Thank you.
okay chair is 43 attendees and you can start as you wish is everybody on yes um i'm not sure if
the other board member is on yet but everybody else is here i've reached out to her to see if
she's having any issues so we have a quorum you can you can start but i will work on getting her
on. Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's
ZBA hearings. With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid. President, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member
Cheryl L. Gaston. Here, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member Tanetta Graham. President, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Michael Johns, President, Mr. Chairman, our board member, Taya Wynn. Is she on yet? She should be shortly on. And later this morning, James Snell will also be joining us.
Also here is our attorney, Ryan McSherry, and I would want to announce that our executive director, Tanya Sunkett, has retired.
As many know, Ms. Sunkett ran the ZBA board for a long period of time, was an outstanding member, a person who cared a lot about people.
She literally had a 35-year career with the city of Philadelphia.
She worked at the library, L&I Airport, and then eventually came here in 2015.
We want to thank her.
We appreciate all of her hard work.
And we also want to thank her because one of the things that Tanya did was care about her employees and really developed and left us with a great sense.
a number of employees were just outstanding members. But here today is Kathleen Grady,
who is the Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning. She will be filling in today.
So here's our virtual format. The proceedings are being recorded. With your participation,
you agree to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting Kathleen Grady at Planning and
zoning. For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves
before testifying. For participating by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six
to unmute. To an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email address and the
address of the property in question. And finally, the question box on the screen is not for comments
or testimony. All comments should be directed to Kathleen Grady, the deputy director. Let's look
at today's schedule. Number five. Number five, MI 2023-002-438-7701 Gilbert Street. That case
is a request for continuance. Is Mr. Long, Jason Long, available?
Good morning, Chair. This is Doreen Blakey, and I will be your co-host today.
Thank you.
You're welcome. And I see no hands. I see no hands for Jason Long.
Okay. So MI 2023-002-438, case is continued, but must be heard the next time.
Number nine, MI 2023-005-039-3234 Fanshawe Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I just want to let you know that board member Wynn is now present.
Thank you.
Thank you, Taya.
Vern Anastasio will be allowed to speak.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Could you state your name is spelled for the court stenographer?
Could you state your name is spelled for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir. It's Vern Anastasio.
Yes, sir.
It's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
I'm here right now on behalf of Mr. Wong Lee, 3234 Fanshawe.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Counsel, could you give the status of this case?
Yes, sir.
I am requesting a continuance as it appears as though we may be changing the application.
amending it. I have been in consultation with Attorney Emerson, and if you are kind enough
to grant me the continuance, I think that's the way we're going to go. Okay, so MI 2023-005-039-3234
Fanshawe Street, cases continued. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have another one,
another request, or should I just wait my turn? Why don't you wait so I can keep these? No problem.
thank you sometime kind of order all right thank you all right number 13
mi 2024 000 792 23 33 east allegheny avenue this case has been continued
Number 15, MI 2024, 000820, 1212 South 51st Street, cases continued.
And number 17, MI 2024-000929, this request for contingent from Strawberry Mansion, is
Devin Upta here or Jermaine Harris?
Devin Upta have his hand raised and will be allowed to speak.
Good morning, Chair.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you state your name and spell for the court sinatra?
Yes, sir.
Devin Ukda, D-E-V-I-N, Ukda, U-Q-D-A-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Storway Mansion Community Concern has a request in for a continuance.
They want to have the ZBA meeting before the case.
Are you still counsel on this?
Yes, Chair.
What's your position on that?
We don't have any documents, by the way.
Yeah, Chair, we're fine with that.
We have to reschedule the RCO meeting.
So we're fine with the continuance.
Thank you very much.
So MI 2024, 000929, 3450 North 30th Street, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
There are no hands, Chair.
I also have several cases here that we need exhibits.
Number two, MI 2022-007-458-5218 Art Street.
No exhibits, fourth listing.
chair is there a name you would like me to look for about how about david up the
is he still here yes i will allow him to speak counsel you've already been sworn you could just
state your name for the record devin okay so uh we we don't have any exhibits this is the fourth
listing could you tell us what's what's what's going on with this case yeah chair this is a
case that i took over from my partner who cannot uh practice zoning so i'm working on the case
um i'm hoping to just reschedule reschedule it after i have the rco meeting and get all the
appropriate documents thank you counsel so mi 2022 007 458 52 18 archery cases continued mark must be
heard. Number three, MI 2023-001-895-4515 Van Kirk Street. No exhibits, third listing, Valerie Brown.
I see no, I don't see a hand for Valerie Brown, but Strawberry Mansion Community Concern has a
hand up for 4515 nankirk um they raised their hand just now after you mentioned that address
okay shall allow them to speak sure sure okay
Shall I allow them to speak?
Sure, sure.
Strawberry Mansion Community Concern, can you please unmute yourself?
I'm sorry, was my hand raised?
Yes, it was.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I didn't really hurt my hand.
Sorry, so Valerie Brown.
No hand for Valerie Brown here.
So the board has had contact with Valerie Brown before.
At one point, she wanted a withdrawal.
Then she requested a continuance back on in February.
So number three, MI 2023-001-895-4515 Van Kirk Street, case has been withdrawn.
Number four, MI-2023-002-403-3229 Rurer Street, third listing, no exhibits, Madeline Gonzalez-Murphy.
No hands for Madeline Gonzalez-Murphy.
So this is the third listing. MI 2023-002-403-3229, Roar Street. I vote to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
Michael Johns, my vote is to dismiss.
Panetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Number 10, MI2023005052, 2021 North Van Pelt Street. Donald Major is the owner. No exhibit second listing.
There is not a hand from Donald Major, but Vern Anastasio has his hand raised.
I will allow to speak.
Morning again, Mr. Chair.
I want to counsel, just for the record, state your name.
That's Vern Anastasio on behalf of Mr. Donald Major.
Could you give us the status?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Major just engaged our firm.
We accepted his case.
We do need to meet with the RCO.
He has never done so.
So we are going to ask for a continuance attorney moving party so I can start the process for a proper RCO meeting.
Thank you.
So, number 10, MI 2023-005-052-2021, 21 North Van Pelt Street, case of continued attorney moving party.
Thank you.
Number 11, MI 2023-005-063-1521 Tasker Street.
No exhibit, second listing.
No one has a hand raised for that case.
So, all right, so MI 2023-005-063-1521 Tasker Street, we did receive an email from the appellant stating he wanted to withdraw the case.
So 1521 Tashka Street, I vote this not not to vote.
This case has been withdrawn.
Number 14.
MI 2024 0008194444 Oakmont Street, first listing Robert Klein.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I just want to let you know that we we actually just received.
exhibits for this matter just this morning okay so mr klein are you in the air
i'll see no hands for robert klein chair so and by 2024 000 819 444 oakmont street case has been
And continued.
All right.
We're going to go to our add-on list.
820-24-00148-8430 Busselton Avenue.
The vote on this matter.
The vote on this matter has been moved to Wednesday, July 17th at 9.30 a.m.
Number two, MI 2023-002-921-2018 East Ontario Street.
The vote in this matter has been continued to Wednesday, July 24th, 2024 at 9.30 a.m.
number three MI 2023-003-929-174 Levering Street I vote yes temporary variance expires 7-10-26
my vote is yes with proviso Michael Johns my vote is yes with proviso
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tynetta Wynn, my vote is yes with Proviso.
And Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
We're going to start with number 12 for our regular list.
MI 2023-005-273-761 South 51st Street.
And I guess it, Debrahet is the owner applicant.
This is a pro se.
No RCO letter or summary, but notice was sent to nearby neighbors with proof of mailing.
Negesta, Gabriette has a hand raised, and I will promote to panelists.
Coming in as a panelist, Chair.
Thank you.
you're welcome
hello i also have my attorney here uh representing us as well
representing you yes uh our attorney richard demarco
i will promote the panel why don't we put mr demarco in first thank you
richard demarco has been promoted
it morning mr chairman good morning council could you please state your name is spelled
for the court sonographer richard demarco last name is spelled d-e-m-a-r-c-o right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes um have you had a rco
meeting? Yes, there is. There's an RCO letter of non-opposition. I can show it to you. I believe
it was transmitted very recently. Make sure you send it over for us, right?
Yeah, it was very recent. I think it was last night it was sent.
Good, good. Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to either read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I'll waive the reading. I can't fully stipulate. I'll explain why. I don't want to belabor the
point. I'll make it very clear and quick. We'll make a very quick point on that.
Understood. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required
to proceed with this case? Five days in advance of this hearing. I did not, but my client submitted
all of the requested documents in a timely manner. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and
share your screen. Sure, I'll share your screen. And one note on the refusal, the only reason I
can't stipulate, I do believe that the use, and since there's no opposition from the RCO, I believe
this can be a short presentation, but the refusal is for a dimensional issue for four units.
There has been a longstanding history of four units at the property. If you notice on the
refusal. There's a note to the ZBA, which I'm circling with my cursor, which says that the
ZBA, this zoning board actually granted this four-unit dwelling back in the 40s. It's been
consistently used in that manner. I think what happened, and I'll have my client verify this
shortly, but when he went to renew the rental license for four units, because the prior owner
did not renew the rental license for the four units. I guess the zoning examiner rejected it
because the lot area only allowed for three units, but it's a clear non-conforming use that has
continued throughout, and it was legal when it began. Therefore, it's clearly a legal use.
it was legal when it began. Therefore, it's clearly a legal use. So I'll just briefly go
through the, and that's why I don't stipulate, but I don't want to belabor the point. I think
we're all clear that this has been a longstanding four-unit dwelling. The neighborhood appears to
have agreed to that. Let me go ahead and show you the neighborhood meeting summary form.
You see here the position is non-opposition. It's dated today. So it must be that you got this very late before you prepared the list. There was a vote of one in support and five not opposed.
And here's the letter from the RCO, Cedar Park Neighbors. There was a meeting on May 21st. There was attendance by nine people and the vote was to not oppose the case.
Let me just show you some photos. It's a corner property. It's pretty large. There's multiple exits. There are multiple utility accounts here for four units.
You can see here there's actually five mail slots.
This has been four units for a long time.
There's multiple entrances and exits.
There is an area for trash storage in the rear.
Let me just show a couple other quick items.
I just want to show you the rental license so you can see.
Oh, here's some floor plans.
There's no basement bedrooms.
There's a backyard for trash storage.
i'll just quickly run through this um yeah and there's four kitchens so i mean to deny the
variance would result in an extreme hardship involving reconfiguration of the interior
rerouting of utilities and plumbing here's the zba's prior this is with the decision back in
the 40s that granted the four units here's the approved application with the permit stamp on the
right. I just want to show you the rental license, and then I'll ask my client to
accept my testimony. Here, here's the rental license. You can see here the prior owner.
Sorry, my computer's a little slow. You see it right here. There was four units.
It looks like the prior owner, Mr. Whitmire, failed to renew in 2012, so I guess that's why
my client could not obtain the four-unit rental license and got refused when he went back to get
the permit. So he had to actually move someone out. He did that because he wanted to make sure
he didn't run afoul of any violations. So he pulled a three-unit rental license. But you see
there's a long history spanning decades of four units. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll just say
that this is a clear hardship. I do believe that it was, the use was never abandoned. It's been
used for four units ever since. My client only moved out the fourth unit in order to be compliant
pending this hearing. So I'll ask, I believe he's already authorized to speak.
Not sure that I swore him in yet.
Okay, go ahead.
But just bring him on.
Yeah, his name is difficult. Go ahead.
He's been allowed to speak, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name?
It's spelled for the court stenographer.
So the name is Negisti Ghebrehewitt, N-E-G-H-I-S-T-I-G-H-E-B-R-E-H-I-W-E-T is Ghebrehewitt's last name.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Okay. Did you hear all of my factual statements and testimony that I gave to the board today?
Is it true and accurate? And can you adopt that as your official testimony in this matter?
And the RCO meeting, the RCO letter that was transmitted to the board very recently,
you attended that meeting?
That's right.
And you sent all the necessary paperwork in advance?
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would say that that's all we have. There's no opposition in this matter.
Obviously, you can check with the public, but there's clear hardship, and this was clearly a consistent four-unit dwelling throughout since the 1940s, and it would be a clear hardship to have to reconfigure the property for three.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
All right, comments from our attorney, Mr. McSherry.
No chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
There are no hands to planning commission.
There are no hands here.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, everybody.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
Amy, just for the record, spell your name.
That's okay.
A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The property has a documented history of being a four-unit multifamily building.
Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variance for four dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2023-005-273-761 South 51st Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes
Thank you, thank you, counsel
Thank you, welcome to all the new board members
Great to see everybody
I'm sorry to see Tanya go
Thank you
Thank you, Tanya
Number one, MI 2022
007252
3730 North 18th Street
Bernard Anastasio is the attorney
It was a meeting held May 28th, 2024 with 13th Democratic Ward.
We don't have it as of yet.
Applicant provided a petition of support signed by 22 neighbors, 15 from the 36th and 3700 block of North 18th Street.
Bernard Anastasio has been promoted.
Counsel, just for the record, state your name. You've already been sworn.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, on behalf of the owner, A.J. Supta.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, sir. Good morning.
Good morning. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
thank you council please proceed and share your screen
okay mr chair today we have 37 30 north 17th street and we have a 60 page
a packet of exhibits that will move into evidence
application was initially for three family dwelling in an existing structure it is a shell
on a block that is, although zoned RSA 5, the actual physical properties, several of them have
gotten variances in the past, and we'll go over that in a minute, making our proposal completely
consistent with the rest of the block. But it was refused back in November because of the zoning
district. This is a site plan. Behind us is RM1, but this block itself of North 18th Street is RSA5.
And again, subject property is 3730 North 18th. And 3728, right next door, is a three-family dwelling.
3732 is a two-family dwelling 3720 22 is a two-family dwelling 3726 is a vacant lot
3724 is a two-family dwelling and across the street at 3739 there's a rooming house with
seven units that was approved by this board uh well a board uh of the zoning board uh in 2007
So our proposal for something other than single-family residential is completely consistent with all the other neighboring properties.
I'll pull out here to show the plans.
The basement would be strictly for mechanicals.
And the first floor here, once you enter the porch, first floor would be one complete unit, a very large open concept sort of unit with two bedrooms, and then, of course, the rear yard.
Each of the units, as drawn, have dedicated trash closets with venting.
And the proposal was to have the second floor its own unit and the third floor its own unit.
Since our meeting with the RCO, my client, under consultation with me and my office, my client has agreed to reduce the number of units requested to two units, which would be, in fact, the least possible variance from the one unit.
Since our meeting with the RCO, my client and...
And it would be completely consistent with a majority of the units on that side of the homes on that side of the block.
So we are proposing a two-family dwelling instead of the initial three-family, and we
would simply unify the second and third floor.
So the first floor would be its own separate private unit.
There would be, these stairs would remain that go up to the second floor.
Second and third floor would be one unit.
As you can see, the third floor is rather short, so it can easily be incorporated into
the second floor.
this is the property as it exists. It has been in major disrepair. My client did purchase the
property a few years ago, did in fact try and shore it up. There were squatters. Folks actually
stole the piping out of there. Here's a photo with even the back door open at one point.
All of that has been secured currently, but there were some issues with the property and we have
been trying to to shore it up while we go through this process as you can see the interior is a
complete cut job so it will need a complete rehab ostensibly a brand new property we have history
of the property itself second where you can see in fact in 1996 it went from a legal one family
dwelling to a legal two family dwelling page uh yep page 47 and 48 show that there's some immediate
neighbors and we have an aerial of the of the block itself so uh because historically this
property has been since 1996 a two-family dwelling can i go back you have an rco letter
no that i don't have i met with them but i have not thank you yep um and i the feedback and i'll
you know, I know this is on the record, but I can't speak for the RCO. But the feedback that
we got was, I think that they would have preferred it being at least, you know, less than the three
family dwelling, which is why my client came to the conclusion and landed on bringing it down to
two family, which would be consistent with the immediate neighbors, is consistent with the
properties right next door. And it would be less dense. So because of the historic use of the
property, being a two-family dwelling since 1996, prior to going vacant. And because, again, 3728,
32, 22, 24, 39, and 26 all are either two-family, three-family, a rooming house, or vacant,
and because a fully rehabbed new single-family home of this size on this block would, in fact,
be difficult to lease at a price point that would be sustainable to in fact maintain the property
in really good condition uh we respectfully request that this variance be granted thank you
you want to bring your yeah bring your final aj if you could please raise your hand
aj single okay i'm looking for him now
the only person i see with a hand raised name is punam single that would be right okay
yeah that's his indian name thank you good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer? Ajay Singal. Could you spell it, please? A-J-A-Y and last name
S-I-N-G-H-A-L. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AJ, did you hear my presentation to the
board this morning? Yes, I did. Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
As a result of the RCO meeting and our consultation, have you agreed to reduce the number of units
requested from three down to two?
Thank you.
Thank you.
And do you adopt my presentation as your own testimony?
And do you adopt my presentation as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board.
No, Chair.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning.
uh you have presented or are going to present some sort of revised plan to the community group
no uh it was uh thought that the second and third floor would just be incorporated the third floor
is rather short so the layout would remain the same the only difference would be that there
would be no kitchen on the third floor it would just be additional bedrooms okay so you're going
to incorporate the second third floor into what would be in effect of a two-story unit if you will
it's a it's a that's correct it would be a bi-level unit because the property itself is three floors
Okay. And you said something about vented trash storage. What do you mean by that?
Yep. Sometimes when we can, if there's not adequate outdoor space where clients can store their outdoor trash and get to a common area, we'll ask for trash closets.
and oftentimes those closets can have vents that vent to the outside and if you'll notice
uh the the proposed closets all are on walls in which they could have uh like air vents so it
doesn't smell okay and that vent would be what through the roof yeah uh yep it would it would
go from the outside wall up to the uh it's not a mechanical vent it's more like a bathroom like a
bathroom vent the same same sort of vent that you would get in a restroom it would there would
there'd be one in the uh yeah it wouldn't be like an ancel sort of system or anything like that like
a kitchen like a commercial thing but it would be a vent that typically is a new construction
in in restrooms which are it's actually required in restrooms all right thank you yep any other
questions from the board yeah i do have a quick question so this you're combining the second and
third floor into the one unit and how many bedrooms are they proposing for that it'll be
three bedrooms and uh there'll be a home office with no closet okay so so three bedrooms home
office and the second i guess that second floor that whole front is going to be um
living dining and living dining and kitchen okay all right it'll also give us ample space for more
storage and closet space any other questions from the board
questions from our council mr mcsherry no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair charles richardson will be allowed to speak
good morning mr richardson good morning mr chair uh could you please state your name and spell
for the court stenographer certainly charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n office of
councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed okay i just wanted to let uh let it be known that there
is a letter of opposition that came from the coordinating RCO, the 13th Ward, on July the
2nd. It doesn't appear that Mr. Anastasio might have been included in all of the CCs that should
have been included, but it is a letter of opposition. It does state some things, and I
actually did forward it to you, Vern, a few minutes ago upon hearing you say that you hadn't gotten it.
Thank you.
They said that prior to the voting process, numerous questions were discussed that were not answered to the satisfaction of the directly affected residents, 13th Ward RCO committee members as well.
Number one, the property was purchased in 2012.
The owner purchased the property in 2012 and allowed the property to be an eyesore and an unsafe condition for the adjacent properties.
owner failed to keep the property in occupiable conditions allowing the property to deteriorate
in the front and rear requested zoning variance is not a by-right proposal
property was zoned rsa 5 single-family dwelling in 2012. owner stated reason for requested zoning
variance was that a single family could not afford to maintain a large property the directly
affected residents and other meeting attendees vote voice concerns of increased density
and the overuse of the dwelling by converting into three units, multifamily units.
and the overuse of the dwelling by converting into three units, multifamily units, and this
is in quotes, parentheses, multifamily units, RSA 5, single family dwelling in the three
units dwelling, potentially introducing additional density in the area slash existing structure.
The owner stated occupants would be responsible for care of the property to include trash,
landscaping, and maintenance, meaning attendees voiced concerns with owner not maintaining
property for the last 10 years the exact effects of the hardship of the proposal is not granted
uh was not sufficiently identified they will say talking about the financial issues
uh in closing they said the directly affected residents of the 13th ward committee and are
requesting that the area's elected officials and zba members deny the requested zoning variance for
the proposal to convert to RSA, convert to RSA 5 single dwelling, family dwelling into
a multifamily three units and it's signed by Charles Korn.
I hear Vern saying that they reduced it, but they did not go back and speak with the RCO
or the community.
And I would think that they would need to do that in order to actually gain the support
rather than trying to force it through at this point in time.
If it's going to go through, if it's going to be voted today, then the councilwoman would request that you deny the variance.
But again, we are urging Vern and company to go back to the community and give this new proposal a shot to see whether they will support it or not.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Senator Stiles, do you have any questions for Mr. Richardson?
I don't. I appreciate Mr. Richardson's input always and sending me the letter that I did not get the opportunity to see.
I do want to just say that my client purchased this property unoccupied and we've had and I think I put this testimony on today over a decade of vandals and squatters that my client has been desperately trying to shore up that property.
There would, of course, be a property management team in place.
So that's always a requirement.
But then again, and the feedback that we received from the RCO is why we reduced the number of units to two.
So it's in line with just about every other property on that block.
But I will defer to the chairman's discretion on if you'd like us to go back to the RCO again.
All right.
Mr. Richardson, could you make sure that you send a copy of that letter over to our council to?
i certainly will all right uh any other questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands here a planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission amy before you uh comment um i'm going to make a recommendation
as they go back to the rco do you want to take a position before that or do you want to
hold. No, let's hold it until then, please. Okay, thank you. So, Vern, you have an opportunity to
go back to the RCO, tell them what your plans are. The case is going to be closed, except for
communications from the RCO, a chance for you to respond, and then a chance for the planning
commission to take a position. Sounds fair. Thank you. Ryan, is that okay? Yes, that is fine.
All right. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. All right.
Number six, MI 2023-004-919-3904 Brown Street. Christopher Dean is the attorney.
No RCO letter or summary.
Meaning was held on April 22nd, 2024.
Applicant also provided a petition of support from 12 neighbors, four from the 39-hour block of Brown Street.
Christopher Dean has been promoted.
Morning, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Christopher Dean, last name is D-E-A-N, and I represent Skira Holdings, LLC.
Do you swear or fraud to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
i do our vice chair has a few questions
good morning council do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to the actress
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and
required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
can't hear you i have thank you please proceed and share your screen
can't hear you i have thank you
all right good morning everyone members of the community and members of the board um
please let me know if you cannot see the uh presentation
we're fine okay
i have the pleasure of representing skira holdings llc property owner of 3904 brown street
we are here for proposed multi-family three-story three-family residence
on a currently vacant lot um with a seller pilot house and roof deck um and mr chair i did hear
you say they did not have the letter of support i did submit the um the letter on i believe it was
monday to uh board we sent a revised packet on monday um it did get what what what is the letter
of support it's a letter of support it's six the vote was six six in favor two in opposition and two
in non-opposition all right just show it during your presentation so this is a current picture of
the uh the lot um we believe that this project is a um actually rsa5 is not even consistent
doesn't really reflect the changing nature of the 39 3900 block specifically of brown street
and i'm going to go through uh four projects that have been approved over the last few years
consistent with that there are many vacant lots um in the surrounding area uh they've been
collecting a tons of trash and rubbish so the goal here is to with this project to beautify
the area as well consistent with some of the newer projects that the area has seen
this is a rendition a 3d rendition of what the proposed the front and rear of the project will
look like this is a these are the the plans uh i'll briefly go through them there is the three
units are this there is the the cellar and first floor where there will be the cellar has a full
a full egress will be two bed and three bath unit two will be a two bed two bath and unit three
will be a two bed two bath and will have access to the roof deck
my client prior to meeting with the rco he did canvas the area and as you see these are these
are neighbors right around the corner of 3900 block of brown street uh did receive 12 um 12
they were supporting the project prior to meeting with the rco it's a copy of the refusal our
initial application and the project information form as i stated they are i'm going to go through
several of the projects that have been approved in the surrounding areas this is 30 a zoning
permit was issued for 3930 brown street um and you'll see here this is for a three dwelling unit
and that was in 2022 and these are the plans for that project that the board approved there's um
39 i believe i just showed 39 30 um that was the zoning permit 769 north 39th street
um this is the corner of 39th and brown right almost adjacent to my client's property
this was a a new construction for three family unit that was approved
and 3933 brown street this was a another new construction project um actually six units were
were approved um and that was in 20 um actually that was just in january of this past year
and lastly there's 3931 brown street this was a rear third story addition
and back in 2020 for three dwelling units that was approved so our our proposal was actually
more consistent with the change the ever-evolving um changing area of this area um that is more
consistent with multi-family dwellings um as opposed to rsa5 single-family homes um this was
we did meet with the um the rco back in april and this these are the certificates of mailing
a copy of my clients my client's deed
these are the posting from june 10th uh at the property
clients tax clearance a copy of our zoom zoom meeting
um as i mentioned here we did meet with the mantua civic association as you can see
uh there was 10 attendees only two of the attend actually opposed the project so we did have a
majority overwhelming majority support of the community in addition to the 12 petitioners that
the 12 petitioners that my client um the 12 the 12 neighbors that supported the petition prior to
my client um the 12 the 12 neighbors that
meeting with them uh we do feel because of the the size of the lot the most specifically the
ever-evolving changing nature of the lot that this area does support um and is consistent with
multi-family unit multi-family living um it will help also the adding these multi-family
multi-family unit with this structure will also help beautify the area an area that has seen a
lot of vacant lots that are that are currently getting cleaned up one by one with each of these
projects and i think that's why we um we received a high majority of community support and with that
i would um christopher let me counsel do you have an overhead shot of the block um i can pull that
up as we i could share i'm going to share my i think if i stop sharing
apologize for the brief delay
are there other vacant lots on the block
there are i'm going to pull the
i think you might i think we may be able to see
um there's a vacant if you can see right here there is a vacant lot to the right of that um
my client's properties right here so that would be 39. i believe that actually the prop that um
i'm going to have my client testify to to add um to specify about what what properties are vacant
but bring your client on if he has an idea what i may call josh kravitz
josh kravitz is allowed to speak good morning could you please state your name and spell for
this stenographer hi good morning my name is josh kravitz that's spelled j-o-s-h-k-r-a-v-e-t-s
do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed counsel good morning josh um are you a member of skira holdings llc
And did you hear the testimony that I just laid out before the board?
And was that testimony true and accurate?
And do you adopt my testimony?
And could you, for the chair's questions, could you expound on how, you know, I'm going
to pull up the screen, but the nature of how many vacant lots are on that block?
Sure. So as you were saying, in that picture that you were showing, and I just pulled up the, hopefully you can see, hopefully you can see the city of Philadelphia property search showing up.
Yeah, we see it. We see it.
Okay, so the first house that you were showing in the initial picture, that's 3908 Brown Street.
That is the second one from the corner on the near side of Brown Street, if you can see.
That's a multifamily house. That's the closest one to us.
And then after that, there's that huge area of land, which I'm not even sure how many lots there are there, but it's all vacant.
You can also see the other corner of Brown Street.
There's another huge portion of land that is vacant.
And when I was canvassing and walking up and down the block, even a lot of these homes were vacant.
You could definitely tell from the exterior.
and other ones were, it was a mix of vacant housing along with existing multifamily housing too.
Okay. And how long did you canvas the area before you even submitted the application?
I mean, we checked the block multiple times before submitting the application. And then I
actually collected signatures after the submission of the application. So that was maybe
three or four months ago I would say I have nothing further did he adopt your testimony
yeah okay thank you questions from the board
Yes, I have a question. So, Mr. Brown, you mentioned that you highlighted several other approvals that was allotted along that row. Do you know by any chance if those have been built already?
yes I have a question um uh so
You mentioned a lot of multifamily approvals in 2022. Do you know of them being built already, currently built?
I'll actually, I know the one was just approved in January of 2024, so I don't believe that's been approved, but is, Josh, you still?
Yes. So there's actually a large, I believe it's on the corner of 39th, I'm sorry, on 40th and Brown. There was a large multifamily in that piece of land. No, the other way on 40th.
Yep. I'm pretty sure it's that corner. I don't want to, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's that corner where that square of land is on Brown and 40th. There was a large multifamily structure already built there. But the other ones that were granted on our side of Brown Street, those have not started yet.
Okay. And my other question is, have you given any thought to kind of aligning the physical structure of the house to the neighboring houses?
I know that this site is kind of scattered, but the houses on Brown Street have a particular look and your design is like nowhere near them.
And that would definitely stick out. So has there been any kind of idea to kind of assimilate them, at least to the surrounding housing stock?
At least to the size?
So I know what you're talking about. There's the houses on Brown Street that have the porch in the front, right? Is that what you're mentioning?
I'm talking about that whole neighborhood, that particular area has a particular look.
So have you given any thoughts of just, you know, trying to align with the look?
Not an exact match, but just alignment with the look of the housing, the current housing stock that's there.
Right. We were thinking about it, but that our side of Brown Street there, there's so much land and most of it is actually going to become new construction,
which I think from looking over the other submissions,
it seemed like they were going to have the more modern look that we were proposing.
So it was a tough decision whether to go for like that porch,
that front yard porch that I think you're mentioning,
that the other houses have versus just that straight front facade.
We just went with the straight front facade because we thought there was going to be a lot of other
new construction houses that were matching, you know, that modern look. But, you know,
it could have went either way. Okay. And my last question is,
why not two units instead of three? Just based on the other buildings that were
that were proven on that block. And also the fact that the lot is large enough to support three
units. And with three units, we're actually able to charge more of reasonable rents than just with
two units. So I feel like it would be more practical for that area.
Tanetta, you're... Oh, thank you. I'm done. Sure, sure. That's okay.
And just to touch on the look, we actually met with the RCO twice on this.
um and any questions over the design you know because we do have the 3d rendering um
most of the feedback we got was aesthetically it worked for the it worked for the community
um and the board members of the rcos um and i think we're obviously open to being consistent
with the neighborhood so we will see how these other projects certainly um evolve
other questions from the board what's the building height
height is let me pull up the
the variance was not we didn't have any height issues but i will get you the
josh from the top of your head you know the actual
so it's on the drawing i just couldn't read it okay yeah my my screen is blocking half of my um
half of my uh screen
because your max is what 38 there we go
so i zoomed in can you see it can you read the zooms we don't we don't see it's not up
so i zoomed in can you see can you read the zooms we don't
you still have the map up for us oh i apologize let me stop that
i believe we're our height is at 36 total looking at the elevations 36 or 37
Yeah, and the regulations are 38.
All right, thank you.
Other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Questions or comments from planning?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
for Multifamily Household Living.
MI 2023-004-919-3904 Brown Street.
I vote yes, with proviso, maximum two units.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Chair.
Iowen, my vote is yes with proviso.
I'm sorry. I was on mute. I'm sorry. This is Cheryl Gaston. My vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel. Number seven, MI-2023. Thank you. Number seven, MI-2023-004943-2104
North Franklin Street. Sean Whalen is the attorney. There's a letter of no opinion from APM.
Sean Whalen has been promoted to panelist.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, Chairman. How are you?
Good. Could you please state your name and spell for the court's photographer?
certainly sean whalen w-h-a-l-e-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i do um could you identify your client a relationship to the
property i am representing jb s all capitals development llc the owner of the property
our vice chair has a few questions good morning counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance
of this hearing? Yes, I did. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed to share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
right uh we're here today uh sean whalen here today for jbs development llc the owner of 2104
north franklin uh you should be seeing right now an atlas map from the city
we are just one property back from the corner at franklin and diamond
and in between 7th and 8th Street, just to give the board an idea of where we're at.
This is just an aerial view where you can start to see what's taking place. This was a previously
vacant lot. Right here you can see the red bubble. There was a double wide, actually triple wide
vacant lot next to us that is currently under construction for a board approved seven unit
all residential building and then there's a vacant lot next to us before you get to existing homes
and then you can see a lot of dotted up and down a lot of new construction
there has been this will be a constant theme today for this matter but there was a lot of
construction going on in this neighborhood so again you can just see this was the prior condition
we are right here. This is a small mid-block parcel. It's 978 square feet in a...
It's 978 square feet in a it's actually only 14 feet wide by 70 feet deep.
You can see here in a manner in which I could not put my finger on you have
several parcels back being delineated as CMX2 both here and on the next block over.
These are the only two blocks in this whole area that have what are mid-block parcels going back as opposed to parcels fronting on Diamond Street and going beyond the corner.
As you can see here, the city is rife with corner lots and corner stores, and that is absolutely appropriate, but you really don't see anywhere throughout the city sort of solitary mid-block commercial parcels.
And as I said already, this whole parcel next to us right here, CMX2 going all the way to the corner, is in fact already approved and was approved last March by this board for seven units residential only, no commercial, and that building is actually now under construction.
So we have one real refusal today.
We don't want first floor commercial requirement.
we would like to convert our first floor commercial into a residential unit.
And as you can see here, we have a first floor floor plan of a proposed first floor unit.
This would be a very large, over 700 square foot unit with private entrance from the front.
It has a living area, kitchen, going back, a very large kind of master bedroom.
It also would have sole and exclusive access to the rear yard.
So this would be a very nice unit for everyone.
There is no, the basement is unfinished.
It will remain unfinished.
There is no basement living.
The basement will only be for storage and for the tenant's laundry if approved.
So here you can see the existing building that was already built and constructed under the prior approved plans.
You have on the right hand side, this is the staircase directly up.
There's a unit on the second floor that's two bedrooms and a unit on the third floor that's two bedrooms with a roof deck.
So this is a very nice building. The two bedroom unit on the second floor is almost 850 square feet, as is the unit on the third floor.
So these are very nice, large units. What you see here on the left hand side, this is a separate entrance into the what we're proposing to be the first floor, non-commercial use and rather just a one bedroom unit.
As you can see, we're some distance set back from Diamond Street. This entire area is actually being built up against our property right now to have a building that's going all the way to the street frontage there.
you can see uh this is where 2104 2106 is the vacant lot you can see just down the block from
us uh north franklin is a narrow street as you can see with parking on both sides this all plays
into our hardship argument you can see here this is a triplex this is a multifamily um and what
But what you can see and what the RCO even pointed out was there's sort of construction exhaustion going on in this neighborhood.
Certainly understandable. And in fact, I'm still in communication with some of the neighbors.
One of them told me that there's a 400 unit building going up just a handful of blocks from here.
So like I said, this corner is already under construction. This building to the left is under construction.
And as you can see, there's a Chinese restaurant right at this corner across the street from us. And that's really what we would argue is appropriate. And again, right throughout the city are these corner lots that have a lot of street frontage and a heavy commercial use ability where you have the intersection.
you've got easy ability to pull over our building has no ability to pull over any commercial use
would require there's no loading or unloading zone no stopping as you can see barely one car
As you can see, barely one car fits down the middle, so any cars stopping for the commercial use would completely block traffic and or steal any open on-street parking, which is not ample to begin with.
fits down the middle so
And then this is looking directly across the street. Again, you can see this is another multifamily building going up behind us.
just to show you this is this is from two days ago maybe yesterday tried to take it
got a bad angle this is the construction going on right next door to us that's building that
large seven seven unit all residential building going all the way to the corner at diamond
and here you can see a better image this is the front stoop again the right hand side goes
has a staircase that goes upstairs to the top two units this unit right here would have a
would be about nine feet wide so that's a primary concern for this is from the front door of the
what is currently the commercial space that we're seeking to change
this would only be about nine feet wide. So it'd be an extremely difficult location to put
a commercial use at and really not appropriate or viable for commercial use for many of the
reasons I've already stated, but also just trying to shoehorn one into something, a space that is
so small. As the chairman noted, we did get a letter of no opinion. I think it's actually
highly important for this board to hear we had four in opposition and none in support however
it should be noted we actually have had this was at the third community meeting for this matter
at the first community meeting back before in december there were actually almost 20 people
in attendance there was as you can see down here it talks about what the community members were
dissatisfied with construction at the site certain contractors that we had which were fired after we
learned of issues they were causing with certain neighbors break-ins and other things of that sort
we then there were a lot of issues raised generally about construction how it was going to be done
what it was going to entail and who the builders were since this was in the name of an llc
So we agreed to a second meeting. That meeting was actually in just before the ZBA hearing that was scheduled back in April. We agreed to continue to try to continue to work with the neighborhood and continued our ZBA hearing back in April.
At that second meeting, we walked through. There were probably about 10 or 12 people I had in my notes. We answered all their questions from the first meeting, gave them all. They wanted direct contact info to the owner and the project manager who are both on this call today.
And at that time, the first time damages were raised by the near neighbor to house across from the vacant lot.
So the first building there. And as you can see down in the language of the letter, which I understand you all have.
We attempted to work with that neighbor to satisfy items that she had claimed as damaged.
We were unfortunately unable to do so, although we're still in contact with her at this point.
And you can see by the end of this third meeting, there were only four people left.
All of them were opposed because of the issues with the closest neighbor that we had and our inability to satisfy those.
Walking backwards, these are the official historical maps for Philadelphia.
There is no record of our property ever having been used for commercial use.
And in fact, the historical maps dating back to 1875 in Philadelphia show this property.
You can see where 2104 is listed now.
Show this property as a residential property.
And as we walk forward, you can see this was previously built out as a residential property.
This is going back to 1895.
Going back to 1910, that same building and structure, purely residential, were still in place.
Jumping ahead to 1942, again, this is that double-wide lot right next to us that the board approved.
Again, that this is that double wide lot right next to us that the board approved last year for no commercial and only for seven units where the next lot over again, still no indication of any commercial use historically.
And then finally, going up to 1962, we have the same condition. Again, commercially indicated lot, double wide lot at the corner that is now fully residential. And then we are the first residential use.
So again, not clear and could not determine where or why our property was ever, our mid-block property was ever determined to be commercial. Again, the next block over that I walked through before has the same condition. Both of these parcels are CMX2 at 2104 and 2106 North 8th Street. Again, no indication of why those parcels were also deemed commercial.
Again, here was just an indication this is 2100 to 02 North Franklin Street. This is that large property right next to us. ZBA decision from March of last year for multifamily household living for seven units, no commercial.
and then one of the issues we run into and i actually have an expert realtor to walk through
why this is not viable for commercial use this is the next the next block over that i was just
describing 2105 north 8th street this building was built in 2020 this is the current listing
for it it is still for sale and it still has you can see a small commercial space
on the first floor that commercial space has never been has never been utilized or opened
there's been no occupancy for that in four years since it since the property was built next to us
and you can see this is just the end of the of that listing i wanted to have it for completeness
so again here's the approved building we can answer any questions with regard to that
But I understand, you know, we have, I walked through quickly, and I neglected to do it.
The adjacent properties, we will certainly be contextual with all of those adjacent properties.
There are, walking through, again, this double-wide corner lot is approved for a variance for seven-unit
2103 North 8th Street, all of these properties right here, walking through those,
they are approved for, one is approved for a duplex, another is approved for a single family.
The one I just walked through, 2105, is this one right here, immediately behind us,
that has the four years of vacant commercial use there. So I've gone through many of the points
already, but the issue here for a variance is very clear, and I know the board members know this at
least as well as I do. We have to show three things. We have to show a hardship that is specific
and unique to our property. We have to show that there's no detriment to the health, safety, or
welfare, and we have to show that what we're requesting is the least minimum variance.
I've already shown with regard to hardship, there's no record of commercial use anywhere in
the historic records or photographs or historic land use maps. We already walked through that.
Also, this property being as narrow as it is, only nine feet at the entrance,
set back from the immediate sidewalk with a narrow, again, a narrow street
here with parking on both sides, commercial use would completely snarl the use of that property
as commercial in any way, shape, or form. There's also no commercial trash location
at a mid-block property like this. So all the commercial trash would have to be stored in the
rear yard. So instead of activating that rear yard through the residential use and having it
as a first floor apartment, we would have to have commercial trash storage back there and then
bringing it out through the front or having it in the basement and causing issues there.
So with that, I would also just suggest that we're seeking the least minimum variance because
we're not asking for any new construction or an expansion or any increased use.
What we're trying to do is convert this property to active use so there are no
What we're trying to do is convert this property to active use so there are not vandalism and issues associated with that vacant first floor.
And this, notably, would also not be an appropriate building.
We're only at 32 feet, actually 32 feet 4 inches, so it's not an overly built building.
um this uh it would not be appropriate just for a duplex use because if you had a duplex use
the duplex um the first floor generally gets turned into first floor and basement
for the unit that almost always causes basement living we very much want to stay away from any
basement living we do not have um egress because of the narrowness of the property here and the
need for the doorways. We do not have any egress wells out of the basement, so it is not being
finished, and we do not intend and do not want to encourage in any way the use of that for any
living space. Secondly, if we turned it into a duplex, you would turn the second and third floors
into a single unit. However, that causes a lot of issues, as we know, especially where
students are involved because you end up with a group of students having a four unit,
sorry, a four bedroom unit. And now you're having issues caused with that many people,
that many cars, and sort of an inappropriate use there. So with that, chairman, I would call
my, first my client and then second our expert realtor.
Client, please. Yep. Barry Farage, if you could
raise your hand.
I don't see Barry Farage with a hand up, but I do have
Steve Haas. Okay. Yeah. Please elevate
Steve Haas. Okay. I'm going to allow him to speak.
Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Barry Farage, and Steve Oz is with me.
All right. Mr. Farage, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer, please?
Yes. My name is Barry Farage, B-A-R-A-Y. My last name is F-A-R-A-J.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Farage, you're here on behalf of the owner, correct?
And you heard all of the testimony I already presented in this matter?
Do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your information, knowledge, and belief?
And would you adopt that as your own testimony?
Thank you very much.
Chairman, that's all I have for Mr. Farage.
I'm happy to have the board ask him any questions.
Why don't we hold him if the board has a question? Why don't you move on to your real estate person?
All right. Could you please elevate Leanne Tancredi, please?
Could you please state your name as a spell for the stenographer?
Leanne Tancredi, L-E-I-G-H-A-N-N-E, Tancredi, T-A-N-C-R-E-D-I.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed, Mr. Will. Thank you. Ms. Tancredi, are you a licensed realtor in Pennsylvania?
Yes. And could you please describe briefly your experience for residential and commercial?
Yes, I've had my Pennsylvania license, salesperson license for 10 years now, and I
sell both residential and commercial real estate as well as manage both residential and commercial
real estate in the city of Philadelphia. Yes. Thank you. Board, I'm happy to go into this more
extensively, but I would offer Ms. Tancredi as an expert on the real estate matters here.
Why don't we proceed with her and her expertise would be what she did with this property, okay?
Okay. Ms. Tancredi, did you hear already the testimony that I presented?
Yes. And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge,
information and belief? Yes. And would you adopt that testimony as your own? Yes. Okay. Now,
Ms. Tancredi, you heard me testify that this property would not be an appropriate use as
a commercial space. Do you mind, what would your opinion on that be? So in my experience of
managing commercial properties in the city of Philadelphia, I currently manage some multi-use
Some multi-use properties, specifically right now in Old City, where they have a storefront residential units on top.
properties, specifically right now
in Old City where they have
It appears that we were going to go for a zoning variance, but never did.
So now we have the commercial on the bottom.
In addition to taking several months, if not a year, to rent it, and it is in a high foot traffic area right in Old City.
In addition, it causes lots of problems with the residents because of the trash issue that you spoke of.
There is no good way to dispose of it.
So they keep it outside. It attracts rodents and critters.
So the residents are unhappy with it. In addition, you know, you brought up a good point, too.
I've lived close to this lot at 21 for North Franklin for almost 20 years.
and i've never seen a commercial in the middle of the block it causes you know traffic people
pull over they block traffic there's horns honking and it really disrupts the flow of
the residential area and now um when you're leasing we're looking for commercial lease space
how about the size of this uh lot you already went through the location of the lot of being
on mid-block. How about the size of the space? Would this be conducive to a commercial use?
Right. So all clients that I have, they're looking to lease commercial space. They've never looked
for anything this small. They're looking for space where they can attract, you know, people to come
in, first of all. So there's really no way to advertise in the middle of the block. This block
isn't really a high foot traffic area. And they're looking for usually at least, you know,
1,000, 1,500 feet, and that's on the small side. And nine feet is rather narrow for if you're
going to have customers coming in and out. Okay. And Ms. Tancredi, you also heard me say not only
is this not viable for a commercial use, but it's also not viable simply to turn the building into
a duplex. In your opinion, would you agree with that? I do agree with that. In renting in
In residential areas, I know most residents like to keep large groups off their block.
And if you were to create a four-bedroom unit, you know, specifically since it's close to the temple, you would most likely attract groups that residents would, you know, not really care for.
So I think keeping the unit smaller is best for the community.
Thank you very much, Ms. Tancredi.
Do you have anything else you believe the board should hear?
Thank you.
board that's all i have for mr questions from the board i have a question the second and third floor
is that two units what is it uh sorry i did go through that very quickly the second floor
i'm only oh i stopped sharing uh the second floor is a two-bedroom unit uh bedroom in the back
bedroom in the front with living space in between and the third floor is also a similar two-bedroom
unit uh but the third floor also has a roof deck uh over and above it okay so this so so the
proposal essentially for a three three three unit building yes i'm sorry mr johns i did uh skip over
that so at the conclusion if approved we would have a triplex with a one-bedroom unit on the
first floor that would have sole access to the rear yard and its own entryway and then we would
have a two-bedroom unit on the second floor and a two-bedroom unit on the third floor with a roof
deck okay i just i just kind of don't see how that makes any difference than having a duplex
where there are a greater number of bedrooms because it's in terms of the number of people
you know you still kind of you still got four bedrooms well and i'm happy to have missed but
there's two apartments or it's one apartment, there's still the same number of people kind of
sort of, you know what I mean? So I don't know. I don't know about that argument, but that's my
only issue really for the most part. Certainly understood. And I can have Ms. Tancredi weigh
in on this. The difference in number of bedrooms per unit is that certainly the rent increases as
well. And four units becomes overly large for generally a single family unit to rent. And then
you end up with large groups of people coming together. Whereas two bedroom units tend to be
a single family unit, renting them and moving on. I'm happy to have Ms. Tancredi
opine on that as the realtor. No, I'm good. I'm good. Thank you.
Other questions for them?
Other questions for them?
I have a few questions.
I have a few questions. Can you guys outline the square footage of each of the units that you're offering?
Can you guys outline the square footage of each of the units?
Certainly. I did say that very quickly, and I apologize. The first floor unit would be approximately 725 square feet.
The second floor unit would be approximately 830 square feet. And the third floor unit would be approximately 845 square feet.
and i heard you say that the first floor has designated access with such a narrow lot how
are people getting to the second and the third floor because you went through the plans really
quickly i i did and i apologize i didn't want to belabor anything i'll share again the plan and
actually make it large enough that i can see it let alone you um so the where the first floor plan
writing is. That's the street. So you'd walk up off the street. There's a right-hand door
and a left-hand door. The right-hand door, you walk in, there's a small vestibule,
and you immediately go upstairs to the second story and the second unit. Then it immediately
has a stair going again up to the third floor unit. And the left-hand door leads directly into
what would be the living room of the proposed first floor unit. Open living room into kitchen.
Going back through the kitchen, you'd have the bathroom in the middle. And then you have a very
large bedroom with closet here. And then again, you can see this first floor, or sorry, the entire
building not just the first floor um has a side cut out it's set back from this property line so
the left hand side here is that uh that very large uh seven unit building that's going in
and you would walk out and the first floor unit has a its own exclusive designated walkout to
uh the rear yard so so you you said that the basement will not be used for living
there's an egress well there's an egress well and the first floor apartment is open to the
basement there's no there's no door i mean that's an open stairwell uh no so so here's the stairwell
down right it it goes down the the basement is currently unfinished it will not be finished
um it is meant only for laundry and storage for the first floor unit and uh so so so work with me
here so you're going to have an unfinished basement that's open to an apartment with an
egress well in the basement that that seems a little questionable
i i understand i mean i certainly see this condition all the time as i'm sure you do
i'm happy to have mr haas is the uh whose hand was raised before is the project manager
and will be the property manager so he can walk through any questions you have with regard to the
the egress well in that basement can we talk through the uh the construction materials being
used in the basement like what are going to be the floor condition and the wall condition in the
basement uh certainly i would have to call mr haas uh chairman all right let's get mr haas one
please hello how are you all right say your name please as bell for the court stenographer
sure it's steve haas my last name is h-a-a-s you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do sir please proceed mr haas uh could you please describe your position
as to this property for the board i'm uh my question answered first no hey i i'm trying to
get their board member win i just have to identify why he should be the one answering it instead of
me i'm simply the project manager okay have you been involved at all times with all construction
decisions mr haas yes sir okay uh did you hear uh board member win's question yes i believe she
asked about the materials which would be concrete concrete floor and then the walls are they
metal studs is it zip system are you using drywall like how what are the what's the
wall condition in the basement open finishing there's there would be no finishing so it would
just be a masonry basically okay so no insulation in the basement no
I'll be cool.
So you have a isolated basement that's open to an apartment on the first floor.
That's not a great idea in terms of energy efficiency and a number of things.
Sounds well.
this location of a door between the basement can i my name is barry farage i'm the owner can i speak
is that another client you have coming on mr whalen no uh board chair mr farage
already spoke he is here on behalf of the owner he was already sworn in please let him speak
morning
my name is
Barry Farage
we have that
go ahead Mr. Farage
so the basement
the basement will be
just going to be
for washer and dryer
downstairs
for use for washer and dryer
the basement
will not going to have
any finishing
and it's going to be
a door
between the basement
and the upstairs
to separate it
only for laundry
downstairs
that's it
okay your plans just don't show that
other questions from the board um i'd have a question so the community's opposition is for
for what commercial i mean the opposition for them not to get the variance for the commercial
i know you said there was a variety of meetings and i kind of dwindled down to those um four
uh yes i can bring the letter back up if you'd like uh if you don't already have it
so the the rco technically took no position uh because there were only four people and
they only take a position if there's six votes or more um and uh the community members in
attendance thought that uh there should continue to be commercial space even if it was in mid-block
uh and i'm reading directly from the letter here they express that the existing property dimensions
in space could still accommodate a viable business the proposed development has caused
issues for neighboring residents including damage to vehicles fence in front of the adjacent property
they identified me and said that i had made efforts to address these damages
and the neighboring resident cooperated in informing the developer of vandalism break-ins
and thefts and deliberations however no resolutions came to be and then it says
other community members have been dissatisfied with the construction site conditions and the
behavior of certain contractors towards residents resulting in multiple meetings with the developer
the developer stated that they have terminated those contractors
employment and tried to improve the site conditions to be less inconvenient for the residents
so that that's that's where everyone uh came out it was so that was the first rco meeting was sort
of when all of these issues were first aired uh that's why we thought it appropriate we we actually
asked the rco if they would allow us to come back and address all of those concerns the rco also
wanted, and so did the near neighbors, direct communication numbers and email addresses
for Mr. Farage and Mr. Haas so that they could reach out directly. We provided those at the
second meeting. And then the second meeting into the third meeting, just after all those answers
were given, the second meeting just turned into the closest neighbor going through what was
purportedly damaged. And then we continued the meeting again to a third meeting to allow us
time to try to work with that neighbor, Ms. Musseter, in order to resolve those damages that
she had talked about. And those negotiations are ongoing, but unfortunately couldn't be resolved
in time for when the RCO wanted the third meeting. And that's why at the third meeting,
there were only four people left because we had answered all of the questions that had come up.
So there was no buy-in from the RCO in the community to have a third unit in the building, basically?
They never took a position on the third unit.
They simply said, you should build by right, and we think commercial is viable mid-block.
Thank you.
All right.
Other questions from the board?
I'm not sure what that noise is in the background.
Your argument in terms of hardship is that a commercial use mid-block is not liable because of the area where it's located, which is another definition for hardship.
I'm sorry, Ms. Gaston, I'm having a hard time hearing you.
I'm sorry, Ms. Gaston, I'm having a hard time hearing you.
There's somebody in the background.
There's somebody in the background, please mute their background.
I don't think it's you.
No, there's nothing on it here.
Okay, so your argument about hardship is one of the other definitions, which is not just that it's unique, that the property itself is unique, but that there's some physical, not just physical condition of the property.
But the area where it's located, such that it can't be used as zone. So your argument is that mid-block, a commercial use is simply not viable as a zoning ad.
That is certainly one part of the hardship argument I made.
Right. And you're saying that there's been no historic use of this property or as a commercial kind of property and that there's been approval across the street for a property with even more units and no commercial. Is that what I'm hearing?
That is all correct, although the approval was for the adjacent property next door to us.
I'm sorry, adjacent property.
Yeah, it's being built up next to us all the way to the corner at Diamond.
All right, any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change from CMX2 commercial mixed use
to RM1 residential multifamily at this location.
The proposed change of use of the vacant ground floor commercial space to household dwelling
unit is more consistent with the proposed zoning.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the requested
variance, for no ground floor commercial, and for three household dwelling units.
Mr. Whalen, we've had a lot of comments on this. I'm going to take it back to next week
in executive session. We'll vote on this on the 17th at 9 30 a.m. Thank you, Mr. Whalen. Mr. Whalen,
please stay on. I know you get a double dose of me. I apologize. That's that's okay. That's
MI 2023-004-946-1938 North 32nd Street.
There's support from the Strawberry Mansion CDC.
Tanetta Graham has recused herself from this case.
Mr. Whalen, could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly.
Give me a second.
I just got to pull up the right documents now.
uh sean whalen here on behalf of i'm about to show you the last matter uh here on behalf of
the owner uh dan hewitt is here for the owner the owner is light up gold all separate words
capitalized llc and my client is dan hewitt uh who will be testifying today uh our vice chair
has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
or stipulate to the accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I will.
Or yes, I did.
Yes, thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
So this matter is for 1936.
north 32nd street uh i think it was announced as 1932 north 32nd street okay um so just just to be
clear it's 1936 north 32nd street uh again just an aerial map real quick here to give the board
identification of where we are uh we're one block off of uh 33rd coming up from gerard and uh right
off this park so i apologize that's the last matter um again you have a existing building
here uh what we are seeking to do is legalize a we don't sean just so you know we don't see
anything yet right oh i'm so sorry right can you see it now we do we do okay
Sorry, I just had to close out the last matter.
So again, I apologize.
Um, where here's the park right next to us. Uh, again, uh, going sort of up and down on this
Here's the park right next to us.
Again.
screen right here is a 33rd and we are right here where this red balloon is just to give everyone
an idea of where we're at in the strawberry mansion neighborhood. Uh, this is an overview.
You can see this is an existing, uh, building, lot of vacant lots on this, uh, block and surrounding
area but this is an existing building we have an existing currently vacant building next door to us
here's the property existing three-story building enter up the stoop you can see that the adjacent
property is vacant and we have a vacant lot next to us so you went you go up the stoop in the front
door and here's a better image of it. Here's the front door, units A and B. You walk in,
you have a small vestibule here. This right here on the left is the door to unit A. You go up the
stairs to unit B. We have one unit on the first floor and we go upstairs to a bi-level unit,
second and third floor combined. So again, here's just an image of the first floor doors you're
walking in showing they're separate and already built. The hardship here, just to put the cart
before the horse, is that this is a long-standing existing use and has been in an existing building.
We are not seeking or asking for any new construction, no addition, no increased in use
anything of the sort. And we would be highly contextual with the neighborhood where you
walk through some of the adjacent properties are all multifamily. And actually, almost every
property on this block is a triplex instead of a duplex that we're seeking. So on the left-hand
side, you see here you walk in the front door. That door into unit A is right on your left.
Then you go up one flight of stairs and you have the unit B, which is the second and third
floors combined. Again, all of this is as it exists. We are not seeking any, there will be
no new construction or anything of the sort with regard to this matter. So you go in first floor
and you have two bedrooms in the rear. And then in the second floor apartment, you have three
bedrooms on the third floor. The third floor only goes about halfway back and you have one bedroom
on the second floor. Very excitingly, I actually got a call from Mr. Williams on behalf of the
board. He said he never does this, but we got 14 to zero unanimous support for this application.
We walked through, we had two meetings. There was some confusion about some items in the first
meeting. So again, we agreed to continue the April ZBA hearing that was scheduled in this matter
and had a second RCO meeting. At that second RCO meeting, we were able to address all the
all the questions that came up for the group. And again, they gave us unanimous support,
14-0, which Mr. Williams cited, never happens, which is why he actually called me to let me know.
We have one refusal. That is simply that we are in an RSA 5 zoning district,
and we have a two-family dwelling that's prohibited.
But what you can see here, these are Google Street Views.
And the reason why this is pertinent is simply going back to September of 2014, you can see two mailboxes.
And the continued use, you can see, again, two mailboxes.
This is, if you look at the bottom, October of 2018.
June of 2019, you still have two mailboxes, the exact same condition.
And then finally, in July of 2022, you have this same condition and the property was actually
listed at that time as a multifamily. You can see the sign here as a multifamily use. That is how my
client purchased it with the understanding that it was a multifamily use. He was told there was
even a rental license. My client owns numerous properties all throughout the city and for every
single one immediately gets a rental license. When he went to pull a rental license here,
When he went to pull a rental license here, he was actually told the zoning board and
he was actually told...
administration in L&I could not determine what the prior use, what they felt the approved
prior use was, and told him that he needed to get a variance, which is when I stepped
in to get a variance.
Some of the confusion comes from, this is a zoning board decision from 1950 granting
a three-family use. So dating as far back as 1950, this building was a triplex. At some point
in time thereafter, it was reduced from a triplex to a duplex. There is no zoning documentation or
building permit documentation of that change. So we don't know when it occurred. However,
However, we do know that, sorry, these are the adjacent buildings.
We do know that as far back as 2012, that's when M Homes Investments, LLC, bought the property.
And that is the owner from which my client purchased the property in 2023.
um so you have a uh you know we we know back for sure at least to 2012 although it had been a
triplex before that so that's why lni and zoning board administration wasn't sure
um my client was only seeking a two rental a two unit rental license and they the last
documentation they had was three units and they could see the pictures of two units and so they
told him he needed to come to this board to get that second, the duplex approved. And this is all
while the, why the RCO was fully in favor. The RCO members knew the residents who had lived there
dating back more than a couple of decades. And they knew that this had been a duplex
at all time. Mr. Well, why don't you bring your client on?
Certainly. I don't need to go through it, but if you, the next set of pictures, which the board
already has, shows that almost every property next door to us has three mailboxes or three or
four electric meters and is not all of them legally being operated as multifamily units,
or at least from Zoning Archive that I could find, but certainly included in logistical use.
Mr. Hewitt, can you raise your hand?
Mr. Hewitt, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Do we see his hand?
I see his hand, Chair.
Dan Hewitt has been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir. It's Dan Hewitt, H-E-W-I-T-T.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Whelan.
Thank you. Mr. Hewitt, you're here on behalf of the owner, Light Up Gold LLC, correct?
That is correct.
And did you hear all of the testimony that I already presented in this matter?
Yes, I did.
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, I do.
And would you adopt that testimony as your own?
I would.
With that board, I would simply offer myself or Mr. Hewitt to the board for any questions.
Questions from the board?
No question.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, there's a hand up from Tyrone Williams, and he will be allowed to speak.
Good morning, Reverend. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair and the board, Tyrone Williams, Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Reverend.
We are in support of this. We do recognize the area has to have duplexes and some triplexes. There was discussion about the triplex in the beginning. To the credit of the owner and the attorney, they went back, reworked it, and came up with the duplex.
We have provisals of no basement living, no household living in the basement,
the transparent, the provisional, a reciprocal for the residents and the tenants,
and install Jacob ladders.
And other than that, this is very rare to get a unanimous vote.
unanimous vote um and mr um winning and this kind of has gotten that and we fully support this
And Mr. Whitting and...
project thank you for taking the time to call us is there anyone else in the first audience
there are no hands chair cleaning commission
amy void with the planning commission in 2014 the zoning map was amended to rsa 5 at this
location in accord with recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan. However, the proposed use
is consistent with documented prior use of the property as well as nearby properties. The Planning
Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the requested variance for two-family household
living. Thank you. MI 2023-004-946-10-1936 North 32nd Street. I vote yes with proviso. No household
living in the basement trash to be stored in rear yard
my vote is yes with proviso
michael johns my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
james snell my vote is yes with proviso
thank you jim
Okay, Mr. Whalen, you have your votes.
Number 16, MI 2024-000821-5745, Wyalusine Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from HMC Squared Community Association, Inc.,
Henry Clinton has been promoted.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Are you a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is Kevin Wise, who is to my right, your left.
He is the owner of the property.
and our vice chair has a few questions for you
morning council do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy
i do have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i did and i also send additional
clearer photographs and a clearer copy of a plan so i can present better today
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, Mr. Heed.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman?
It is.
All right. Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Henry Clinton for Kevin Wise, who is with me today to my right-hand side.
This is my presentation binder, including table of contents AA through A10,
which I ask to be admitted into evidence.
The request is a subdivision of an existing single family property into two lots, lot B and lot C.
Lot B will remain a single family home.
Lot C is a small garden area, flower area for use by my client.
And when I show you the aerial photographs and also the zoning map, as well as the photographs I have,
it'll become clearer as to what we're trying to do.
We do have three refusals and refusals.
Two of them concern lot C, which is the flower slash garden area.
And lot B is a single family parcel.
But that single family parcel, as I will show you,
is the exact same size of all the other parcels on the street.
We do have an RCO letter of support, as Mr.
Chairman, you mentioned at the outset.
All right. So this is an aerial photograph. This is my client's property, 5745 Y. Losing Avenue.
This is 58th Street where my cursor is. 5745 wraps around the back end of the corner property.
It's more visible here. So my client's property is here where I have the arrow. Corner property
is here. His property literally goes to the back of the other property on 58th Street and then
turns into 58th Street. This is another aerial photograph. Again, my client's property before
it was subdivided goes from wire loosing to the back wall of this property or sidewall of this
property on 58th Street and then continues on to 58th Street. And the request today is simply to
continues on to 50 A Street. And the request today is simply to make the rear property line
Thank you.
equal to the property on the corner so that both rear yards are the same size, but to slice off
this 423 square foot parcel for use by my client, not for development, not for parking, but simply
for an area for gathering, to have flowers, to have a little bit of a garden, and to have playtime
with his grandchildren. These are just some grade level shots of the area that we're talking about.
So this is the area that we're asking to be subdivided to 423 square feet.
Again, you can see he has a table of chairs there. Sometimes he has a barbecue
with friends and family from the block.
Again, he's not going to use it for any development.
There's no intent for that.
It's simply, as he said in his application,
for use by members of his family and the community.
And there's an exit here onto 58th Street.
This would be, again, the subdivided parcel.
When I get to the plan,
it'll be even more discernible
as to what we're trying to do.
These are the zoning posters that we placed on the front of the house and also on the side to give passersby notice of today's hearing.
So this is the plan, and I'll start with existing conditions.
So as I said with the aerial photograph, the property now is on wire loosing, goes down and turns somewhat of a flag lot, although the flag portion is not that big.
The idea is to take the rear property line of the property on the corner and continue with that so that both of these yards, rear yards, will be the same after the subdivision and the 423 square foot piece will be a separate parcel for separate use by my client.
this is after the subdivision by the survey district here's the new lot will be parcel
b equal to the lot next door and parcel c will be the small slice in the rear
these are the legal descriptions of both parcels which we need on a subdivision plan
The remaining documents are the appeal for application, which my client filed on his own.
We also have the tax clearance, tax certification, as well as proof that there are no real estate taxes owed, according to the Philadelphia Tax Center, as part of the EOPA.
Here's a clear view of what we have now.
This is existing.
Again, the back portion where the flag is, is going to be divided from the existing lot, and then we'll have two separate parcels.
This is the deed indicating ownership.
My clients own the property since 2017.
Notice letter to the community and all the addresses of all the surrounding communities,
and proof of mailing with a stamp from the USPS
indicating all the addresses
that did in fact get the letters.
So Mr. Chairman, we're asking for a subdivision
of existing property,
which my client has owned since 2017.
We're not impacting any adjacent property later air.
We're not impacting development of any adjacent property.
We're generally in harmony with the code.
The parcel is not meant to be for construction
or for parking.
We're not going to come back another day and ask for a parking space.
It's simply for use by my client, who's a long-term resident of the neighborhood, for continued enjoyment, a flowery area, a small garden area, and a gathering space for him and his family.
And with that, I would like to rest and not ask my client if it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.
Not my testimony.
Can he hear?
Can he speak there, Henry?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Kevin Wise, K-E-V-I-N, W-I-N-C.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Mr. Clinton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wise, you were here when I presented your project, correct?
And if you had the opportunity to testify, we do adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Wise.
Questions from the board?
Yeah, I do. I do if I could.
I don't see any reason why the owner can't do what he wants to do without subdividing the land.
Right. Mr. Johns, what he wanted to do, he subdivided, not for only the use, as I described, but also that in.
He said about it, not for only the use, as I described, but also that in the event that he wants to sell his existing property at 5745, he would still maintain ownership of the parcel in the rear, and he could sell his property unencumbered.
Gotcha. Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michael.
Other questions from the board?
Of course.
Questions from our attorney.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Any commission?
Amy Boyd for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family zoning at this location.
The Appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity
with the zoning code and that the variance is therefore necessary to enable viable economic
use of the property.
Further, the proposed Lot C is grossly undersized, a reminder that variance is run with the land,
not the owner's.
There is no guarantee as to the intent of any future owner's use of the proposed parcel.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance
for lot adjustment on the basis of minimum lot area.
So, number 16, MI 2024, 000821, 5745, Wyalusing, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Sonata Graham, my vote is yes.
Ty and Warren, I vote.
Go ahead, Tyler.
Iowen, my vote is yes.
H. Miller Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Councilor.
Mr. Chairman, may I say a fond farewell to Tanya Sunkit, a very, very professional and classy individual.
We will miss her.
Thank you very much.
Number 18, MI 2024, 003409, 401 Martin Street.
William O'Brien is the attorney. We also have Kim L. Langer, the attorney for the owner, and Leonard Reuter, the attorney for L&I.
Leonard Reuter has been promoted, and I'm about to promote William O'Brien.
He has been promoted, Chair.
Okay. Mr. O'Brien?
leonard could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
uh sure uh good afternoon may it please the board leonard f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r senior attorney for
the city of philadelphia do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do mr o'brien uh good afternoon mr chairman members of the board william o'brien
w-i-l-l-i-a-m-o-b-r-i-e-n for baker street partners you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do um mr o'brien we have another attorney kim l langert
yes kim represents the property owner okay is is kim here she has been here okay kim
do we see her hand
oh sorry chair yes kim will be allowed should i promote her please okay she's been promoted
good morning could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
I don't see her yet
she should be coming in
there she is
Doreen, do we hear?
Yes, I'm here.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Could you please state your name?
Can you hear?
Hi, Ken, sir. I'm sorry.
Hi, Ken, sir. I'm sorry.
All right, sure. Hi, could you please state your name and spell?
All right, sure. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, sir. It's Kim Lengert, K-I-M, first name, last name, L-E-N-G-E-R-T.
Do you swear, Fern, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel, could you please state who your client is and who you represent?
I represent the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Thank you.
This is an appeal against L&I, and I think we're going to start with Mr. O'Brien. Am I correct?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, I represent Baker Street Partners, and to my right is Andy Molson and Steve Oshefsky, the two managing members of Baker Street Partners.
As you know, you just heard who Kim represents.
401 Martin Street is also known as the Bethany Lutheran Church.
It's been there since 1873.
um as just as a way of setting the table just briefly um baker street partners has had a
tremendous amount of success with converting uh former religious uh houses of worship and
religious uses in roxborough to multi-family uh saint lucy's church was successfully completed
several years ago it's now 27 apartments or 29 apartments rather um 492 roxborough avenue
It was a parsonage for a church that was converted to 27 units, and the parish house, individually listed historic property, the parish house of St. David's Church at 150 DuPont Street was converted to 12 apartments, and all of those developments have one-to-one parking.
um in uh february of this year baker street partners uh was introduced to uh 401 martin
street as being available for sale uh they were given uh and if i can share my screen please
they were given uh
a zoning permit, which is page two of the exhibit package.
And you can see on the second page, the indicated use is multifamily household living 14 dwelling
units. They also were given, and that was issued June 1 of 2023. They were also given a property
certificate issued in August of 2023, again, confirming the 14 dwelling units.
They signed the agreement of sale based on these representations. And then, of course,
we had some due diligence. And we then found out that, in fact, the permit was properly posted.
Page three of the exhibit, or sorry, page five of the exhibit now on the screen
is an affidavit from Tom Bond, who is the listing agent for the church. And he
this is his affidavit that it was posted on June 7, 2023. The following exhibit is an affidavit
that it remained posted until June 12 of this year. We did a little homework at that time,
and we found out that the neighborhood was very well aware of this proposed conversion from
a former church to multifamily. On the page now, on the screen now at page seven is an Instagram
post from Naked Philly. It has 74, I'm sorry, 79 likes right here. And it refers to the fact that
14 residents is coming to the former Bethany Lutheran Church in Roxborough.
And there are three comments, 79 likes and three comments that are highlighted on the screen. Fascinating. Who's the architect? Maniok-Roxborough going to be the new Chestnut Hill in 15 to 20 years. Exciting project. Can't wait to see the details unfold.
It was also posted by a real estate company, OCF Realty, on their blog.
And I won't go through the whole thing.
I will just point out that they go through some of the history and the history of the church.
And there was only one comment to this, and it was a favorable comment from James Goodwin.
If the Historical Commission lets them build according to plan without interference, then the result will be a beautiful building to be enjoyed by all.
And again, these are posted back in June and July of 2023.
The next page is just the information of Dennis Carlyle, the vice president of that real estate company, who is the one who posted this.
Based upon the community's awareness, the permits, the property certification, on March 27th, my client filed a building permit.
property certification on march 27th my client filed a building permit application
to get a building permit to convert the church to 14 units that permit application is is pending
this is of course an issue regarding a statute so i want to get to that and i'll try to make
this as brief as i can as you know or as i'm sure you remember the last administration
They created a historic preservation task force. It was composed of 30 persons, all tops in their fields from academia, architects, developers, community members that were active in representing areas susceptible to development.
and they met for 18 months. It was funded by the William Penn Foundation and it was staffed
by members of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. After 18 months, they came up
with a final report that was handed to the administration and accepted and given to city
Council. In November of 2019, City Council took those recommendations and three bills were passed.
One bill addressed parking for historic properties. One addressed the introduction
and allowance of accessory dwellings. And then the final bill, which is what is at issue here,
allowed for the treatment of the certain historic properties that are certified by
the Historic Commission to be treated as CMX3, which allows multifamily and has no density
limitations. Let me briefly go through. These are the photographs that were part of the
OCF Realty blog. Let me just reduce the size a little bit so you can see the full picture.
So this is Martin Street. You see the church in the background. Again, from Martin Street. This is from Pichon. Again, this is the Pichon Street view.
This is the church on the left side. This is the parsonage. The agreement of sale covers both
properties, and I'll get to the parsonage briefly at the end of my comments. Again, this is the area
between the parsonage and the church. You see the parsonage there on the left, and these are
pictures of the church. The church's last service was in November of 22, so it is now a vacant
property and on april 15th the city expressed its intention to revoke the june 1st 2023 permit
uh and this appeal was filed uh i want to go to
the bill
19 613a which is on page 37
So this is the third of the three bills that City Council passed in 2019. I'm sorry, November of 2019. That's correct. This is the ordinance. This is the bill that was passed and became the section of the code that we're dealing with today that allows under certain conditions, one of them being that the Historic Commission right here,
if they certify that the conditions are met then you can it can be treated as cmx3
which is an incredible incentive to repurpose a church like this in fact
when this bill was passed exhibit 15 in my package is a summary
from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. And with regard to this bill,
they say that it's probably going to end up to have the most measurable impact to encourage the
investment in historic property. So of the three bills, this is the most important.
Despite efforts to remap existing uses, there have been countless parcels across the city
with zoning that is essentially a holdover from past planning efforts. Quoting now,
churches are particularly illustrative example. Numerous historic churches,
Numerous historic churches, many of which are nestled amid row house neighborhoods, are likewise zoned for residential single-family use.
many of which are nestled amid row house neighborhoods,
401 Martin Street was rezoned several years ago from RSA 5, which was the neighborhood that it's in, to RSD 1.
There were several churches and large properties, large lots with single-family homes in Roxborough that were identified by the community to be at risk for development.
They successfully persuaded the councilman and the Planning Commission to have these properties all rezoned RSD1 to assure that they would be involved in the repurposing of these properties.
That has a significant effect in a minute.
These churches have large lots.
They're a location with residential districts.
the motivation of sellers, you know, the church, the owners, who are often desperate to monetize
what is perceived as their last tangible asset, their real estate, churches are extremely
vulnerable. So this is, again, this is the National Historic Preservation Trust applauding city
Council's and the city's effort to codify incentives to repurpose churches. Now,
this is 2019. And at the end of the 2021 session, a bill was introduced. It's page
50 in the package, number 16 in the documents. Bear with me.
I have to reduce the size a little bit.
So here's the bill that was introduced near the end of the 2021 spring session, and this is the provision that was added to the bill that was, became, the bill passed in 19, in 2019, one of the three bills.
Now, in 2021, this was introduced and passed city council near the end of the session, which essentially voided the entire incentive package that the historic task force focused on for 18 months that was accepted and adopted and became law.
This one clause that's on the screen, subsection six, effectively negates
the policy, the public policy that was adopted. It provides that notwithstanding the permission to
build and repurpose at the level of CMX3, this provision says your density can't be more than
50% of the underlying zoning district. Well, as I said a minute ago, this was one of the properties
that was rezoned RSD1. So the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. So under this provision,
the most you can get is two units. This church is over 12,000 square feet inside,
which means the most you can have are two units inside this church each being about 6,200 square
feet. Speaking for my clients that's not going to happen. This church is not going to be repurposed
by my clients if that is the limitation. I tried to find out what was the incentive
for this. The bill was sponsored by Councilman Jones. I reached out to his chief of staff,
asked him what was the incentive or purpose for this. He explained that it was focused on one
property, 6 399 Drexel Road, and that the developer there wanted to convert a single
family home to 16 condos. And apparently that was not popular in Overbrook Farms.
Ultimately, this project on Drexel Road did not go through. But I've included in the package,
number 18, a description of
that property on Drexel Avenue. You can see it's a beautiful home. It's over 12,000.
Drexel Avenue. You can see it's a beautiful home. It's 12,000, over 12,000 square feet. The lot is
over 25,000 square feet. And that is typical in Overbrook Farms. Overbrook Farms is a unique
neighborhood. It is a planned suburban community in Philadelphia, much different from Peachen and
and Martin Street in Philadelphia, in Roxburgh. So I would ask that the board
deny the, or refuse to support, or whatever the correct
phrasing is, to deny the proposed revocation of this permit. Number one,
as I said my client reasonably relied on the permit they've engaged architects they have
a pending building permit application for the 14 units this I'd ask the board that this
revision not should not be should not be applied it should it should not be strictly construed
it's against public policy it is the policy of the city to encourage the repurposing of historic
churches. It's clear. And this amendment literally negates it. And then this church is going to be
at risk. We've seen the church in Fishtown that has suffered for years. And this ordinance,
this section of the code prior to 2021 amendment was designed to address that.
And this is going to come up again. As I said, the scope of the agreement of sale includes 4351
Peachen Street, which is the parsonage house. The Historic Commission has already issued a letter
saying that that falls within the category and is subject to the incentive that is available under
this section of the code. But of course, if this
provision is applied, the most units that will be
available in the 3,200 square foot parsonage is one.
It's this bill,
it may have made sense for Overbook Farms, but it doesn't make
sense for the rest of the city, and notably
Roxborough.
So, fine, last comment, and I'll turn this over to Kim if she has anything to add.
As I mentioned, the last thing in my package is a conceptual plan.
As I mentioned, the previous conversions of houses of worship for parsonages were all one-to-one parking.
This gray area on the left is the church.
This is an existing driveway with parking.
This is the area between the parsonage, which is here on the right.
And when we make an application for the parsonage, we will include a proposed curb cut on Peachen Street, which does not have any parking along that side.
It does not affect on-street parking.
We're going to preserve the streetscape between Peachen and the church.
We're going to introduce the required landscaping around the parking area.
But this will provide one-to-one parking for both the 14 units in the church and the four units that we hope to get in the parsonage.
Again, this has been fully vetted, and it is supported by everybody who's expressed an opinion on social media.
Oh, it's also been on Facebook, Roxborough Rants and Raves.
Thank you for your patience. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Council Lengert, am I standing right, Lengert?
Do you have any comments or do you want to make a presentation?
Just some comments, sir, if I can.
Lengert.
The church was built in this area to serve this community.
It is an extremely large structure with an extremely large overhead.
The congregation has dissipated by age and size.
For a new church to come in and occupy this space as a startup, it's way beyond the costs that they could do to do this.
the church was planted here to be of service of the community and in this method our denomination
feels that we are continuing to serve the community and will always be a part of it by having this
change over to housing and and that's my comments i if anybody's any questions about that thank you
very much um mr reuter do you want to make a presentation uh yes uh so i mean i i think i
I mean, I think I want to try to parse out some of what Mr. Mr. Pardon me, what Mr. O'Brien and Reverend Langert have said, which is there's there's a couple of different issues here.
want to try to parse out some of what Mr.
First of all, it's a city's position that regardless of the soundness of the 2021 amendment to the ordinance, this board doesn't have any authority to disregard city council's position and city council's, what city council has expressed by way of an ordinance that was passed and put into effect.
uh again i would point out two years before this application was submitted so just because i think
maybe it it kind of um got passed over just to explain um the city concedes this is an historic
property it was designated by the philadelphia historical commission uh it's on the register of
historic places for the city of philadelphia the city uh concedes that permit application for
conversion to 16 residential units at the site was submitted and that the executive director
of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, Dr. John Farnham, had certified that A, the property
was historic and on the register, and that over 2,500 square feet of the property had been
dedicated to the qualified prior use um we don't disagree with any of that uh we also stipulate
that um and the certification by the way that's just part of the ordinance is that the
historical commission has to uh has to verify those things a that it's historic and b uh that
there's at least 2500 square feet of the property had been uh dedicated to that qualified use which
among other things includes the house of worship which obviously this this was i think i think this
i think services here they may still be occasional services but again i think we
concede that it hasn't been regularly operating as a church since i believe at the end of 2022
uh so um and uh we stipulate that the department of licenses and inspections did in fact issue a
permit for 16 units. After that, that's when, in terms of the timeline and exactly what triggered
what, I'm not sure, but we had, the city did in fact issue a property cert indicating 14
residential units. I know that the agreement of sale between the Lutheran Church and the
purchasers has been submitted. I don't recall, and it's really up to the board, I guess,
to decide whether it's relevant or not, whether or not the conversion to residential use was a
contingency of the agreement. Mr. O'Brien is, I think, implying that the sale would not have
gone through if they did not have the permit for multifamily residential use. That may or may not
be true uh i i for the sake of argument we'll say it's true uh so after that point there was a
subsequent permit application uh for 16 uh units uh and again the city did issue that permit um
pretty much just based upon looking at i guess the 14 units and seeing you know cmx3 uses that's okay
and the issue and then another application for property certification was submitted
And at that time, it was about the same time that I think the construction permit was applied for.
Whether it was the construction permit application or the second property cert application, it was at that point that a review was done and L&I determined that, in fact, the initial permit, the 2023 permit, should not have been issued.
And nor should the 2024 permit for 16 units because of that 2021 amendment that Mr. O'Brien referenced, which I don't need to put it back up on the screen, but which specifically says notwithstanding any exception under subsection B for structure located within a residential single family detached zoning district that is an RSD district.
So again, notwithstanding the exception that allows CMX-3 uses for historic properties that qualify, if it's an RSD unit, the minimum lot area required per dwelling unit is 50% of the minimum lot area for the district.
And then there's some stuff about how that's rounded down.
But the point is that it's an overstatement to say that it completely eviscerates the rest of the...
It's an overstatement to say that it completely eviscerates the rest of the law that was put into place by city council.
Any other CMX3 use is still permitted.
It's only if you're in an RSD district and if you are seeking multi-residential units that this limitation to the general exception kicks in.
So it's not true to say that this completely eviscerates the existing law.
All other CMX3 uses would be permitted here.
It's just because it's RSD1, which is arguably the most restrictive zoning classification in the entire zoning code,
and the fact that RSD1 requires a 10,000 square foot lot.
So yes, you get two units out of this lot.
And we understand that, you know, I can't do anything else other than to apologize on behalf of the city and the department license and inspections that the permits were issued.
But again, I think what we would caution the board against is that the board doesn't really have the, the board doesn't have the authority to negate or to ignore what the code says, regardless of whether you think this particular 2021 amendment was a good idea or not.
If that were the case, I mean, we can think of like lots and lots of other provisions throughout the code that boards could simply just ignore and you don't have that authority.
I'm totally fine if they want to preserve a validity challenge, but this board doesn't have the authority to grant a validity challenge.
They can preserve it for the record on appeal, but this board has to apply the code as written.
That being said, with respect to what I think is the meat of the argument here, which is whether or not the permit for the 14 residential units is vested, it's the city's position that, you know, the board has the discretion and the authority to make a decision on those grounds.
So typically the city's position on vested rights is that soft costs don't count.
They have to be unrecoverable, hard costs, which usually means actual construction has taken place.
Or in some instances, if you purchased a property in anticipation and reliance upon a permit to do new construction,
If you demolished the existing property, things like that are more typically what the city would regard as evidence of establishing a vested right to the zoning permit.
In this case, what happened and what Mr. O'Brien and Reverend Lengert have indicated is that it was in reliance upon this 14-unit zoning permit, the 2023 zoning permit, that the sale of the property took place.
there were other additional costs associated with that and again while
that might not classically well that might not meet the classical where the
classic example of a vested right we do think that it's the it's within the
discretion of the board to make that determination we're not I'm not saying
that we agree that it's vested rights but we do think that the board has that
authority. But what we're cautioning the board against is to simply disregard the 2021 amendment
regarding RSD properties and the exemption for historic buildings. I don't believe, let me just,
if you just, don't think there was really much else we had to say. The other thing, and again,
this is just for the record. I just want to make it clear, and I did make it clear to the board
through emails and also to counsel that the 2024 permit for 16 units was also revoked, or there
was also a letter of intent to revoke that permit. That letter of intent to revoke was not appealed.
That is not part of this appeal. That took place in April. It's now several months since then.
So it's the city's position that the only issue before this board is 14 units, not 16 units.
The 16 unit permit is effectively abandoned and has been or is it is essentially is revoked.
It's no longer a valid permit.
It's the only thing we're talking about is the port is the 2023 permit for 14 units.
So, again, just to wrap it up and not to sound like a broken record, but we don't the board can't ignore.
the language of the code but if the board wants to make a determination about whether the right
to the 14 units was vested we would just point
to 14 units was vested, we would just point out that it doesn't meet the classic example
of a vested rights situation, but we will let the board exercise its discretion on that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Leonard.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
All right.
Thank you.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Ryan, so what I'm going to do with this is we're going to hold this for a vote next week, next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m.
We don't go to the general public on this, and we don't go to the planning commission.
So, Ryan, we'll do this next Wednesday at 9.30 a.m.
And thank you to all.
Just one final comment.
Just to be clear, the building permit application was for the 14 units.
That has nothing to do with it. The 16 is not at issue here.
And I do want to wish Tanya Sunkit
much for her retirement and welcome the new board members.
All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you to all three attorneys.
And we'll vote on this next Wednesday at 930. Is there anyone
in the virtual audience whose 930 AM case
has not been called?
there are no hands chair see everyone at 2 p.m thank you thank you all right chair thank you
everyone okay good afternoon everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this
afternoon's meeting with me is our vice chair ismail shaheed president mr chairman or board
member James Snell? President, Mr. Chairman. Our board member
Tanada Graham? President, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member Michael Johns? President,
Mr. Chairman. And our board member Taya Nguyen.
She should be on any minute. Present. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
All right. Here's our
virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded
With your participation
You agree to be recorded
The video will be available by contacting
Kathleen Grady
For our court sonographer
And witnesses
We ask you to identify yourself
Before testifying
If you're participating by phone
Press star 9 to raise your hand
And star 6 to unmute
To enter an appearance statement
call 267-270-5548. Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question box on the screen is not for comments or testimony. All comments should
be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken. And for point of information, Ryan Emerson
is our attorney, and also we have with us the Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule this afternoon.
Number one, MI 2023-004-267-900 East Cheltenham Avenue.
Mr. Charles Richardson and Movement Islam, attorney.
We see the one in the audience.
sorry about that chair here i'm here i see charles richardson with his hand
all right and i will allow him to speak
good afternoon mr chair mr richardson i know you've already been sworn just
Just for the record, state your name.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
And I know you have a request for continuance that I believe Mr. Islam has agreed to.
Is that correct?
I believe that is the case.
I actually need to talk to him.
My suggestion to him was to request a continuance since they had a meeting with nobody at that attendant.
I understand he stated he has no objections.
I was trying to get him on the line, but we're fine.
So MI-2023-004-267-900 East Shelton Avenue, that case is continued.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Number 11.
MI-2024-002-258-23.
MI 2024-002-258-2315 West Cumberland Street.
That case has been continued.
And number 13.
MI 2024-002-270-2408 North 31st Street.
That case is continued.
Attorney moving party.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Yes, Chair, I have two hands up.
The first one will be Michael Parker will be allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Parker.
You're allowed to speak now, Mr. Parker.
Hi, Mr. Parker.
He keeps muting and unmuting, Chair.
So he's muted as of now.
Do we have anybody else on the line?
Yes, Brett Feldman.
He's allowed to speak.
Mr. Feldman, just for the record, could you state your name and spell it for the court
sonographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Members of the board, Brett Feldman, 1835 Marcus Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
1-I-1-0-3-B-R-E-G-T Feldman, F-E-L-D-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So, Mr. Feldman, I see that you and Mr. Patterson are listed for two cases.
I understand number three you may want to continue.
Is that correct?
I just want to make sure that we got this right.
ZP 2023-007206.
These are the accessories, proposed accessory signs for a new.
Let's go back over that one minute.
I have 005769.
For 2628 South Street.
Yeah, the sign case should be under ZP 2023-007206.
207206? I don't have that. I have 2023005769. Okay. Yeah, it's the signed case. Okay, good.
And you want to continue that? Yes. Just in short, we work, and you'll hear on the other case,
the companion case, we work closer to SOSNA. We believe now that these signs are now code
compliant. So we're going to ask the zoning board to request for leave to go back to L&I,
have them review it, and we hope we believe and issue the code compliant sign.
All right. All right. So thank you. So MI 2023-005-769-2628 South Street,
that case is continued. Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
And we also have a few cases here that... Is there anybody else for the continuance?
Yes, Chair. There are two more hands up. The first is Jessica Baumer.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, yes. My name is Jessica Baumer, J-E-S-S-I-C-A-B-A-U-M-E-R-T.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
What case?
uh it is uh zp2023 what's the what's what's the location 3940 baltimore avenue
3940 baltimore avenue does anybody see the number for that i have okay yep um
please proceed um yes uh i am requesting a continuance due to improper notification
uh we are at the address 4000 woodland avenue yeah directly across the street um and okay so
so hold on one minute let me get the attorney that's involved for the other side here meredith
Ferliger, please. Okay. Meredith Ferliger has been allowed to speak. Good morning, counsel.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer? Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R,
on behalf of SEPTA. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. There's someone requesting continuance. Jessica,
Could you please continue? Yes, I am requesting a continuance due to improper notification of
this case. We are directly across the street and it came to our attention on July 3rd.
We are directly across the street, and it came to our attention on July 3rd that this was happening, and due to an error of the city, the notification was apparently sent to 3900 Woodland Avenue, so we never received it, as our mailing address is 4000 Woodland Avenue.
All right, thank you. Meredith, please proceed.
Sure. Mr. Chairman, SEPTA would not support full continuance requests, but we would like to suggest an alternative course for the board. Just very briefly, this project is of critical public importance as it proposes a substation that's required to power SEPTA's new incoming trolleys.
As Ms. Bomer acknowledged, as did their letter, the lack of notification in this case was not
due to the applicant's error. As the applicant did provide notice to every required address
that was provided by the city, we did provide proof of that mailing to the board's council
in advance of the hearing. In addition to Woodlands, the coordinating RCO, we understand
spruce hill is also not prepared to submit its position during today's hearing so in light of
the likelihood that this case is going to require more than one hearing regardless of the date that
we start it due to the volume of information that we must present we're requesting that the board
allow septa to present its case this afternoon but to schedule a resumption hearing for the purpose
of having an individual session to receive additional public comment on the project
Between now and that date, SEPTA fully intends to re-engage with both Woodlands and the other stakeholders, which will allow this case to proceed without the substantial delay that a full continuance would cause, especially because this notification error is not as a result of any deficiency on the applicant's part.
okay so jessica what i'm going to do is i'm going to allow septa to present their case but then
we're going to hold all comment until we come back again the next time and that'll be a whole
public comment etc so then when we come back the next time the public yourself rcos will have a
chance to weigh in on what the project is okay but there'll be no decision made today okay all
All right, thank you very much for taking the time to call us, and Meredith, we'll call your case later.
Thank you.
All right, is there any other requests for continuance?
Yes, she had three hands, and Vern Anastasio is next.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Vern, just for the record, state your name.
That's Vern Anastasio.
Are you calling about 2350 in West Cumberland?
I'm not. Thank you for continuing it, though.
I was asking about 2049 North Randolph Street.
What number is that, anybody? Oh, I see it.
We have no exhibits for that. It's the first listing.
That's correct. I'm asking for a continuance. We have yet to meet with the RCO.
Okay. You will have your continued. So I'm mistaken. We have one other case with you this afternoon, right?
That's correct. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. So MI 2024, 002-348-2049 North Randolph Street, cases continued. Anyone else?
Yes. Next is Lauren and David Leather Barrow.
They have been allowed to speak.
Hi, Lauren. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Lauren Leatherbarrow. That's L-A-U-R-E-N-L-E-A-T-H-E-R-B-A-R-R-O-W.
My husband's sitting here with me.
Okay. So why don't we just take you for now? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
What case do you want to talk about?
3940 Baltimore Avenue. That's the proposed substation at the septa portal between.
Yeah. So just so you know, I've already ruled on that, right?
I heard you say that. I have already raised my hand. And what I want to say is that they're going to have to redesign. So anything they present today is going to be out of date.
Well, we'll see how that goes. I think they're going to give a general presentation today. And as I said, there'll be no vote taken on that.
and the public comment will be held to the next time.
So you'll have plenty of chance to comment.
So when I asked the lawyer to send me drawings,
she only sent me five
and the other people were given six additional drawings.
Okay, so here's what's going to happen.
The lawyer is going to make it a point.
There's going to be a lot of public comment
between now and the next time.
And I'll make sure that's raised with them
And I'll make sure that's raised with them.
and we'll try to get you that comment, that drawing.
And we'll try to get you that comment, that drawing.
All right.
I already got it.
I think I got it from the councilwoman's office.
All right.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
We appreciate it.
Sloan, folks, is next chair?
Oh, sure.
He's been allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Folks.
Good afternoon, council.
I'm sorry.
Good member.
Good afternoon.
Chairman, this is Sloan Folks, S-L-O-A-N-A, F-S-A-F-I-R, O-L-K-S, Office of Councilmember
Ketchy Lozada, room 484, City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I did.
What case?
Sloan, what case?
I'm checking in on 2400 through 06 North Masher Street.
I do understand that they had a meeting with the RCO, Northwest Career Community Action Network, on June 10th, or one was scheduled, but I don't have a record of a meeting outcome, and I was wondering whether they were prepared to move forward with that today.
Let me see where that is.
they are not
Mr. Anastasio
was just on the phone
and he requested
this is the first listing
he's asked by Mr. Torres
to represent him
the case has been continued
Mr. Ferguson
thank you sir very much
thank you
any other requests
there are no more hands
so number 15
MI 2024-002-319, 4309-31 North Lawrence Street, Matthew Witters is a listed applicant.
No exhibits, first listing.
No one in the audience, no one in the audience about that name, too.
Number 15, MI 2024, 002-319, 4309-31 North Lawrence Street.
This case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
We're going to go to our add-ons.
Okay, hold on here.
So number one, MI 2023-007-031, 4714 Griscom Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, July 17th, 2024, at 2 p.m.
number two mi 2024 000 162 4346 to 48 griscom street vote in this matter has been rescheduled
to wednesday july 17th at 2 p.m and then mi 2022 004 546 3251 fox street
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, July 17th at 2 p.m.
We're going to our regular list.
I'm going to start with number 14.
MI 2024-002-280-4908, Walnut Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from the Walnut Hill Community Association.
Vern Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist.
Right.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Anastasio, you've been already sworn, just for the record, state your name.
Vern Anastasio, on behalf of Thomas Bateman, the owner of the subject property.
Okay. And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, yes.
We've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Ben.
Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
Hey, Vern, just out of curiosity, is there a tax issue with this?
I think it's been paid.
Okay, all right.
Let's go through it then.
If I need to submit anything else, I will.
but I think it's been paid
and of course I'm having an issue
today hold on I'm going to stop sharing
for a moment
Great. I had an error occur. Just bear with me just for one second, please.
great I had an
error occur
Thank you.
4908 Walnut Street. The application is for three-family dwelling in an existing structure.
We've got a 70-page exhibit packet that I'm going to enter into evidence today.
They include, as you suggested, a recommendation of support by the RCO Walnut Hill.
The property is on RSA 3, but it's long vacant, and it's been a real eyesore and a problem for the community for quite a long time.
It's a very large property.
Each floor provides almost 750 square feet of living space.
And as a result, it's been difficult over the many years to have rehab and to occupy.
Therefore, my client purchased the property recently and is recommending a proposal where each floor be a brand new housing unit where it's two bedrooms,
the large living room dining kitchen uh and nice size bathrooms two baths a vestibule on the right
hand side that will and a center stair which you know it's an older property uh which we would use
to uh bring folks up to the second and third floors as you can see each of the units provides
two bedrooms with an open concept living room, dining room, and kitchen. Each unit would have
two bathrooms and plenty of space for trash storage, utilizing the breezeway on the side
of the property. We did meet with the community, and as a result of reviewing of the block itself,
where there are several multifamily properties on the block and given the history of prior to
it being shuttered for so long it was in fact a multifamily use the rco has in fact recommended
support
here's some exterior photos the interior is it was a quite dangerous and it was
advisable not to go in and take photos of of you know it was literally
falling down inside but my client has shored it up on the outside
as you can see that even the front door is still boarded up
very large property here's the side breezeway here that would be used
Each tenant would be able to access the space for trash storage.
As a new three-family dwelling, of course, the property will be sprinklered in accordance with the International Building Code.
My client will have a property management company as well.
This is the letter that went to all interested parties, inviting them to the community meeting and to the zoning hearing.
Here are the addresses that were mailed.
And we have proof of mailing.
144 individual households.
I submit proof of tax, deed, and zoning map as well.
I did have communication with the district council office.
They did not feel the need to weigh in, given the review of the exhibit packet and the input from the RCO.
They did not believe we would have any issues.
So with that, I respectfully request.
Aaron, could you show me the text and make sure you send a copy of it over?
there's a zero balance but thank you yep bring your client on yes and one one for one other
question the rest of the block how many houses are multi-family oh several uh these are these
are ginormous homes uh and uh there's more than five homes just on that side of the block
uh that have been uh divided uh two and three family dwellings thank you
mr thomas bateman could raise his virtual hand
Mr. Thomas Bateman could raise his virtual hand.
Thomas Bateman is allowed to speak.
Mr. Bateman, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. My name is Thomas Bateman, T-H-O-M-A-S. Bateman is B-A-T-E-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Bateman, did you hear my presentation to the board?
uh this afternoon yes is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and do you adopt
it as your own testimony yes thank you i have nothing further mr chair questions from the board
what will the basement there's no living space in the basement
no questions chair all right questions or comments from our attorney
i just i just have a note that uh you know as per our records there was still an outstanding
tax balance on this matter does it mr anesthesia have any documentation that the uh tax balance was
was paid the last page of my exhibit packet has a so you just okay i just missed it all right yeah
that's fine i'll be happy to send it over to you as well if you could thank you thank you
um questions or comments from the virtual audience
There are no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon, David Vecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman and board members, comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA3, residential single-family zoning at this location.
In 1983, the property received a permit to convert a multi-unit dwelling into a single-family home.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance that will prevent the single-family use from continuing.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed use variance for three dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 002-280-4908, Walnut Street, I vote yes.
michael johns my vote is yes
my vote is yes
james now my vote is yes thank you my vote is yes thank you i forgot there's a bunch of you now
thank you thanks right number two mi 2023 004 624 2628 south street
Brett Feldman is the attorney
We do not at this point
Have a RCO letter
But there was
Letters sent to
Approof of mailing to local neighbors
There was a meeting held
May 15, 2024
Before South of South Neighborhood Association
Brett Feldman is coming in as a panelist here.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Mr. Feldman, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Again, Brett Feldman on behalf of the owner.
Could you identify your client relationship to the property?
Owner, Unified Acquisitions.
of they are the owner of both 2628 and 2630 South Street.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
And if I may, you made reference to the SOSNA letter.
the vote, as I understand it, was actually unanimous or almost unanimous in support after
three or four meetings. And I would also add that Murray Spencer, who is SOSNA's zoning chair,
I believe is in the audience and will want to speak to this. And I don't know if it's better
for him to speak now and present his opinion. We'll let him speak when we're ready.
I think they have a clerical issue, and that's why we don't have the letter.
All right, good. Thank you, sir.
Okay. Can you see my screen now?
We can.
Okay, great.
So in front of you is Exhibits 1 through 14, which I'd ask to be incorporated into the record.
You've heard, and you will hear Sassana's support now for this project after several meetings.
support now for this project after several meetings, notice of refusal, and then amended
notice of refusal, site photos, zoning code provisions, and then the tax clearance and
certificate of mailing. I'll get right to this here. This is, let me get right down here.
This is an application to, I'll go right to the pictures here, and I think most people will
recognize this location. This is right over the South Street Bridge coming into Center City.
Here is the South Street Bridge. We are right here at this corner at 27th and South Street.
This lot that probably has been here, I think, empty for 50 years or 60 years or something like
that. We're looking to develop this lot and then merge it with this building here, demo this.
And the proposal is for a six unit multifamily building with a ATM financial institution on the first floor.
It is now proposed to be on the outside. These lots are owned by I think I think you characterize it as the largest bank that is now headquartered in the city of Philadelphia.
And they wanted to create this gateway, have the residential, but also have some recognition of the history of the bank in this location.
And as a corner, it made some sense to have the ATM.
The property is zoned RM1 multifamily.
So the uses, the multifamily uses are allowed.
I believe we're one over what is allowed.
And that's one of our variance grounds.
We're also seeking relief for 100% lot coverage.
And as you'll hear from our project architect, at this location, it made sense to have the lot coverage.
It's a corner, and it allowed us to have internal trash storage.
So let me just get to the plans.
We've met repeatedly with SOSNA and local neighbors.
The original proposal was to have that building, have the multifamily, and I'll show you the rendering here.
Here's the floor plans.
It's three floors and a lower level and a roof.
And here's what it was originally proposed to look like.
We spent a lot of time on design.
This was the original proposal.
as you come over the South Street Bridge, here's 27th, here's South, was to have the six units,
but have an ATM lobby here inside this front area facing onto South Street and facing onto 27th
with this sign package. There were concerns in the neighborhood about having the ATM lobby
and about the size of the signs. So as you heard, we continued that prior case. We've amended after
meeting after meeting with SOSTA, and I'm sure you'll hear that from Murray, we reduce the size
of the two signs down to what we believe is code compliant to the 15 square feet that's allowed.
And then what we do is instead of having this lobby, we're bringing the residential right to
the front and then having an ATM here on the outside of the building. I'll turn to this,
what the new plans look like, and then I'll turn it over to our project architect, Rustin Oler.
Let me just get to the revised
elevation. This is the revised elevation, a much smaller sign here, a much smaller sign here. The
ATM is now on the outside, and then this area here is now residential, keeping with the mixed-use
nature of this location. Also, let me just before I turn to Rustin, join with me today on behalf of
the ownership is Maureen McNardy. She can be promoted to a panelist, as well as Susan Callan
then, who is from the Howe Group. And as I said, Murray Spencer from SOSNA. So Rustin, are you out
there? Do you want to just briefly? Is that the architect you're talking about? Yes. Yes. Okay.
Yes. Pull the architect on.
I'd ask Rustin Ohler.
Rustin Ohler, he has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Sure. Rustin Ohler, R-U-S-T-I-N, last name Ohler, O-H-L-E-R, Armandoidge Ohler Architecture.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Rustin, you heard me go through and explain kind of the main issues with the community and the local neighbors as far as the changes to that financial institution, that ATM feature, and also the...
changes to that financial institution, that ATM feature, and also the signage.
Do you want to just briefly go through the floor plans and add any other additional information
that came from the conversations?
Yeah, if you just want to go to the floor plans really quickly, I can keep it brief.
Fred had mentioned everything on the exterior regarding volumetric changes and finishes
and signage.
We addressed all the community's concerns.
These are the proposed floor plans.
uh we're only proposing six units um the units are majority two bedrooms and there is a one
bedroom all the units are larger um so we're not you know the site completely accommodate the units
um we're talking about you know 1200 to 1500 square foot units um the majority of the units
uh the two upper units will have roof decks um right here correct these are the upper the blue
units and they have access to private pilot houses and roof decks they're set back from the streetscape
as well as our all the condensers um we are requesting refusal for the pilot house to the
rear which is at the top of the page uh we are on the northern um side of the adjacent row homes
and we've met with the near neighbor to the left of us so we're not casting a shadow on anybody so
there's no effect to light in air um and i tried to keep that brief for you so um we did uh remove
the atm lobby if you look at the first floor plan you can see just an exterior atm which is the
little red dot on the inside is just to service and load it with cash. But from the outside,
it will just be in a wall-mounted ATM. That was the request of the community group. They felt
that the interior lobby would have been a hazard. So we removed that and we increased the size of
unit two to put the living room at the corner to keep eyes on the street as per their request.
Yeah. And we also made changes to the exterior based off of, I think it was a three SOSMA
meetings plus a near neighbors meeting, correct? I don't know if that's important, but we have
worked hand in hand with near neighbors and Sassen on this. And I'm sure Murray from Sassen
will explain that, but you made those changes to the exterior too, as far as brick color.
Yeah. And those were primarily aesthetic. They weren't zoning issues, but we wanted to make
sure that we were addressing the neighbors' concerns. Yeah. Right. Have the architect
available in case there's a question from the board who's your next who's your next witness
Brett um that's all for right now I mean if the what do you want to have somebody adopt your
testimony yes yes I'd ask uh Maureen Minardi um on behalf of the property owner unified acquisitions
uh that she'd be promoted to a uh panelist should I promote her or just allow her to speak
just allow her to speak yeah okay she's been allowed to speak I could you please state your
name is spelled for the stenographer. Sure. My name is Maureen Minardi, M-A-U-R-E-E-N. Last name
is Minardi, M-E-N-A-R-D-E. Swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. Yes. Please proceed. Ms. Minardi, you're representing the property owner unified acquisitions
today on behalf of? Yes, correct. Okay. And you heard my testimony to the board? Yes, I did. And
you heard rustin's testimony as well yes i did okay uh and was it uh was uh was my testimony
true and accurate yes correct uh and do you adopt it as your own yes i do and did you also hear you
all you said that you also heard rustin's testimony correct i did yes and was it also
true and accurate that's correct and do you adopt it as your own yes i do great thank you so much
nothing further this one so so so brett before i give it to the board you you mentioned you were
one unit over yes our information says six at four allowed so is it two over yeah i i redid the math
um according to my math we were we were at we were at the five um okay all right all right so you got
five units no we have six total units uh i think brett was just saying his math thought that five
units was allowed not four as per but we are at six total units yeah thank you and as rustin
explained these units are really large already all right questions from the board
no chair um could you just tell me let me know which side is the egress well
well that would be on the south street side or the other side
uh we have egress wells on both sides i believe i'll have to double check hang on
um so there's no so we have we have three egress wells on the 27th street side they are um flush
mount with the sidewalk they are ada accessible and they have been reviewed and approved by the
streets department on on that on then that you've got the bedrooms and the basement
on on that on then you've got the bedrooms and the basement which of course is always the concern
uh but in one of the bedrooms you don't have an egress well out of the bedroom which is really a
big concern um all the bedrooms will be egress compliant they all will meet the zoning code
I mean the building code standards so the so the bedroom when you come down up see there on the uh
yeah i i see it yeah we'll we'll get that corrected with the building department
we'll make sure that we're building code compliant there well you you got a stair
that's falling right above it so how are you going to do that uh we'll either remove the
bedroom or we'll add an egress well and move the stair over so one way or another we'll
make sure that we're building code compliant there questions from the board
Questions from our attorney, Ryan McShurry.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
Murray Spencer will be allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Murray Spencer, M-U-R-R-A-Y, Spencer, S-P-E-N-C-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And Murray, you're from the RCO?
I am the chair of the SOSNA zoning committee.
Thank you.
Please proceed, sir.
I'm truly embarrassed that for the first time, I think, in the history of SOSNA, we don't have a letter prepared for a meeting today.
But SOSNA supported this project wholeheartedly.
22 people came out to the meeting, and 21 of those 22 people supported the project wholeheartedly.
wholeheartedly, and the person who did not told me later on that he had made a mistake in casting
his vote. Sosta likes the materials, and as Brett said earlier, he and his team met with the
neighbors on several occasions, and the building has been fine-tuned to something that we truly
like. Sosta likes a mansard type of roof on our third floors that look like additions. We like
the materials um like the project totally uh i see that he's going to have to correct the one
issue with the egress well but other than that you know sasta wholeheartedly supports this project
and we thank them and his team for all of the work that they did in coming to a plan that the
entire community likes mr spencer thank you for taking the time to close we appreciate it
is there anyone else in the virtual audience there are no more aims here planning commission
thank you chair bergman uh and board members good afternoon david effecto with the city
planning commission chair and board members the comprehensive plan recommends a change
in zoning at this location from uh sorry to cmx1 commercial mixed use from rm1 residential mixed
use. The appellant requests a use variance to add a ground floor commercial space and a residential
unit added to the five allowed by right to a combined corner property, and they seek dimensional
variances for occupied area, rear yard setback, and rear yard area. The combined lot is neither
unusually shallow nor unusually small. However, the proposed CMX1 zoning would allow the commercial
use by right and the dwelling units. So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant
the proposed use variants, but deny the proposal for occupied area, rear yard setback, and rear yard
area. And Mr. Chair, I would add that was actually the lot coverage was one of the was looked very
positively by the community. There's been always concerns about trash and because we go all the
Because there is no rear yard for the trash to accumulate, the trash is inside in a dedicated trash room.
So that was perceived to be a benefit of this project at this corner location, where otherwise it would be, you know, potentially you'd have the trash in the back there.
So that was not a concern. It was looked at as a benefit in this situation.
Thank you.
Can I ask a question?
Please.
on your on back to your uh first floor plan it looks like you show meters at the rear property
line but you're at the lot line so i'm not sure how that's going to work yes how are you modeling
the meat the electrical meters the meters are recessed within the building and they're along a
alley which is a utility easement for the homes on that block okay so there's an alley in the back
they don't yeah they don't project there there's a continuous alley that runs along all the homes
there it's actually how those homes get their sewer out it's a utility easement as well
okay um and so we've recessed we were asked by the neighborhood to um hide the meter so we
hide the meter. So we recess them into the building there. They will not project into
recessed them into the building there they will not project into the common alley in
the common alley in any way. Okay, great. And then the trash
storage is in the back on the first floor for everybody? Yes. Trash storage is
inside the building. It is conditioned and will be picked up through commercial
trash pickup. Okay, great. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you,
Michael. So MI2023
004-624-2628 South Street.
I vote yes. Her amended refusal dated 5-29-24. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Sonata Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tyowin, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, Brett.
Great. Thank you. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
So number four, MI 2024, 001-793-2026 Fairmont Avenue.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
There's a letter of strong support from the Spring Garden Civic Association.
Henry Clinton is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. Clinton, you've already been sworn. Just state your name for the record, please.
Sure. Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Laura, L-A-U-R-A, Haskin, H-A-S-K-I-N.
She is a tenant with a three-year lease in this building for the first floor.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, Mr. Shahid.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Mr. Chairman, is that visible?
Yeah, it is, sir.
All right.
Again, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I'm here on behalf of Laura Haskin.
This is my presentation binder containing exhibits A1 through A10, which I ask to be admitted.
This is a request for a retail use of a first floor on Fairmount Avenue.
the refusal this is an rm1 zoning district and refusal is proposed use retail sales consumer
goods is expressly prohibited in the residential multi-family zoning district
we do have a strong letter of support from spring garden civic association
photographs so the 200 block of fairmont avenue i'm sure many members of the board are familiar
with it caddy corner uh to where this store is proposed store is b-o-d-i-e that's the name of
the store caddy corner is the prison adjacent is the fair f-a-r-e restaurant and on the east is a
pet shop. So my client has a lease, and unbeknownst to her, at the time of the signing of the lease,
she assumed or was told that the use that she proposed was by right because there already was
a retail use in place. Came to her attention that it was not permitted by right, and she had to go
through the zoning process. So she has been not using the facility, but basically it's outfitted.
There's no structural changes. She has it fully stocked, but not open for business.
And if she gets the green light today and gets her permit, she's ready to open. And this is
her second location. She has one location with the same concept in Queen Village. She sells
stationery, creative goods, house goods, pillows, candles, greeting cards, and you can see the
wares as the shelves are already stocked. The intent is to open similar to the pet shop next
door with hours of 11 to 6, Monday through Saturday, and then 11 to 5 on Sunday. She will
have one full-time employee, two part-time employees. There really is not much trash,
if any, generated as a result of this use. We basically are going to be relocating
on a commercial corridor. The zoning is RM1.
on a commercial corridor. The zoning is RM1, but historically there are stores or commercial uses
on the first floor on this block up and down the street. You can see that the front has already
been painted, nicely appointed and ready for business. We are going to, as I said, just have
one full-time staff. There still is an apartment upstairs. Here's the layout and the plans. The
pictures tell the whole story, but we also have it in a concept form. As you enter the front,
you have the center display, candles, home goods, books along one shelf, greeting cards,
stationery, wall art. My client purchases items from over 150 different small businesses and
artisans in the Philadelphia and metropolitan area, and sometimes outside Philadelphia.
And we really expect with the traffic across the street, with people and visitors coming
to tour the prison, as well as the restaurants that are already on Framlin Avenue, that this
location hopefully will be as successful as the one that Ms. Haskin has in Queen Village.
This is our application for appeal.
We do have a tax clearance.
Our zoning map, as you can see, all the area on Fairmont Avenue on the south side is RM1, but most of the frontages have some type of a business.
As I said, be it a pet store, a restaurant, real estate offices, and just general offices.
And then Caddy Corner, this orange section here, that's the prison on Fairmont Avenue.
This is a lease indicating that my client does have an equitable interest in the property.
She has a three-year lease, and as I said, she's already been paying rent, and hopefully, if the board sees kindly upon this application, she'll be able to let her employee know, or employees, plural, that we'll be opening soon.
These are the letters that were sent out to over 102 individuals and businesses within 250 feet of the property.
And we did have a successful community meeting.
I just wanted to show the board that one of the prior uses from, I believe this is 2016 or so, yes, 2016, retail food, beverages, and groceries at the first floor in the same building with a single family household living on the second floor.
We're basically going to have a similar use, no groceries or beverages, but all dry goods, home goods, so it is consistent with past usage.
So this application is for a use application. We're not altering the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact, we're keeping in line with what's going on and has been going on on Fairmont Avenue. It's a bustling active area. A lot of passers-by, a lot of foot traffic. We're not impairing light or air. We're not impairing the development of any adjacent properties.
are uses in harmony with the code, harmony with uses on the block, and certainly in harmony with
the wants and desires of the civic association. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask my client to
unmute herself. Ms. Haskin, can you unmute yourself?
Is that Laura, I'm sorry, you said Laura Haskin?
Yes, H-A-S-K-I-N.
Satter.
Thank you.
She's allowed to speak.
Ms. Haskins, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Laura Haskin, L-A-U-R-A, Haskin, H-A-S-K-I-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Haskin, were you on the Zoom call when I presented your project to the board?
Yes, I was.
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Yes, I would.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. Justino Navarro will be allowed to speak?
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Justino Navarro, J-U-S-T-I-N-O, N-A-V-A-R-R-O.
Right.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Navarro.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
As I indicated, my name is Justino Navarro.
As I indicated, my name is Justino Navarro,
in representation of the Spring Garden Civic Association and Zoning Committee.
And as you mentioned, you received a letter of support, enthusiastic support,
from the Spring Garden Civic Association dated May 30, 2024.
And hereby, I would like to reiterate our strong support for the proposed zoning.
As we continue to work on attracting new businesses to the Ferman Avenue Commercial Corridor,
We are particularly excited to welcome Bodie to this corridor, and particularly its product
portfolio, which is an attractive portfolio of consumer goods and home goods as well.
We encourage the board to look favorably on this request for zoning variance and approve
the variance at hand accordingly.
So in closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak and would hope that you
approve the request as presented.
Thank you for taking the time to call us, Mr. Navarro.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1 residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The city last updated the zoning for this block in 1974.
This property has a documented history as ground floor commercial use.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed use variants for retail sales, consumer goods on the ground floor.
Thank you. MI 2024, 001-793, 2026 Fairmont Avenue, I vote yes with proviso. Use is limited to first floor.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024-001-892-518 East Cabot Street.
Mr. Knockamson is the attorney.
Uh, there's a letter of support from Fishtown Neighbors Association, 34 in support, 15 opposed, nine abstained. The applicant also provided 13 form letters of support from nine, nine of which from the block.
Adam Nockmson is coming in as a panelist.
good afternoon mr knockinson could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes alan a-l-a-n last name knockinson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client a relationship to this
property? Yeah, my client is Cabot Street Holdings, LLC, and in the virtual audience is Jared
Brajali, its member. Our vice chair has a few questions. Good afternoon. Good afternoon,
council. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? I do. So we emailed
in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing. Yes. Thank you, council. Please proceed and share the screen.
thank you
all right so
i'm here to present 518 east kabbach street uh this is a property uh in the fish town section
of philadelphia uh the board may remember that i presented 516 east kabbach street uh two weeks
ago. For whatever reason, the matters were listed on different calendars. So this is why we're
presenting 518 East Cabot Street. And just like 516 East Cabot Street, all we're trying to do
is allow us to put a parking spot in front of our newly constructed property.
So during our presentation, we will review the notice of refusal. We have a letter of support
from the Fishtown Neighbors Association, and the chairman stated there was overwhelming support for
this matter. You know, in terms of having this off-street parking, there's no parking allowed
on our side of the street. And so we're not taking a parking spot off of the street by putting a
curb cut in front of our property. Also, there are many examples, which we'll show you via exhibit,
of off-street parking, similar to what we're proposing, you know, on Kabat Street.
But, you know, even the neighbors across the street on Kabat Street are in full support
are in full support of this project and you'll see many many uh form letters of support and and
of this project.
And you'll see many, many form letters of support.
maybe even a petition where people on that street even across the street uh who would be most
affected by any type of turning radius are in full support of this project and then as i stated after
we showed the letters of support the 500 block of east cabot street have a ton of off-street parking
on it and and for good reason because we're not taking any parking away from the street in a part
of City of Philadelphia, which is rather dense, we are, you know, again, leveraging the fact that
we can put a curb cut there and essentially create one additional parking spot for the street by
taking one car off of the street by way of this proposal. Then we'll review maps of the area,
photographs of the property, our plans and drawings. Our RCO meeting, meeting notice,
which was a well-attended meeting.
Fishtown is very active and, you know,
voices their opinion for better or for worse.
Here was good for us.
Our application for appeal that we filed with the ZBA,
our deed to the property showing that Cabot Street Holdings LLC
is the owner of the property.
And our certificate of tax clearance showing that, you know,
we are in compliance with our real estate taxes.
I think we're on a payment plan, but, you know,
We had Ms. Emerson look at this previously for the other property, and everything seemed to be in good working order.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Jared Burjali, the member of this LLC, to virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and then I have a few questions for him.
So our notice refusal is simple.
This is an RSA-5 property.
We're trying to put a single family.
We already have a single family structure there.
We're just trying to legalize the parking pad, which we hope to put in there.
And, again, it's not out of character, and you'll see by way of additional evidence.
Letter support, we, again, it was a very well-attended meeting.
We had 37, 44 people in support.
And then I think it would probably be like a two-thirds, one-third split.
So two-thirds in support and then one-third not in support.
Um, and then, but, you know, people who are in support of this, 512 East Cabot, you know, multiple owners of that property, 514 East Cabot, 517 East Cabot, 519 East Cabot, 520 East Cabot, 517 East Cabot, 524 East Cabot, someone on Tulip Street, uh, and then a couple other addresses nearby.
And then it's not out of character to have off-street parking on this street.
And we did a map.
We investigated what off-street parking does exist.
And there are 14 instances.
We're two of them, 516 and 518.
516 was approved by the board.
We're now looking to approve 518 as well.
But as you can see here, that there is many instances of off-street parking, 12 instances in particular.
And then here are the supporting pictures of that.
So 518 to A to 526 East Cabot Street off-street parking, 519 East Cabot Street off-street parking, 529 through 533 East Cabot Street front-loading garages,
537 East Cabot Street and 1246-54 East Montgomery Avenue, front-loading garages.
534 East Cabot Street, front-loading garage.
So, again, not out of character to have off-street parking here.
And then maps of the area, again, we're not trying to increase density here.
We want single-family homes.
I think both the people who hopefully purchase these properties, as well as the people in the neighborhood,
i think would appreciate this off-street parking uh it's it's it's a win-win situation for the
neighborhood as well as the people who are looking to purchase these properties and then
this is 518 east kaba street uh from you know a google maps perspective as you can see we're not
that far away from east gerard avenue which commercial corridor photographs of the property
uh this shows our our notice posters for both properties but like you know orange notice
coasters for today's hearing for 518 east of off street to the right of the property and as you can
see there's a ton of off street parking on both sides east of off street to the left of the
property same thing you can see a little bit of some off street parking interspersed here
our architectural plans and drawings really the only thing of relevance here is the site plan
and it shows that we're able to put a compact car in here but it's a pretty large parking pad
It is looks like 24 feet. The front yard's 24 feet minus the three feet. So that's 21 feet.
looks like 24
And the width of the property is 16 feet wide. So we have a pretty large parking pad here.
And then these are just the floor plans. Again, not part of the zoning presentation because
it's RSA 5. It's already been approved. The property, the building structure has already
been built. But just for illustrative purposes, I just want to include those floor plans here.
But it's a single family structure. If need be, I can walk through the plans if any members of
the board have any questions about the layout of this single family structure. And then again,
elevations, which is really not part of this zoning matter. I figured at least I'll put it
in there. If the board members have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer any questions
they have about it. And then just our meeting notice, we met on June 4th at 7 p.m.
We emailed that notice a few weeks beforehand as well, just to the relevant parties showing proof
that we sent out the notice and who we sent it out to and then proof of mailing. We sent it to
the coordinating RCO and other relevant parties. And then we sent, we mailed that notice to 93
addresses. This is the list of addresses the Planning Commission gives us. This is proof of
mailing to those addresses. And then our application for appeal that Kabat Street Holdings
filed, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form, the deed to the property
showing Kabat Street Holdings. It's the owner of the property. And finally, the tax clearance
certificate. As you can see at the conclusion of it, there is a payment plan agreement between the
city and my clients. With that being said, I'm going to stop sharing my screen. I can always
reshare my screen if there's any questions about any of the presentation materials,
but I would ask that Mr. Borgioli virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Jared Borgioli is allowed to speak. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer. Yes, my name is Jared Borgially. It is J-A-R-E-D, last name Borgially, B-O-U-R-J-O-L-L-Y.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed, counsel. Jared, you heard everything I had to state today about your
zoning matter. Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt as your own testimony?
yes thank you questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary uh i'm sorry ryan mcshary
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition of this property that would prevent it from being
used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variants for
an accessory off-street parking space accessed from a primary street.
We also note for the board, as we did for 516 East Cabot Street, that if a space is
approved there is no mechanism that the city has which can limit the owner to only parking a compact
vehicle in this location david am i 20 hello yeah mr chick i just briefly respond yes all right so
again we're not in a situation where we're we're putting a curb cut where we're taking a parking
spot off of the street and it's also not out of character for the street to have similar type of
parking. Thank you. MI 2024-001-892-518-East Kabat Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Michael Jones, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes. Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Thank you. Mr. Nockman, I think you have the next two.
So, MI 2024-002-032-5235 Chester Avenue.
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Alan Nockamson.
There's a letter of support from the 51st Ward Democratic RCO.
Mr. Nockamson, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Wendell Holmes, the owner of the property.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed in this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. Thank you.
Oops, I accidentally hit the raise my hand by accident. Sorry about that.
all right so 52 35 chester avenue is in the southwest portion of philadelphia
this is actually a really sad story in the sense of this my client owned the property
for a long time he was a victim of deed fraud so when he owned the property it was multi-family
we're asking for four units which is you know you look at the history that's kind of falls in line
I feel like there's even a reference to this being a five-unit building.
Someone stole the property by way of defraud.
It took my client a few years to get the property back by way of a court order.
In the interim, the zoning of the property changed from RM1 to RSA5.
And then the property fell in the state of disrepair during a time period that someone illegally owned the property.
So my client's essentially trying to legalize the use of what was previously a multifamily zoning classification and to fix the property up.
So we're here today to hopefully get that property back into this from a zoning perspective, what it was previous to the time someone sold the property.
So we'll review the notice of refusal. We have a letter of support from the 51st Ward Democratic Executive Committee, letter of support from a nearby neighbor.
shown the use permit, which shows the previous use of the property. Also not out of character
for this block to have multifamily uses, even though it's an RSA 5 block now. It has a long
history of RM1 use. I think the zoning changed in 2019, but you'll see many instances of
multifamily structures there. And then you'll also have a copy of the bill, which changed the
zoning in 2019. But again, my client owned it before then as an RM1 property, used this
multifamily. Unfortunately, he lost the property via deed fraud. And because he didn't have a
rental license for more than three years while he was fighting this litigation, the property
reverted back to what now is current zoning, RSA 5. And that's why we're here today. Then we'll
review maps of the area. Again, this is an RSA 5 property, but was RM1 when he used it. Photographs
of the property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice,
our application for appeal that we filed with the CBA, our deeds of property showing that Wendell
Holmes is the owner of the property, and our certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion
of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Holmes virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Notice of refusal, again, this is an RSA-5 property, has a long history of non-single-family use.
Again, most recent is multifamily.
I think it was either four or five units.
We're asking for four units, and if this was on an R-M1 property, it would be allowed as a right.
So we did receive a letter of support from the 51st Ward Democratic Executive Committee.
and we got a letter of support from a nearby neighbor at 5203 Chester Avenue and then you
can see from the permit this was RM1 in 2013 and this had four units back then in my client's name
so it's just a shame we have to go through this process we understand there's a technical aspect
of it when you allow your housing inspection elapse and your zoning is RSA 5 even though
you have multifamily use, but this was not his fault. And then the maps of the area. So I just
took the zoning map, and it's yellow. It's RSA 5. And the orange is not to indicate that these
are R and 1 properties. I think my team just put that out there. But there are multiple instances,
as you can see, nine instances on this block and the next block over of multifamily use,
even though these are RSA 5.0.
And then these are the backup data for those, you know,
for those properties as well that we found online.
And again, we only looked at properties that have rental licenses.
There may be other uses, you know, but, you know,
we're only looking at legal uses.
And then the legislation which changed the zoning of this property was in
2019, the tail end of 2019, from RM1 to RSA5. And then maps of the area, again, we are RSA5.
We're not denying that. It's just unfortunate what happened. You know, you can see there's,
You know, you can see there's, you know, plenty of, you know, public transportation on Chester Avenue.
you know, plenty of, you know, public transportation on China.
And again, there's a lot of multifamily within the vicinity of this property currently.
And then photographs of the property.
Again, my client didn't cause this, but the property fell into a state of disrepair when he lost legal ownership.
And he's looking to fix this property back up.
This is the orange notice posters, you know, acknowledging today's hearing.
Move Chester Avenue to the right of the property, to the left of the property, are plans and drawings.
And, you know, as you can see, there are four units here.
You come on the porch, you have a 4A, which is the first floor and lower level.
And then you go up a flight of steps and part of the first unit is also in the rear, on the second floor.
And then you have unit number two, which is on the second floor.
And then unit three and unit four are on the third floor.
We're only re-violizing what the previous use of this property was.
In our RCO meeting notice, we met with the community on June 17th at 6 p.m.
We emailed that notice a few weeks before the community meeting,
showing proof of mailing of that notice and the notice itself.
That notice went out to 111 addresses.
These are the list of the addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on Mr. Holmes' behalf to the CBA, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form.
The deed to his property, current deed, showing he's the owner of the property again.
And then, most importantly, certificate of tax clearance.
He owes no money to the city of Philadelphia as it pertains to real estate taxes.
I would ask that Mr. Holmes virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
We see Mr. Holmes.
Yes, Mr. Holmes will be allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Wendell Holmes.
W-E-N-D-E-L-L.
Holmes, H-O-L-M-E-S
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed, counsel.
You heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
no chair actually i do have a question please proceed yes i'm i looked at your your plans and
i guess i'm concerned with the number of units for it looks like it's probably better as a three
unit uh building only because the way that the you've laid out the units there's really
those living spaces are just you know not not very good for to even furnish the kitchen is
literally the living room and it's in the third floor units particularly
so that's so that's my concern i think i think uh a decent two bedroom units would probably work
better than the four so then i completely understand what you're saying all we're doing
is revitalizing the previous use of this property uh the lot size for this property is 1988 square
feet uh the building size is around 3600 square feet the square feet of the of the one bedroom
one baths are on the light side but not unreasonable um i would also say that and correct me if i'm
wrong Mr. Holmes you do your your attendants do avail themselves of veterans affairs supportive
housing is that part of the program that you have used in the past and will use now well yes this
is what we're planning to do for veteran housing yes so if we didn't have the property stolen from
us we wouldn't be here so we're not trying to convert it yeah but that I think that the units
need to be livable, and they don't look livable, the living space of the units.
That's my concern.
Anyone else from the virtual order? Anyone else from the board?
There was only one vote at the community meeting?
Yeah. Mark Harrell, who's the head of the, or at least the zoning chair of the 51st
Democratic Committee, was the only one who attended that meeting.
we actually waited for a half an hour more um you know just to make sure we didn't miss any
um you know just to make sure we didn't miss any you know anything but i mean it was a properly
you know anything but i mean
posted you know meeting um mailed out um from my experience if no one shows up it's because
no one has opposition if there's you know people show up if there's an issue and like i said this
property has been used as multifamily before and the only reason why we're here is that use was
discontinued through no fault of mr holmes anyone else from the board
our attorney
nothing Mr. Chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands
any commission
thank you Chair Bergman and good afternoon
David Fecta with the City Planning Commission
Chairman and Board Members
the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the RSA 5
residential single family zoning
at this location
this property was rezoned in 2019
and a community-led map change.
This property has a documented history
as four multifamily units dating to at least 2013.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the board grant their proposed use variants
for four dwelling units.
MI 2024, 002, 032, 5235, Chester.
I vote yes.
proviso
maximum three units
my vote is no
Michael Johns
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
counsel you have the next one too
So MI 2024, 002-035, 1613 East Erie Street.
There's a letter of opposition from Fishtown Neighbors Association, 43 opposed, 12 supportive.
There's also a letter of opposition from a neighbor in the 1500 block of Palmer Street, citing several reasons why they oppose the variance.
Could you just state your name for the record, please?
And could you identify your client relationship to the property?
My client is Argo LLC.
And in the virtual audience should be its member, Alex Gritsyuk.
And our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
All right, so we're here to present 1613 Ayer Street.
This is also in the Fishtown section of Philadelphia.
We're essentially a little more than a block away from Frankfort Avenue on a commercial corridor.
And this is an RSA 5 property.
And what we're looking to do is put a three-family dwelling unit here.
And, you know, during our presentation, we'll review the notice of refusal, the correspondence we received from Fishtown Members Association.
Maps of the area, photographs of the inside and outside of the property and then surround the area.
Our plans and drawings, our meeting notice that we sent out to this, you know, to the Fishtown, not only the Fishtown Neighbors Association, but the surrounding property owners and occupants.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Argo LLC, our deed to the property showing that Argo LLC is the owner, and finally, a certificate of tax clearance, which shows that they owe no taxes for real estate for this property.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Gritsyuk virtually raise his hand to be sworn in, and I have a few questions for him.
so the notice refusal this is an RSA 5 property we're you know a little more than a block away
from a commercial corridor and you know with many parts of the city like you know to develop well
like this in Fishtown it just it gets really expensive to like you know constantly have just
RSA 5 properties you know you know during the meeting it was discussed like you know where
many of the properties now in Fishtown are going for 900,000 and more my client is actually the
900,000 and more. My client is actually the owner of a few restaurants in Fish Town area.
owner of a few
You may have heard of at least one of them, Fabrica. So it's important for them to have
like, you know, individuals in the community who can, you know, diversity of individuals in the
community. It's not just for single family use, but also people for next generation. Usually people
create, you know, their connections to a community by first renting. And that's what they're looking
to do. Instead of having like a $950,000 home at this property, they're hoping that to create
three units and make this rental units because even their staff members can't afford to live
in Fishtown. And they're getting, it's very difficult to, you know, find staff members
and stuff like that so while they would love to you know you know develop this as a $950,000 home
they think that a better way of doing that is to have a diversity of housing within the Fishtown
area for many types of individuals at different income levels to rent properties so we're here
because this is an RSA 5 property it's a rather large lot of 1,453 square feet and we're looking
to make hopefully three units here you know this is where we met with the Fishtown Neighbors
Association and you know they have their opinion some of the neighbors and you know it wasn't
unanimously against it but it was you know they were against you know this and you know they
you know they didn't acknowledge that you know some positives were here they were receptive
First of all, if this board is so inclined to grant this variance, we would agree to commercial trash pickup as part of that approval.
And they were also appreciative of the fact about, you know, about some aspects of the conversion.
But they were not appreciative of the fact that, like, you know, these are RSA-5 properties and they would like, you know, this part of town to remain RSA-5.
So, again, as the chairman stated, you know, this was the vote with the Fishtown Neighbors Association.
I did not receive the other letter, so I can't speak to, like, you know, what complaints that person had.
So on Palmer Street, there is an apartment building across the street, by the way, nearby.
So it's not out of character to have, like, multifamily use, even on this block.
But as you can see, there is diversity of house.
So this is where we are on Frankfort Avenue.
And this is where the property is. So there is a big, you know, you know, non RSA five property. There's a ton of, you know, even back here a little bit. And then obviously there's RM one and, and, you know, CMX, I think it's, I can't read it. I think it's two as well nearby.
So it's not straight single-family, even on that block.
And there is an apartment building across the street, which is the Memphis Flats building.
And there's ample public transportation all around.
So this is our property.
Like, we have not renovated it yet.
We bought it in as-is condition.
And this is just we were asked to give interior photos.
No one lives there right now.
This is the way we bought it.
Photographs of the exterior of the property.
So it definitely needs some TLC from an exterior point of view.
This is the back of the property, too.
It needs some TLC as well.
And you can see it's a rather large building, or at least a large lot.
And not to say that it's RM1, but if it was, you know, four units will be allowed as a right.
But that's not the case here.
But I'm just letting you know it's a rather large lot.
And this is our orange notice poster for today's hearing.
And this is Ayr Street to the right of the property.
until after property. And this is where Memphis Flats is on this block, a multifamily building.
And then these are our plans and drawings. We're definitely trying to clean up the building facade,
a nice renovation to come mixed well with the other properties nearby. And, you know, our floor
plans, we try to respect the fact we didn't have really any basement use other than a laundry room
for unit number one. So unit number one is a two-bedroom, one-and-a-half bath,
1,183 square feet, and it occupies the first floor and the lower level. The only thing in
the lower level is a laundry room. And then unit number two is on its own floor. That's 860 square
feet. And unit number three is on its own floor, which is the third floor as well. Something also
keep in mind is that there's a breezeway from the front to the back, so every one of the residents
will have access to a rear yard. Also, that's important in terms of trash storage as well
storage as well, and removal.
and removal. In our meeting notice, we
In our meeting notice,
we met with the community on June 4th at 7 PM.
We emailed that notice beforehand,
obviously to the coordinating RCO and relevant parties,
letting them know we mailed that out in proof of mailing.
And that was mailed to 112 addresses.
These are the addresses we mailed it to,
the proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on Argo's behalf.
our deed to the property, showing that Argo owns the property, and finally, our Certificate of Tax
Clearance. I will unshare my screen, and we can always go back and forth if there's any questions
about the floor plans or anything like that. But I would ask-
Mr. Knopson, before your owner comes on, either side of the property, are they single homes or
multiple? They're sales, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
So, I would ask that Mr. Gritschuk virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Gritschuk has been allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Alexander Gritschuk, could you unmute yourself, please?
alexander gritsuk is muted sir could you please on you hello hello oh sure hello sir could you
please state your name and spell for the court stenographer my name is alexander gritsuk
could you spell it please for the court stenographer alexander and gritsuk is g-r-i-t-s-y-u-k
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Gritskyuk, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, correct.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
And again, you're the owner of, we're part of the ownership group of Fabrica, which is a restaurant in Fishtown, right?
Yes, yes, I am.
And there was part of the testimony, or at least my presentation, which you adopted, deals with just the difficulty your employees are having finding affordable housing in Fishtown.
Is that right?
Yes, yes, correct.
Yeah, and one of the reasons why you wanted to have this as a rental property and divide it into multiple units is to give them some form of ability to find rental units near places of business in Fishtown, right?
yes correct yes all right thank you questions from the board i have three questions
proceed first question um did you ever consider developing this as a single family home
uh so to answer that question on mr gritchard's behalf yes internally they have
have had internal conversations the problem is is that you're going to be seeing like
The housing prices in the Fishtown area are astronomical, and what they're seeing is a problem of getting their workers to live nearby, and then it makes it more difficult to find good employees.
Okay. My second question is, do you know the number of on the immediate block, with the exception of the large apartment building across the street, how many of the individual RSA 5 lots on that block are multifamily currently?
I believe that the answer is zero.
And then, actually, I'll let Mike go because I forgot my third question already.
other questions from the board yeah question um so this is is this change in use also includes
an addition correct because it looks like yes mr johns say it again i said yes mr john so the
addition is not included as part of that zoning permit because they have a separate zoning permit
they already have approved that's as of right for an addition okay and the addition to accommodate
the apartments essentially. Whether it's the apartments or single family use, they would
prefer to have it as, you know, apartments, but yes. Yeah. Not withstanding the community
opposition, I will tell you that these are nicely laid out units in terms of the size.
So I think- I would agree. Compared to what we see a lot of times, these are nicely laid out
minutes level so yeah i mean we're talking about like 1200 square feet for the lower
Yeah, I mean, we're talking about like 1,200 square feet for the first floor and lower level, and you're looking at not 900 square feet, but close to the other ones that each are on their own floor.
They've got decent bedrooms, decent living space, decent dining space, kitchen area.
They're decent units.
I mean, I understand the opposition, but they are decent units.
Other questions from the board?
I actually remember my third question.
Can you all share what the proposed rents are for the three rental units?
Yeah, so I think they're looking at, like, you know, what's affordable is all relative, but I think they're looking for, like, $1,750 each.
So we're in the heart of Fishtown.
What they anticipate is that most of these people are going to – it's going to be roommates, like, situations.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair there are four hands up the first one will be athena
current kazantas okay hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
hi can you hear me right now i can great um my name is athena kazantas a t h e n a last name
M-K-A, Z as in zebra, A-N as in Nancy, T as in Tom, Z as in zebra, I as in igloo, S as in Sam.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I live right next door to this property.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
So thank you all for the opportunity to speak.
I just wanted to address a couple of things that the owner spoke about.
So, first of all, in terms of multifamily housing in Fishtown, if you go on Zillow right now and search rentals in 19125, which is basically all of Fishtown, there are 596 rentals currently available, 596.
If you look for rentals under $1,700, I have it right open on my screen right now, 250 rentals.
So, I don't think that there is, like, honestly, a shortage of apartments.
There is on Front Street right now. There are over 500 new apartments being built.
That was the latest I saw via Google News. So I don't think that there's really a need.
I don't think there's a hardship. The comment about setting it aside for employees, like, is it going to be specifically employee housing?
like employees will be the only people allowed to live there uh i don't even know if that's allowed
i don't know how that works so um that's not entirely clear to me um and i do remember asking
in the fish town neighbors meeting about like how this is actually going to be set aside for lower
income housing um and it was the answer given then also was that it was all relative which
all due respect, I don't think is really a good faith answer. Everything is relative everywhere.
In terms of how this would affect me personally, and my neighbors, I spoke to many neighbors on
this block. And no one I spoke to is in support of this. They're on this side of the block.
It's all single family homes, young families, I myself have two young children. When I bought
this house. I bought it because I liked the kind of family neighborhood feel that this side of the
block had. True, Memphis Flats is across the street, but it's not on our side of the street.
This breezeway that is mentioned is really an egress for emergencies. It is shared with my
backyard. I really don't like the idea of if there's a roommate situation, three units, what
is that six people um i don't like the idea of six people going back and forth using my shared
alley as a way to access their yard um so i think there's a lot of a lot of things that will really
affect the quality of life the character of the block um for for the people living here um and i
don't really think that true hardship has been demonstrated uh my house did not cost nine hundred
thousand dollars. Yes, I bought it a few years ago, but there are homes right nearby that are
selling for under $500,000. They can be rented out as single family homes. I have rented mine
out as a single family before when I had to move away temporarily for a job. I was able to do that
and I rented it at a very reasonable rate. So I don't really see how this would be fair for anyone
except for the owner to turn a profit.
But I respect that, and that's all I have to say.
That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Nockamson, do you have any questions?
Nockamson, do you have any questions?
Can I address them? Why don't we do this?
We have three other people with their hands up and then why don't you address them all at one time?
Thank you very much for calling. We appreciate your comments. Next hand, please.
Next hand is Robert Everett.
Mr. Everett, could you please state your name?
Yeah. Could you come back to me at the end since I'm on the zoning committee for our CEO?
I can. I can. Next hand, please. Next hand.
Gerald Grupp.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
There you go.
Do we see that hand?
Give me one second.
He put his hand down.
Okay, good. Next hand.
Mark Harris.
Hi, Mr. Harris, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
my name is mark harris m-a-r-k-h-a-r-i-s i affirm hold on one minute um do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i affirm mr harris are you a neighbor
i am not okay uh mr harris are you for this project or against it i'm against it okay so
mr harris you're not a neighbor but we've had quite a bit of testimony from the prior person
Is there anything different you could offer?
A little bit, yes.
And I'll state it very briefly.
It's commendable that the developer here wants to provide supposedly housing for restaurant workers.
But at this price point, it doesn't seem to be something that they could afford.
And from what I'm hearing, there doesn't seem to be any certainty that this will actually happen.
And it seems like they may just be using this as an excuse to get what they want.
But in actuality, it may just be rented out on the open market to anybody.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Could we have the RCO person?
There's another hand up.
I take the other hand.
Ann Marie Gibbons.
Hi, Ms. Gibbons.
Could you please state your name and spell for the core sonographer?
A-N-N-E hyphen M-A-R-I-E.
last name gibbons g-i-b-b-o-n-s you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do are you a neighbor i am a neighbor yes okay so um miss gibbons we
you heard the testimony we've had we was pretty lengthy testimony are you for this project or
against oh i'm against and is there anything different you could offer them what we've
already heard yes all right first of all the median household income in fishtown is 284 000
not 900 000 like the attorney said well now okay all right go proceed all right commercial trash
pickup is no good we have commercial trash pickup across the street and the trash sits out three or
four days a week and it affects we can't keep our doors open because of the smell thank you another
thing is parking three more units means six more cars even though the attorney likes to say oh no
these people drop these people don't drive they ride bikes or take septic no that's not true we
are over parked now as the addition that he that they filed that they're allowed to build if you
grant this they will build that addition and that addition then is going to impinge on our light
and our air over all of our yards over all of our yards they most likely will not build that
that addition because it might not be cost effective if you don't if you don't approve it
they probably will not um it changes the fabric of the block
again we've we've had testimony about that already about the number of homes that are all
so i appreciate that and the addition that will incur if this is approved we'll add to
basically an urban desert where our yards will now be plunged into shadow most of the day
without any cross breeze all right and that's really well well thank you for taking the time
to call us we appreciate it could you please put the rco one um chair gerald grubb has his hand
back up okay he's allowed to speak hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer i apologize for not no that's okay my name is gerald grub j-e-r-o-l-d my last
name is grub g-r-u double p as in peter i wanted to swear hold on hold on do you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do are you in favor of this project
or against i am opposed i wanted to thank you for acknowledging my letter from june 22nd right um
from june 22nd right um and i wanted to make myself available to answer any questions based
and i wanted to make myself available
level.
on what i had written in a letter regarding the number of units immediately i saw the number of
units and i saw the the parking issue um we appreciate very much your your time you spent
with this and thank you very much very good thank you okay is that our and can we now have the rco
yes chair that rco i'm sorry that was robert everett
Yes. Okay. His hand is back up. Okay. Hi, Mr. Everett.
Hi, Mr. Everett.
Robert Everett, you're allowed to speak now. He just muted back.
Okay. Hi, Mr. Everett. Hi, Mr. Everett. Could you just state your name for the record and spell it, please?
Certainly. Good afternoon. First name is Robert. Last name Everett, E-V-E-R-E-T-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Everett, you're with the RCO.
I am indeed. I am on the zoning committee.
Please proceed, sir.
I just want to confirm that Mr. Nackamson's description of the meeting was correct.
and back up the immediate neighbors who testified here this afternoon with their concerns.
And just to the point regarding Mr. Gruff's letter,
there does seem to be an issue with the way the city sends out the notifications for addresses
that if there's a large apartment or condo complex, they only list one address,
and there probably should be one for each individual unit.
But that's something that I guess property linking to that page will have to address.
Yes. Okay. Mr. Everett, thank you for the time, and we appreciate you calling. Mr. Nockamson, do you want to respond to the different people who've testified? You're muted, Mr. Nockamson.
yeah i started uh with mr gruff's letter i'm at a disadvantage don't know what the letter is about
so i can't really respond to that but i just want to clean up a couple things and or clarify a
couple things um i didn't say that the property be limited to employees of of like say fabrica
it's just you know in general we have a nice driving commercial quarter in fishtown and many
of those people who work there, including managers who could afford some of these rates
just on their own, can't find housing.
So I think that's an issue.
I didn't say that the average income was $950,000.
I think that was, if I did, I apologize.
But I thought I said that the average house price for sale is $950,000.
In terms of the commercial trash pickup, typically, we hear from communities that they don't want the landlords of multifamily structures to rely solely on the city of Philadelphia trash pickup.
That's why where we can, I encourage my clients to have commercial trash pickup as a proviso for multifamily structures.
If the community feels disinclined to have a proviso for commercial trash pickup, I leave it to them. I just put that as an option.
And I think the final matter is just a lot of the issues that we're hearing from the community have to do potentially with the addition, which is not the subject of this zoning matter.
That was a by-right Sony permit that we received.
And whether it's single family or multifamily, I think my client will avail themselves of that.
But I just wanted to bring that up, too.
We talked about that before the meeting today.
Yeah, thank you so much.
I appreciate your time.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Berkman.
And good afternoon, David Vecta with the City Planning Commission.
The Chairman and Board Members, the Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The City changed the zoning maps in Fishtown in 2015 in a community-supported map change.
At that time, the zoning on this side of Eyre Street was left unchanged.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variance for three dwelling units.
Thank you.
Brian, can we make sure that Mr. Knocklemson receives a copy of the letter that we're talking about?
Thank you.
So MI 2024, 002-035-1613 East Air Street, I vote no.
Michael Johns, I vote no.
michael johns i vote no ishmael shaheed my vote is no
Thank you.
senator graham my vote is no tyowin my vote is no
james snell my vote is no
mr knockamson is jared going to handle the next case
jared will handle the next case i need a break thank you very much
MI 2024-002-044-612 South 57th Street.
Jared Kline is the attorney.
Letter of support from the 46th Ward Democratic Executive Committee with unenforceable proviso.
Jared Kline is coming in as a panelist.
good afternoon mr chair members of the board hi mr klein just for the record could you state
your name and spell for the court stenographer certainly it's jared klein j-a-r-e-d last name
is k-l-e-i-n from knockamson p.c one south broad street in philadelphia you swear a firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Could you identify your client
in a relationship to this property? Certainly. My client is Mr. Milton, Milton Mary, who is the
homeowner. Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir. Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to
either read another refuse or stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of
this hearing? Yes, I have. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much. No problem. So, yeah, we're here for 612 South 57th Street, which, as I
mentioned, is owned by Milton Murray. He has been in the neighborhood and owned this property for
a very long time. He purchased it when he was 19. I'm not going to give away his age, but he is
considerably older than 19 now and has been a longtime member of the community and the owner
of this property. There were, the way that this matter came into our office is there were a number
of violations that L&I issued against the property. And in the process of helping Mr.
Murray cure those violations, he expressed a desire to add the second residential dwelling
unit to his property. And the easiest way to make that change and address all the violations
was to go through the zoning process first. So, as I was coming in, I heard the chair mention
there was an unenforceable proviso from the RCO. I don't disagree, but our intention is to make
sure that all these violations are cured as part of this process. So, we're going to be honoring
that, even if it's not an enforceable proviso. Our standard table of contents that you've seen
from Mr. Nockmson, a couple projects in a row, and I will take you through these materials.
Just to start, this is our refusal. It's just for the addition of a second dwelling unit in the
existing single-family structure. As you'll see in a minute, during the course of Mr.
Murray's ownership, the property was remapped. So when he bought it and during a lengthy period
of his ownership, it was zoned RM1, which would have allowed the second unit. It was then remapped
to RSA 5.
This is the ordinance that was done in 2019.
I think this is the same ordinance
that you saw a couple minutes ago
related to another project.
But it remapped the parcel from RSA 5
or from RM1 down to RSA 5.
To give a little bit of context
about where we're located,
this is our zoning map.
There's a mix of RM-1 and RSA-5 in the immediate area.
This is South 57th Street here.
So it's RSA-5 on this side, primarily RM-1 in the areas to the west of us.
Again, that's our property there.
And these are some interior photographs of both the existing inhabited portion of the property,
that was the existing single-family dwelling, and some photos of the to-be-converted space.
So these are photos of the existing interior of the home
going out towards the front door and back door areas.
going out towards the front door and back door areas.
And then these would be photographs.
This is the current space that would be converted into the additional living unit.
This is not in any way intended to be a display of the final product.
Obviously, without permitting, he has not done a lot of work to this area,
so it will be rehab.
Mr. Klein, that's the basement?
Yes, it is.
So that he's got a house here, and then he wants to take the basement and make it an apartment.
Correct. It's the existing basement, which is laid out like this, and he will make this into a more comfortable living space.
These are photographs of how it exists now in the basement.
And again, just another view of that existing space with the entrance door to the outside.
side uh this is the front of the property our our property here looking uh these are our our
zoning notices and then looking to the left and right of the property down 57th street
um turning to some of the floor plans and site plans which i i think question do you have a
picture of the rear where that door in the back entrance at exits too is there a garage is there
garage back there? No, there is no garage. It opens out into a rear yard. And I think that the
floor plan I'm about to show will give some additional context there. So I thought it was
helpful for the board to see what we are calling the life safety plan for this new unit. So this
is the proposed basement unit here, 849 square feet. And the dash line is showing the egress
paths so there's an egress door out the front and then another egress door at the other side coming
off of the kitchen so there's there's um access and exit at both ends of the of the unit uh as
well as some natural light some of the window wells um these below here this is the existing
um remainder of the structure none of this is going to be changed the first floor and the second
floor um we're in this plan we're calling them both unit two as a combined unit um so that that
these two floors together would be the second unit and this this basement unit would be the
additional living unit uh and again just to give you a sense of some of the way the space is laid
out there's a kitchen in the rear with a bedroom area living room area small bathroom and then the
various exits that we that we touched on and obviously the plans for the remainder of the
house which again are not not being being changed uh i can go back to the floor plans in a minute
if there are questions i just wanted to show our rco meeting notice that was mailed uh we also
emailed it to all the uh involved parties and mailed it out to 162 different addresses
um the at the rco meeting and i think the rco rco's letter here is very instructive so i'm
going to turn to that now as the chair mentioned when i came in there was a vote uh in support of
the of the application uh from from the rco but they wrote a letter of explanation that i think
is important context for the for the board um there was only one near neighbor who attended
but there it was a substantially attended meeting um there in addition to our mailing the rco also
circulated their own their own flyers um the main concerns from the neighbor who lived immediately
in the area uh who i believe ended up supporting the application um was that the existence of the
violations and who who was the intended user of this basement basement unit um mr mary confirmed
for the community in testimony that was very well received that his grown children have returned
home, and his intention is to have his son residing in the basement. And again, that he
purchased the house when he was 19 and has told everybody he has no plans to move. He's intending
to leave this property to his children, creating generational wealth, and that is his intention
here. We confirmed for the community that we had the two means of egress and two windows
providing natural light, and that we're going to be using construction materials that will
avoid or abate any basement dampness. And again, the chair, you mentioned that the
proviso about curing the violations, we certainly agreed to that, even if the board can't put that
as a formal proviso. So at the end of the meeting, the board voted in support of the
So at the end of the meeting, the board voted in support of the application.
There were multiple RCOs present, and that was the letter that was received.
With that, I'm going to ask Mr. Mary, who is actually sitting with my colleague, Alex Goldberg.
So if you could look for Alex Goldberg.
Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein, Mr. Klein.
Certainly.
What's the rest of the block look like?
So the rest of the block is made up of similarly sized residential dwellings.
And I will go to those photographs just to show some context.
But are they multiple, multiple families?
Some of them are multifamily. Some of them are single family.
I would I would say that it is a a true mix of housing styles.
I know that when the area was remapped and the planning commission will probably share this as well.
this is one of those that was remapped at the behest of the of the community um we discussed
that during the rco meeting and they understood that while they prefer single family that this
particular applicant in this particular situation was worthy of their support okay please bring him
on. Alex Kohlberg is on to speak. All right. Milton, are you there? Yes, sir. Please state
and spell your name. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the stenographer?
Milton Murray. M-I-L-T-O-N-M-U-R-R-A-Y. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you.
Milton, did you have a chance to hear my presentation this afternoon?
Yes, sir.
And do you adopt my testimony as true, correct, and your own if you've been given a longer chance to speak?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Fechta with the City Planning Commission.
Chair and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5,
residential single-family zoning at this location.
The City rezoned this block face from RM1, residential multifamily, to RSA-5 in 2019.
and a community-supported map change.
A duplex would be out of character with this primarily single-family blockface.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the proposed use variants for two dwelling units.
MI 2024-002-044-612 South 57th Street, I vote no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Senator Graham, my vote is no.
Ty Owen, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number nine, MI 2024-002-077, 3940 Baltimore Avenue.
Mara Ferliger is the attorney.
Meredith Furlager is coming in as a panelist.
Mr. Chairman, you've already been sworn once. Just for the record, state your name.
Sure. My name is Meredith Verliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
And for the record, could you identify your client?
Certainly. My client is the Southeastern Transportation Authority, otherwise known as SEPTA.
As you know, we're going to hold this at the end. We will not open it to the public until we have a resumptive hearing.
So our vice chair has a few other questions for you.
good afternoon council do you agree to wait to read another refuse or stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have yes thank you thank you
council i see you've already shared your screen wonderful all right uh mr chairman members of
the board uh as i mentioned my client today is septa which is a tenant of the property at 3940
Baltimore Avenue. Today with me from SEPTA, I have Daniel Lyons, who is a project manager.
Today with me from SEPTA, I have Daniel Lyons, who is a project manager.
I also have various representatives from our design team from STV, who I will introduce during our presentation.
As I mentioned, before the board today is a proposal concerning improvements to SEPTA's 40th Street Trolley Portal, located at 3940 Baltimore Avenue.
The 40th Street Trolley Portal is SEPTA's busiest at-grade rail station in the city.
As previously discussed, we are asking the board to hear the vast majority of SEPTA's testimony and presentation today, but to schedule a resumption hearing.
Given the lateness of the hour, we did end up losing one of our planned witnesses, who was our landscape architect and arborist.
As a result, I'm going to recommend that I will hold her very brief testimony for the resumption hearing, as well as my closing argument.
During the resumption hearing, SEPTA will also present updated renderings, and we will also reserve the opportunity to present any testimony and evidence that would be necessary to rebut any evidence offered by the community.
Does that sound acceptable, Mr. Chairman?
It is.
Thank you.
Administratively, the exhibit packet includes 21 exhibits, including tax clearance at Exhibit 2, and I just bring that up real quick for you.
Exhibit 3 includes a redacted 2014 agreement between the City of Philadelphia and SEPTA, which leases this property to SEPTA to facilitate its 40th Street trolley portal operations.
I'll start first with some general property overview.
I have included aerials at Exhibit 8.
From the north aerial that's up on the screen, the board will note that the 40th Street Trolley Portal is a large, triangular-shaped parcel that runs along Baltimore Avenue, as I'm pointing to with my cursor, comes to a point, and then continues southwest along Woodland Avenue.
Running along the center of the property, you'll see the trolley enclosure.
At the westernmost point of the site, the board will recognize the trolley gardens and the tracks which lead underground.
Excluding the gardens, which actually are a separate parcel, the property before the board today is 51,927 square feet.
I will come back to this, but the portion of the site that is at issue today is indicated with the arrow,
and you'll see it's the area that's predominantly green.
Flipping to the east view, the board will notice that on the opposing side of Woodland
Avenue is the Woodland Cemetery.
And from the southern view, the board will see that there is an existing structure on
the northern side of the trolley, which contains a restaurant called Renata's.
That structure and use were granted by Variance in 2016, and those documents are publicly
available on Atlas.
I have also for final view from the west, which is consistent with the prior aerials that I showed.
Also at Exhibit 8, I've included a zoning map, and the board will see that the site is zoned RTA1,
which is residential, two-family attached, despite this property's use as a transit facility since its construction in 1955.
Next, I'll walk you through a couple of street-level images at Exhibit 18.
This first photo shows the relevant frontage of the site from Woodland Avenue.
I will call the Board's attention specifically to the two trees that are shown in this image,
as I will come back to that when I discuss the refusal and the referral,
which I am intending to do during the resumption hearing.
As you can see, this portion of the site is currently unimproved, with the trolley
enclosure shown in the rear. The next photo is angled towards Baltimore Avenue,
where you will begin to note the extremely irregular shape of this property. You can see
it begins to angle as you head up towards Baltimore Avenue. This next view is looking
towards Woodland Terrace which is over 350 feet from the westernmost point of the property.
And the next image that I'm showing is from the point of the property at Woodland Avenue
and Baltimore Avenue and again this is just a view of the front of that trolley enclosure.
The board will note in this photograph that the closest residents to the property are on
the opposing side of the trolley enclosure along Baltimore Avenue. I'll scroll through the next
couple of photographs quickly, as they are generally similar to the few that I already
showed. They are just zoomed out a bit to give a little bit more context. So again,
they are just zoomed out a bit to give a little bit more context.
So again, this is from Woodland Avenue looking towards Baltimore Avenue.
And again, this flips the other direction towards Woodland Terrace.
And I have also included a photograph shown up on the screen, which is a bit further west on
Woodland Avenue, which shows the trolley gardens and the entry to the trolley.
These next photographs are from Baltimore Avenue and show the existing two-story restaurant, which is roughly 25 feet high, according to public records.
And again, this final photo here is looking towards 39th Street.
And one more on Baltimore Avenue looking down towards 40th Street.
And again, this is the restaurant.
The zoning posters were timely posted on June 18th on both Woodland Avenue and the Baltimore
Avenue frontages. In terms of a brief overview of SEPTA's application, this application involves
the design and construction of a new DC power substation, which is required as a part of SEPTA's
trolley modernization program. At Exhibit 10, which I'll zoom out in case you want to read
through it while I'm speaking, the board will see a general overview of this program.
To hit on a couple of important points, a substation is required in order to power transit
services.
Substations like this one convert the required electricity voltage from its original source
into a voltage that can power the trolley system.
In this case, the new larger trolleys have different power requirements than SEPTA's
current older trolley fleet. Before I turn into the details of the request, I would like to call
up Daniel Lyons from SEPTA to address a few background questions. So if the administrator
could look for and promote Daniel Lyons. Mr. Lyons. Daniel Lyons has been promoted.
Mr. Lyons, could you state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Mr. Lyons
should be coming in now
okay Daniel Lyons is here
hi could you please state your name again
and spell for the stenographer
my name is Daniel Lyons
D-A-N-I-E-L-L-Y-O-N-S
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
proceed counsel
thank you
Daniel, could you just share with the board your position with SEPTA?
I am a project manager in the power engineering department.
Thank you.
In terms of selection of a property for the substation, can you briefly explain to the board how this property, meaning 3940 Baltimore Avenue,
how is this selected versus others that are within SEPTA's control or others that may even be along the trolley line?
And I'll bring up our Exhibit 21 while you speak.
All right.
So LTK Engineering Services was contracted to perform an independent third-party power supply and distribution study on the existing trolley system with the existing trolley cars and the existing trolley system with new trolley cars.
It should be noted that the new trolley cars are twice the size and close to twice the weight of the existing trolley cars, and thus will require more power than the existing trolley cars do.
If the new trolley cars were to be integrated into the existing trolley car system, the study found several areas throughout the system that will require a boost in power supply.
When DC power is transmitted long distances, line loss degrades the voltage available to the trolley, decreasing performance.
This is especially evident along sections of the 34, 13, 11, and 36 trolley routes by the portal due to the large number of trolleys exiting the portal.
The portal location was chosen as it provides a lot of unique engineering attributes that would not be possible in another location without incurring significant additional costs.
primarily the ability to connect to all trolley routes west of the portal.
Additionally, placing the substation in this location would allow SEPTA to perform required maintenance
and upgrades at Market Street substation and the Woodland Street substation.
Now, if you look at this picture that we have blown up here on the screen,
the Market Street substation is the little four circle, and the Woodland Street substation is the L with a square.
finally to perform the required improvements to market street
Finally, to perform the required improvements to Market Street Substation as part of our Super Subs program, this substation is required to be completed prior to construction starting on market.
To summarize, this location provides the power boost to all the trolley lines throughout this area of the city, but also provides additional redundancy to the system that allows SEPTA to perform required maintenance and improvements and to provide a better overall customer experience.
Thank you.
Now, in terms of selecting a location on this property, why was the location selected on this property?
Or how was it selected on this particular property?
As can be seen in Exhibit 8 there, there is not a great deal of developable land left with this parcel.
the existing trolley portal, the trolley roundabout, trolley bypass lane, Renata's kitchen,
and the passenger waiting areas all take up a significant amount of space. As such, there is
only one location left on this parcel to place this substation. Additionally, this location is
ideal as it provides SEPTA easy access to the existing communications hut, easy access to
PICO power connections, existing underground duck bank systems, and power connections to the 34,
13, 11, and 36 trolley routes. Based on SEPTA's experience operating other substations
throughout the city and even outside of the city, can you describe to the board the impact
of these substations in terms of noise? In SEPTA's experience, the new transformers are
a significant improvement over the transformers of yesteryear. The new transformers are a dry
type transformer which are significantly quieter they're the existing oil-based dc transformers
i personally went out to 69 street substation which has similar attributes to this location
it's located off victory avenue which is also a busy city street similar to baltimore avenue
it has the trolley maintenance yard located behind it with significant trolley car traffic
and the 69 street substation which also includes these new dry type transformers
At a distance of 10 feet away from the 69th Street substation, I measured noise levels of 63.2 decibels, and at 50 feet away, noise levels of 60.3 decibels.
This is equivalent to a normal conversation that we're having here today.
How about in terms of equipment safety?
As I indicated previously, the new transformers are to be a dry-type transformer.
This specific type of transformer provides significant safety improvements over the oil transformers of yesteryear.
As the dry tripe transformers do not contain oil or any other compressible materials, there is little chance of a catastrophic event occurring.
In the event that there is a power surge, additionally, SEPTA has various pieces of safety and switching equipment that will be put in place.
temperature sensors, surge protection equipment, et cetera, that would interrupt the circuit prior
to the transformer failing. Additionally, I'll add transformers are extremely expensive and
SEPTA does everything that we can to protect them and to maintain a safe network at all times.
Equipment is also monitored from the 19th floor at 1234 Market Street via SEPTA's SCADA system.
How about in terms of equipment vibrations? Are there any expectations there?
There are no anticipated changes to vibration from the current system. The substation does not produce any vibrations.
Can you talk to the board just briefly about what you would expect in terms of traffic to the site?
SEPTA does not anticipate that this substation will significantly add to the traffic seen around the portal. Other than maintenance staff, there is no other anticipated traffic that is expected above current levels.
I'd like to remind the board that this is not a public building.
Additionally, with SEPTA-specific parking spaces, this should help alleviate some of
the SEPTA maintenance vehicles parking along the property lines of Woodland Terrace Avenue.
Can you just briefly discuss the plans for overall maintenance and security to this building
and the equipment contained in it?
SEPTA will have an on-site substation maintainer in the realm of once per week to once per month,
as is required by our standard maintenance schedules.
Additionally, SEPTA has their bridges and building staff on site periodically to perform routine maintenance.
Any trash that is accumulated around the site will be picked up by either the substation maintainers or the B&B staff.
And how about in terms of security?
The building will be equipped with security and intrusion alarms, as all substation buildings are.
Additionally, there will also be fire alarms present, which are remotely monitored by SEPTA's 19th floor.
So I think you've alluded to this fairly clearly, but is SEPTA able to monitor the
condition of the building and the equipment remotely? Yes, they are.
Yes, they are.
Now, the board has not necessarily seen the design yet, but just a preview.
Now, the board has not necessarily seen the
Based on SEPTA's work in working with your designers on this building, can this building be redesigned to be zoning code compliant while still meeting the minimum requirements for this type of substation improvement?
Unfortunately, it cannot.
There are required clearances inside the building between equipment and walls that are dictated by various electrical and building codes.
These codes are primarily in place to keep substation maintainers safe as they perform their standard job duties.
There are also physical clearances required to install, maintain, and replace equipment should the need arise.
SEPTA worked with STV to prepare a very detailed question and answer sheet that further addresses responses to a variety of community concerns and other aspects of this proposal that are not necessarily going to be directly addressed during the hearing.
Is that accurately reflected at Exhibit 20, which I will bring up?
That is correct to both of your questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more witness for today.
Would you prefer that I have the board ask questions?
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
I think what we're going to do is this needs a resumptive hearing.
We still have three cases left on the two o'clock list.
So I'm going to break now.
You'll get plenty of opportunity the next time we meet.
And we're going to be real clear to all the people that want to continue today.
They they will have a chance to respond and things of that nature.
But hopefully from now to when we meet again, there'll be had been some meetings and maybe we won't need quite as much time.
But I'm going to break right now. And, you know, this will be a resumptive hearing.
OK, Mr. Chairman, as long as we're going to be given the opportunity, you're going to have the opportunity to call who you want.
But we still need to get through the day. And whatever we do, whether you take another witness or not, we're going to still need a resumptive hearing.
So we're going to break right now. And we appreciate, I think we have a general idea what he said, where he is at this point. And then either next time around, you can bring your other witness on. Okay.
Sounds like a plan.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
Number 10, MI 2024, 002-2227, 1801 Poplar Street.
Michael McElhenney is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from United Francisville Civic Association.
Vote was 10 in support to oppose.
Michael McElhenney has been promoted.
Good afternoon.
Hi, counsel.
Could you please state your name as Bell for the court stenographer, sir?
Michael McElhenney, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, M-C-I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y, counsel for the property owner.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify who your client is and the relationship to this property?
The client and the owner is 1801 Poplar Street, LLC.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
uh we do i've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days yes no problem uh please share your screen
sorry and i know we're running behind so i will be quick uh mr chairman members of the board
Mike McElhoney on behalf of the property owner, 1801 Poplar Street, LLC, and here with me are
two members of the LLC that are brothers. In summary fashion, we have our appeal at Exhibit
7, our zoning notice having been posted at the subject property at Exhibit 8, the neighbor
notice letter at Exhibit 9. We met with the community on June 12th, and we do have that
letter of support. Exhibit 10 is my client's deed. They took title to the subject property
on October 17th, 2019 and renovated that property. The tax clearance is at Exhibit 11.
Exhibit 2 is my client's referral. This is an application to use the existing building
for a takeout restaurant. The property is owned CMX 2.5 that allows for sit-down restaurants,
but takeouts require special exception approval. And we have one referral, which is why we're here
today exhibit three are the zoning maps and aerial maps for the property just to orient the board
This property is in the middle of the screen. It is the Triangular Partial Zone CMX 2.5.
this property is in the middle of the screen it is the triangle triangular part
It's at the intersection of Poplar Street and Vineyard Street with Ridge Avenue to the north, and the properties to the west of us are RSA 5.
The second photo is just another map of the properties. I'll go to the third photo, just showing the aerial view.
We are approximately 70 feet to the southwest of the Ridge Avenue Commercial Corridor, and to the north of us, to the west, are residential single-family buildings and then multifamily buildings.
And the site photos at Exhibit 4 will show that more clearly, and I'll turn to that now to save time.
So on the screen is the subject property, which is the Gray Building, 1801 Poplar, and this is a view looking north.
The properties to the left are single-family residences.
This property is ground floor commercial with two apartments existing above.
My clients purchased this property, and they will be the owner-operators of this restaurant use.
They purchased this in 2019, renovated the property, and the ground floor has been vacant ever since.
The next photo is just showing the entry to the residential way and the ramp up to the commercial space to the commercial door.
The next photo is showing the intersection at Poplar Street and Vineyard Street, and the commercial door access.
The property is abutted by a shared alley that gives us access to the rear yard of the subject property.
And then we have photos just showing the 360 degree of the block.
These are photographs at page two looking to the west, the multifamily building to the far right, to the far left, rather, and single families on the right side of the photo.
The next photo is a view of the property at the rear of our subject property to the north, which is the property on Ridge Avenue, 1724.
And then properties across the street to the east is the 1708 Ridge Avenue complex, which is a series of planned development.
And then there's some photographs of the properties on Vineyard Street to the south.
Again, those are just single family homes in the neighborhood that are zoned single family.
Turning to Exhibit 5 is photos of the subject property and interior.
Again, the first photo is the front of the property showing the commercial access on
the right.
Standing in the front door, it is a very small space.
We are talking about a 700 square foot commercial space.
My client's not been able to rent it since he purchased the property in 2019.
So they're going to open up their own restaurant themselves, the two brothers, to basically
serve a small chicken concept for takeout use.
So on the back of this photograph, on the left, is a bathroom for the commercial space.
And on the right is a space that will be used to access a rear spot for cleaning dishes and whatnot.
And it provides access to the rear yard.
The next photo is a view from the bathroom looking out to the front door and the main windows.
I said it's a very small space.
This is a photo at page three of the rear yard to the commercial space.
and the door that allows access from the commercial space to the rear yard
and access to the alley out to the front of the property.
Exhibit 6 is the floor plan for this commercial use.
And I'll zoom in. It's very hard to see.
There's not much really to show, though.
We have the main entrance on the corner of Poplar and Vineyard Street.
The plan is to have an entryway for the people coming in to purchase food
to basically go to the point of sale, the counter at the front.
The rest of the space is really for the preparation of the chicken, the coolers, the refrigeration
is on the left here, this entire box on the left.
We have that bathroom that I called out earlier.
We're going to have a, and it's really hard to read, so I'll zoom in, the reach-in freezer.
And on the right-hand side is, again, frying stations, preparation area, and a display
for takeout food that can be picked up.
There's no interior seating here.
This is purely a small takeout use.
And the back room is the sinks used to clean all the wares for the production of the chicken.
And again, the back door leads out to that rear yard that does have access to an alley
out to the front of the property.
Now, the plan for the takeout restaurant, it's going to be a very small takeout store.
Since the clients were not able to run it out to any third-party tenants, they're going
to make a go of running their own business.
they would run this operation like any other restaurant and it would be lunch and dinner
11 7 11 a.m to about 9 p.m and monday through sunday and it would be um popcorn chicken is
the concept that they would be using so it'd be a very small menu very small um use it would have
no impact on the neighborhood unlike um it would be similar to any other takeout restaurant and i
It will be similar to any other takeout restaurant, and I would submit even less so given its very small size and small menu.
would submit even less so given
And we would submit to the board that this will have no adverse impact on the community or any of the near neighbors.
It will not congest the streets. It will not affect the later error of neighboring property owners without proposing any construction as part of this application.
It will not overcrowd the land, and it's consistent with the comprehensive plan.
And as I mentioned, it's a CMX 2.5 property.
It's a special exception that we're seeking.
And it is deemed proper unless this use is more intensive than a normal use, such as
a takeout restaurant.
And this, as I said, would be a less intensive use than most takeout restaurants in the neighborhood.
And we do have pretty much full support from the community.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, we are available to answer any questions.
And if I could call...
Why don't you have your testimony adopted?
Jeril, can you please raise your hand?
your rose has been allowed to speak i could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer yes my name is gerald kalprambit j-e-r-r-i-l-k-a-l-a-p-a-r-a-m-e-a-t-h
are you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel gerald did you hear the statements that i presented to the board
yes were they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
yes and would you adopt my testimony as your own yes
questions questions from the board no chair
no chair no questions questions or comments from our attorney ryan mcsherry no chair questions or
comments from the virtual audience. There are no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you,
Chairman. Good afternoon. David Fechta with the City Planning Commission. Chairman and board
members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CMX 2.5 commercial mixed-use
zoning at this location. The appellant has shown the proposed takeout restaurant will have no
detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected. The City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the proposed special exception for a takeout restaurant.
Thank you. MI 2024-002-227-1801 Poplar Street, I vote yes with proviso. First floor only.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Panetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Iowan, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 002-262-3232 Henry Avenue, Suite 1.
Peter Kelson is the attorney.
There's unanimous support from RAH, Ridge, Algany, and Hunting Park Civic Association.
Mr. Kelson.
Peter Kelson has been promoted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Kelson.
Just for the record, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
um i'd like to promote mr gregorski if i could so he can run the sure and um could you state
your name to start and spell for the course it's peter kelson k-e-l-s-e-n uh one logan square
philadelphia pennsylvania you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do could you identify your client the relationship to this property yes it's new
our our vice chair has just a few questions absolutely good afternoon council do you agree
to waive the written of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy i do mr shane thank you have you
emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing i did thank you council please proceed and share your screen thank you so
much, members of the board. I'm not going to go through all of our exhibits, but I would like to
highlight number three. So the subject property, which has been the subject of many zoning board
hearings over the years, is zoned RSA-5. We've heard a lot of RSA-5s today. This is the site of
the former Eastern Psychiatric Hospital Complex, which was acquired by New Cortland a number of years ago.
which was acquired by New Cortland a number of years ago and has been the subject of a very creative and effective adaptive reuse,
which I'll describe in a little more detail in a second.
If we go to Exhibit 3, which is before you, you can see that it's a very large site, about 600,000 square feet of lot area.
It's bounded by Henry Avenue.
It's bounded by railroad tracks, and it's also then bounded by the Roosevelt Extension Expressway.
Access to the property is through Henry Avenue.
It is improved by two structures, basically, for a total of 342,000 square feet of building area.
It's a tower portion that consists of about 232,000 square feet.
And the pavilion portion in white, as you can see, about 110,000 square feet.
There is significant parking on site, as you can see from the aerial, supportive of the uses and operations.
78 vehicles, 20 accessible. There are 176 dwelling units in total, broken down as follows. 40 senior assisted units. These are tax credit supported senior affordable. And then 136 market rate housing units.
There is a life center within the property currently operating supportive of the community, not only the residents, but the catchment.
And the property also consists of a number of commercial units that will be accessory and supportive to the residents,
as well as the professional operations that are going to go on here, that are going on here,
I should say. The Zoning Board approved the adaptive reuse back in 2017. We've been to the
board on a number of occasions for modifications of the original approval leading up to today.
We come back to the board because it's zoned RSA 5, and virtually any change in terms of use will require zoning board relief.
Today is a good example of that.
So what are we doing today?
Let's go to the existing photographs, Marty, please.
This gives you street-level views quickly of the complex.
These are interior photographs of the space that we're going to be speaking of in a moment.
This was requested earlier today, and it shows the shell space where the administrative offices will be located.
So the application today requests use of this area located on the first floor of the building
as administrative offices for InnoVage.
InnoVage is an operator of supportive health care services in the building
as well as throughout Philadelphia.
They're national in scope, and they provide health and social services programming for seniors.
this operation will be administrative only there will not be patient care that's in another section
previously approved on the building it will be staffed by 10 permanent employees 10 roving
employees hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 7 30 a.m. to 5 30 p.m. I would
submit to the board that the proposed use, which will contain approximately 3,000 square feet
roughly, will be compatible with the overall lot as well as the operation of the property
as I've described it. The use is clearly accessory. It's supportive of the
Life Center. But more importantly, it will allow for Innovage to have a central location
to do their administrative functions. Hardship? We can't conform to RSA 5. We never could.
The building as configured is institutional. It's now mixed use. And any ability to conform
And any ability to conform to RSA 5 single family is impossible.
to RSA 5 single families.
The configuration of the property is such that it lends itself to this use.
This use is internal, completely internal.
It is not visible.
It's not a public use.
And therefore, it will have an innocuous impact on the public.
It is the least modification to allow for the overall approved uses to function, to alleviate the hardship.
It's a diminutive amount of space compared to the 3,000 versus 342,000 square feet.
It is certainly compatible with surrounding uses.
you can see from the overall aerials and sight shots, most of the properties on this side
of Henry Avenue, as well as on the expressway side, are institutional. So with that, I would
suggest to the board that this is a use that should be readily supported through variants.
We've met with the community. They were, as the chair indicated, wholly supportive
of this application, and we hope you will be as well. Happy to answer any questions you may have.
I can have my client, Mr. Chair, value it. Why don't you have your client come on to adopt
your testimony? I'm going to call up John Unger, please. John Unger has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the course sonographer?
John Unger, J-O-H-N-U-N-G-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Unger, you've heard my testimony and description of this application today.
Is that correct?
Yes, I have.
You heard the whole presentation?
Yes, I did.
You stayed through the entire hearing, didn't you?
I did.
It was fascinating.
From 2 o'clock on.
The information that I provided to the board, is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And would you adopt that testimony as your own if you were to make it yourself?
Yes, I would.
I have nothing further from Mr.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
No questions.
Does someone have a question?
all right questions from our attorney
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands here any commission thank you chair bergman good afternoon david vecto with the
city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends a
change in zoning at this location from rsa5 residential single family to rmx3 residential
mixed use. The property is a large multi-story senior complex. RMX-3 would allow offices by
right. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed use variants
for a business and professional office. Thank you. Mr. Kelson, STE period one, what is that?
It's suite number one. Okay, good, good. Thank you. So MI 2024-002-262-3232 Henry Avenue,
suite number one i vote yes my vote is yes michael johns my vote is yes
it's not a gram my vote is yes i am when my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
thank you very very much mr kelson thank you stay cool all right number 17 mi 2024
MI 2024-002-531-1600 to 16 North 9th Street.
Augusta O'Neill is the attorney.
Augusta O'Neill has been promoted chair.
unclear recommendation of north central east rco vote with six in support one opposed six
undecided letter of non-opposition from the council member young
hi good afternoon could you say your name good could you state your name and spell for the
court stenographer sure augusta o'neill a-u-g-u-s-t-a my last name is spelled o-n-e-i-l-l
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
for my client is fe oxford llc they're the owner of the property our vice chair has just
Sure. My client is F.E. Oxford LLC. They're the owner of the property.
Our vice chair.
questions for you good afternoon council do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to
its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i did thank you council please
proceed and share your screen thank you so much um chairman i just wanted to know i believe at
At the beginning, when I was still trying to join in as a panelist, you said that there was a letter.
It wasn't clear if there was a letter.
So it says here, it says here, unclear recommendation, North Central East RCO.
Well, it was six in support, one in opposed and one undecided.
But there's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Young.
Got it.
I just, I believe that the RCO intended to support this application.
So I just wanted to make sure that the votes were accurate.
Thank you so much.
So again, this afternoon, I'm representing the owners of the property at 1600 to 16 North 9th Street and 1618 to 40 North 9th Street.
There was a corrected refusal that was just sent around this morning, but your board solicitor is in possession of that corrected refusal.
This property currently is a vacant lot. I provided some pictures of my exhibit package.
This is just a view of the property looking north, view looking south. As you can see,
it's just a vacant lot, a little bit trash strewn as a result of being vacant.
We're proposing to take this lot. They're actually, it's one deeded lot, but two tax
lots. It looks like there might have been an OPA error. But we're proposing to subdivide the lot
into 19 lots with the intent to construct 19 single family homes as you can see from the
refusal it's up on my screen we received three refusals two of which were related to the roof
decks one was related to the lot sizes the minimum lot area is 1440 square foot square feet we're
proposing lot sizes that range between 912 square feet and 1 358 square feet but each of the houses
is going to range between 1,400 to 1,600 square feet of living space. This property is zoned RM1
based on the lot size. If we were to construct a multifamily building, by my math, we would be
permitted to have 55 units. So clearly the 19 single-family homes is a much less intense use
than what the property could be used for, what it's zoned for across the street from this lot.
there is a multifamily building with over 100 units. Again, the lots average in size between
912 square feet to 1,358 square feet. We're asking for the variance related to the lot size,
but given that the required lot size is 1,440, I would submit to the board that the
dimensional variance that we're seeking is fairly de minimis. There are two overlays in this
that this property is subject to. Both of those overlays do prohibit roof decks. And I would
submit to the board that, sorry, this PDF, here we go. Okay. I have an overview of my exhibit
package, but it did get a little bit pixelated. So I just want to show you a better copy of this
overlay i'm sorry of this picture as you can see um we are right next to a septal line we're across
from a um you know just a lot and so i would submit to you that typically the prohibitions
against roof decks is for purposes of privacy or noise um given the location of the property and
where it's located across from an apartment building right next to the to the rail line i
submit that the concerns about noise are not typical here as you would for any other roof
deck application that was before you. Elevations of what the proposed buildings are going to look
like appear at page 33 of your exhibit package. Computer gets a little slow with these plans,
i know we're behind um calendar wise so i'll do my best to to be brief um my client is partnering
on this project with turn the key um it's a program run by the city the intent of the program
is to take vacant lots which can frequently be the site of crimes and partner with local developers
to create housing program information about turn the key can be found at tab four of your exhibit
package. The program is adding to the city's stock of affordable housing and assisting
Philadelphia residents to become homeowners. The average monthly mortgage is less than the
typical average rent for a two-bedroom apartment. The average rent in Philadelphia for a two-bedroom
typical average rent for a two-bedroom apartment. The average rent in Philadelphia
is approximately $1,800, probably going to go up late of economic climate. So the program does
provide participants with the ability to become homeowners, build generational wealth. My client
did meet with the affected rco for the project the north central east rco um we did receive
a vote of support because there were six votes of support only one person opposed
um that letter is provided tab two of your exhibit package chairman as you recited earlier
there is a letter of non-opposition as well from councilman young um with respect to the
variance criteria i would submit to the board that the application before you is not going to alter
the essential character of the neighborhood or impair the use of development or development
of adjacent property or be detrimental to the public welfare. Again, this is adding to the
city's stock of affordable housing. It's a less intense use than the multifamily. It's zone four
would be and is overall providing a positive impact to this area. So with me this afternoon
is Zach Frankel, as well as Max Frankel. I would ask that they be called forward to adopt my
testimony. And also on the line is Max Bustos. He's our project engineer. So should the board
have any questions we're available to answer? Mr. Frankel?
Mr. Frankel
Zachary Max
Mr. Frankel is allowed to speak
Hi, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer
Do we see Mr. Frankel's hand?
i don't see him anymore uh he's back okay max frankel you are allowed to speak please unmute
thank you so much uh here like max could you thank you thank you spell your name
sure m-a-x last name frankel f-r-a-n-k-e-l do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel good afternoon mr frankel did you have
to uh hear my testimony this afternoon i did was everything that i said true and accurate
it is and would you like to adopt my testimony as your own i would thank you
Can I add one thing?
Absolutely.
So a big part of this project, as our attorney mentioned, is affordable housing.
It is to be noted that this is deed restricted and income restricted affordable housing.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Yes, I have a question.
Without the rooftop deck, how much outdoor space would be per unit?
max do you have that number uh readily available the out the roof deck isn't
yeah the so the roof deck is not an actual roof deck it's actually a
um a setback from the third floor in the rear each home has at least a 30 foot deep garden or yard
and then any other questions the pilot house right no no no no there's no pilot house so
this is really not so instead of uh having a full third floor we have a half of a third floor and
the back half of that third floor opens out onto a deck so it's not really a rooftop deck so the
deck is in the rear the deck is in the rear okay thank you so the deck is on the second floor
on the rear of the deck is the deck is on the is on off of the rear of the third floor
all three of us right all three of the third floor so on the sorry when i on the second floor
roof correct i have to pull up the plan for some reason it like makes my computer go crazy
i apologize yeah it's not letting me
so you come out the back of the third floor and you're standing on the second floor is that
correct you're staying on the roof of the second floor correct
these are all three bedroom units two bedroom units sort of they're all three bedroom two
bathroom units and it's the only variation the only variation the unit is the width based off
of a lot dimension i mean space in the basement i'm sorry what was that they're living in the
I mean, space in the basement.
I'm sorry, what was that?
They're living in the basement.
basement
There is no basement.
These are all slab on grade.
Any other questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Jahad Ali.
We'll be allowed to speak.
Mr. Ali, state your name, please, and spell for this stenographer.
My name is Jihad Ali, J-I-H-A-D-A-L-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Please proceed, Mr. Ali.
Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner and other commissioners.
I just had a question.
When the developers spoke, are they all affordable or is that mixed?
These are all affordable.
Yeah, these are all, every unit is affordable housing. And as I mentioned, is income indeed restricted.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Holley. Any other questions from the virtual audience?
There are no more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. And good afternoon. David Fechter with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1 residential multifamily zoning at this location.
This is a proposal under the umbrella of the Land Bank's Turn the Key program administered by the Department of Planning and Development.
The proposed non-conforming lot dimensions are consistent with nearby properties bounded by 9th Street and the railroad tracks.
The Lower North District Plan also includes a recommendation to fortify residential blocks where homeownership is dominant by selling government-owned land for infield development.
The City Planning Commission recommends that Zoning Board grant the dimensional variance for lot size and for roof decks.
Thank you.
MI 2024-002-531-1600-16 North 9th Street, I vote yes with proviso per refusal dated 7-10-24.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
And sorry, one more thing. And revised plans, one page, stamped by July, stamped by ZBA, July 10th, 2024.
Okay, I'll re-say it. So Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Sonata Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you so much.
Is there anyone in the 2 p.m. list whose case has not been called?
See, no handshare.
We're going to take a five-minute break, come right back.
We only probably have two more cases, okay?
Thanks, everybody.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's meeting.
With me is our vice chair, Ismael Shahid.
He's here. I see him. He'll be on any minute.
Our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tanetta Graham.
Present.
Our board member, Michael Johns.
Present.
Present.
And our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also president is our attorney, Ryan McSherry.
Let's look at our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting Kathleen Grady, Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning.
For our court stenographer and attorney, we ask witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter the period of statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number one, MI-2022-005-736-1610 Margaret Street. Darlene Threat is the attorney. This is a request for continuance.
Number one.
Darlene Threat has been allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Good afternoon, Commissioner. My name is Darlene Threatt, D-A-R-L-E-N-E, Threatt, T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-P-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Commissioner.
I understand you're looking for a continuance.
Yes, Commissioner. I am well aware of the status of my case today. It was my intention.
to present a case.
I did contact the Civic Association
and they did not object.
I had a meeting date of August 9th.
I wasn't able to get in on June or July.
And I'm asking for a little bit more grace today, Commissioner,
and one additional continuance.
I understand.
So MI 2022, 005-736-1610 Marguerite Street.
Cases continue.
Mark must be heard.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
I appreciate it.
Number three.
Mr. Chair, there was a request to have matter number two heard first.
I believe council has a time conflict.
We'll hear it right now.
Thank you.
Then we'll go over where we stand with the rest of them.
Yes, sir.
We'll go first.
So MI 2023-002-007, 1619 West Boyd-Mensing Avenue.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
henry clinton has been allowed to speak
and mr clinton you've already been sworn just state your name for the record
so my name is henry clinton c-l-i-n-t-o-n um did you identify your client a relationship to the
property sure my client is daria d-a-r-i-a buono b-u-o-n-o and she is the owner of the property
And there's a letter of support from the Broad Street West Civic Association. Our Vice Chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
95% were 5% more today with additional photographs.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Please proceed and share your screen.
I know the screen is a little bit different
than what I'm used to.
There's no ability at the bottom of it
to share my screen.
So I don't know.
Log back in because we're going to need
the presentation to move.
Here we go.
Henry Clinton has been promoted.
He should be able to share now.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
is that visible mr chairman yes we have it all right thank you mr shaheed good afternoon mr
chairman members of the board and thank you for the courtesy of letting me uh go out of order
so i'm here on behalf of daria balono and this is my presentation package containing table of
contents a1 through a10 which i asp admitted so we have a refusal my client has family in this
neighborhood. She wants to live in this neighborhood. And she found this large corner
property. It zoned RSA 5. She did not want to make it a duplex, but she wanted the opportunity
to live there and potentially rent one unit to help her offset the acquisition cost. So we're
applying today not for a duplex. We're applying for an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor
with the owner-occupant in the first floor and in the basement.
Now, this is a unique, flexible aspect of the code,
which permits a, if you had a large lot,
you could have a secondary home on the lot,
or you could have an apartment that shares a building
with the primary residence, and that's what this is.
So Ms. Buono is living in the basement of first floor,
and she would like to make the second floor
a dwelling unit with one bedroom.
The house used to have three bedrooms.
Basically, it's going to be converted into one bedroom in the basement and first floor where she lives and then one bedroom on the second floor.
And the uniqueness of this opportunity is that she has to put a deed.
opportunity is that she has to put a deed restriction on the property that this has to
be an owner-occupant. That's the flexibility that the code permits, is if the owner lives in the
building, then you're permitted to have an accessory dwelling unit. Again, there's square
foot limitations. Your accessory dwelling unit cannot exceed 800 square feet. In this instance,
our accessory dwelling unit is only 620 square feet. So if you look at the refusal, it says
that a dwelling unit, an accessory dwelling unit can only be put by right on a lot that is 1,600
square feet. Our lot is about 1,100 square feet. But what we've done, 50% of 1,600 square feet
in an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, would be 800 square feet, which is permitted. Since we have
1,100 square feet, we've downsized that unit to 620 square feet. So the ratios are still the same.
For a buy right, you'd have 800 in a 1,600 square foot lot. We have 620 in an 1,100 or 1,087 square
foot lot. So we do have the overwhelming support of the RCO, which is Broad Street West. And also
there were four neighbors who attended because people were concerned whether this was going to
be a so-called duplex. And it's definitely not. We have to have a deed restriction. We have to
have an affidavit signed that the owner will occupy this premise. With that understanding,
there was unanimous approval of the project by the board, as well as all six attendees who were
local neighbors. This is the explanation of what I just went through about an accessory dwelling
unit. These are photographs. So this is an end property, which has, and I'll show you, plenty
of light and air. And the other unique thing about this property, for the basement of first
floor, which is where Ms. Pomona lives, she can enter through the rear. There's always been a
rear entrance and there's also a rear utility room where she can enter through the front and
I'll show you that on the plans when we get to that. Another photograph of the property a lot
of light and air again it's an extended rear so it's it's larger than most properties on the block
being a corner and this street is Smedley Street and Moyamensing is right in the front. Smedley
street goes all the way through at oregon avenue these are the proof that we posted our signs on
the front of the house this is the front entry of the home i also had this is the rear of the
property where i was talking about a rear entrance and exit this is a rear gate in the rear yard
the next photograph shows the entry to the basement of first floor unit
some interior photographs first floor kitchen this is the basement when it was under construction
we had to pour a new slab to even out the floor and we do it we did have a permit for that that
was one of the questions at the community group meeting i put that in just in case there's any
members of the community on the call additional photographs of the basement this is the bedroom
in the basement kitchen excuse me bathroom on the second floor second floor bedroom again just
another shot of that second floor bedroom it's only one bedroom and there's the bathroom on the second
floor and a bathroom on the basement, living area on the first floor, and then kitchen on the first
floor. So we basically have a situation with, as I said, one bedroom on the basement of first floor
and one bedroom on the second floor. Here's the floor plan, the lower level. This is the rear
yard. You can access from the rear or you can access from the front of the property if you want.
If you look at the front of the property, again, you will not notice any difference from what it looks like now.
And instead of having the three bedrooms, we're just going to have two.
We don't have two doors in the front of the house.
So again, I'll go back to the plan.
So this is a lower level with one bedroom and then utility room in the front and then some bathrooms.
And then we have a living room, dining room and kitchen area on the first floor, again, occupied by the owner.
That would be unit A. And then unit B, you would access through that front door, walk up the steps.
And again, you would have one bedroom and a kitchen and bathroom area.
We do have a tax certification. This is the application for the project.
our zoning map and this is instructive again it almost looks like it was added on after which it
wasn't and this is Smedley Street with the island in the middle leading to Oregon Avenue and you can
And this is Smedley Street with the island in the middle leading to Oregon Avenue.
And you can see directly across the street, there's a similar structure.
I don't know if it's the same size, but it certainly appears to be.
And this is Moyamensing Avenue right here.
This is the deed indicating my client purchased the property in 2002.
And her name, Daria Buono, is on the deed.
So notice of mailing to all the neighbors.
on 17th Street, Smedley, Johnston, Moy-Mensing, and this is just a permit indicating that we
did have the right to perform some of the basement work that we did.
So basically, we have a situation where we are differentiating ourselves, and this was
important to the community group, that it be an owner-occupant situation and not be a rental
situation where my client would fix it up, move out, and you'd have two apartments in the
property. I mean, when you look at it, you know, you say to yourself intellectually, well,
Mr. Clinton, it's still two uses. Well, it is still two uses, but it's not an investment property.
It's an owner occupant. And having that one bedroom on the second floor assist Ms. Povono
in making this transition to a home ownership. Again, the lot size is a little bit off. We're
less than the 800 square foot that you're permitted for an accessory dwelling unit and if you look at
the comparison between required 1600 square feet of lot size with an 800 square foot unit we have
an 1100 square foot lot with a 620 square foot unit so the proportions relatively close and
relatively the same and this was important to broad street west we're not impacting
the density in the neighborhood. We're actually lowering the density from the three bedrooms to
two. We're not impacting anyone's light or air. We have two entrances for the owner-occupant unit.
We have a corner lot with plenty of light and air that brings into the property.
We are not impacting any other adjacent properties development opportunities. We're not altering the
essential character of the neighborhood. Again, it was very important that it be an owner-occupant
and we will record a deed restriction and an affidavit that it has to be an owner-occupant
or you lose that opportunity. That's what the code provides. And we believe this would be the
minimum to afford relief to Ms. Bellono. So if Ms. Bellono can unmute herself, I'll ask her to
adopt my testimony and then entertain any questions from anybody that may be on the call.
Ms. Buono, can you raise your hand, please?
I know she's on the call.
Ms. Buono?
Diane?
I'm sorry, I was muted. She's been allowed to speak.
Okay. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, my name is Dario Buono, D-A-R-I-A-B-U-O-N-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Ms. Barono, were you on this Zoom call during the entirety of my presentation about your plans for this home?
Yes, I was.
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you very much.
questions from the board
no chair
I have a
couple of questions
I guess this is
I'm trying to understand
you know
the code right
so this is
literally the same project that we saw earlier
for the most part it's just that
they were asking for a duplex
and this is asking for
exactly
that's right right
So just so you understand, I am going to hold this.
OK, we'll have a period of time for all of us to talk.
But please ask your questions to Mr.
So the question, I guess the question that I have just from a physical standpoint on the documents, when I look at the plans with the first floor being a bi-level, essentially a bi-level unit with a one bedroom, it appears to be in the basement and a den.
And it's really sort of a huge first floor with living room, dining room, you know, full kitchen.
That seems very excessive for a one bedroom in the basement unit. Right.
And then a full one bedroom unit on the second floor. So it's the it it's it just feels odd.
And I don't know. I don't know if I'm just kind of grasping, but it just feels odd to me.
just i i just we've never seen this before at least here henry i know i'm not saying it hasn't
happened but in the last two three years that i've been here i've not seen this right and i agree and
And the last two, three years that I've been here, I've not seen this.
Right. And I agree. And when we met with the client and, you know, she said, let's think about, you know, a duplex.
and when we
I said, I said, neighborhoods don't like duplexes.
I said, if you're going to make a commitment because you have other family members in the neighborhood and you're going to live there and you're willing to put an affidavit and record it against the deed that you have to live there, then that's the way it has to be.
because, I mean, I've been in many neighborhoods
and I, you know, today was prime example.
I was on since, you know, two o'clock,
I had a two o'clock hearing
and they're not well received.
That's why the neighbors were very inquisitive
about what the heck was going on.
Because I agree, Mr. Johns, intellectually,
you know, it sounds like a duplex,
but there is flexibility in the code.
You know, if this lot was 1,600 square feet,
I might have gotten this by right.
I can't guarantee that. That's why I was trying to say, look, if it's 1,600 square feet and it can have an 800 square foot unit, we're at 1,100 square feet and we have a 600 square foot unit.
So, you know, I'm not trying to fit, you know, a square peg in a round hole, but I hear what Mr. Johns is saying.
In terms of the size, the whole idea was it's 1,300 square feet.
you're right, that basement and that first floor combined. The idea was we're not going to go to
the community and say we have two bedrooms because they're going to say, well, you're just going to
rent that out too. So is it large? Yes. But we advise the client, don't make it two bedrooms.
And she's living there and she doesn't intend to rent any other spaces to anybody other than
what's on the second floor. I have a question. I'm kind of curious though. So is there anything
in the deed that will prevent swapping of units if they have the homeowner want to move to the
second floor unit and then rent out the first basement unit? Is there anything in the deed that
limits that? I'm not aware of any requirement that the code has. Certainly if that's a concern
and that would sway someone, we would put that in there because that is her intention. She's not
She wants that large living area. But I'm not aware of this, Graham, of any requirement that the code say you can't you can't swap.
And so if this property was sold, then the next owner would have this configuration already set up and they'd be obligated to live there.
Or I'm just thinking they'd come. It seemed to me that they would come back and say, oh, it's a hardship for me to change this back to a single family.
It's already set up as a duplex. You know what I mean?
Yeah. But you are right. If she were to sell this property, the next owner would have to live there.
or you lose the two unit
and it would revert back to single family
and you would have to reconvert the property back.
And that's the whole idea.
I don't want to get philosophical,
but it's like similar to like a mother-in-law suite
or a father-in-law suite,
but it's a different animal.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N.
Last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and hold truth?
Nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, Ron.
This property is indicated for single-family residential use under City Plan.
Again, adopted district plan recommends no change to existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances
or condition of the property that may be prevented from being used in conformity with the code.
It is a, as the plan is set up, it is an overuse.
Therefore, we recommend that the request for variance not be granted.
So, Mr. Clinton, I'm going to hold this to next week.
it on Wednesday at 2 p.m. It's the 17th. I'm going to take some time in executive session
next week to go over this. And we don't doubt anything that you've said, but we've just have
not seen it before. And I don't want all of us to understand exactly what we have. And Ron,
I appreciate also your comments. Look, I'm on board with that, Mr. Chairman. I want to totally
vet it. We appreciate the time you've taken, frankly. All right. All right. Thank you very
much. Thank you. So let me go through the list here first. Number three, MI 2023-005-170-7553
Maryland Road. No exhibit, second listing.
50th Ward Committee issued a letter of opposition.
Stephen Alston is the owner.
Applicant.
Stephen Alston, if you're in the audience, can you please raise your virtual hand?
I don't see any hands, Chair.
So this is the second listing.
No one appeared on 214
So MI2023
005-170
7553 Maryland Road
I vote to dismiss
Ishmael Shaheed
My vote is to dismiss
Michael Johns
My vote is to dismiss
It's not a gram
My vote is to dismiss
Taya Nguyen
My vote is to dismiss
James Snell
My vote is to dismiss.
Number four, MI-2023-005-894, 2300 South 3rd Street.
Letter of support from Whitman Council,
letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
The case was continued at the request of Rocco Weiss on 3524.
The ORCO meeting has not been held at this time.
Mr. Bernardino
Mr. Bernardino, if you're in the audience, please raise your hand
Rocco Weiss or Bridget Squilla
Okay, I have Rocco Weiss
and I'm sorry, Rocco Weiss and I will allow to speak
Mr. Weiss, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
rocco weiss r-o-c-c-o w-e-i-s-s you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes mr weiss we do so we don't have the exhibits um and i do see there
go ahead please proceed no i was just um i'm here because i'm the owner of the property but i haven't
been in touch with my architect since like the rescheduling and it's like really hard to get
in touch with him so i've been trying to do this matter on my own um all right so mr weiss we're
going to do we're going to give you one more time okay we're going to continue the case um but it's
going to be more must be heard okay uh yeah is there anything that i have to do because like i'm
not i don't know like how to go about this or i had a couple people helping me like the only thing
i do know that i have is the letter from uh yeah i see that i see that yep i see that yeah um
i think what you should do is if you call our office they'll they'll be helpful for you and
what you need for a case if you want to try to do it yourself okay um yeah uh okay uh right
It will be long because I need it to be approved for my – to comply with my mortgage that I had to get for the building because it's commercial downstairs, residential.
Yeah, I'm just not sure.
I can't give you a date right now.
I think what you have to do is they'll put the phone number on the screen in the chat.
And if you call like in a day or so, they'll give you an idea when you can come back and what you need and how we'll go about this.
All right.
Thanks a lot.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
So MI 2023-005-894-2300 South Third.
Cases continued.
Number five, MI 2023-005-909-2219 West Oxford.
Second listing, attorney is needed, Ms. Brenda Harris.
I see no handshare.
So we see she's making a transaction, so we'll continue this one more time.
MI-2023-005-909-2219-West Oxford Street.
Cases continued.
Mark must be heard.
Number six, MI-2024-008-18-3309-North 6th Street.
Brea Kennedy is the listed applicant.
There's the first listing.
We do not have the documents.
Yeah. Did you say Brie Kennedy?
Did you say Brie Kennedy?
Rhea Kennedy's delicit
Brie Kennedy is the listed applicant and MJS Real Estate Investment is listed owner.
Okay. There's no one in the audience with those names.
Okay. All right. She has been in touch with the RCO.
So she's asked in one more.
We're going to give it one more continuance.
So MI 2024, 000818, 3309 North 6th Street.
Case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
Let me see what else we have here, I think.
All right.
Case number 8, MI 2024-000-903-534-Walkin Street.
Paul LeBond is the applicant.
No exhibits, first listing.
They have not met with the RCO as of yet.
Chair, I don't see Paul LeBond, but there's a Robert Barney with a hand raised.
I will allow to speak.
hi mr chairman could you state your name please and spell for the stenographer
it's robert byrne b as in boy e-i-r-n-e do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes sir are you involved with 534 walkins i am the owner
okay um i have joseph i have joseph and natali guganciretti listed as the owners no no okay
all right so you're the owner but you have an applicant paul laban yes so he is uh my general
contractor and architect for uh for the new drawings for the new plan okay so we don't have
your exhibits yet we're gonna have to continue the case all right all right and you still have
to meet with the RCO. Gotcha. All right. So MI 2024-000-903-534-Walkin Street. Case
continued. Mark must be heard. Thank you for calling in. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Number seven, MI2024-000898-5153-Wyalusing Avenue.
Lawrence Aniakara is the owner applicant.
Letter of Opposition from Westfield Together Civic Association.
the community said they would support a duplex
instead of four units
Lawrence had
the hand up but it went down
and I'm
searching him
now he's back
he has been allowed
to speak
sir could you please state
your name and spell for the court stenographer
l-a-w-r-e-n-c-e
My last name is O-N-O-Y-L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E.
Sir, listen to me.
Listen to me.
My last name is O-N-O-Y-I-A-O-R-E-N-C-E.
Lawrence, listen to me.
You have two devices on.
You have to turn one off.
Now, could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Lawrence please unmute yourself please have one device only on
Lawrence please unmute yourself
unmute yourself
unmute yourself
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence Lawrence yeah Lawrence you have okay what do you have one you have two things on
we can't go on like this
Did you turn it off?
did you turn it off
Lawrence?
He has disappeared.
Wait two minutes and then we're going to go.
Lawrence?
I'm looking for him, Cher.
He's completely
disappeared off the screen.
I see him.
I see him now.
Lawrence, you are allowed to speak now.
Lawrence, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Lawrence Onyora.
L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E
O-N-Y-I-A-O-R-A-H.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Affirm.
Okay. So this application is for use as a multifamily household living for dwelling units in an existing structure.
The proposed use of multifamily household living is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
okay good afternoon sir have you emailed in all of the required documents and exhibits that is
needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing correct thank you sir
please share your screen and proceed okay
it's the green button at the bottom of the screen yeah no there is no share screen
we're having problems with that here with the technology apparently
okay so so so lawrence um
this this is the last case of the day if if you can't get on the screen we're gonna have to
to continue it. So could you try to share your screen? There you go. Okay. All right. These
the initial plan that I had
I had submitted to the
like you rightly stated
I work with the veteran group
and with
housing voucher
I noticed that a lot of the
veterans
that are single
want something smaller
as opposed to the two units
and the rest of them so i have decided well maybe i experiment with this apparently i was wrong and
i was told i couldn't do that uh but the rco recommended a duplex which is fine with me i
don't have any problems with that um so listen to me could you show us pictures of your property okay
Thank you.
do you have your photos yeah we're trying i'm trying to upload it okay all right
okay go like this all right um well this is what it was supposed to look like
as supposedly if if they would allow it to go through um these are the internal
uh house is is it's includes it has includes porch so everything is within the house or itself
all right so do you have pictures of the outside of the house too like where you come in
okay yeah let me let me just go through this hopefully maybe that'll come out
you know that's showing the internal structures of the house um
you know that's showing the internal structures of the house um
uh hopefully the outside also was taken that's the outside here okay so that's the front of the
house yeah that's the front of the house correct yes that's the front of the house so so lawrence
let me ask you this on the block where you're where you're at are there multiple family units
uh there is one across i don't know about the rest of them uh you have some abandoned
buildings but there's one directly opposite me i i am not sure of the rest of them i never really
asked i'm not sure what so now instead of instead of four you want two properties you want two
units well i mean that is what the rco recommended i'm i'm willing to go with that if that if that's
what let me ask you this do you have drawings for that uh for the uh two units or for the four
units the two units they just recommended it i wasn't sure how that was going to work out i
wasn't sure what you are going to say about it so it was just a recommendation okay all right um
let me have any more photos of the property okay hold on um yeah that's
the people next door to your property next door is that a single home or multiple family
um i believe one one time it depends if you're looking at the house the one to the left is uh
a single family uh the one to the right he's doing a whole lot of modification i'm not sure
what he's doing there uh but it's been sold about twice so uh he's modifying it i'm not sure what
he's doing there okay okay um and you don't know what the rest of the block looks like relative to
whether multiple family or not well the one across is multiple families four units the one directly
opposite mine is is four units uh the one directly across from mine now the point is that the block
itself doesn't really have a whole lot of
houses in front of it because it's a small
block followed by a long
cemetery all the way to 48th
Street. So we don't have
a whole lot of folks, but except
that we have a whole lot of prostitutes
pirating the place.
A lot of what? Prostitutes
pirating the
area. So I thought
maybe that would help sanitize it.
I don't know. But that was my
thinking.
The block itself is probably just
You can call it almost just one block of housing on both sides.
And then the rest of them is cemetery all the way.
All right.
All right.
All right.
So you notice that the RCO has said that they only want you to have two units, right?
Yes, correct.
And I would say the council person out there agrees with the RCO that the place is too small and only would want you to have two units.
Is that what you understand?
I can't live with that. I have no problems with that. That's fine with me.
All right. Questions from the board?
Yes, Chair. Did I hear anything about PHA early on?
Yeah, I had said that.
I think his wife's talked about vouchers-ish.
Yeah, I do. Yes, I do work with PHA, and I do work with Veterans Group.
Okay. I'm going to recuse myself from this, Chair.
so so these are affordable units you're trying to make affordable two affordable units
correct especially for the veterans especially for the veterans and are you getting any
subsidies for the for the veterans from that is that what you're trying to get some funding
i i do they do give me referrals oh for referrals okay yeah they do give me referrals right and i
I have some of them in some of my houses now, assistants.
Okay. Any other questions from the board?
I have a question. Are you already approved to be a Section 8 landlord?
Yes, I am. I have been, yes.
You have them in your other units?
I have them in some of my units, yes. Section 8, right, I do.
I have been approved for the last five years, so I've been with Section 8.
so and and so i think i think we heard that you uh are okay with the with just two uh families
yeah i don't have any yeah if that's what is recommended i'll take it i have no problems
with that that's fine with me do you have plans for the two families the two family uh dwelling
could you give us some plans for that or you have to you have to get plans for it okay i'll do that
then. Because it was a recommendation,
I wasn't sure how this was going to turn out.
So I'm just waiting to hear my sentence.
I can do that, no problem.
Okay. That would be helpful for me.
That would be helpful for me.
Likewise, me also.
Likewise.
You'd want to see the plans?
We'd like to see plans for two families.
All right.
Questions from our attorney?
No, sir.
Questions or comments from their virtual audience?
Chair, I have one hand up, and that's Mark Harris.
He's allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Mark Harris, H-E-R-I-S.
Didn't you testify earlier today?
Yes, I did, sir.
Just state your name and go on with your testimony.
First of all, I'm president of the Cathedral Park Community Development Association,
And this property is on the southern edge of our RCO, which I had.
We concur with the recommendation for duplex only.
And I'd like to state that the gentleman's description of the block is correct.
Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.
And we're not concerned about seeing the dry floor plans.
The building's large enough to accommodate two units without a problem.
Thank you.
um planning commission so i think we're going to delay our recommendation until a new plan is
developed okay so we're not going to vote on this today okay we're going to hold this until
um mr lawrence you have two plans showing how you're going to put two units in that building
right the case will be the case is closed other than that and you'll you'll come back with your
plans we'll make responses relative to the plans and then planning commission will take a position
and then we'll vote is that okay you're you're muted on mute
you're on mute i can't can't hear you
could you unmute please
oh no all right so all right so here look
You get two, you get like you had the plans for the four.
You go back and get plans for two.
All right.
The office will reschedule you.
And the only thing we're going to do is look at the plans.
Let the board look at it.
Let planning take a position and then we'll vote.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Is there anyone in the 330 audience who whose case has not been called?
There are no hands, chair.
Thank you, everybody. A little later today that we try not to be. But I do appreciate all your input today. And I and I do think we got a lot of work done today and we had some interesting cases. So thank you very much. And we'll see you guys next week.
Thank you, Chair.
Have a good night.
Thank you. Have a good night.
Take care, everyone.
Good night.
Thank you.