He supports a business on South Street for businesses promoting there, but not in a historical
Point Breeze section of Philadelphia, especially Point Breeze Avenue, where businesses were.
This lot has an odd shape because it used to be a movie theater also on that lot.
So that automatically gives it an odd shape for the other businesses and homes that were
around it.
If you approve this for him today, like my neighbors are saying, we have no idea what
he's actually going to do because he'll have approval and he'll go ahead and just do what
he wants to do because apparently this is what he's allowed, has been allowed to do,
it seems as in the past.
So right now, I am against him having separate lots.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you for calling in.
Anyone else have something else to offer relative to this in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Matthew Noggle.
Mr. Noggle, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Can you hear me?
Mr. Noggle, can you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Matthew Noggle, N-O-G-G-L-E.
I live at 1635 South 23rd Street, which is directly against this entire larger project.
Wait a minute. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I urge you to vote against this variance for a multitude of reasons, in addition to what Tangy and some of my other neighbors have said.
there has been a consistent refusal of transparency and requests for additional information from
a variety of people within the system. Two of the RCOs have refused my requests for copies
of Zoom meetings related to this lot. Pietra Gamble, Albert Littlepage, likewise Councilman
Johnson's office has refused copies of Zoom meetings where much of the information that
Mr. Whalen has shared here can be refuted, but unfortunately they refuse to give those.
uh councilman johnson's office has also refused other information we've been refused copies of
Councilman Johnson's office has also refused other information.
We've been refused copies.
shade studies related to other projects on the same lot um the concessions that mr whalen spoke
about were not the concessions that the people in the community asked for those were the concessions
that he and his client wanted to give we asked for concessions on reduced density reduced height
as well as on-site parking and uh they were all refused um citing that every aspect that they want
they can have because of the city's by right and so i urge you to reject this city has been removed
i'm almost done please city was um has at all levels has refused providing an avenue for us
to have input and have meaningful say and this will be one way the city can help us at least
reduced density for the time being. Thank you. Thank you for calling in.
Anyone else have something different or relative to this project?
Chair, we have someone with the phone number ending in
3055. Sir or madam with the phone number
ending in 3055. Can you please unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
State your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter. Hi.
Good afternoon, boy. Tiffany Green, concerned citizens of Point 3.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, please.
I'm representing concerns to the point of view of RCO as an effective RCO.
And today I'm going, I want to just piggyback on the neighbors that spoke.
But however, it's a more important issue that we need to protect the right to the neighbors under the zoning code.
This refusal is inaccurate and not correct.
We asked the board to either vote deny or dismiss this particular refusal for their variants.
The incorrect address is 1622-40 Point Breeze Avenue.
OPA number is 881-450-744.
The ZP number for that, okay, is 20-21-001-129.
Now, and this particular D address does not exist, okay?
The correct address or DTA address as recorded on 79-2021 is 1630 Point Breeze Avenue, OPA number 881-000066.
and 1622 Point Breeze Avenue OPA number 3640022. Okay. Okay. We would want that this
applicant have a new application under a new review. Okay. We are here based on a refusal
being correct. And this refusal is not only incorrect, it's inaccurate. And it was also
1622 Point Breeze Avenue was legally sent out to the neighbors for a public meeting and this
public hearing. Okay, under the zoning code, okay, we have the right to have to address a correct
refusal okay at the public meeting and at the public hearing okay and we have no way of verifying
uh if getting this information in the refusal is correct but we know that these that the
property has already been subdivided into 1630.3 avenue and 1622.3 avenue okay all right uh i just
want to say that during the public meeting i did pose the question to the developer mr feinbush
was 16 22 40 point b's avenue correct and he stated that it was okay and at that point
subsequently the neighbors have voted on a particular property that is not no longer in
existence okay we would like to have the entire uh permit done over and um under review um hopefully
leaders may also need to open more open communications and as uh the developer stated
he will be willing to make some type of concessions i just want to finish up my uh my uh my testimony
as you can uh right and that uh we also have submitted this to ms baldwin uh the chief code
enforcer uh we have been in communication with her office since march 3rd and uh and like i said
we have requested that this out this refusal i mean that the permit application and the
refusal be canceled and be done over again under um the refusal so um and also i just want one
more thing uh commissioner i just want to make the statement that um the vote was with us for 15 days
i just received a summary this morning and so i cast my vote directly with the zba so therefore
summary this morning and so i cast my vote directly with the zba so therefore it was
not 10-9 it would be 10-10 tied so i hope that you would keep that in consideration why the vote was
withheld we have no idea why okay thank you thank you all right thank you is there anyone else has
a comment that's different there are no other hands at this time chair excuse me commission
excuse me mr chairman mr chairman go ahead thomas oh counselor
thomas what is the future what is the future plan for partial billion c
uh i i am happy to walk that through so i i think still showing on your screen
is uh the future plan what we want the apartment building is not before you today we're talking
about the subdivision we would like to build uh nine townhomes these will be uh actually
reduced in height they will be lower than the corresponding townhomes across the street
and doing so requires us to acquire the two city lots i do not want to represent to this board
that we have already done so or have agreement to do so we are in continuous conversations with
the city to try to get those two lots that would allow a much larger portion here if we do not get
the city lots we will build eight townhomes across here so these four townhomes that you see right
here will be on the new parcel b this is parcel b or would be parcel b and sorry these uh four
townhomes would be on parcel c so again right now what we could do is build uh eight or nine
apartments on parcel c um we've been trying to and i will just use this opportunity because uh
miss bruce miss dixon miss lambright and mr nogal all raised very important um points and i think
that they go to answer your question as well mr holliman um i i don't know if i misspoke but i
want to make clear this project was brought forward originally as the 67 unit apartment building
money was you know the property was just for sale at an arm's length transaction it was purchased by
my client money was raised with plans to build an apartment building those plans were brought
forward it was approved by right and then we proceeded through the cdr process during the cdr
process you know the plans are already approved and ready to go but for finalizing the cdr process
That was the first time that we learned, because this was a by-right project, of the extreme sensitivity in this neighborhood to an apartment building at this site.
So what you heard today, which is absolutely correct and we do not refute, was that there was adamant opposition early on to this apartment building.
The near neighbors did ask us to scrap entirely the apartment building and to build townhomes across the entire property.
For multiple business reasons, that could not be done.
Money was already invested and the project was already designed.
So in coordination with that, we did reduce the overall density of that apartment building from 67 to 57.
Mr. Whelan, we've covered this. I mean, you've said that several times.
Right. So let me just finish up then. This final subdivision that we're talking about today has nothing to do with the apartment building that's at issue and was just raised by all of the neighbors in opposition.
What we're talking about is just what will happen along Fernon, and we will stipulate and agree. We would agree to a proviso not to build an apartment building. We have no intentions to build an apartment building.
We are in agreement with the RCO in conversations with the councilman's office to build low-density, low-height townhomes along Fernon Street to mirror what is along the neighborhood.
And with that, I apologize if I went to you.
No, no, no. Thank you, Mr. Whalen. Any other questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, David Fechtow, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
multifamily zoning at this location.
This proposal finished civic design review in November 2020 and we want to note the design
review is a process which advises applicants on the design of their proposal but has no role in
reviewing zoning variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals. So the applicant
received a permit on the large lot for 57 units using bonuses for a green roof and mixed income
units in August of 2021. However, the applicant is now asking to divide a 2,098 square foot parcel
off from the original proposal. This would allow the applicant the privilege of earning free
dwelling units on the new lot over and above what they received with their bonuses on their
original proposal. So the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested use
variance. Thank you. If I may just very quickly, Chairman Bergman, with all of this being townhomes
and with us agreeing that no apartment building will be built on the as existing lot, so this
lot C already exists and allows eight or nine apartments, with us agreeing not to build that,
which we would agree to here on the hearing, we are actually not increasing the density request
in any way, shape, or form. We're asking for no more units than we could build already in an
apartment building. Mr. Whalen, thank you very much. We've had a great deal of testimony today.
I want to hold the vote so I can talk to my other board members in an executive session next
Wednesday, and we will announce where we stand next Wednesday morning. Thank you, Mr. Whalen,
for all your time. Thank you very much, Chairman. Could I just ask for, you broke up for a second,
will you be voting at the morning session or the afternoon session? Morning session.
Okay, thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you, sure.
MI 2021-005248-5003 Pine Street, Vern Anastasio. RCO Garden Court Apartment Community Association
letter of support. Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I state your name is spelled for the court reporter, please.
Yes, of course. First off, my apologies. I'm having some technical difficulties with my camera,
so my apologies that you can only hear me and not see me, but it's Vern Anastasio V, like Victor,
E-R-N-A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 317, Philadelphia, 19107.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Could you identify who your client is and the relationship to the property?
Yes, I'm actually representing Ms. Crystal Bell, who is the executrix of the estate that is owning the property.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Mr. Amistadio, do you agree to the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, Vice Chair Tenere.
Okay. It appears that you have sent in all the required documents timely, and you've met with the RCO and have a lotter as well?
You may proceed, and please share with the screen.
Thank you. I believe my screen is shared.
It is up. That's right. I'm looking right at it.
Awesome. Thank you. 50-03 Pine Street. This is the legalization of an existing three-family dwelling in an existing structure. No additions are proposed, and this is why we received a refusal as the RSA-3 zoning classification.
I'll go through quickly the plans where there's a front door foyer, living, dining, kitchen on the first floor with a powder room, a full restroom, and a mudroom.
We have our second floor with the front door on the side, hallway.
We have a kitchen and a one-bedroom apartment.
And then we have our third floor with a two-bedroom apartment, full-size living room,
kitchen, and bath. The property has, I'll zoom out a little bit, property has two entrances.
My client inherited this property. Her father owned it for many years. And as it turns out,
Her father owned it for many years, and as it turns out, although it was a legal three-family dwelling, at some point a lapse in rental licenses caused the underlying zoning district to take hold.
As a result, it is no longer compliant, although pre-existing, non-existing use.
It's no longer a compliant three family dwelling. We have four electric meters, one for each of the three units, plus a house unit for exterior lighting. We have gas meters that show the same thing here.
and I am going to go down to, if you give me a moment, I think what's most important
is the history of the property, whereas if you can see quite clearly there were in fact
zoning permits via variance for a three-family dwelling, and that has been consistent throughout
the history of the property. Well, if in fact there's a three-family dwelling again from the
60s, if in fact this property was ever less than a three-family dwelling, there is no evidence
to suggest that it was at any time, at least over the last 75 years. We did have an RCO meeting,
87 individuals were mailed. This is pursuant to VISTA's mailing. We have a tax certification.
And if I can scroll up a little, I will show you that, in fact, after meeting with the RCO,
They, in fact, sent a letter dated 15th of March in support of granting of this variance.
They list a number of reasons why the variance should be granted, given the pre-existing
non-conforming conditions, given the RCO support, given the articulated reasons for support,
which is A, housing affordability, and B, diversity in housing price points.
And given the long history of the proposed use that was once all legalized,
I respectfully request that the appeal for the three-family dwelling, again, conditions already in existence, be used.
I think, just to take particular note, is that the RCO agreed that compliance would require a considerable investment and then making the home only, and this is a quote, only attainable to a family affluent enough to afford it.
small-scale units like this contribute to our neighborhood's vitality and diversity.
And as such, I am going to rest, move my 59, I believe, pieces of exhibits into the record
as evidence. And I'd like to call my client, Ms. Crystal Bell, to raise her hand for her testimony.
Ms. Bell, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Ms. Bell, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Crystal Bell, spelled C-R-Y-S-T-A-L, last name Bell, B-E-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I proceed?
please. Ms. Bell, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon? Yes, I did. And is it
true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? That is correct. Yes. Okay. And do you adopt it
as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you. And were you present for the RCO meeting where the community