said yes okay uh questions from the board no no anyone else wish to testify in this matter if so
please raise your hand I'm gonna ask for complete silence so that we can
proceed the way the board does I'm sure we have Francis Cuthbertson Francis you
can now I mean all right good afternoon thank you very much
I'm Francis Cuthbertson, CKG Architect.
And please spell your name, Francis.
Last name is spelled C-U-T-H-B as in boy, E-R-T-S-O-N.
And you are?
First name is Francis.
I am the architect for this project, 4434 Lancaster Avenue.
Is there something you need to add, you would like to add?
More of a clarification.
It was already said, but basically, this was when we first got into it, as Mr. Halperin said,
and Mr. Lambert said, it was commercial on the first floor, I believe an old barbershop.
On the second floor, two apartments, and on the third floor, two apartments.
So all we did, because of the unique shape of the building, and it does have a very unique shape,
similar to what Mr. Orfaniti said earlier in previous, we have a very strange shape here.
It's formed by the intersection of Lancaster and the side street of Westminster and then 45th Street.
And all we did was take the existing design, which was, as Mr. Lambert said,
And all we did was take the existing design, which was, as Mr. Lambert said, approved, I think, sometime in the 90s, and just approved upon it.
And the reason we have to go through the variance was once anything's vacant, as you know, for more than three years, you go back to the base zoning.
And then, of course, under the base zoning, because of this very strange lot, we have 1418 square feet.
1440 is three units by right.
So we took the four units that were already there and just simply improved upon them.
We moved the stair.
We made the kitchens and bathrooms a little bit bigger.
And we just laid out, I think, a much better unit on the second and third floor.
That's really all we did.
And I think if it's confusing to the board, you know, why are we doing something that was there before?
It's because of that reason it was vacant within three years.
And that's pretty much it.
Thank you.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Excuse me.
This is Sharon Saleta.
i don't know whether this will make things clearer but i did just
text all the board members a copy of the notice of refusal
i see it
i i'm having a hard time enlarging and i can't read it but i
there's nothing in there sharon that's um we should be concerned about or is no let me um
let me just read the application is for commercial space first floor use registration required prior
to occupancy for four dwelling units on the second through third floors in an existing structure
one use refusal for lot area required for four dwelling units thank you okay anyone else wish
to testify in this case no hands thank you tanya uh planning commission
good afternoon um sorry good evening chair uh the uh property is indicated for commercial
sorry can i interrupt and ask you to state your name please absolutely my apologies for forgetting
ian hegarty representing the philadelphia city planning commission
property is indicated for commercial residential mixed use in the city's comprehensive plan
we believe the most recent legal use dating to 2010 was for three dwelling units in a beauty shop
not four as stated by the applicant the application we feel does not represent the
minimum variance necessary to afford relief and so accordingly we're recommending approval with
condition uh to limit the dwelling unit count to three in addition to the vacant commercial
on the ground floor thank you calendar number mi 2020-000952434 lancaster avenue my vote is yes
with the proviso maximum i think i got this right planning commission maximum three residential units
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
we're going on to um calendar number mi 2020 000320 2964 north 23rd street
and we're going to hold this case
yes okay the attorney is sean ward
um mr tenere we ready me yes name and address oh thank you uh good afternoon good afternoon
good afternoon members of the board sean ward on behalf of the applicant felix
el monte property at 2964 north of 23rd street my office address is 331 east street road
trevos pa19053 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do yes we waive and stipulate and we submitted you did submit the exhibit packet
with all the things required yes i did thank you except for or except for the
Yes, I did, except for the RCO letter.
And this is Sharon Saleta.
If I can interrupt for one minute, I'm not sure if this was put on the record
that we did receive a continuous request from Adrian Fernandez of Swampoodle RCO.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sharon.
Please proceed.
as we said earlier we're going to hear and hold this for we'll hold it for a short time waiting
for a letter from the rco okay can we confirm that you can see my shared screen yes you can
yes we can okay uh i've submitted my typical exhibit packet which includes a1 is the notice
of refusal the application is for the retail sale of groceries to include accessory prep and syrup
of hot and cold foods for takeout on the first floor with an existing single-family dwelling
above. It's been refused because the sale of food, beverage, and groceries is not permitted in the
district, and therefore we are required to seek a use variance. I would point out that this property
has been used as a grocery store in one family since 1939, so I don't know why it was refused
for the sale of food, beverages, and groceries.
In any event, we're here today.
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal.
A3, the project information form.
A4 is the applicant's deed.
A5 is proof of tax clearance.
A6 are photographs.
A8 are my emails evidencing the numerous requests made to the RCO to conduct a meeting.
A9 is the relevant zoning history, as mentioned, 1939, a grocery store in one family.
That was the only zoning history I saw in the file.
I also conducted a license history search dating back to 2007.
We have numerous food prep and serve licenses at this site.
A11 is the zoning map.
A12 is the aerial photograph.
Again, I just summarized by saying the property was continuously used as a grocery store in one family since 1939.
We're simply looking to add the prep and serve of hot and cold foods, all previously approved uses to remain.
So we have the notice of refusal, my appeal transmittal, which includes the application of appeal, the refusal, the PIF.
Here's a copy of his deed.
You'll see he purchased the property August 27th of 2019.
Shortly before that, he took over the store and then purchased the property from the former owner.
Tax compliance, you can see he's paid up through 2020.
As far as the zoning archive goes, here's a copy of the permit from 1969.
Whoop, just went right by it.
And you'll see that it's a one-family dwelling in a grocery store.
moving on we have the pictures of the posting of the premises
the actual poster it's a corner property located at 129th street
as you can see it's obvious that it's been there for quite some time he does advertise that he
sell hot they sell hot foods here's the other corner view the three opposing corners are all
commercial uses. You got a newsstand, you've got a Chinese food restaurant,
and then a lounge, Monique's Lounge. I slipped in another copy of that zoning
permit accidentally. Here is the search for licenses at the location and you
can see dating back to 2007, there was food prep and serve there. I'm not sure how far Eclipse goes
back, but at least we know 2007 there was food prep and serve. Scales and scanners are consistent
with the grocery store and market use. Again, food prep and serve in 2008, food prep and serve in
2011. And then my client obtained his food prep and serve license. It was issued December 4th,
2019, following an inspection by O&I, the food prep and serve license, which was issued
as a matter of right.
Later, the inspection by Inspector Raudenbush indicated that he had a zoning permit for
a grocery store only and not for the hot and cold food prep and takeout.
So even O&I acknowledges that he had a zoning for the grocery store.
the grocery store, but when we filed the application, it ended up in a refusal.
But when we file the application,
And again, I'm sorry, here's the zoning map.
Ironically, you'll see here the other three corners are zoned CMX1,
but somehow during the remapping, despite the fact that this grocery store has been here since 1939,
it was not zoned consistently with the other three corners, and it's mapped as RSA5.
Very quickly, with regard to the RCO notification, you'll see the RCO notification originally
came out November 1st of 2019.
November 1st, I notified the RCO that I was the applicant's attorney and requested a meeting.
Moving up.
um august 6th was the last i heard from them you'll see in this email here uh they were
attempting to schedule a meeting for august 13th but that never occurred and then on november 16th
following notification that this matter was scheduled for a hearing i emailed regina at the
rco to determine whether or not we can get a meeting in between now and the 29th and to date
I have had no reply from that email. I would note that for the record, 334 days has passed
since the original RCO notification. Pursuing to the code, they have 45 days within which
to hold the meeting. Even given credit for time for COVID shutdown, which I would submit
is approximately 100 days from uh right around march 15th or 16th until the first hearings by
the board were june 14th so i would submit the uh the rco is barred from actually submitting any
position papers or or letters on this matter at this point and i would ask that the chair
note my objection uh to sing but i understand you want to hold it for two weeks
i'm not sure if my client's on but
is anybody on for felix if you can please raise your hand
he's unable to because he has an older model of zoom okay well i've reviewed all this matter
with my client but for the hearing hold aspect of it and based upon information gleaned from him
and public documents and records i submit that the testimony is true and accurate and i would
ask the board to accept it noted thank you is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this
case if so please raise your hand i have a call-in user too you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in.
Hello.
Please identify yourself.
Yes, we can hear you.
Name and address.
Flam Fodal, Neighborhood Process Association, RCO,
for 2964 North 23rd Street.
We asked for a continuous
because we weren't sure what happened
And there are several RCOs that are affected on this address, not just the RCO coordinator,
and we're asking the ZBA to recognize that.
Also, this property has a history, going back to about 2016, of number one, selling food illegally,
hot food illegally, and advertising those hot food sales.
And we've turned in that evidence previously.
They've had about two or three other refusals for variance, and also they have a history
of not – there were other RCOs involved in rescheduled meetings, and they have a history
of trying to get this variance without attending meetings, even when they were scheduled.
And the prior refusals, Sean Ward was not the lawyer for the address.
So we're asking that the hold be longer so that Sean Ward can arrange with the RCO coordinator,
Allegheny West Foundation, to have a community meeting.
There's some serious issues with the property.
of course the selling of food illegally since 2016 or longer also there have been
drug sales at their property we don't why don't we do this
uh we we don't why don't we do this sean what was the rco that you reached out to
again it was allegheny west foundation
regina smith
yeah allegheny west civic association was the coordinating rco as part of the planning that
that that is a result of the planning commission yes yes and mr chairman as i stated i think it
was just stated that it was not the right art or it wasn't the appropriate rco but it was it was the
rco that was designated by the planning commission that is that is correct and i would also i would
also uh go back to my prior discussion with the board during the continuance request that this is
a matter of code enforcement action by l and i and uh pursuant to my discussion with inspector
raudenbush i informed him that the hearing was going to be held on the 29th so uh he is anxiously
awaiting a decision from the board and to push this beyond two weeks uh i don't think they will
find acceptable okay understood and anyone else wish to testify in this case please raise your hand
uh chair i have no other hands up and if i could just mention the designations are done by the
city council not by the planning commission oh you're right i'm sorry you're right i apologize
um okay um earlier i mentioned i i'm not i don't recall what we said earlier i know we said we
have a hearing hold did we come up with a specific date was it was it the 7th or the 14th
mr chair you simply indicated two weeks two weeks would bring us uh to wednesday
we'll do it on a wednesday i think at 9 30 wednesday would be the 14th is that correct
that's what i have all right we can do that tanya yes chair and to clarify the record will remain
open mr ward will return to report on um any further progress with the community organization
that was going to be my next question okay sorry no no no no i'm glad you did it okay
All right, so calendar number 39093-2964-NORTH-23rd is being held pending a letter from the,
being held until October the 14th at 9.30 a.m.
The hearing, this hearing will be resumed on that date,
at which time we will consider any feedback related to the RCO's position.
Is that accurate, Sharon?
it is yes thank you and then i'm sorry could we just mention on the record that there is no posting
requirement for the resumption sharon don't know that there's no posting requirement for that