And again, you'll see here the vacant lot, with portions of this lot having been vacant for many decades.
The next photograph here shows the property in relation to Belmont Avenue, which is just to the west.
And then looking in the other direction, this photograph looks east on Viola Street.
This is a view from across the street from the property, again on Viola Street.
Then just looking here, this is a view of the intersection with Belmont Avenue just at the end of the block,
where you'll see the context right across from this intersection is the Discovery Charter School
over in the image here at the right-hand side. And then, as I mentioned to you previously,
just essentially fronting on Belmont Avenue, immediately next to the property is the Philadelphia
Fire Station. And then, as I mentioned earlier, by way of context, this property is contained
And then, as I mentioned earlier, by way of context, this property is contiguous to my client's other development on Parkside Avenue, which in this photograph, you can see this is slightly out of date prior to the start of construction.
But this looks right through to Viola.
And then we did also include updated posting, which was posted timely on February 4th, 2026.
As shown on the Consolidation Plan at Exhibit 9, the lot itself is 3,920 square feet.
The proposal for 4283 Viola Street is shown on the Zoning Plan at Exhibit 10.
And I will zoom in on this.
The proposal includes one new four story structure to be used for group living for a maximum
of 50 occupants, which we'll discuss in more detail momentarily.
The building itself is proposed to be a detached structure, leaving a five foot wide buffer
to the east and approximately an eight and a half foot wide buffer uh to the west you can see five
feet here and about little over eight and a half feet here a four foot curb cut is proposed on
viola street to facilitate the efficient removal of trash commercial trash pickup will be required
the building itself is only proposed to occupy 63 of the lot which is less than the code required
75%. No basement is proposed for this building. I'm going to skip the floor plans for just a
moment and just skip to a rendering at Exhibit 12. The floor plans, which I will return to
momentarily, are at Exhibit 11. Starting first from just a general perspective, this plan shows
that the trash enclosures are proposed to sit behind an enclosed fence to shield the area from
public view. The first floor will also have a common mail room and a lobby. Electrical panels
would be installed in the rear. Before I go into more details on the floor plan, I'm going to first
introduce the special exception standard so that we can very carefully and granularly establish
that the proposed use qualifies for a special exception. As the board is aware, a special
exception is not truly asking for an exception to the code. It is proposing a use that is already
permitted by the zoning code. Our burden, as established by Section 143037E.1-3 is to first
establish that the proposed use meets the definition of a use allowed by special exception,
that all dimensional standards are satisfied, and that the application complies with all criteria
and conditions applicable to the proposed use. First, it is without dispute that the application
meets all dimensional standards of the code, as no refusals were issued for any aspect of the
proposed structure for lot development. There are also no use-specific standards for group living
in the Philadelphia Code for which the applicant must comply. Second, the applicant must establish
that the use meets the definition of a use permitted by special exception. Here, group
living which indisputably is permitted by special exception at table 14601-1 of the zoning code
as I have up on the screen highlighted in yellow and shown to the board. You can see
group living highlighted RSA 5 and the S which indicates it's a use permitted by special exception.
by way of
some further detail bring this back up
all right the zoning code defines group living let me zoom in on that defines group living
as a residential occupancy of a building or any portion thereof that is not categorized
as a household living use, and that typically provides communal kitchen slash dining facilities.
Backing into this definition, we can first establish that the use proposed today is not
that the use proposed today is not one that is characterized as household living.
not one that is characterized
Household living is defined as a residential occupancy of a building or any portion thereof
by one or more families, commonly broken down into categories of single-family, two-family,
or multifamily. Again, and I apologize having to get into such important granular detail,
multifamily is the use of a lot as a residence for three or more families with each family,
and I will highlight the word family for you, occupying a single dwelling unit.
Importantly, family is defined by the zoning code as a person living independently or a group of persons living as a single household unit, using housekeeping facilities in common.
But, and again, I'll highlight this next part, not to include more than three persons who are unrelated by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster child status.
or are not life partners. Here, and as I will now show you on the floor plans,
the project does not provide dwelling units for families. Instead, the proposed use is seeking
to fill a missing need for both transitional, highly affordable housing for persons who are
otherwise entirely independent and not requiring of any form of specialized care.
As you can see on the floor plans, the design here includes separate living pods.
On the first floor, there are two pods containing four beds each.
The third pod on the first floor is combined with two kitchens.
I'M JUST GOING TO OBJECT TO SAYING THAT THERE ARE BEDS THAT ARE PROVIDED.
THE APPLICANT IN A MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT
PROVIDING ANY BEDS, THAT ANY BEDS THAT WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE BROUGHT BY THE OCCUPANTS.
DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
APPLICANTS COME IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD ROUTINELY WITH FLOOR PLANS FOR MULTIFAMILY PROPOSALS
for any form of a proposal uh where this board has come to expect that the layout of those uh
of those facilities is going to be provided with the location of bedrooms so it's entirely irrelevant
hold on i hear your point but i'm going to allow it for now okay yeah we agree that there will be
bedrooms okay but not i think she's okay she's shown where the bets are going to be thank you
the third pod on the first floor is combined with two kitchens six bedrooms two bathrooms
and shared living space with direct access outside and as you can see there is the door
the layout of the second through fourth floor is similar except that those levels are designed with
one large open pod each with 12 beds per pod four kitchens four bathrooms shared living spaces
the total number of occupants may not on the record i will object to the notation of beds
sure okay and mr chairman um i i would like uh mr masters to allow me to get through my
presentation here so i i i think he's he's making a point i i didn't agree with him so why don't you
continue thank you the total number of occupants may not exceed 50 per hour application the living
spaces will have privacy barriers in between the uh the location of the beds the pods will
not be rented on a per pod basis they will be rented with flexible leasing terms per individual
for lease terms up to a year, but with lesser lease terms available as well, but no less than
30 days. For the avoidance of doubt, any lease term less than 30 days would constitute visitor
accommodations, and that is not the proposed use of this space. The layout here is quite similar
to one you might see for a group transitional shelter. The difference here being that this is
a step up into a space of a much higher standard of living, where an individual requires
into a space of a much higher standard of living where an individual requires no on-site support
is capable of paying rent but may be unable to afford a single apartment for the time being
importantly this use is not one that can be classified as a personal care home
home, nor a single room residence, which are subcategories of group living.
And again, just to bring up the actual definitions from the code, you can see here at Exhibit
17, the definitions of personal care home is one where food, shelter, and personal assistance
is provided.
That is not the case with this proposed use, which is intended for entirely independent
adults.
Further, a single room residence is defined as a building containing rooms rented as living quarters without private bathrooms.
The design of the interior of this proposed building renders it unmistakable that there are no rooms being rented as living quarters without private bathrooms.
Here, each pod has private bathrooms. The rentals are not on a per room basis.
Notably, there is significant precedence in the city's public permitting systems for this type of use being classified as group living.
Even beyond transitional living facilities, this board has granted relief for group living uses in, for example, many student housing facilities,
where the only basis for the use being group living versus multifamily was the fact that there
were more than three unrelated people living together, as is the case here. For example,
around universities, there are many single-family homes that have been approved for group living
purely because there were more than three students living in that property. This proposal is no
different, albeit a higher density. During the RCO meeting, many members of the community
expressed concern that this was intended to be a drug rehab center or other similar type of
medical facility. Let me be abundantly clear. The proposed group living use here is not for a drug
rehab, recently released offenders, or any other population who may require on-site services or
support the board can certainly issue a proviso to that effect so meredith i don't want to interrupt
you but you're 20 minutes you're 20 minutes into your 25 minutes so i'm just giving a little sense
of where we stand okay okay i i i maybe need five five ten minutes and i'll be i'll be done i i i
think i'm good for five if not we're going to have a resumptive hearing okay okay uh there was also
concern from community members about who would live in this building we have been very clear
throughout the meetings that my client would be renting in accordance with established
fair housing standards philadelphia code regulations and any state laws pertaining
to landlord tenant standards according to standard rules of statutory construction
we submit that the board is bound to apply the clear language of the code as written and find
that the proposed use as presented constitutes group living. Even if the code were ambiguous,
which we dispute, the board would still be bound to interpret the code in the landowner's favor,
planned at the exact same conclusion.
mr chairman my my next section here is really um more in the legal argument so i'm actually
going to suggest this may be a an even place to stop just in terms of picking it back up again
so so let me let me let me say this um tell me what the rest of your case will look like when
we come back so the rest of my case is just walking through the rest of the legal standard
that we have to establish to the board in terms of the special exception and how how long meredith
how long do you think that would be 10 minutes 15 minutes and then how many witnesses i have one
witness uh and i only have at the moment i only have three questions for him so i don't have i
don't have anything extensive for my witness at this time thank you very much steve um i'm not
asking you to show me your case for anything could you give me a sense of what your case would entail
and how long you think it would take because i think if i'm not mistaken you can just already
give us a list of potential witnesses why don't you just give me an idea of what your case looks
why don't you just give me an idea what your case looks like so oh hold on uh i think i did
So I'll.
i swore them both in the beginning yeah of course go ahead absolutely um
so we're going to be focusing a lot on um the applicant's uh statements to the community at
a meeting a few weeks ago, which vary considerably from his attorney's representations at the
moment. We're going to also have some of our community people are going to be focusing
specifically on why this particular use is going to be much more damaging and hurtful
to the community. The question here really isn't whether this is group living. The question
is whether the special exception should be granted and that only is granted if both the the applicant
and the and the community meet different burdens so we're going to be looking at the burdens that
the that the applicant has to have a burden to show that what he's proposing is not is not
damaging and dangerous he has to have that burden first and then it slide it shifts to us to say that
it would be more burdensome so we're going to be having a lot of testimony about that
we're also going to be looking at how the the code actually um defines transitional housing
how the the the state laws um define it and how the courts have defined it and that's important
because what they're telling you here well you don't you don't tell me now just just i mean you're
gonna have a chance to explain all that to me just give me a sense of how long you think you
need and and if you if it's if we're gonna have to repeat another date we we look we we had very
many hearings at the in the first go-round and and that was not a popular thing for for for um
for our side to have to keep coming back i understand so we would really appreciate if
we could have a big chunk that we could just get it all all over with i think that we'd be talking
about 45 minutes to an hour okay all right so for both of you we're going to continue this for
resumptive hearing to April 17th at 9 30 a.m.
And I want to thank everybody for coming down here. I see your signs and things of that nature
but for both of you Meredith will be back here April 17th at 9 30 a.m. and and thank you thank
you both. Thank you thank you Mr. Chair over the board. Mr. Nockamson please.
MI 2023-002-047-2231 Green Street.
Alan Nockmson is the attorney.
So, Mr. Nockmson, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes. Excuse me. Alan Nockmson. A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes. My client to the left of me is Jack Jallo, one of the owners of the property.
Mm-hmm. Okay. And there's a letter of non-opposition from the Spring Garden Civic Association, and I have updates here, right, Hillary? We had an update from, so I see an update. Standing issue resolved and amended to the declaration of condominium that has been recorded and signed by all unit owners plus condo association, and we received the proof of tax compliance. Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Okay. And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay. Thank you. You can show your screen and proceed with your case.
Great. If I could just be promoted to a panelist.
Thank you.
all right so we're here to present 2231 green street unique circumstances here
my client actually just purchased trying to do full screen mode
my client just purchased a property this is a site plan right so here's the 22
My client just purchased a property. This is a site plan, right? So here's the 2231 Green Street condominium. They also have this as a limited common element right here, which is a two parking space, two parking spaces. Mr. Jallo and his wife Gage Johnston purchase unit number one, as well as this limited common element here, which is the entire thing.
there's a driveway easement here coming off 23rd street i know i say this a lot but i actually
passed this property every single day really i live on 23rd street in fairmont so i passed this
coming into the city i passed it today and i said okay you know hopefully we're going to be uh you
know you know fixing up this property in the way it should be sure um so um my client actually also
owns these five parking spots and he lives here at 2240 mount vernon street so he uses these five
parking spots currently for himself family and actually neighbors i was joking with jack i said
you know if we get this approved am i am i one of those people that can arc over there it's a
little too far for me but um but yeah but he honestly uses it for the neighborhood and if
anyone knows vermont it's definitely struggles with parking and having these five off street
parking spots plus hopefully to like make this we're changing configuration of it but into
additional parking spot will be very helpful. So anyway, so that's where we are. Jack owns five
here. He owns this now as a limited common element for 2231 Green Street, and he owns 2240 Mount
Vernon. What he's trying to do here is just literally subdivide this property here and make
it its own parcel and have it as non-accessory parking. So it's not changing. It's just going,
it's parking connected with the condo building and it's going to be parking now basically to
make this almost into its own little parking lot. So you'll see we'll go through 10 exhibits here
which include the notice refusal, a letter of non-opposition from the Spring Garden Civic
Association. We also entered into agreement with Spring Garden Civic Association. One of their
concerns was if we took that parcel away from the association would this be like a way to for us to
develop that parcel that's not our intention at the present moment we agreed have an agreement