've been around when crime was heavily populated in that area.
This is something that's great, you know, for the community.
I like the single families.
I support it 100%.
All right.
Thank you for calling in.
Anyone else?
Here, we have no other hands at this time.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
Mr. Chair, if I could just add a couple words there.
Sorry.
I just want to make it clear for the record that my client will comply with all state and federal law regarding environmental contamination, if this is ever found.
Further, in terms of the parking, as I showed you in that RCO letter, the original plan was all single family homes, all of which would have had parking.
And on a 15-0 unanimous vote, I have the meeting summary on my screen here.
The community supported this proposal, which, you know, had some units which do not have parking.
But nonetheless, all of those single-family homes have two parking spaces.
So I do not think we are substantially reducing parking.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends this
property for residential multifamily zoning. During the public process to change the zoning
maps in South Kensington, the commission was asked to decrease the allowable density in the
neighborhood as we were heading west from the newly established medium density mixed use corridor
along North 5th Street. So that's why this ended up as single family zoning. So we settled on
single family zoning. The applicant is proposing 36 units. 27 units would be allowed by right in
the seventh district if these were fee simple lots based solely on lot area. While we believe
that the two parking spaces for each of the single family units is excessive, the proposed
density of the single family homes is in keeping with what would be allowed in the code. However,
the triplexes would push the allowable units over what would be allowed. So the city planning
Planning Commission is going to recommend that the board grant the use and dimensional variances,
but limit the proposal to 27 units that would be allowed if the property were subdivided.
So, Mr. Chair, I mean, we just don't have a plan that supports a different number of units. This
was sort of put together in a delicate way with an easement down the middle. So that, I would urge
the board to sort of, you know, allow the plan we have developed. And if there's an urge to reduce
the unit count, I really would like to bring on the architect to speak about how that would or
wouldn't be possible. Thank you. And thank you, David, too. MI 2021-005320, 1643-51 North 6th
I vote yes with proviso as per amended refusal dated 3-9-22.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Hallowin, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you everyone.
MI 2021-003-754-1622-40 Point Breeze Avenue.
Sean Weil is the attorney.
RCO letter in opposition from concerned citizens of Point Breeze.
RCO letter in support from coordinating RCO.
applicant is expecting a letter of support. We don't see the letters of yet. Mr. Whalen?
Good afternoon, Chairman. Hi, Mr. Whalen, could you identify your client and the relationship
to the property? Certainly. 1620 Point Breeze Avenue, LLC, is the owner of the property.
thank you do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do the vice chair has several questions hi mr will and do you agree to waive the reading
Hi, Mr. Whalen. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
Yes, I do.
I assume that you have submitted the required documents five days in advance,
and you've met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, and yes.
I think there were two yeses needed in there.
Yes and yes, and you may also share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I neglected to do so, so my name is Sean, S-E-A-N, last name Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N.
I did swear you in, right?
Yes, you did swear me in.
Thank you. I'm sorry.
Nope, that's fine.
So I am sharing my screen right now, and hopefully everyone can see a proposed rendering of the site in question today.
um so i i will state first that we we did receive a letter of support from the coordinating rco
point breeze cdc um i hope that you had that i actually received it i believe from
uh board council sharon saletta um so you can see
uh two the neighbors within two block radius are in support of this project
And we did, as I believe Chairman stated, the letter states that it's for 2027 Ellsworth Street.
We understand this to be a letter from concerned citizens of Point Breeze for 1622 to 40 Point Breeze in opposition to the project.
So, again, the coordinating RCO supported the project and another RCO in the area opposed the project.
um there was a lot of confusion with regard to this uh proposal in front of you today uh talking
about a lot of different developments and types and i just to be clear the only thing we're talking
about today is a subdivision of the land we are not talking about any actual construction going
forward uh but i'll i'll build out the story for you as as easy as possible so we have uh a single
refusal. The refusal, I think, is technically correct, and that's how I answered it to Ms.
Tenere, vice chair. However, it's stating that 57 units would be too many for the land.
Again, I think this is a bit confusing, so I'll get into that in just a second.
This is the subject property we're talking about.
Here's where a block south of Tasker, a block north of Morris. It's a very large
oddly shaped parcel right at Fernon and Point Breeze Avenue.
And here, I think, is the simplest way I can describe what's going on today.
What you're looking at today is the subdivision of the land as it sits today and previously
approved.
There is an approved apartment building under construction right now, basically on this
portion of the property, this lower portion of the property, that is a 57 unit apartment building
that was proposed, I believe, almost exactly three years ago, went through, it was a buy-write
project, went through CDR, and actually, and notably, in working with the community,
there have been numerous, numerous RCO meetings and community meetings here, and I'll allow my
client to to testify as to all of them because I know I've only been to the formal ones
in coordination with the RCO that approved apartment building was reduced by 10 units
so there was an approval a prior approval for a 67 unit building that was reduced voluntarily
down to 57 units in coordination with the community at the CDR process so this is what we have this
is technically parcel a and this is parcel c which is a vacant lot currently at the corner
of fernon and point breeze the x right here is one kind of standard townhome lot that is privately
owned and then right next door where i have city lots there are two very small one is about 12 and
a half feet wide one's just shy of 14 feet wide or 13 and a half feet wide city owned lots those
are controlled by phdc the proposal before you today is to switch to what i'm showing right now
on the screen you would still have the approved apartment building uh 57 units as i said that's
under construction that's not in consideration for today the city lots would remain the private
uh parcel would remain parcel c would actually get a little bit larger and then there would be
And then there would be a new parcel B here.
a new parcel b here and
And in short, what the attempt is to do is to build what's on the screen right now.
This is, I said, the culmination of about three years of this project.
The vote in favor that I showed you from the coordinating RCO, some of the members of the
ZBA chairman may well remember the vitriol and fighting over this project numerous times. So
this apartment building will be built no matter what. There was an original plan to build a second
apartment building fronting on Fernon. That plan has been scrapped. And now in coordination
with the community, the community asked for townhomes. And in conjunction with the Point
Breeze CDC, we've agreed to keep the corner property open and allow some open space for the
community. There will be street trees planted, and these would be completely conforming townhomes,
actually approximately 4 or 35 feet, so even less than the 38-foot homes. This is what the
neighborhood wanted and this is what they requested for us to forego an apartment building
again just quickly to build an apartment building on the existing lot at the corner to forgo
building that and instead building single family homes townhomes across from the single family
townhomes on the other side of Fernon. We remain in discussions with the City of Philadelphia,
the Councilman's Office, and the community to purchase. Again, what I show here are those two
city lots that I described. Those will be vacant as of now. We do not own them, we do not control
them, and we do not have an agreement for them. However, with support of the community and the
councilman's office and continued negotiations with the city. We hope to acquire those two lots
and therefore have a completed string of townhomes. There would be nine townhomes in this situation
with eight townhomes being built here. What you can see is the obvious benefit of this subdivision
and, you know, the greatly increased corner area, which would be open and allowed for use by the
community. And as we've set forth with Point Breeze CDC, the community would have control of
that corner and determine for their own purposes with the councilman's office, what the best
possible use of that corner would be. So in essence, you know, we do believe there's a distinct
hardship to be described here. However, that is part of the kind of convoluted background.
Much of the anger in the neighborhood has been over the existing and previously approved and
now under construction apartment building. That's not in front of us today. And we actually, I know,
and you may hear that this subdivision is an attempt to increase allowable density.
This is actually a second step of decreasing density at this parcel. So again, this property right here, or sorry, this structure right here was approved, fully approved with permits in hand for 67 units.
The developer reduced that in coordination with the community and the CDR process down to 57 units.
We can currently build a second apartment building, even scrapping the much larger apartment building that cannot be built with those city lots in the middle.
We could build another apartment building at the corner.
the community has said and we are in agreement that they do not want another apartment building
and they asked for this nice larger open space so that's what we are working towards with the
community and again these would be 34 to 35 foot townhomes single family for sale townhomes
to you can see the whole string of single family townhomes going up and down
in this neighborhood. So that's what we're working for. And with that, I would conclude.
I'm happy to answer any questions. Like I said, it's a convoluted scenario.
So Sean, explain, go back one more time. So all you're really asking is the parcels today.
Correct. So today, the apartments are already approved. You're not asking the bill today,
You're not asking the bill today, anything in the front, you're just asking for the parcels.
anything in the front. You're just asking for the parcels.
Correct.
Correct.
Am I right?
Correct.
And some may ask why, you know, is there some purpose as to why we're not including them all together?
Because of those city lots and because of our continued hope and desire to work with the community to acquire those and give a much larger portion of the corner, we could not bring everything together as one application.
That's the only reason why you're not seeing one application.
So all that's before you today.
Why don't you bring your owner on and adopt the testimony?
Certainly. Thank you, Chairman.
I believe Ori Feibusch is on, if he could be raised as a panelist.
He's available. He can unmute himself.
I believe I'm unmuted.
Mr. Feibusch, you've already been sworn.
would you just state your name for the court reporter? Sure. Ori Fybush, F as in Frank,
E-I-B-U-S-H. Proceed, Mr. Whelan. Yes, thank you. Mr. Fybush, you are here on behalf of the owner
of this property, correct? That is correct. And did you hear the testimony already presented?
Yes, sir. And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge,