and put that as a trash a smaller trash room we could use that we could use that area places here
we could use that we could use that area places here that it could go but i just i think just
that it could go, but I just, I think.
realistically knowing human behavior nobody's walking the length of the building to the part
of the building they never access and then my other question is really about mail so like
where is the mailbox going and then what sort of the plan for like deliveries like
based on the address being on locus street so without speaking to the owner about this what
i would think is the mailboxes would go in the front of the building and then in terms of delivery
you have this common wall area looks like you could potentially fit something that you know for
more so deliveries of bigger boxes of such or at the very least leave it over here so it doesn't
get stolen on this no it's possible i just know that like based on all that has stuff to do with
like opa what's listed as legal address so just things to think about i think from a convenient
standpoint for the mailman person um i would put it in the front certainly that's what they would
definitely want other questions
questions from our attorney hillary emerson
uh no questions mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands planning commission oh chair wait another a hand just went up oh boy and it's
stella ninnis who her name is stella ninnis okay she's coming in now thank you
hello everyone um hi how are you could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
My name is Richard Ninnis, R-I-C-H-A-R-D, Ninnis, N-I-N-N-E-S-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Ninnis, what we're going to have to do is we're going to give you two minutes to talk about what you think of this project, whether you like it or you dislike it or where you are with it, okay?
And by the way, are you a neighbor?
Right.
I live behind the property on Melville Street and I feel like we've been left out of the
conversation. I am completely against this project. Also, I fear that there's not one project but two
projects. The property owner also owns a building on 45th Street and what is going to happen is I
I think it's going to be an apartment complex, and I think it's a huge mistake, and I also think that the property line is going to be adjusted into an alley that was taken over by neighbors over decades, and I don't understand the shared courtyard.
I feel that that's going to be the other apartment building that's going to extend back from 45th Street.
And the projects are not being discussed in tandem because by only talking about one, the issue of the apartment complex that's looming is going to be ignored until it's too late.
Well, thank you for giving your opinion.
We appreciate you taking the time.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
Yeah, I mean, can I just respond? Hold on a minute. Do we see anyone else? I don't see any more hands, Chair. Mr. Nockmson, would you want to respond to this? Yeah, and I alluded to the fact that because we're 10 plus units, we're part of the min overlay. So what happens with this overlay is that it doesn't have to be the same address. As long as they're affiliated entities, it's considered one project.
So we're allowed, what's over there, and Matt was the architect as well, he can kind of go into that, but that's a buy-write project.
And so what happened here was we didn't think it was appropriate to have commercial unit mid-block, and that's why we went the variance route here.
We're allowed five residential plus one commercial.
We're asking to get rid of that commercial unit to put less density here.
In terms of whether the gentleman here was notified at the community meeting, all we do is send out notice. So if he's within the 250 square foot radius and, you know, he's on the address list, we send the notice out.
Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience?
No, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from the current CMX 2 commercial mixed use to RSA 5 residential single family. The first four.
commercial mixed use to rsa 5 residential single family the first four residential would be in
character with the neighborhood and the recommended zoning the planning commission
recommends the board grant their requested variance for ground floor use
um okay um mi 2025 004 963 4507 locust street tb 397702 i vote yes
revised plans one page no no there's no revised plans this is a change of use application only
should we put it no I just I mean I know that there was but there's no whereby this is a change
of use only okay okay all right yeah we can't revise so I voted yes Michael Jones my vote is
yes Cheryl Gaston my vote is yes Tana Graham my vote is yes Ryan McAdams my vote is yes
thank you okay thank you uh we're going to take a five minute break and then we're going to come
back and we'll um we'll do um rachel and manny
so we're back mi 2025 005049 for leverington avenue rachel pritzker is the attorney
rachel is rejoining as a panelist okay i'm here rachel just for the record state your name
because you've already been sworn yeah rachel pritzker r-a-c-h-a-e-l-p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
Rachel, could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Watermill Lofts Acquisition LLC, Matt Grossman and Stephen Kramer, and they are the owners of the property.
So what we have here now, we have a unanimous opposition from Maniac Neighborhood Council, a letter of opposition from the Office of Sustainability, and the applicant has provided a letter of support from the adjacent neighbors of 2 Leverington Avenue.
correct yeah our our vice chair has just a few questions for you okay good afternoon have you
submitted your documents and uh exhibits five days in advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes okay thank you you can share your
screen and proceed with your case thank you just for efficiency um if we could promote um scott
woodruff and matt uh kears that would be helpful have them come on and then we'll swear them in
when we're ready okay
so if they can raise their hand and we'll swear them in okay so in front of you is for leverington
Avenue. This is a property that zoned I-2, and the only refusal that we have in front of the board
is a use refusal to add an additional four units to an already existing 20-unit building,
two units of which that are already existing are already on the first floor. There is a vacant
commercial space or slash industrial space that's 3 000 square feet that has been vacant since 2022
and given the i2 zoning doesn't allow for residential although there's already two
residential units on the first floor this would just be adding four residential units on that
same first floor with the additional with those two units that are there for a total of 24 units
in an existing structure there's no other variances that we are requesting we are not
requesting variances for any alterations of the building exterior we're not requesting any
variations from any floodplains or waterfront setbacks we are just asking for relief to be
able to provide additional residential units in a building that is completely residential units
Our application, project information form, tax clearance, the deed, zoning map.
Zoning map. So, as mentioned, the property is zoned I-2, surrounded by CMX-2, RSA-5, and other I-2.
So as mentioned, the proper
This is the property here. Aerial view of the property.
this is a exterior view of the property what you see in front of you is the ground floor
the first floor of the building this property has a lot size of 12 735 square feet and the
building is 23 052 square feet according to the city's office of property assessment
it's a long-standing historic building that was constructed in the 1800s and is on the city's
Philadelphia register of historical places and again is zoned i2 industrial
just so you can see the first floor of the property I'm going to go into the the history
a little bit but this is all that sort of we're discussing here the remaining floors are already
residential multifamily and again there are two units already on the the ground floor but just
it helps to see um the visual the most recent zoning permit for this property dates back um to
april 30th of 2012 uh where this board um where the property was owned g2 at that time um and
this property approved a variance for 20 family uh dwelling units in the same building with an
existing animal hospital that is what took up the 3 000 um square feet and then for you know
reciprocal gross access and parking easements there's 123 parking spaces there's a sort of
uniqueness given the condo building behind it and the limited amount of access as you can see this
sort of side alleyway but given its location um on leverington and with the canal and main street
it's sort of a very unique location. Additionally, 2 Leverington was approved for 60 units
with retail on partial first floor. And then back in 2000, there was also variances for additional
residential units adjacent to this site. I'll also go through a couple of the other
buildings as well. The current owners purchased this property in 2018 and have struggled since
2022, between 2022 and 2024, to be able to find any commercial or industrial business that would
be willing to rent out the vacant ground floor space. As you can see, there's limited visibility
from a windows perspective it's on the city's historic register so tampering with the windows
extending the windows raising the structure altering the exterior all would be um probably
refused truthfully and you'd need some real significant ground floor renovation to be able
to provide a commercial a viable commercial use as as you can see from the obvious nature
of this property. As a result of these efforts, which I'll share the sort of evidence of those,
the owners have not been able to successfully find any viable commercial or industrial tenant
to take up that vacant 3,000 square feet of this building and as such have sought relief from the
zoning board of adjustment to add four more units to the ground floor, which is in character with
what's already on the ground floor and what's in the entire building, which we believe is a
minimum modification of the code possible to ask for relief. And instead of trying to provide some
additional alterations, given the location and the historic nature of the building, to do the
minimum possible to make this a viable use. There are some just additional visual images. This is
the the front uh well the side of it facing the canal um as you can see it's sort of very limited
as far as that front floor space there's really no access on on this side to have a commercial
use so it's really just your commercial visibility would be on this ground floor you know here or i
guess at the rear of the building that you can't see so very difficult and again it's zoned i2 so
very limited uses. This is the rear of the building where the parking is located, as you
can see, and obviously there are units, two units in the back of the property. You're not going to
put commercial on the back of this property or industrial for obvious reasons. I just wanted
I just wanted to show the interior vacant space so that the board can see it.
to show the interior vacant space so that the board can see.
Again, it used to be four years ago or whatever it was, an animal hospital for cats.
They left given they were acquired by a private equity company that bought out a number of practices and relocated them.
So it wasn't due to any issues with the building, it was just due to purchase of the entity, and the building has stayed vacant at 3,000 square feet since that time.
Some of what you see remains is from that animal hospital use.
These are just the zoning posters that we posted on all sides of the property.
Again, this is that frontage, that ground floor that we're talking about.
as i mentioned these were the this is a permit that was approved prior under the
g2 back in 2012 permitting again the existing animal hospital and for the 20 units
the other permits there was 24 units at a point on lot one and there was a subdivision
that that happened so that was a part of this um to subdivide off uh two leverington and four
leverington prior to that the most recent permit besides that is from the 1980s 1988 there was
storage of motor vehicles um at this location cars that were being repaired or waiting to be repaired
obviously given the renovations in 2014 as per the 2012 variants for residential you'd have to
remove everybody out of the building to provide an industrial use and that's not feasible or
realistic just so the board can see again the property zoned i2 despite it being entirely
residential except for 3 000 vacant square feet obviously multi-family is not allowed it's why it
sought and gotten variances to this day we could do caretaker quarters on the ground floor so you
can do a living use there. It's not that it doesn't allow any living use there, but caretaker
quarters doesn't make sense in this day and age, but there is a residential use permitted. It's
just caretaker quarters. Sort of everything else would require a variance. And a lot of these uses,
such as utilities and services, safety services, wireless service facility is not viable. Even
things like office space is not viable given there's limited visibility. As you've seen
from the outside, it would be difficult for deliveries and things of that nature for an
office perspective. And although the community group had discussed wanting a restaurant there,
it's just not a viable use for real commercial when you have main street and other commercial
corridors where you you can you know have real signage and and visibility and again given the
historic nature of this building it really limits any sort of exterior alterations um to the this
1800 uh you know 150 year old property um as mentioned we met with the rco i'm going
discuss the rco concerns first before i go through the hardship in in a little bit more detail just
given the um the importance of this project we met with the rco um one of the first things
that they had mentioned was concerns about flooding as mentioned from the beginning of
this presentation we're not asking for any variances related to uh waterfront setback or
floodplain controls we're just asking for a use variance to allow for additional residential
but in consideration of you know their concerns we actually reached out to lni they had wanted
us to reach out to the office of sustainability but we had reached out to lni which is the
office that handles the review of these applications and also who you meet with
from a building code perspective for additional flooding approvals, which we will have to go
through and which we will comply with. I just want to bring the board's attention. We did reach out
specifically back in November to the plans examiner at L&I just to say, hey, could we meet
with you to talk about any of the flooding? The RCO brought up some flooding concerns. We know we
didn't trigger anything, but we'd like to meet with you just to make sure we're not missing
anything um and we and we provided these this information and basically um the rco or sorry
the plans examiner supervisor mentioned that you know the zoning review looks at
you know the zoning review looks at the proposed use and if it's allowed it doesn't cover the
the proposed use and if it's allowed it doesn't cover the flood
floodplain but you will have to go through with the building code requirement um elevation and
flood resistance standards which we'll go through it's just premature at this time
but that what we provided satisfies the zoning stage acknowledgement but doesn't confirm
compliance because that's at the building code stage which we plan to go through so they also
said that since what our project is which it does uh it exceeds uh fifty thousand dollars we will
go through a flood protection scoping meeting which will be required before we can get a building
permit application but we have to get zoning approval in order to even go through those steps
which we're able and willing to do um and so we went back to the rco and said listen we don't
need to have another meeting with the city they're telling us that it's premature at this point but
we're more than willing to and plan to go through you know all the city requirements um that we
have to at that time. In addition, we engaged with a civil engineer to review, have them review
any of these concerns and to just provide mitigating considerations and to make sure
that they reviewed the project. So I'd like us to, if we could promote Matt Kears from
bowler engineering um just so he can share um from his letter and then um i'll obviously go through
the the hardship argument matt yes all right could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer yep matthew kearse m-a-t-t-h-e-w-k-e-a-r-s-e do you swear or affirm to tell
truth told truth and nothing but the truth i do counsel um i just uh want to give matt uh
share have him share his background um unless the board is comfortable acknowledging
matt as a an expert he has a bachelor's uh civil engineering from penn state he has a professional
license as a professional engineer um so if you'd like him to go through his cv or professional
resume he he can um just would like i mean i i would stipulate that he's a professional engineer
okay thank you matt if you can just um go through your letter but also if you can
share a little bit um about your experience specifically around these these types of
concerns um but but as you know your review of the project first yes absolutely thank you
Hey, Rachel. Matt Kearse, the branch manager of the Philadelphia Boulder Office. I've been
practicing over 10 years and mostly focused in Philadelphia, very familiar with the floodplain
regulations in Philadelphia, and have done a handful of projects in Manioc regarding the
floodplain. And in reviewing this project and this application, it's a very unique application
in the sense of it's an existing building, there's existing residential there. We're not proposing
to modify or restructure the building, move the building, or replace the building. So I kind of
looked at what do the existing conditions consist of today. And what I found is a portion of the