we're broadcasting okay thank you good morning everyone my name is frank di chico i'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with
vice chair miss carol tenere our board secretary mr confessor plaza and our board members mr thomas
hollowman and mr james snell also will in attendance will be our board administrator
Ms. Tanya Sunket and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta. For those of you who haven't yet participated in
one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First,
we'll begin this morning's session by reading a list of cases to be continued. If you believe
that any case is being continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond.
after reading the continuance list and receiving any feedback we will take any additional
continuance request then once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued vice chair
tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session when a case is called
we ask attorneys representing clients or other interested parties in the matter identify
themselves for the record. We will then hear the applicant's presentation, followed by any
presentation by attorneys representing other parties. Interested parties and members of the
public, not represented by counsel, will then be given an opportunity to testify. We will finally
hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the hearing's conclusion, we will either vote
the excuse me we'll either vote the matter immediately or hold it for
discussion in executive session any case held for discussion will be
voted at the next scheduled Wednesday morning session please note the
following changes related to the format the virtual format first we will be
administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, if you wish to testify by phone,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google pound 267-270-5548.
that's google pound 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property
at issue with that said we will begin but before Ms. Vice Chair Tenere calls our first case
we'd like to announce that the following cases are being continued
calendar number 40062 1304 West Allegheny, calendar number 39978 1720 Master Street,
calendar number 39557 2444 North 30th Street
calendar number 39558 3029 West Dauphin
meeting item meaning M as in Michael I as in interest
2-0-2-0-0-0-8-2-6-6-3-0-1 North Broad Street. Calendar number 4-0-0-4-8-9-2-0
French Street and meeting item 2-0-2-0-0-0-0-7-5-7-7-3-9 North Capitol Street.
and with that let me check my notes if anyone believes that any of those cases
that I just called out as being continued was done in error please raise
your hand now no hands at this moment
No hands at this moment.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
Please raise your hand now.
Chair, we have Sheila Dickens-Moseley.
Sheila, you can unmute yourself and speak to the continuance.
Good morning, Ms. Mosley. Please spell your full name for the record.
Good morning. My name is Sheila Dickens Mosley, S-H-E-I-L-A, Dickens, D-I-C-K-E-N-S, Mosley, M-O-S-L-E-Y.
Ms. Mosley, you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
My understanding is that MI-2020-000115, which is 2444 North 30th Street, will be continued.
And do you have a continuous date? Ms. Sunkett will provide a date to you.
And, okay, she will provide a date to me, and is there, what is the explanation for
continuance?
Can I explain that there were no exhibits submitted?
You're required to submit, this is Sharon Saleta, the board's attorney, you're required
to submit exhibits at least five days prior to the hearing.
We did not receive those exhibits.
I did forward the exhibits to Jason Hand as I was instructed seven days in advance,
so do I need to resubmit the exhibits again? Yes, I think the requirement is that you send
them to the RCO mailbacks and that you copy me. Okay, because he gave you different instructions
as you will see in the documentation so um i need to send them to you sheriff yes i'll um
i will send you my email address and i apologize for the confusion so they're supposed to go to
both the rco box and to sharon saletta not an individual in the zba okay because he gave that's
the structure he gave me was the only supposed to go to him well did you receive the documents
from the email? I did, and that's what I have in the documentation. That's what's documented by
Jason Hand, exactly. So maybe I was a little confused because it was unclear, but I don't
have a problem with resending them again. No problem. Ms. Mosley, we apologize. These are,
as you know, challenging times for everyone. So just resubmit it, and then Ms. Sunkard will do
our best to get you a hearing okay thank you very much thank you thanks for understanding thank you
you too thank you any other requests for continuance or does anyone believe we may
have called a continuance in error please raise your hand
sean livecy yes you can unmute yourself and speak mr livecy will you spell your name for
the stenographer for the record yes this is sean livesy s-e-a-n-l-i-v-e-s-e-y from zarwin bomb
on behalf of the applicant for calendar number HA2020-000088,
which is for 6301 North Broad Street.
You swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Now, this was a case that's listed for continuance,
and I'm just seeking to confirm that the continuance date will be September 22nd of this year.
That's something you would have to
confirm with
Ms. Sunkit, Mr. Lipsy
Yes, we do have email confirmation
from Ms. Sunkit
to the September 22nd date
Well, that's the date you have
and that's the date
you'll have your hearing
Very good, thank you
Anyone else?
continuance withdrawals or believe we read a continuance in error
that's all the hands i have up thank you ms tenary please proceed calling the first case
calendar number 39521 1217-19 east columbia avenue the attorney is alan knockerson
the attorney is alan knockamson
good morning mr knockamson carol you'll just do the rest of it i know i'm
waiting to see do you see him i don't see i see him
there he is okay mr knockamson can you please put your name and address
on the record and spell your last name. Yes, Alan Ockamson of Ockamson, PC, 123 South Broad
Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109. I apologize. Like, I don't know why my camera's
not working, so you'll just have a still photo of me for this hearing. That's okay. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth and nothing about the truth? Yes, I do. And do you also agree to
waive the reading of the refusal, and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
You may begin.
I'm going to share the screen.
Before you begin, just notice that the court reporter is here.
He's already with us.
Oh, great.
So we do have a stenographer right now.
Thank you.
All right.
So you should have in front of you a table of contents, which include eight exhibits.
The first is the deed to the property, showing that 1217-19 East Columbia Avenue LLC owns the property.
After that, you will see a certificate of tax clearance, showing that 1217-19 East Columbia Avenue LLC is tax-compliant with the city.
The third exhibit are multiple sub-exhibits in there.
The first is the notice of refusal dated 12-11-2019.
And then there's an authorization letter from the CBA allowing me to amend the zoning appeal, and we'll talk about that as well.
And then there's the notice of refusal dated 8-5 of 2020, and that's the operative notice of refusal for purposes of this hearing and the appeal.
So if you look at the notice of refusal dated 12-11-2019, we're proposing to put a second and third story addition on a pre-existing building structure of 3,200 square feet and use that building structure to have six dwelling units and six off-street parking spots.
We met with the Fishtown Neighbors Association, and we received feedback from them,
and we'll talk about that as well.
And, you know, from the feedback that we received, you know,
we amended with the permission of the ZBA to change our project to eliminate it
to four dwelling units and four interior parking spots.
So you'll see the application for appeal that we filed with the ZBA
with the original notice of refusal, which that appeal has been amended by way of the new notice
of refusal. So you'll see from the zoning map that we're on East Columbia Avenue and that we back up
into Moyer Street in the Fishtown section of Philadelphia. Now you'll see from the photographs
of the property, 1217-19 East Columbia Avenue, even though it's an RSA 5 structure, it's never
been used as a single family structure ever right this is a 3200 square foot lot and the building
structure has full lot coverage of 3200 square feet as you can see from its configuration it has
a curb cut and a garage and based on my review or at least you know background because there's not
much going on in the zoning file of his pre-existing uses our understanding is that this has been like
as a storage facility or different type of more quasi-industrial commercial uses in the past.
So you'll see the pictures to the right of us, the pictures to the left of us,
you'll see the zoning poster showing an orange sign, and then you'll see the fact that there's a lot,
even though this is, you know, a RSA 5, you know, neighborhood, there's a lot of multifamily use
around here. There's a 35-unit building down the street at 1247 East Columbia Avenue with 32
parking spaces. The building structure that butts against us in the rear, 412-24 Moyer Street,
is a 12-unit condominium building with off-street parking. And across the street at 1220 East
Columbia Avenue, there's a triplex, right? So one of the things that we wanted to do,
even though we're adding two or three stories, we wanted to, like, honor the significance of
that building structure. It has, like, a unique roof line. So when we added a second and third
story we try to keep the roof line uh that is there in terms of shape and configuration we
also wanted to have you know got rid of the or proposed to get rid of that stucco uh facade
and put a brook facade as you can see from this site plan we're also looking to
We're also looking to do four parking, well, from here, we're looking to do four parking spaces from six.
do uh four parkings well here from here
The other thing that I'll note is that in the rear of the first floor, there's a trash room, right?
There's no basement use.
And then there was something else that we changed up to.
We eliminated any type of roof deck because that was the commentary we received from the community.
So as you'll see, there are four units in this building, two on each floor.
They're each two-bedroom, two-bath.
And that was something else that the community felt very adamantly about, especially in the past,
that this property has been proposed for multifamily use over the last decade on several occasions.
So previously, when other projects were presented, the community was adamant against it.
I think that given what we're offering and comparing it to what the community was against in the past and showing the support of the nearby neighbors, this is more an appropriate use for this particular building structure.
But one of the things that I received from Fishtown Neighbors Association were two previous letters sent by them for previous projects.
And one of the things I noticed was that for the units themselves, two things.
They were concerned that they were going to be rental units, you know, for the previous projects, while this one's a condominium.
The second thing is, was not just the amount of units, where previously it was upwards of eight units for these other projects, while ours is four.
But they were also concerned about the amount of bedrooms, you know, for this project, for the project.
The previous one had three bedrooms.
these are more modest as two bedrooms. And as you can see here, there's elevations, front and rear
elevation of the property. Oh, and then the other thing that the community was really concerned
about in the past, and they had opposition by nearby neighbors, was the setback or lack thereof
in the rear. As you can see, as I stated before, this is a 32-foot structure, one-story structure
with full lot coverage. On the second and third floors, we purposefully set back 21 feet on the
second and third floors to respect the people that are on Moyer Street in the rear with that
condominium building. So we did meet with the Fishtown Neighbors Association. So more people
voted not in favor than in favor of this project, but it was a close vote. If you look at the
commentary, though, this is where we took it upon ourselves to, like, you know, make this a more
productive project for the community. So if you look at here, it says some neighbors feel four
units down from the previous proposal of six is a good compromise for a property that's owned for
two single families. I'm going to put you on speakerphone now. So that was a compromise. So
So previously, in two previous instances, other developers have proposed eight units
and six units, and then we had no idea about the history of this property.
So when we met with Fishtown neighbors and they provided those other letters, and we
heard what the community was saying during the community meeting, that's why we went
down to four units, right?
You know, and even here, if you look at the commentary, a nearby neighbor made the point
that if two single-family homes were constructed,
the community would criticize the construction of expensive housing,
implying the developer can't win.
So that was the other thing that we're focusing on,
is to keep it a mix of affordable housing in Fishtown.
You know, because, again, we're not that far from Frankfurt Avenue.
And, you know, we want to create density, obviously, for Frankfurt Avenue
to help, you know, continue to support the commercial corridor,
but also give it diversity in terms of the type of housing
that is within this part of Fishtown.
So we believe that, like, having a two-unit condominium, excuse me, a two-bedroom condominium would make it more affordable for people to actually purchase in Fishtown.
And some of those neighbors actually agreed with us as well.
And the other thing was two nearby neighbors are ready for the vacant lot to be occupied, and the back neighbor is only concerned about construction touching her home.
She exchanged contact information with the developer.
You'll see in the presentation materials at the end, so this was presented pre-COVID-19
outbreak. So we actually started doing a petition with the nearby neighbors, and you'll see that we
have some of those neighbors in support of this project. We also provided letters from those
neighbors too, showing that they're in support of it as well. So this is our show proof of
mailing for the community meeting and then you'll see that David Major, Josh Berg, Kevin
Sank and you know Susan Sank and Paul Lalonde and Donny Legones all supported their support
All supported their support of the project.
of the project.
And again,
And again, for the other than Paul, he's at 1213 East Columbia Avenue, which is one house next door to us.
All the others are in the rear where you'll see at 412-24.
Let me just get that.
They're all in the rear right here.
So they would be most affected by, you know, our project in terms of the height and in terms of the density, and they're all in support of it.
So, you know, hearing what the community was saying previously in terms of different iterations of this project by different developers and hearing what the community spoke about during the community meeting and hearing what Fishtown had to say even in the pre-community meeting, we substantially decreased the amount of density for this project to four units.
We decreased the amount of parking spaces to four parking spaces.
And given the history that this has never been used as a single-family structure,
we believe that this is an appropriate use of this project.
And for that, we ask that the zoning board grant our variance request.
thank you
air does the board have any questions no frank i just asked if the board had any questions no
the other thing i would just highlight again is the fact that this project or this property has
has been proposed for multifamily use in multiple instances,
given its RSA 5 designation, for well over a decade.
And this property and other property owners have been unable to develop this property as single-family use.
And as you can see from the letter from the Fishtown Neighbors Association,
I think they're ready to have this property actually developed.
And the nearby neighbors, who are the ones who are most affected by this project,
project are in support of this project.
And even the vote that was not in favor at the community level was a very close vote.
So some of these individuals who wrote in support of this project were not able to attend
this meeting, but it was two, four, and four against within a 500 radius, but now we have
six people who are most immediately impacted writing letters of support directly to the ZBA.
And then in general, there was only 16 people in a meeting that usually has like 30 to 50,
which Fishtown neighbors tend to be very active. So we only had 16 people and it was six yes and
10 no. So even in the vote against it, it was a pretty close vote. That's why, and even in the
letter that's why we went down from six to four because that's what we were told that would be
more appetizing to the neighborhood and through that we were able to get letters of support from
these different individuals and we started doing a petition unfortunately due to COVID-19 we had
to respect the fact that we can't actively you know solicit people in person so but even those
individuals are all direct neighbors who are going to be directly impacted.
We can't hear Frank. No, I think he's actually off now. I don't see him, so.
He's on my screen. Okay.
Frank, you might want to log in, I mean log out and then log back in.
I see him, actually.
Well, while Frank is there, I guess I can have my client affirm the testimony.
Sounds good.
All right, Frank Kumas of Kumas Homes.
of Kumas Homes. Frank, raise your hand virtually.
Frank, raise your hand virtually.
Frank, you can unmute yourself. Good morning, everyone. My name is Frank Kumas
from Kumas Homes, an IRA development. Carol, can you swear him in, please?
Yes. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes I do. All right so so Frank uh you heard everything I stated today. Yes I have. And is
it true and correct? Yes sir. And would you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes I do. Okay so while
we're waiting for uh Chairman Tachiko why don't you tell the board a little bit about Kumas Homes and
you know your your aptitude and experience in the philadelphia region
alan before you begin can anyone hear me now yes yes i apologize i was
everything was off um alan i'll get your witness uh briefly give us a summary and then i have a
question good morning chairman this is frank kumas how are you well yourself very well thank you um
Alan, get back to your question.
We've been in Philadelphia since 2009.
We've built over 350 units throughout South Philly,
North Philly, Fishtown areas.
I've been into the zoning with EVA meeting multiple times
with you and with the other attorneys.
But this particular property,
I am very highly interested from day one,
but I heard a lot of stories about this property.
You went to zoning like four or five times,
being denied.
And then I wanted to get bottom of this story.
what happened was I went to neighborhood actually people that lives in Columbia Avenue I spoke with
them one-on-one and I wanted to find out why are they against these projects and why are they against
the multi-family unit with the parking and then it's surprising that no one is against this project
they say they don't know what I'm talking about they say they support this project they don't
want no one taking any parking from the street even if someone builds a single family home over
there it's going to be big single family homes and it could be big family living there and if
added that big family it could be two or three people have a car and then they can they can
take more space on a street parking neighbors on their on their location they don't want nobody to
take any more street parking than already it is because already it's too crowded in here
so i explained to them about my projects i talked to them one-on-one they don't see any issue with
these projects and I say how come you guys didn't support these projects in the past they said well
they didn't even know there was a go on to zoning or they didn't even know what the other project
was I told them there is this project went to zoning two three times and it got denied by the
Fishtown Neighbors Association and they actually got pissed off and they most of them show up on a
on a on a ZBN Neighbors Association meeting and they support our projects and they even give us
support that, saying that they're very highly interested on this project. They don't want to
see this warehouse in there any longer. They are very clear about that. They want us to develop
something, they want us to do something with it, and then they are very highly interested in us
to do something with parking. They don't want to give up any more parking initiative than already
it is. Yeah, so Chairman DiCicco, there is a pre-existing curb cut there which we'll be
repurposing for yeah i saw that i i lost you towards the end of your presentations i got
all the other stuff my only question is um according to my notes fish town neighbors
association opposes do they oppose even after you made the adjustments down from six to four units
well so i actually asked them i said can i represent this to four units and they said no
we don't give representations you know in terms of that but if you look at their letter and it's
in front of your screen yeah the print is too small for me okay so but i'll reread it some
neighbors feel four units down from the previous proposal six is a good compromise for property
that's owned for two single family homes so we we heard what they said and again if we if you look
at those other projects that have been proposed over the past decade you know people were vehement
against it right because it was so much use right there were height variances there were eight
units versus the versus six now down to four so the previous projects that were opposed were
because of eight units six units because of six parking spaces because there were no i get that
i don't want to interrupt i get that i just was curious if the letter spoke to the revision or
was it the original six that they were against uh all right um do you have revised plans
So what we did, Mr. Chair, is that we resubmitted this to L&I for a new notice of refusal.
so what we did um mr chair is that we resubmitted this
So the new notice of refusal, and I gave it to Ms. Sunkit to make the new notice of refusal the operative one.
So this is the one. Hold on a second.
So this is Sharon Solito.
Plans do not have to be stamped in this case.
well we can just if if it's approved we could just limit it the proviso limited to four units
something like that or is that necessary it's already stated in the most recent
okay all right good enough all right um questions from the board no no no anyone out there who
wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand at this time um we have andrew miller
handle you're gonna meet yourself and speak uh hi my name is andrew miller i live at 1405 east
columbia avenue uh just a couple blocks away mr miller do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do i do please um thank you um i just wanted to say
briefly that the there's a couple details that in in the presentation uh that i just wanted to
highlight uh he he showed the support of a number of neighbors uh i wanted to highlight that the two
adjacent neighbors on Columbia 1215 and 1221 are not in in in his list of people
that are in support of it also the as has been noted I imagine over the other
times this has come before the zoning board the the zoning of the RSA 5 was
done fairly recently and they're not presenting a hardship I understand that
they have made adjustments to try and accommodate the the concerns of the of the community but i
would potentially propose that this it be denied at this time until it can go before the community
again uh so that they can approve the the four unit if that's what they choose to do
uh or or or deny it again and then that can go as as it goes uh i just think it's due diligence
should be done for the the neighbors involved both that have uh clearly been involved enough
to set this zoning when it was set a few years back uh as well as express potential new concerns
with this adjustment or or the approval if that's what they choose to present thank you and that's
all i really have to say thank you any other uh individuals who wish to testify in this matter
please raise your hand uh mr chairman i would just like to um state something and actually he
reminded me of this because it's been such a long time ago 1215 east columbia avenue the owners of
that property who are directly adjacent to us did attend the meeting and we talked to him afterwards
and as an officer of the court i will state that they said that they weren't supported this project
yeah i thought i heard you say that earlier yeah well 1213 we have a letter we have a petition
signed by 1213 but specifically i talked to the owners of 1215 after the community meeting and
they stated their support as well of this project uh anyone else wish to testify in this case please
raise your hand so chair we have mary jones from the council's office mary you can unmute yourself
and speak mary ms jones please identify yourself with the record
mary you can unmute yourself and speak
uh my apologies i thought i already was unmuted my name is mary jones uh city hall room 496
19107 representative of Council President Darryl Clark. Okay, yes I wanted to just
interject particularly about the position of the RCO. They were aware of
the changes to this project, and their position remained that they opposed it.
Okay. Even with the adjustment, right? Okay.
even with the adjustment right okay yes okay thank you miss jones uh anyone else wish to testify
Okay, thank you.
that's it chair you can proceed thank you planning commission
can you hear me it's brian yes yes
can you clear brian in for the whole day brian please spell your name and i will swear you in
thank you brian b-r-i-a-n w-e-n-r-i-c-h
do you represent the planning commission you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do um this property is indicated for residential use on
the comprehensive plan this block has a long history of multi-family but we feel that six
units or four units is excessive in this location accordingly we recommend the grants not be granted
So is the Planning Commission's position because it's more than one unit, or do you have a recommendation?
I mean, they went from six to four, and you acknowledge there's a multifamily in and around this property.
so not to put you on the spot i'm just curious is it against any multi-family
is that the position of the commission or is it because of the dense still the density
i think it was um it was to do with i guess this is my first time thanks for putting me on
yeah relax no problem um based on the uh based on the comments of the council office and uh the
feedback from the neighbors, it wasn't clear to me whether or not they had the opportunity to
discuss it as revised. I had it on my notes as six units, so six units, I felt too many.
Yeah, that's, yeah. I'm sorry, yeah, you finish.
Four unit, it's right on the edge for me, really, because of the parking.
don't worry about I live on the edge all my life so again I heard Miss Jones
and I'm just curious I just seems I mean this with the challenges we have
of communication I'm just wondering if enough people who either attended or
live in close proximity are aware of the adjustment and if they even would they
still be opposed to it knowing it went from six to four well mr chair that's why i specifically
if you looked at it um what's it called we we put specifically in the letter four residential
units and four off street parking spaces so we got all the immediate neighbors for that each
letter david major josh berg kevin sang and then even the petition the way i drafted it was specific
to four units and four off-street parking spaces so what i heard from fna you know during their
pre-community meeting was six was too much right and i and i and i tend to agree with that that's
why i looked at it it's a 3200 square foot lot with full lot coverage on the first floor and
we're setting back 21 feet and with that there's significant still significant space for four
units did you uh on that other petition going from six to four was that done by mail uh this
petition was this was pre-covid so if you can't see it but it was actually hand-written the end
the the person from 1213 east columbia two of them from 1213 east columbia and then we met with
1215 east columbia actually at the meeting and they verbally told us they were in support of it
so it was a close vote it wasn't like they were completely against it it was like six it was six
to ten no and two you know overall and two to four or four to two no within 500 feet that's why
i made the outreach both to reduce the unit count but all and the parking count but also to reach
out to those immediate neighbors the ones who would be most effective affected and they're all
now in favor of this project okay thank you all right i don't want to belabor the point i'm just
curious all right thank you uh any other questions anyone else have any questions please raise your
Any other questions? Anyone else have any questions? Please raise your hand.
Mr. Chairman, I do. Who's the attorney who said that the 16-foot drive area
was not sufficient for cars unless they were Mini Coopers?
Well, I don't know if I, Ms. Tanari, I was the one who attended that meeting. This is,
you know a letter based on our meeting i don't know if i stated that i i stated that you know
when you have a 16 foot drive area not drive it was talked about this the size of the parking spot
the undersized parking spot and i stated well yeah you would probably have a smaller car like a civic
or a corolla or a cooper but that was more and that was for six spots not four spots so that's
one of the other reasons why we reduced it down to four spots, because now we have a
much bigger garage area. Before we had it on both sides, like parking. Now it's all
on one side, the parking. So it's a much bigger parking area and turning radius, and we don't
really have, we don't have any of those issues we had with six parking spots.
okay anyone else no
Tom no okay all right calendar number 395 I'm sorry Carol you done
I am thank you calendar number 39521 1217-19 East Columbia Avenue my vote is yes
my vote is no
my vote is yes
so what was that 3-2
yes 3 yes 2 no
I think so
3 yes 2 no
okay thank you
calendar number 39958
north 10th street
The attorney, again, is Alan Ockamson.
So you're still there.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yes, I'm still Alan Ockamson.
I'm still at 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Do you swear?
He's still under a carol.
Do you agree to wave and step?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
I feel like I'm having the tough ones today.
I usually have everyone in order, all ducks in order.
But this one really should be an easy one.
This is 2251 North 10th Street, right?
So this is an RM1 property, which is 1,683 square feet, the lot sizes, right?
So I wouldn't even be here in front of the zoning board, but for the fact that we're part of an overlay, where we're proposing four units, and if we're a typical RM1 property, we would only need 1,440 square feet, and we have 1,683.
But because we're in the overlay, we require 1,700 square feet, which means that we're 17 square feet short.
Given that the lot width is essentially 17 feet, we're one foot short in terms of length of this property.
But we're not seeking any dimensional variances.
So what I handed you is a packet of materials which include eight exhibits.
The first is the deed to the property, which shows that Philadelphia Developments LLC owns the property.
The second exhibit is the tax clearance, showing that they're in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
The third exhibit is the notice of refusal.
Again, to reiterate, we're an RM1 property, and we're in an overlay district, which requires 425 square feet per unit,
and for four units, which requires 1,700 square feet.
here's our application for appeal that we filed.
Here's the zoning map.
You can see it's all orange.
And again, the only reason why we're here
is because we're in the overlay and we're just short.
And here are photographs of the property.
It's a vacant lot, showing multifamily use,
you know, just as an example.
And here are our plans.
I think the biggest thing that you really need to focus on
in terms of our plans is that we have a pass-through
going from the front of the property
to the back of the property.
And why is that important? Because that's where we're going to store our trash for this property, right? So even though it's four units, I know that the board always considers, like, where's the trash going to be stored and disposed of?
So during the course of a given week, it will be stored in the back, and then it will be brought to the front, and that's where the trash will be stored.
And that's where the trash will be stored.
And you can see we have a brick facade, you know, for this property.
And you can see we have a...
And so if you see, we actually, there were, I guess, six people that attended the meeting.
Two people voted for it.
Four people voted not in favor of it.
And the reason they voted not in favor of it was a lack of feedback from residents on the block
and a resistance to the extension request lead to close decision.
So I actually also gave you another one that I presented at that same community meeting, which I presented to the board within the past month, 9-11 West Dauphin Street, which was the same situation where I presented the same thing to this community group at the same time for the same variance request.
And in West Dauphin Street, it was a worse situation because it was an 805-square-foot lot where we were asking for two units.
So it was 402.5 square feet per unit.
While here, we're asking for 420.75 square feet per unit rather than the 425.
But as you can see, there was no pass-through for garbage.
You know, so people had it store their garbage in their house or put it underneath the stairs in the front.
And they unanimously supported this.
So I was not resistant to having feedback from more immediate neighbors.
I gave my information, you know, to them and stated if anyone had any questions or concerns, I would definitely talk to them.
um you know there was one neighbor there was one person in particular that they wanted us to talk
to who had like a half a dozen or so multi-family units within that vicinity i gave my phone number
i gave my email address you know but the fact that they're against one because we wanted them
to vote on a meeting that was well attended that you know in in this in that same meeting under the
same circumstances, they unanimously supported it, doesn't make sense. So it's not uncommon for this
board to actually grant such variances that I've requested. Not only do you look at 9-11 West
Dauphin Street, but there are two instances that I quickly looked at, you know, in the vicinity.
2152 North Percy Street, the board in November 2019 granted two units on an 805 square foot lot.
And then at 2156 North 9th Street in February of 2020, this board granted two units on a 777-square-foot lot, which were greater variances than what we're requesting under the circumstances.
Thank you.
Pardon me.
Pardon me.
Any questions from the board?
Is there anyone out there who wishes to testify in this matter?
Please raise your hand.
And Mr. Al-Nakamson, if you have your client, if your client's there, you can get he or she on.
Geysi, I to seven.
Geysi, can you virtually raise your hand?
You can unmute yourself and speak.
Ghazi, is it? You can unmute yourself.
Maybe having some technical difference. Is there anyone else, Tanya?
Okay. So, yeah, yeah. I think I should be okay now. Sorry about that.
Oh, okay. Please identify yourselves by your name for the scenario.
Hi, my name is Gazia Atasevan. I'm representing the Philadelphia Developments LLC. Good morning, everyone.
Please spell your name for the stenographer.
G-A-Z-I, first name. The last name is A-T-A-S-E-V-N.
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I absolutely do.
Thank you.
Mr. Atasevan, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes okay thank you anyone else
after we have Mary Jones you can unmute yourself and testify
yes hello good morning again you're still under oath Miss Jones okay I just
had a question some of the community members I'm not sure if they were able
to call in today i know we got started a little bit late um what is the height of the building
What is the height of the building going to be about the roof deck?
going to be uh
Mr. Jones, the height of the building is 38 feet within the limits of the zoning code.
We're not seeking a variance for that.
But you are included in the roof deck?
Well, the roof deck is not included as part of that calculation, but we are having a roof deck as well.
okay that's all i have thank you uh anyone else out there who wishes to testify please raise your
hand no chair you can proceed thank you planning commission
this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan
this application represents a de minimis variance by being only short by 17 square feet or one foot
and depth of the required lot size for four units accordingly we have no objection to the granting
of the variance thank you very much calendar number three nine nine five eight two two five
one north 10th street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
calendar number four zero zero seven nine two five seven north lyceum avenue
the attorneys are ronald patterson and stephanie boggs
stephanie you have been promoted to panelists you can unmute yourself present your case and share
your screen as necessary. Good morning. Thank you. Stephanie Boggs. Good morning. Stephanie,
please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, and then I have a couple of
other things to ask you. Sure. Stephanie Boggs, B-O-G-G-S, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia
PA 1910. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? Yes. And do you agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes i do thank you received our letter um from the rco
yesterday um later in the day and it isn't a letter of opposition and we had our rco meeting
only a week ago so based on the letter we received yesterday and after talking to
my client this morning we would like to request a continuous of this matter
to give us some time to consider and respond to the rco's comments in their letter
Mr. Chairman you just had it Frank go back there we go they're requesting a continuance
frank okay i didn't hear any of that i'm sorry um any is there anyone out there who
objects to the request for a continuance please raise your hand
um brett are you here regarding this case if so you're gonna meet yourself
he's the next case he's the next one but he has his hand up for this one so i didn't know
yeah no i apologize okay just a little eager
okay there's no one else thank you tanya so calendar number
40079 257 north lycome avenue it will be continued and staff uh will notify uh the
applicant of the continuing state thank you thank you
calendar number 39890 2702 federal street and calendar number 39891 2703
Manton Street. The attorney is Brett Feldman. Brett, you have been promoted to a panelist.
You can unmute yourself to present your case and share your screen as necessary.
Mr. Feldman, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
And then I have two other questions. Yes. Good morning, members of the board.
Yes. Good morning, members of the board.
BRETT FELDMANN, 18...
Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.
And I represent the applicant and the property owner of Three Mine Development in these two zoning cases.
Okay. And do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
you may proceed thank you i'll share screen now and uh again these are two consolidated cases
there are two properties that back up to each other the same refusal we presented these together
to the community group we have their letter of support so i'll get right to it
that community group's letter of support is grace ferry yes uh yes uh is is my
is my screen now being shared no
now it is brett you just need to go to the document
in. Okay. Are we good now? Good now. Okay. Okay. So let's get right to it. I've virtually passed
up Exhibits 1 through 11, which I'd ask to be incorporated into the record. I will go through
them, but we have the deeds, tax clearance, zoning map, letter of support for both cases from the
Graysbury Community Council, application refusal, application for appeal, zoning site plan
renderings, relevant sections of the zoning code, notice the community meeting, and the project
information form. I'll just scroll through this very quickly and get right to the relevant
photographs. This is a property in the Grace Ferry neighborhood. Here's an aerial, and these are the
two properties right here in this blue. One faces onto Federal Street, which is right here, and the
other one faces onto manton street right here uh the block itself is a uh it's owned um i2
industrial uh it is a combination of single family multi-family and then most of the remainder of the
block is now vacant uh warehouse buildings and then across the street uh over here you'll see
these are all duplexes here so it's that's that's kind of the mix of what is uh going on the block
Pre-pandemic, I sat down with the project architect, the client, and city planning and said, hey, in this kind of mishmash of zoning, what makes sense?
We were thinking about three units initially.
The consensus was two units made sense with one lot facing onto Federal, one lot facing onto Manton.
And that's what we ended up submitting for a duplex on both.
um and i will i'll just take you through the pictures real quick real quickly here um so
here is this is what looks back on manton street uh which we're trying to recreate the the curb
experience there right now it's it's these uh empty warehouses um that's the view from manton
looking to federal um and then here again is that that aerial uh here's across the street are the
the duplexes and then that's that's the view uh looking some some of these uh empty warehouses
and i think the board has actually had cases recently for these to be multi-family um here
you go again that's the duplexes that's our zoning poster that's the federal street side
going back to manton that's the manton going looking to federal street um we we work closely
with the community council here, and we had a, I think it was almost a unanimous letter of support
from them for both properties. They understood that in this situation that the two units really
made sense. The applications for both, again, seeking the relief. These were the refusals,
the two family in the industrial district appeal. And then I'll get right to the plans itself.
here is here the floor plans there's two units and then the renderings this is
what it looks like on Federal Street they've been designed to really fit in
with the other residential that's on the block 31 feet two story three stories a
unit at the first floor and then a unit at the second and third floors that's
what it looks like with materials that are sympathetic to the neighborhood
these are the industrial district provisions this was the meeting notices and again we you know we
had worked pre-pandemic with city planning on this and then with the community to come up with what
to come up with what makes the most sense on these now vacant lots.
makes the most sense on these now vacant lots and the
And the two family, I think it was agreed by all parties,
seemed like to be the right transition in this location.
I guess at this point now, I have my client, USC Abraham,
who is also available, our project architect, Logan Dry,
who can get into any of the other details
and open it up to any questions that the board might have.
But it was a real good process with the community group to work through what was appropriate in this location.
Let's get your client on, and then we'll see if there are any questions.
Ms. Sunke, can you add Yossi Abraham to the discussion?
Good morning, everybody. It's Yossi Abraham.
Good morning, sir. Please spell your name for the stenographer.
It's a Y-O-S-E-F, last name Avraham, A-V-R-A-H-A-M.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Feldman.
And Yossi, you've heard my testimony?
And is it true and accurate?
And you adopt it as your own?
Okay. And just as another sideline, you've done a significant amount of work in this neighborhood, including the zoning board cases we had last week, and I think developed a lot of rapport with the community on doing right by them and developing it in the proper manner, correct?
i have a question looking at the photograph uh to the left
uh the front view first floor well no you go back to that you just had a
those are the duplexes no the the rendition you had of the prop of the proposed property
you know you had it up and when i asked the rendering yes okay i'm sorry i thought you're
looking for pictures here no no the rent i'm sorry give me one second here
okay looking at the the the rendering on the left you got a doorway entrance to the left of the
property what's that gray area next to to the right of the windows is that just that's a breezeway
does that go all the way back yes so that will be where trash gets stored in the back
yes yes okay that's that makes it accessible to the rear yard is that exactly yes okay thank you
yes uh we went through all those issues with the community group okay uh questions any questions
from the board no no no anyone else out there who wishes to testify in this matter if you haven't
already done so please raise your hand no hands up at this time thank you planning commission
the south district plan recommends residential zoning for this block accordingly we have no
objection to granting of the variance thank you calendar numbers 39890 2702 federal street
and calendar number 39891 2703 manton street my vote is yes on both my vote is yes on both
yes yes yes on both and as always thank you for your time and consideration and uh
be well likewise thank you calendar number 39640
dash 4832 longshore avenue the property is owned by an llc and they were trying to confirm
that the applicant will be represented by an attorney? Has that been confirmed?
And if so, that's good because I don't have the refusal on that one. I can send
you the refusal. The applicant is more MOR levy. So there's an individual
I'm an individual.
Thank you.
More Levy, I'm promoting you to a panelist.
More, do you have, are you an attorney or do you have someone else?
Hey, how are you?
Yeah, I have Mr. Levy, excuse me, would you please identify yourself, name and address,
spell your name for the stenographer sure my name is moore m-o-r levy l-e-v-y and the address of the
property is 4832 longshore avenue 19135 and sorry do you swear to the firm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you and i have authority uh where yet
good morning panel this is lionel artem ginsburg l-i-o-n-e-l last name a-r-t-o-m as in mary
hyphen g-i-n-z-b-u-r-g 1628 jfk boulevard suite 2200 philadelphia pa 19103 for more
me and levy's properties llc levy's come do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing about the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Good morning panel. This
property is on Longshore Avenue. It is approximately one block from I-95. It is the first set of CMX
zonings after I-95. However, looking at the neighborhood, the only property that is in use
as a commercial space is the property next door, which is a daycare center.
The RCO has approved our plans, which are to convert the first floor to residential,
to put a deck on the roof, and to permit the accessory garage to be used as an office.
The RCO approved this with some provisos, and if I can share my screen, I will give you the letter from the RCOs. Hold on one second.
This is Sharon Saleta. I've gone through the provisos, and none of them actually can be added to if the case is approved. They are not enforceable.
all right thank you thank you miss aletta the uh the property as i'm bringing it up on the screen
now as you can see is a is a corner property on the we don't have your exhibits up yet
hold on a second let me thought i had my share screen on
here we go
uh it's a corner property it has a in the middle it has a small parking area and then in the back
it has what was originally a garage that was built in the 1950s that is part of the property
uh the previous uses as i can tell as i've been able to tell there was a chinese restaurant there
for a number of years and prior to that there was originally was a tailor shop uh this would be a
conversion to the first floor which would be residential as i understand it the property
across the street there which i'm bringing up the uh the the fancy red brick building is in
process of being converted also to residential. The only CMX use that I can
find on this block, you can see a little corner of it there, is this daycare
center which is right next door. Mord, do you agree with what I've said so far?
yes yes everything is correct uh we just uh it was empty for many many years the first floor
and nobody was interested in it or nothing like that because all the businesses like lined up
like next block on torsdale avenue and so we we basically just clean it up and like paint the
building and make it look better and we prefer to do it like a residential because i live in
actually on the second floor apartment and it's that it is very quiet right now
It's that it is very quiet right now
you don't have a lot of trafficking for like a
You don't have a lot of traffic in for like a corner store on all that and I know like the neighbors prefer that way
so it's not
Powering like this why like them want us to put the cameras and stuff like that because this corner
Taking a lot of attraction of stuff. You don't want it. So like that is don't bring all those kind of traffic
Into the into the neighborhood
Like you don't want it like as a corner store or food traffic in bringing in to those
a small corner store in those type of places so and on the roof deck is existing roof is actually
was there a deck we just want to provide it better make it better and uh we want to get a
permit for it too so it's like you see on the second floor if like you leno you can show us
the middle picture please the other picture with the middle with the gate yes so we can see what
we're talking about like just add a deck on the roof so it's not on the top roof or something
like that it's not like we're going out of the structure of the building or out of our lines so
we staying in our lines it's five away from the from the property lines from around the building
so we cover all that i just uh if lan i'm gonna switch the camera to the different picture there
so we can see what I talking about and the other back what it was a garage many
many years ago it was a garage it was a make safe on it we fix it we fix the
roof we fix the collapsed wall over there with a permit you can see it in a
history there we had permits and everything got done properly and just we
want to add is never done a bathroom there like a toilet and is actually
going to be my workshop slash office so I wanted to have like a toilet so I
don't have to come upstairs every time I want to use the restroom and that would
be this bit small building here on the left beyond the spirit we're not seeing
anything but the first view of the property hold on a second
zoom is giving me trouble i'm sorry here we go
back into zoom back into share and that would be this one you can see here the uh the the place
where the deck would be placed in is is the back of the uh of the longshore avenue facing building
there's the little garage space and then the portion here to the left is the uh it was the
garage that was built in the 50s that he wants to install the bathroom into
do you have a plan that shows where the deck uh that shows the deck that you're proposing
we do hold on one second because on the refusal i think that was one of the refusals not being a
being five foot setback oh no no we send it with the file i don't know why you didn't get it
but leonel gonna provide it right okay green so you address that issue yes yes yes yes that's
the thing what i want to do address the issues get a like how everything's solved
here here are the plans as i have them right here so as you see on the plans you can see like in
the middle you see like the where is darker like the middle picture you see where the darker spots
right above above where it was lionel so right there is a darker spot is like actually where
is the deck going to be is showing up up up up up up lionel up on the right on the right
and the discrimination yeah I know this where is the deck gonna be here yeah
this is what you're talking about yes and and then like right there you have
the yard in between so we're not counseling the yard or taking any spots
from the arts or or let and then we have the this texture the real texture is
already there and then we have our house in there and you can see the roof deck
is actually in there i can show you actually on the camera i'm home i can show you the place
and uh it's just like his existing roof and we just want to do like a deck there on top of the
roof and we have the door already like it was in this section of the building so people use it as
a deck them just don't have it uh finished you know nice okay so you addressed the issue of the
five-foot setback for the deck correct? Correct. Frank Sherman? Yes. Maybe we
make proviso for a five-foot setback for the deck as proviso. You can see that on
the guidelines on the plans like where is the plan like the property line and
the property line and how far sitting back the deck is like a more than four
how far sitting back the deck is like a
five feet actually so the revision you made is did that revise did that revise
the plan is in the plans yes it's in the plan showing the five foot the
guideline showing the guard line of the property and then what is the deck
seeking all right so it may not be necessary to do a proviso if it's in the
plan. Is that correct, Sharon? I believe it was refused on the basis of the setback. Is that the
same plan that was reviewed by L&I, or has it changed since then? More? Is this the original
plan that you gave me, or is it the revised plan? No, it's the advised plan. We never gave them on
the first plans we just advise them the plans later on for the plans we didn't
have this one again oh yes show us please the the plans again we can see on
the plan where is the property line and where is the deck actually so as you can
see the property line on the right hand side going across on the left on the
left on the left all the way on the left yeah you can see the property line going
all the way back and you can see the deck actually sitting far back you can
see it's like living six foot away from the property line okay all right so it's
in the plan and with that we don't need it as a proviso exactly that's accurate
i believe in both in both sides also okay all right all right any questions from the board
anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
chris you can unmute yourself and speak regarding this case yes hello my name is chris labovitz
chris l-a-b-o-v-i-p-z i represent the tacconi civic association um the reason there was concern
excuse me mr labovitz yes we swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
enough about the truth i do thank you please proceed uh we did not oppose the construction
that i guess the variance the main concern was you know the potential use of the uh the garage
in the back um i had gotten calls from various neighbors i had seen it myself a lot of the work
was being done on the sidewalk and without permits so the concern was that things were being done
that weren't being stated in the plans. There were sidewalks being dug up,
plumbing being ran, and the concern was that the rear garage was not going to be an office,
that it was going to be another apartment, and that was the concern of the neighbors. That's
why in the one proviso we just had that the back garage would remain a garage, you know,
an office, not a living quarter. And the reason that, this is Sharon Soledig, and that can't be
because that is what is applied for uh was applied for so any deviation from that would already be
a violation of the zoning permit if one is granted perfect
does that answer your question mr love absolutely that's the and that's my uh you know some of my
ignorance in this but i'm just no no no no problem no problem so learning process for everyone thank
oh it certainly is yes but thank you very much thank you thank you anyone else who wishes to
testify in this matter please raise your hand if you haven't already done so
no hands raised chair you can proceed thank you planning commission
uh the north delaware district plan recommends remapping to rm1 for this parcel as part of a
larger neighborhood remapping to reflect the existing multi-family and a formerly commercial
block accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you again uh
calendar number 39640 4832 longshore avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes okay uh that completes the list carol that does complete
the list karen earlier you said you'd like to speak with us offline so does the board is the
board okay we she did the sharon said she needs about 10 minutes we could do that now can i ask
we could do that now can i ask can we instead do it before the afternoon sessions because i'm
can we instead do it before the afternoon sessions
still in the lurk hearing oh okay sure so we'll figure around that 145. yes that would be perfect
thank you i'll send out an invitation to do it on zoom all right thank you so the board 145
we'll get on with shower okay okay any other unfinished business tanya no chair we're dismissed
Okay, see you everyone at 145. Be safe. Okay, great. See you later.
Uh, you let us know when we're going.
We're ready? We're going? Yes, we are. Okay, good. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is
Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's
hearing along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, our Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza,
and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Also, our Board Administrator,
Ms. Tanya Sunket, and our Board Attorney, Sharon Saleta, will also be in attendance.
For those of you who haven't participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we'll begin this afternoon's
session by reading a list of cases to be continued. If you believe any announced case
is being continued in error, we will give you an opportunity to respond. After reading the
continuance list and receiving any feedback, we will then take any additional continuance request.
Then, once we've confirmed which hearings are being continued, Vice Chair Carol Tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session.
When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other interested parties in the matter identify themselves for the record.
We will then hear the appellant's presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public not represented by an attorney will be given an opportunity to testify.
We will finally hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
At the hearing's conclusion, we will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in executive session.
Any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled Wednesday session.
Please note the following changes related to the virtual format.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses
identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I will repeat, if you wish to
testify by phone you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to
unmute yourself finally to enter an appearance excuse me finally to enter an
appearance statement call Google pound 267 270 5548 that's Google pound 267
270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
with that said we can begin but before vice chair Tenere calls any first it calls our first case
we'd like to announce that the following matters are being continued
calendar number 39624 9425 busselton avenue calendar numbers 39351 39416
let me start that one again calendar numbers 39351 and calendar number 39416
four six four nine and use me again
four six four nine and use me again three six four nine and three six five one north
15th street let me do that in its entirety so there's no confusion calendar number three nine
three five one and three nine four one six four four three six four nine and three six five one
north 15th or being continued also calendar number four zero zero six four four two zero zero chester
avenue if the reading of it if anyone believes that we call the case in error to be continued
please raise your hand at this time no hands chair thank you at this time we will take any
other requests for continuances or withdrawals please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you tanya uh madam vice chair you can please call the first case
calendar number 39417 6367-73 lancaster avenue the attorney is rachel pritzker
rachel you've been promoted to a panelist you can unmute yourself and share your screen as
necessary okay please identify yourself spell your name for the record sorry carol
okay rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r pritzker law group 1635 marcus street suite 1600
philadelphia pa 19103 i'm the attorney for this matter and we have um thank you one second do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. And also do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. You may proceed. So we have Aaron
as well who is part of the owner's representation and then Scott Woodruff from Design Blends who
are our architects. So I'd like to have him be sworn in as well as I go through this.
are they both on it'd be
all right so they would have to raise their hand okay
well while we're waiting for them I'll share my screen and start
okay we have a scott woodruff thank you mr woodruff do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth and nothing about the truth one minute carol i have to get oh okay tanya
Okay, Scott, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Mr. Woodruff
You've unmuted yourself
Can you speak?
Yep, I'm here
Mr. Woodruff, do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth and nothing but the truth yes can you put your name and address on the record
please scott woodruff 4001 main street philadelphia pa 19127 thank you okay rachel
so we're here today on uh 6367 lancaster avenue which is on the northeast corner of overbrook
avenue and lancaster avenue this application is for an existing structure that is currently
laid out as eight four-bedroom units. The proposal we have is to increase the multifamily household
living from 59 units to 67. However, as you'll see through our plans, we're actually going to be
converting the four-bedroom units into two-bedroom units. As you can imagine, four-bedroom units make
it pretty difficult to rent out to a variety of different types of individuals and have made it
hard to keep this building going as far as the mark
um, to keep this building, um, going as far as the, uh, market is concerned and providing, uh,
a better mix of housing. What is the name? What is the name of the building? It's called Lincoln
Court. Okay. It's right on the corner. If you're familiar with that area. I am. Yeah. Yeah. So the
other, uh, refusal we have is for, um, in multifamily household living, you have to have
eight additional units. Um, we're adding eight additional units. We need eight additional spaces.
However, as you'll see from our plans, this is an existing building with existing parking,
and there's really no way to provide any additional parking spaces.
Otherwise, they'd have to go on the front lawn, or we'd have to come up with some sort
of an underground structure or parking garage, which is not really feasible for this site.
I'm going to go into the plans.
Scott, do you want to share your screen to show the plans?
Rachel, while he's pulling up the plan, how many are existing parking spaces now?
I think we have nine. No, more than that. Scott, do you remember how many parking spaces?
Currently 17.
Thank you.
okay scott you've been promoted to a panelist you can share your screen
okay so the renovation uh in question is this front building um there's a larger building
that's kind of behind here the parking is situated between the two buildings as you can see
so that the scope of what we're proposing is to basically split the units in this building
instead of two units on each floor plate into four units on each floor plate.
And I can share the proposed unit plans as well.
so on the first floor we are proposing three one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom units
and we're also proposing an accessible ramp to the first level to bring the building up
to accessibility code for current code standards which is currently not there so these dwelling
units would also follow um type b accessibility as well as needs to for 2018 code standards
as we go up buildings the levels two three and four are all typical um pretty standard two
bedroom one bath units again these are existing four bedroom uh units so our goal is basically
to split these units uh in half really same bed count we're actually lowering the overall
bed count in the building um as we have three one-bedroom units and 13 two-bedrooms as opposed
to the eight four-bedroom units now i can also just to give an aerial for everyone uh this is
the apartment complex currently so again this is the building um that we're proposing the
change in units to and in the back here is kind of you can see the existing parking
so just to go through the the refusals um so we have a refusal for um increasing from 59
units to 67 although again this is currently located in rsd3 um although it's been a long
multi-family building and property for at least since 1986 if not earlier than
that the other refusal is for and again like Scott said we're actually going to
be reducing it from 32 bedrooms to I think 29 so a net reduction of about
three bedrooms so lowering the density actually and then for the parking again
they require new accessory parking spaces be added for each dwelling unit
however again this is an existing structure and we did look into the
ability to do parking it was one of our concerns in addition to the community
however Scott can explain to you and as you can see on this plan there's really
no place for any additional parking to go it's also probably worth noting that
within the comprehensive plan although this property is designated as RSD 3 it
is in the Overbooked Farms Historic District and sort of speaks to wanting additional density
speaks to wanting additional density and higher density in this area
and higher density in this area.
specifically so this use although we are reducing the density the use for
multifamily and the level of density is actually supported by the 2035
comprehensive plan I don't know if the board is interested in hearing any more
about our inability to provide parking I know we met with the community group
they were very overall supportive of the project specifically understood the need
to decrease the unit sizes. Their only concern like ours was was the parking, although again
we kind of talked through all the ways that we we looked at providing additional parking. It's just
really not feasible on this site and putting it in the front of the building or on the like on
the front yard doesn't give us it gives us generates more refusal and also it's probably
not a safe place to put parking on this front yard. Otherwise there really is nothing else
as far as additional parking is concerned.
Who is the RCO?
Is it Overbrook Farms Club?
Yes, it's OCF.
Overbrook Farms.
OFC, yeah.
OFC, my apologies, yeah, OFC.
So they wanted more parking, is that accurate?
Their only concern was parking.
They really were just saying that,
you know there's not enough off-street parking they believe and they didn't you know they were
concerned with if students come back or if you know if people continue to move into this neighborhood
that you know there's going to be parking issues and we've we agreed with them but we were not able
to come up with other mechanisms to add additional parking and this is also an extremely uh it's it's
Lancaster Avenue and Overbrook so you can see there's there's on-street parking available um I
I think the church has parking as well, but we weren't able to work out anything where
we could provide additional off-site parking.
The church does not have parking.
Or I guess that's parking next to the church.
My apologies.
Is that a public parking lot back there?
In back of the building.
It's a tremendous density problem there.
but the neighbors are okay with the density correct or correct me if i'm wrong
correct they're they had no issues wanted more parking correct
because as i mentioned we're actually going to be reducing the density although we're going to
have 16 units instead of eight they're going to be two bedroom units instead of four bedroom units
four bedrooms yeah yep so that's uh sort of where we stand and uh again we did look at parking and
you know not dissimilar to most a lot of other neighborhoods parking is a continual concern
but we're hoping with the reduction in the size of units um and that hopefully less people will
need cars and you know we're also located near to some uh public transit as well
all right um do you have anyone else rachel i think aaron's on the call but unless the board
has any specific questions related to ownership i don't i don't know that i need to bring him
does the board have any other questions no
no okay is there anyone who wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan we feel that this proposal
is in character with the existing condition of the property and does not pose any negative
impacts on the surrounding area accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the variance
Calendar number 39417-6367-73, Lancaster Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Calendar number 40.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Can I interject, please?
We do have a case, and the attorney, Mr. Clinton, is here.
that he wishes to request a continuance for.
Okay, Mr. Clinton, please identify yourself with the record.
Give me one minute to bring him on.
Mr. Clinton, you can unmute yourself and speak to the continuance.
Thank you, Ms. Selkett. Appreciate that. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Thank you, Ms. Sunkit, appreciate that.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Henry Clinton for the applicant, Twyman Builders, concerning 16 North Salford, S-A-L-F-O-R-D Street.
This original hearing was scheduled in early March. We got a continuance at that particular time.
We're still trying to sort out a few things with the community group.
So I'm asking for a continuance of this matter.
Henry what's that address again? 16 North Salford, S-A-L-F-O-R-D Street. I don't have it on my list.
Sharon, Tanya? Yes it is on the hearing list. It's not on your documents but it's scheduled for today.
Okay I just didn't see it on my two o'clock list that's why I asked. All right I'm sorry to have
repeat mr clinton just give me that calendar number again i have a 16 north southford street
on the calendar number
under number
somebody if anybody has it
it's not on our list so or it's calendar number 39528 39528 thank you 16 north is it south for
sal yes s-a-l-f-o-r-d okay o-r-d all right uh calendar number three nine five two eight
16 north south fourth street will be continued thank you very much i appreciate the time thank
calendar number four zero zero five four six one two south ninth street the attorney is david orphan
David you've been promoted to panelists you can unmute yourself and share your screen as necessary
Mr. Orphanides can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name and then
I have two other questions. Sure my name is David Orphanides I'm with Orphanides and Turner
and i'm here on behalf of the owners of the subject property um the mean uh the
the owner who's here with me today is john bellazanzi okay do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth and nothing but the truth i do do you also agree to wait the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy i do you may proceed
mr chairman should we swear in the person with david
you can do it now or when david's done with his presentation either way
a lot of wait there's done his presentation that way he'll ask if he adopts it okay we'll do it at
that point okay so um again david orphanetes um good afternoon 612 south 9th street um calendar
number 40054, also with the calendar number, newer calendar number with Eclipse M1-2020
or MI-2020-00088. You should have been submitted to you last week, my package that I'll be
going through today. And to roll through that, let me just go over to here for a second.
our exhibits so index our exhibit one is the posting of the photographs for today's hearing
of the posting of the notice and the notice of refusal um that we received um south night the
property fronts on south 9th street the west side of south 9th street and on the east side of south
percy street it goes through so the first few photos there are from south 9th here are the
photos from South Percy Street. As you can see, excuse me, we have our tax clearance certification
for the owners of the subject property included at Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is a deed showing that
Mr. Belizanzi, who's on the phone with me today, and his wife, Oriania Papadimitriou, are the
owners of the subject property so before is our aerial photograph for those of
For those of you that are familiar with this part of South Philadelphia
you that are familiar with this part of
or just south of South Street, again, we're located on the west side of South 9th Street.
You can see right here, and we go through to South Percy Street.
We're across from where the Whole Foods is located on the north side of South Street.
That's just down below that.
To the south of us is Bainbridge Street.
here's a close-up of the property 612 south 9th street you'll see as i proceed that my clients
also own 608 south 9th street and 610 south 9th street they live at 610 south 9th street
which similar to this property goes through from south 9th to south percy
they recently rehabilitated 608 south 9th street which i'm showing you right here which is two
properties to the north for a similar type of renovation is what we're doing today multi-family
in the front structure addition to the garage in the rear the existing garage in the rear to create
another dwelling unit to the rear of that and you'll see some photographs of the interior of
that property that has recently been developed that gives you an idea of the high level of high
quality of the renovation that's going to be happening here here's a view satellite image
from the east you can see a subject property the south 9th street facade extending all the way to
the rear the property occupies 100 of the lot except for a slight setback at south percy street
which we'll be maintaining where the garage is located at the back here is 610 right to the right
where my clients live and then to further to the right there the next property to the right is 608
south 9th this board recently um heard actually from my office uh application for variances for
the property located the next property to the north 606 and 608 south 9th street both for
um some dimensional variances for additions to that property and i was last to you for a um
for the music monkey jungle in one of the ground floor commercial units there so we've been this
this block or these couple properties here have been in front of the board several times
over the last several months here's an aerial from the north south percy street to the right
south ninth to the left some larger structures you can see here on the opposite side of south
Percy Street from us on the west side view from the west aerial here you have
again right now you have an existing structure we have our four-story
structure at the front which drops down towards the rear and then the garage
you'll see in some photographs back to South Percy Street the plan is and James
Campbell and Eric Horowitz are on the phone from Campbell Thomas architects
and they're the architects for the project they can get in a little more
detail but essentially what we're talking about doing is the same thing they did at 608 south
9th which is right over here to the left two properties to the left which is to demolish
and create an open courtyard in the middle take out the middle part of the existing structure the
one-story portion and create an inner courtyard we're going to be converting the front into a
multi-unit dwelling and in the back you'll see there's a one-story garage on top of that we're
adding two stories and that's going to be a single individual unit. The property is zoned RM1
and it does allow for more residential units than what we're proposing. We're proposing fewer
residential units than what are permitted. And here's a view to this from the south.
The property, as I indicated, is zoned RM1, which allows for the proposed multifamily use. We do not
have a use variance in this case. There are just some dimensional variances. You can see South
street to the north we have cmx 2.5 and cmx2 properties to the north of us to the west of us
rsa5 across the street and as i indicated even though the property the budding property to the
north is occupied by my clients as a single family two properties from us to the north 608
south 9th street was approved for a multi-family or was permitted for a multi-family and then you
multi-family mixed use extending further to the north to south street copy of our zoning permit
application at tab six which outlines the three-family dwelling that we're proposing
for the ninth street south ninth street structure in this and the single family dwelling at south
percy street we'll be maintaining uh parking uh in the garage existing garage at south percy street
You will see with our revised drawings that we've reduced the height of the structure
that we've reduced the height of the structure slightly from what was originally proposed.
slightly from what was originally proposed.
Our zoning drawings that we originally submitted, you'll see when we get to the revised drawings,
the layout remains essentially the same here. You can see that I'm circling with my cursor.
The open area that we're creating in the middle, there'll be some rear decks off the back of the now single structure
that'll be fronting on south the west side of south knight and some decks to the rear of the
structure that'll be fronting on south percy street here are the two exist uh two car parking
um it was the property was previously approved for accessory off-street parking and we'll be
maintaining that um the as part of our revisions we did uh while we were waiting to get in front of
the zoning board the architects took the project to the board of building standards for some uh
considerations regarding egress and those were addressed and one of the
things you'll see in the revised drawing is that there's an additional fire
scape that's been added to the rear that then leads to a designated egress
through the garage at South Percy Street out to South Percy Street the proposed
elevations you to the left you'll have the proposed elevations at the South
9th Street structure all the way to the left these were the original drawings
they've been revised lately with the with the revised drawings but essentially
what we're doing is we're the fourth floor of the existing structure that
fronts on South 9th Street is a very low fourth floor ceiling so what we're
doing is we're essentially raising that slightly to make a more functional fourth
floor here you can see the decks at the rear that we're talking about for each
of the units and then here's the um the proposed structure at south percy street right now it's a
one-story garage and we're adding the two-story addition above balconies juliet balconies at the
second floor fronting on south percy street a nicer uh entrance uh man door uh pedestrian door
and then here are the decks that we're proposing off of the rear of the structure at south percy
street copy of the notice of refusal as i indicated we do not have any use for fusals
we have an open area refusal as as i indicated presently the structure occupies a hundred percent
of the lot but with the demolition of a portion of it what we have left is well not a hundred
percent just short of a hundred percent um because there is a small and i'll show you on the site plan
there's a structure that extends to the rear as it presently exists in which we're maintaining
that building line is slightly within the rear property line at south percy street
so this area that i'm circling right here with the cursor is the the only existing open area on the
property as it presently stands and again we're actually increasing the open area by demolishing
this center section of the existing structure and uh and creating two separate structures and again
multi uh multiple structures and multiple principal uses are permitted in rm1 with that being said
we have a 20.32 proposed open area whereas 25 is required in intermediate lots in the rm1
zoning district and 38 feet is the permitted height we're going slightly above that uh at
the front well not slightly but above that at the front but you'll see in the elevations for the
existing structure the existing structure exceeds what's permitted in the rm1 zoning district and
we're only modifying that slightly the structure at south percy street the two-story addition upon
the garage will be comply or be below the 38 foot permitted height copy of our appeal to the zoning
board in the profit project information form so here we have the revised drawings again there's
a fire escape in this area that we're proposing we've modified ever so slightly i think by about
an inch um the deck there's a small recess deck here off the rear of the proposed structure itself
percy street that we've modified slightly and again we've lowered the what we started with
as far as the p the ridge um at the south ninth street structure and the top of the dormers they've
been dropped the foot we did increase the height ever so slightly of the percy street structure
I think by two inches or so but again that is well within the permitted 38-foot
height limit for RM1 so we're not building that structure as high as it
could be but just as high as we need so here you can see Jim Campbell and Eric
uh Jim Campbell and Eric Horowitz put together this image um historically you have the three
Horowitz put together this
story main floors and then you have a very shallow fourth floor with dormer windows off the front and
the back um photos from 19 photo from 1954 and a photo from 2019 I have more current photos further
on in my exhibit book and then you could see essentially what we're proposing here to the
right ever so slight increase in the height at the ridge which won't be noticeable from the street
and won't have any impact on the properties surrounding us other than perhaps our own
property to the north and again they're very very in a very minuscule or de minimis fashion
we are obviously to the north of the properties to the south of us which we don't know
Campbell Thomas prepared this axiomatic volumetric, volumetric comparison between existing and
proposing.
And again, to the left is the existing structure, the four-story structure that drops down to
the lower structure to Percy Street with the small, teeny setback from Percy.
And here is what we're proposing.
So you can see what we've done is we've kind of increased the floor to ceiling and
headroom at the fourth floor extended a little bit back which you can see is clearly designated
on the site plans that we provided the zoning drawings that were provided to lni with the
application and then our revised drawings and then you here you can see the two-story addition on top
of the one-story garage to the rear here's the view from the northwest existing to the left
proposed to the right. Our floor plans we have at Exhibit 13. I can have the architects go through
that with you with any questions. But again, three family dwelling at the front, one family dwelling
at the project on the building on South Percy Street. Here's a current photograph of the front
of south ninth the existing structure the surrounding properties as i described my my client
uh lives in this property right next door to the right and here is the uh which is 610 and then 608
is the property that was recently re rehabilitated similar to what we're presently proposing the next
building to the north is what i mentioned was a different owner other clients about my firms and
for dimensional variances and then it came back for use for one of the commercial units on the
ground floor there are other photos at tab 14 that you can take a look at i would like you to
see this is the rear existing rear of and this is on page 21 of exhibit 14 the existing rear
at south percy street the existing garage that we'll be putting two stories above to the left
of that top photo is my client's property with their garage and then the deck that they have on
top of that garage at the present time again if you wanted to take a little more time with the
photos you could my client can go to great length about the condition of the property
interior of the property it is was is and was in terrible shape you know if you scroll through the
photographs you can see how bad the existing building is and was and they're on the top of
this photograph this page you can see my client pointing out just that fact skylights in bad
shape walls exposed there's interestingly a safe at the rear of the first floor but if you go here
color I just want to show you this is this is some of the things in the upper floor I mean it
clearly has not been updated this is a second floor and a very long time my client can tell
you how bad it was to be cleaned out here's an existing kitchen area toilet
here's the bathroom for what it is so taking a blighted building and turning
it into what you'll see is here you'll see at the back of at the end of tab 15
photographs of the interior of similar building at 608 that he recently is
finishing renovating you can see the high quality of the finishes that he's
done throughout the building exposed brick and this is basically what he
plans to do utilizing the lower area the egress wells or the bilko doors
Bill code doors opening them up so that light can get to the lower levels
is opening them up so that light can get to the lower levels.
But here you can see
Some of the things that he's done and that if you know clear stories going up two floors things that he plans on doing at this property
i did include a tab 16 zoning archives for our property for 608 and 610 if you care to look at
them again 610 is my client's property utilized as a single family 608 if you wanted to see
what was permitted for the similar project to the north we there was some questions about
south percy street whether it was on the city plan or not it is and i've included that information at
tab 19. tab 21 and 22 are the rm1 use and dimensional requirements per the zoning code
tab 23 is the email from the planning commission designating bella vista neighbor association
as the as the coordinating rco the list of addresses our 14 303 notice for the community
group meeting that was held um our certificate mailing uh documentation of that is also tab 23
and then at tab 24 you can see our um letter of non-opposition from that community group from
bella vista neighbors association um our community group meeting was um held back in in march and
then um i did reach out to councilman squilla's office both to marie barron and sean mcgonigle
i've not heard back from them as to their position on on the case but you can see a tab 24
I'm highlighting with my cursor the non-opposition of the community group
following their March 10th community group meeting.
With that, I would ask, hey, John, can you, if you're unmuted,
can you unmute yourself so the chairman can swear you in?
Is John here?
Hey, Jim and Eric, are you here?
Jim Campbell, Eric Horowitz, if they could be unmuted and if they can unmute themselves.
Okay, are we unmuted now?
We hear you.
Hey, John.
David Panetti.
So can you please, if the chairman, Mr. DiCicco,
chairman DiCicco could swear John Belisanzian
and Jim Campbell and Eric Horowitz as well?
John, good afternoon.
Would you please identify yourself with a record,
spell your name for this demographer?
Yes, John, J-O-N, Belisanzi, B as in boy,
E-L-I-S-O-N-Z as in zebra, I.
and your address uh 610 south 9th street philadelphia 19147 you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you david and john did you
hear the statements that i made to the zoning board yes i did we were listening to everything
i'm glad to hear i didn't put you to sleep um it was very interesting actually what's that
It was very interesting, actually.
Oh, you learned?
Did you learn something?
No, I liked the way it was all put together.
Okay, glad to hear.
That's good.
He's going to charge you more, John.
Yeah, I know.
Exactly.
I'm sorry, John.
You should have spoken to the board before you hired me, I think.
But in any event, were the statements I made to the board true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they were.
And would you adopt them as your own?
Yes, I would.
Is there anything very quickly that you would like to add to what I stated to the board?
Basically, you had it right.
The building's in terrible shape, but it has a lot of potential.
They're very large lots, 20 by 114 feet.
You can do a lot with them, and the units are beautiful.
They're all about 1,300 to 1,500 square feet, mostly two bedrooms, a couple one bedrooms there.
But, you know, it's a project that needs to be done, and it's right next to my home, and I've been at my home for 35 years.
I've owned 608 since 2003, and I always wanted 612, and when Franklin became ill, you know, I spoke to his daughter about buying the property, and she had seen what I did with 608.
um you know i spoke to his daughter about buying the property and she had seen what i did with 608
so she was she felt the property was in good hands and uh we're just going to do the best we can with
it okay thank you john and then uh jim and eric um could you speak to let everybody know you can
speak yes uh my my name is james campbell uh campbell thomas architects 1504 south street
philadelphia pennsylvania uh mr campbell we swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you and jim did you hear the statements i made to the board today
i did david and they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes they are
there's did i get everything right i think yes you certainly did okay and would you adopt those
statements as your own i would okay um is there anything you would like to add regarding
their revisions to the drawings
anything about what we're proposing
to do as far as modifying
the existing structure
no I think
you made a quite
comprehensive presentation
thank you again
thank you Mr. Campbell
I have nothing further to present
and we are here to answer questions
or respond to the board
or anything else that anybody may have joins us and thank you questions from the board
no no no no anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you tanya planning commission
this property is indicated for residential use on city plan we feel that this development is
in character with the block accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the dimensional
variances thank you david did you say to revise plans there are revised plans and how many pages
two pages pages okay thank you calendar number wait wait a minute i'm sorry this is sharon slid
it david did you submit the revised plans form yeah i did forward it email to you today
okay um i'd like to look can you tell us what the revisions are yeah so i'm i'm they're highlighted
here and this is i did forward this to you highlighted so again you can see here the
dimensions of this deck off the rear of the third floor were slightly altered um again i think by
just a couple of inches the addition of the fire escape into the rear courtyard and some of the
upper levels and again um jim can correct me if i'm wrong but they took this matter to the bbs
while we were waiting for the zoning board hearing to address that to make sure that
our zoning drawings addressed any changes that might be need to be made through the building
permit process we added you can see me circling here a trash area
okay those are fine thank you and the heights were dropped heights were dropped you can see here
slightly of the 9th Street structure
and then increased
ever so slightly, I think by
a couple inches, but
again, well below the 38 feet
at the Percy Street structure.
Here you can see the fire escape
on the rear elevation
from South 9th Street. Thank you, David.
And they are in the revised
proviso plan form that I provided.
They're fine to do by
revised plans.
Thank you. Calendar number 40054, 612 South Main Street. My vote is yes or with proviso.
Revised plan two pages approved today.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you Jim.
Thank you John.
thank you eric you can calendar number three nine nine five six one zero one two ellsworth street
the attorney is rachel pritzker
Once she gets on, she's still on the roof.
Hi Rachel. Hi. Okay, can you put your name and address on the record please?
Yes. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, Pritzker Law Group, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA-19103.
And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
You may proceed.
So this is 1012 Ellsworth.
I believe Jordan Katz, who is the owner, is here with me today.
I'd like to, if he's there, I'd like to bring him on the record, please.
jordan you can unmute yourself hey i'm here jordan do you agree to um you're not waving anything
do you do you agree to swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
thank you name and address name is jordan katz i live at 1318 ellsworth street philadelphia pa
okay so before the board today is a application for the renovation and expansion of the property
located at 1012 Ellsworth. It's currently a RSA 5 property with a garage out front that we are
trying to just propose the legalization of the existing curb cut for accessory off-street
parking for two spaces for this single-family home. Basically, the only variance we have is
under section 14803 1C1, which requests the variance to maintain the parking, legalize the
existing parking space for accessory off-street parking. I will share my
screen just to bring up the plans.
So this is what we're proposing. Again, just a single-family home, RSA 5, and to
legalize an existing curb cut for accessory off-street parking accessed by
front street we met with the community group which was the pass young um civic association
and they voted in support of this project i believe i have the letter of support
in the packet that was submitted to the board
this is the existing site so it already has a garage and the curb cut
this is an existing garage here right correct yeah yeah yeah it's an existing garage here
as you can see um so we're just going to be renovating the structure um there's some
structural issues that we're dealing with, but this application is just for the legalization
of the accessory off-street parking for two cars. And again, we met with PASIUNC and their
letter of support is right here in non-opposition, nine to zero, for the support of this project.
Here's our mailers. And we also talked to the near neighbors at 1214 and 1210 Ellsworth,
who also submitted letters of support for the project um i just want to uh jordan have you
heard my testimony and do you adopt it as your own i do okay i'm happy to take any questions
that the board may have i just want to make sure this was uh you know actually i live around the
block from this and this was mr katz didn't originally own it this was owned by the demarco
family i believe is that correct jordan yeah no jordan just purchased it all right that that's
not in the material i just want to make sure i'm talking about the same property okay because
there's there's a property i think at 10 14 it also has a garage correct and they get correct
and they gave us a letter of support from that neighbor as well thank you yep uh any questions
from the board no no no no anyone anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter if so please
raise your hand we do have just stamp plans as well just wanted to mention
that that we submitted to Sharon so to make sure that gets on the record no
no hands are up chair thank you tanya planning commission
hands up chair
this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan because this is an existing
garage and curb cut we have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you very much this
is sharon i'll confirm that i reviewed the plans and um the revised plans form and they are fine
thank you calendar number three nine nine five six one zero one two Ellsworth Street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
good luck thank you thank you guys welcome Mr. Katz take
Calendar number, or MI-2020-000287, 4028 Westminster Avenue.
The attorney is Joseph Consul, or if I make it Italian, it'll be Consul A.
Frank, which is it?
Is it Consul or Consul A?
Council, Council A, but we'll accept Council.
If you're here for that case, please raise your hand.
4028 Westminster Avenue.
You've been promoted to panelist.
You can share your screen, and you can testify as you wish.
Okay, great.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record,
and please spell your name for the court reporter?
Yes, hi, Joseph Consul, Consul A.
We're talking to my grandfather.
It is Consul Madison, LLP, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204, Media, Pennsylvania, 19063.
three. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, yes. I don't have the option to share my screen. Is that something you have to,
wait, I think I just got it. Hold on one second. That work? It's there. Great. So,
Hello, everyone. Joseph Consul. I am here for the applicant, which is SFIG LLC. The property owner
is represented by German Yakubov. He is also on this call. The property we are here to talk about
is 4028 Westminster Avenue, which is a couple blocks off of Girard Avenue between 40th and
41st Street in the Belmont neighborhood. This is a 1,528 square foot RSA 3 property,
part of a semi-attached duplex. The property that it's attached to 4030 has a multi-family
variants attached to that um our property let's see if i can get you is vacant and in disrepair
it was purchased by mr yakubov's company the original plan that we presented to the rco in
february and the one that's uh on our refusal uh and and in the original plans that we submitted
was for six units. The RCO was against that, asked us to revise it to some of the specifications
they had spoke of and come back. The world stopped, so we didn't get back to the RCO until
last week and presented new plans, which calls for three units and an addition to the back of
the property that matches the back line of the adjacent properties our original submission
had a larger addition which the rco did not approve of so we resubmitted the plans you
guys have the the proviso is in this packet um should be right down here
we got approval from the rco with the provisos included in their letter uh we got a vote in
favor uh as long as we agreed to uh reduce it from six to three units uh match the back of
match the back of the property lines. And they also wanted German to keep the facade
the property lines and they also want
looking the way that it does or as similar as possible. It's, as you can see, it's kind of a
unique looking building on Westminster Avenue there. We're surrounded by other multifamily
properties um see if we can get me to give me an idea the back of the property
he is going to be putting three units in the property let me get the plans up real quick
that are three one-bedroom units uh the basement itself is accessible only by the first unit
However, the backyard is accessible by all three units to allow for trash storage prior to trash day.
Let's see.
I believe that's it.
We've got a first floor one unit, second floor one unit, third floor one unit.
They're all going to be below market rate units starting at 850.
And with that, I'll call German.
If he's here, I believe that he is.
You can raise his hand.
German, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Can you hear me?
Yes, so hello, everyone.
So we met with the community back in January.
We need your full name and address, please.
Spell your name for the stenographer.
German Yakubov, last name's Y-A-K-U-B-O-V, at 4028 Westminster Avenue is the property.
So we met with the community. Okay, we're going to get sworn in, okay?
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, so affirm. Thank you, please proceed. Thank you, Tanya.
So we met with the community back in January with our grand plan of expanding the rear addition to as far as we could to conform to RM1 standards because that's what we thought that the rest of the area around it was zoned.
So we wanted to conform to that after meeting with the community and the next door neighbors.
They were opposed to it.
So we came back to the drawing board, reduced the footprint of the building to match the one next to it and the one on the other side, as well as reduced the number of units from six to three.
We met with the community again late last week and presented the new plans to them.
They were supportive of the plan, and I believe the councilwoman's office is supportive of the plan as well, the newly revised plan.
We've been in the neighborhood for a while, so our reputation of staying in the neighborhood and keeping our word after meeting with the community went a long way here.
Thank you, Jared.
That concludes our presentation, unless there's any questions.
Your client, if he adopts your testimony.
Oh, yes.
Chairman, do you adopt everything that I said regarding the project as true and accurate to the best of your outcome?
Thank you.
Mr. Consul, this is Sharon Solita.
Did you say that you're submitting revised plans?
Did you submit the revised plans form?
Yes, you did.
That's right.
Yes, we did.
It's only one page of revised plans.
The other, the one that shows the blueprint is just purely for plan purposes.
thank you thank you uh questions from the board no
anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter please raise your hand
i have cordy you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
please identify yourselves by your name for the stenographer and then i'll swear you in
Cordy, you can unmute yourself.
Moving on, I have Betty Ferguson.
Betty, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
thank thank you can i am i being heard yes just please identify yourself name and address spell
your name for the stenographer well good afternoon um distinguished board zba board i'm betty
ferguson i am the chair of the belmont alliance civic association rco i just
of the Belmont Alliance Civic Association RCO.
I just wanted to reaffirm that.
Ms. Merkerson, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
And if I fail to mention the address,
did you need that?
871 North Holly Street, second floor, Philadelphia, 19104.
I just wanted to reaffirm that we met for the second time around with SFIG, with Jeremy Yacobo,
and we're in favor of the new plans. As long as he does, you know, be mindful of the facade,
this is a historic neighborhood it is old and we have unique buildings and as long as he stays
within compliance of that and just being a good neighbor we're definitely in favor of the new plan
thank you and the plans that he's submitting will be reflective of that
thank you thank you anyone else wish to testify on this matter
cordy you can speak now
i don't know what the problem is he's unmuted at this time anyone else beside cordy
no chair that's all okay uh planning commission
this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan based on the changes made to
the plans and the reduction of units we have no objection to the granting of the revised variances
thank you uh chair could i just interject for a moment please yes please uh in the efforts of
assisting uh cordy um he is not able to speak i gather and in the q a he mentions that the
applicant needs to mention that the approval was made with contingencies
what is there anything other than that was mentioned in your presentation mr
council when you talked about no the plans will reflect that it can't exceed
the property line at the rear of the property next door i think i heard you
say that you're going to restore the facade to its original uh or to keep it according to the
provisors from the rco yes the facade is included it'll be maximum of three units as opposed to six
so hopefully that answers mr cordy's question so i also have a david pickett david you can
unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in. Hello. Yes, please identify yourself, spell your name
for the record. My name is David Pickett, P-I-C-K-E-T-T. I'm president of the West Belmont
Civic Association and RCO in that area. You're swearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I think I can speak a little bit
on cordy because i was also at that meeting she's the next door neighbor um and some of the provisos
that they've yet stated at the meeting which didn't make it into the letter were uh security
cameras at the rear of the house uh not enforceable by uh by the okay i had finished and he also
stated that he would put up security lighting around the back of the house and outside of the
house yeah that's not enforceable but i think in his best interest he would probably agree to do
that anyway that's correct and i believe that's what cordy was calling in about i appreciate that
thank you thank you that's all i have thank you very much anyone else that's all i have chair
thank you calendar number mi2020-000287 4028 westminster avenue my vote is yes with a proviso
revised plan one page approved today my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
yes with proviso thank you everyone thank you thank you calendar number three nine nine six
two thirty seven twenty seven baring street and that's on the northeast corner of north 38th
The attorney is David Orfanides.
can everybody see he's still on their oath so you don't have to see him
yes do you agree to do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do want to make sure that I will waive the reading, and I do want to make sure
that I have a corrected notice of refusal. There was an initial notice of refusal, which is a tabby
of my exhibit package. Then there was a revised notice of refusal to further elaborate the
description of what was being applied for and to add some refusals that I thought were missed
the first time around. Excuse me. This is Sharon Saletti. Yes, we do have the second refusal.
Well, thank you.
Fantastic.
Thank you.
So then you agree to wave and step.
Yes, I do.
You may proceed.
Again, my name is David Orfanides with Orfanides & Toner,
2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Suite 400, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
I'm here this afternoon on behalf of 3727 Bering ST, LLC,
who owns the property.
They recently purchased the property, and we'll go through that.
I have with me today, on behalf of 3727 Bering Street, Nagesh Ravakanti, Amraju Gupta,
and then for the architects who prepared the drawings, I have Kevin Korejko and Mark Wallace.
So just to, if you, Ms. Sunkit, if you identify them ahead of time,
I'll be having them adopt my statements and then also add possible testimony.
all witnesses would need to raise their hand for me to identify them okay so nagesh raju mark
kevin and actually roman sosolsky who's the project manager is also so roman if you can
raise your hand as well okay i'm gonna just proceed um tab one is the posting uh both
the property is located on the northeast corner of bering and north 38th street
we did post both sides we posted with the original notice of refusal which you can see
here and then the revised notice of refusal we don't see any plans yet
oh i'm sorry did i not share the screen i beg your pardon hold on one second
can you see now yes great okay apologize for that skip the step so um again exhibit one is the
posting at the property of the hearing notice for today's hearing um but with both the original
notice of refusal. They're both dated the same date, but then the revised notice of refusal
and the revised notice upon that revised notice of refusal. Exhibit two is our tax clearance,
showing why clients own the property and that property and they are clear.
As I indicated, my clients recently purchased the property February 12th of this year.
and there's the deed at tab three showing them. Tab four is our aerial. The first page is zoomed in
showing our property here in the bottom left-hand corner of the image, again on the northeast corner
as you can see, as you'll see as we proceed. The second page, we're right off the Lancaster
Avenue to the south of us, not far off of Drexel's campus. We're in the Palatin Village section of
the city and it is an existing church you'll see photographs later on it's in pretty bad state of
disrepair both on the inside and out the property as you'll see in a minute is owned rsa3 which
does not allow for multi-family use if we were to demolish the church we would build i think three
single family dwellings here of basically any style that we'd like the goal of my clients all
along from the very beginning was to do everything that they could do to save the church and i think
we've accomplished that here so here in a couple minutes so here's a view from the south showing
the bering street facade of the church there used to be a bell tower on top which uh had to be
removed but stained glass windows at the upper floor those stained glass windows we will be able
to maintain. You'll see later on in the renderings. The next page is a view from the east.
in the renderings the next page is a view from the east it's showing the east wall
and the roof from the north next page my clients do own also at the same time purchase the abutting
property to the north and here's a view from the west in 3d image again to the left see this cream
colored three-story building my property my clients acquired that north 38th street below
bering street to the right hamilton street to the left or to the north so he indicated the property
is i mean but i said rca3 i mean rta1 which does not allow for multi-family it's single family use
one-to-one parking requirement and you'll see that in a second
tab six is our zoning permit application tab seven is our original zoning drawings what you'll see
in these drawings is essentially what the plan to do is is to create two shed dormers right now
it's two stories with the cellar we're going to create five floors within this extremely tall
structure creating two shed dormers to either side of the roof of the either side of the ridge
on the west and east side to create some more livable space at the upper floors and then at
the rear that you can see here back at the site plan and this is the northeast corner of the
property uh we're putting in a four-story structure which is actually basically to serve as the
second means of egress stairway and elevator access it's where ada their ada access will be
provided originally we had an ada ramp on north 38th street leading up to this rear entrance and
ada access to the units on the um on all but i think just a couple of the units which are not
ada access i think two or four um and the architects can specify that um through the
meeting with the community groups meetings with the community groups we eliminated
that ada ramp to get it off of the footway and we ended up as you'll see in the revised drawings
doing a lift along the stairs to the rear which then provides ada access into the building up
here in the left-hand corner of the property which is the southeast corner we're providing
a an enclosed bicycle storage shed that's located within the required distance of the primary
entrance which is and shall remain at bering street street trees there are existing street
trees. We'll be providing as many street trees along Bering Street and North 38th Street as
Fairmount Park Commission and Streets Department will allow us. As you can see, the property is
actually set back, or the building is actually set back from all property lines. So when you
look at it in the photographs, you can't tell because it's paved right up on the south and
west side but it's a detached structure with the front yards side yards rear yards
again these were the drawings that were originally submitted to lni the original notice of refusal
included a refusal for the multi-family originally we proposed 25 units residential dwelling units
Through the RCO process, we were able to reduce that to 22 units.
So you still have the multifamily use because we have more than one.
The parking space requirement was originally 25.
It's one-to-one in RTA1.
We now are required to have 22, but none are provided.
You'll see further down in my exhibits, my clients prepared a nice exhibit showing the proximity of the property to public transportation, car shares, bike shares.
we have an open area refusal the existing structure does not comply with the open area
requirements for the zoning district which is 50 percent the occupied area that we are adding again
is simply the enclosed bicycle structure which i'm now going back to the zoning drawings at tab
seven which again is in the over towards the southeast corner and then again the four-story
addition to the north of the building, on the north side of the building, that's providing
additional stair access or ingress and egress, mainly egress and then the elevator access.
So a minimum amount of increased occupied area over what? The non-conforming structure that
already exists there. Let me go back to that for a second.
And then rear yard depth, the required is 20 feet.
The building, again, doesn't comply.
The north side planning commission
uh the north side planning commission designated baron the side opposite bearing street which is
designated the side opposite there.
the north side of the property as the rear yard the proposed addition is one feet five and five
eighths inches off of that property line uh through the in the revised fallings you see
we've increased that ever so slightly to a foot nine and inches and some change over that
we have a height refusal for the addition on the north the shed dormers are below the overall
height of the structure as you can see here as i zoom in
you know the existing ridge of the building is 72 feet 3 inches
the height of the steeple the bell tower base is 69 feet
the original height highest point of our shed roof dormer
was below that so we're tucking into the either side
either side of the ridge of the existing roof
and that roof will be replaced it'll all be standing metal seam and the height of the dormer
originally was 64 8 3 quarters you'll see in revised drawings that we've reduced the shed
dormer the height we've dropped it ever so slightly and pushed it back from the edge
which effectively raised the bottom of it a little bit from 41 feet 2 and 1 8 i think
to 41 and 11 and change, and we dropped the top of the dormer from 64, 8 and 3 quarters,
I think down to 63, 8 and 3 quarters down the foot.
So it's the addition at the rear, which you can see here to the left,
which again is for the second stair access and the ADA access.
I'm sorry, right here.
This is an existing bump out to the rear, which we're actually lower then as well.
So the additional, even though it exceeds the 38-foot height limit, is much, much lower than the existing structure at any side, even the bump out at the rear, at the north side.
You can see here, again, is the ADA ramp that we eventually eliminated through the RCO process.
And the reduction in the shed dormer, the size of it, was something that the community group wanted us to see.
and you'll see in their letter of support, they alluded to the revisions that we made through the process.
A copy of our zoning appeals at tab 9.
Tab 10, again, is the corrected notice of refusal.
You can see the side yard.
I addressed the side yard refusal.
I believe that accessory structures are required to comply with the yard requirements of the zoning district.
And while we're the addition to the rear to the north side for the stair and elevator complies with the side yard setback, the bike structure on the east side does not.
so technically that is a zero foot side yard and i had for the benefit of the board and the community
just to put that out there i had that added again as long along with a little more detail into
what was being proposed the original notice of refusal didn't include the number of residential
units we were proposing which i thought was pretty important um so again originally had 25 and we've
reduced it to 22 at tab 11 you have our revised zoning drawings cloud and
unclouded we had a survey we didn't have the benefit of a survey when we filed
the original application so a lot of the clouds these dimensional lines have to
do with the existing structure and the setback of the dimensions from the
structure to those property lines other than that there was a slight modification as you'll see in
the revised proviso plan form to the configuration of the rear addition the change of the here on the
right to the north the removal of the ramp the the addition uh inclusion of a of a lift to get from
grade and sidewalk up to the raised landing at the rear of the building and then you'll see
in the elevations the shed dormer height um the top of it was dropped again as i said a foot down
to 63 eight and three quarters the bottom of the dormer went up as it was pushed back
you can see here what ended up happening
a minute is that we as we push this the dormers back from the edge of the building
They wanted the dormers to appear a little more subservient to the primary structure,
so we minimized that as much as possible.
We still needed to sit the outside edge of the dormers upon the lower exterior wall,
the existing exterior walls to the east and west of the church,
so we moved it in to the inside edge of that bearing wall.
That's about as far as we can go, but as a result, as it moved in, it moved up.
That's about as far as we can go, but as a result, as it moved in, it moved up the roof.
And so that's why the bottom of the shed roof height is actually higher than it originally was before it was down in this area.
And then again, we dropped the height of full foot.
We dropped the floor-to-ceiling height at that fifth floor that we're creating to, I think it was about eight feet or so, to minimize the visual impact.
here you can see over in this area again the bicycle storage shelter to the right
we do have a six foot fence along setback along the front of the property at bering street one
other thing we did change was originally we had four foot high fences out at the property line
to enclose the trash enclosure and to for the access to the rear to north of the property
we ended up pushing the fence back in line or behind the forward most portion of the structure
at North 38th Street, and so we raised that to six feet, which is a permitted height in the
residential zoning district. You'll see that here, an interesting feature that the architects can get
into, and I'll go to a clean version of the revised drawings, is that what we did is we created,
and you know I've used these in some other projects where we've created these terraced
light wells coming out of lower areas of the building and you'll see those in the renderings
to either side and we were able to effectuate that again because the property does sit back
from the side property lines we were able to keep that not out on the footway on 38th street but
within our property and create some additional light to the lower levels it will serve as an
additional means of egress although because of the second means of egress we're providing to
the north it's i think the architects will state or will confirm that that's not required here's
comparative rendering a color elevation i should say of the bering street facade top and bottom
you can see the dormer see either side of the ridge we've modified the color palette the original
plaster is kind of a pinkish mauve-ish peach color and in order to uh make the addition
the dormers blend in. We propose modifying. We pledge to continue to work with Palatinville
Civic Association, the coordinating RCO to pick a color palette that does further integrate
the addition and the modifications with the existing structure. Here you can see the
North 38th Street side. I'm sorry, this is the east side. I'm sorry, at the bottom.
no I'm wrong this one 38th Street there are some stained glass at the upper windows that will have
to be removed so those windows can be operable and meet with the building code but again as you
can see up here well you can't really see it here you'll see it in the rendering we are going to
maintain the stained glass you see right here this is what the building was originally presented to
the community group, maintaining the peach or mauve-ish color, that's how you say the word,
I have problems pronouncing it, existing plaster with the addition above, maintaining the stained
glass at the upper levels at the Bering Street. The stained glass that exists in the upper side
windows will be preserved to the extent that we can when we remove it to be integrated and utilized
throughout the building, the interior of the building possible, and the exteriors. Here's
another rendering of the from Bering Street east side courtyard that'll now
be hard and landscaped in the bicycle enclosure as well and here's that East
Court that we have that right now you'll see in the photos is terribly overgrown
in really bad state and we're creating some nice usable outdoor space for the
occupants and residents of the building here's an example of these terrace kind of rather than just
having a deep well a pit we're trying to make something that's more functional more gradual
for the benefit of both those passing by and for the residents of the building
and here was the change in the color palette that we presented to the community group following
We met with both their zoning committee where we got some input and then met with the full,
we had a remote virtual community group meeting just the other day.
And this was what we produced based upon the comments we received from the community group.
Again, really just changing the color palette of the plaster and of the shed dormers,
reducing the shed dormers, the height, and setting them back.
and setting them back the landscaping all around and here's just quickly comparison between what
the landscaping all around.
we originally proposed to the left and then the right following our community group meeting
and the zoning committee meeting again trying to make the addition and the existing structure blend
in more together and obviously we received a letter of support from them so they found that
to be acceptable. I do have floor plans, both for the original 25 unit as proposed and the revised
22 unit. Again, we can go through those as needed. The board has any questions. We did prepare
shadow studies, and Mark or Kevin can go through that, but you'd see that if any property is
impacted you know by tucking the shed dormers let me just say by technically tucking the shed dormers
into the sides of the roof the way we have um and with the ridge extending above it and the bell
tower base extending above it it has very minimal effect on the shadowing as uh as proposed to what
presently exists and if anything there's a an impact on our own property to the north but it's
very minimal and again if you have any questions regarding that i can have the architects go
through it uh existing photos you can see here at tab 19 i'm just going to quickly flip through
this is that east courtyard that we're going to be fixing up overgrown fences rusted fences removing
the signs um that are there neighborhood that's around you know this is the rear yard area
presently as it stands to the north not in great shape that fencing will all
come down. Plaster on the west wall will all be patched and fixed coming off in
various spots as you can see in the photos here at page 24, 25, and 26. 20 is
the interior photos and pretty pretty rough on the inside sellers and not in
great shape the interior not in terrific shape its existing stories this is the
upper floor the second floor but you can see in some of the photos the the roof
there's problems in a roof you can see here on page 23 of tab 20 where there
you could if you were you can see through and their problems with the existing roof as it
presently stands we did go and as I mentioned we met with the community both the zoning committee
flipping through here some other photos tab 20 21 I'm sorry tab 21 again is the what my clients put
together showing the proximity to bus stops bike sharing trolley line zip car you know bike sharing
one minute walk trolley bus one minute walk bus stop two minute walk a bus another bus stop two
minute walk zip car an eight minute walk subway ten minute walk so it's clear that you know even
though we're not providing parking which we really couldn't without destroying the church or the
ground floor facades of the church there's no open area that could be really effectively utilized for
that um that it is in close proximity to public transportation and something that the community
group took into consideration in improving our project. Zoning archives I've included for the
subject premise is obviously utilized as a church and that's at tab 22. Our email or the email we
received from a tab 23 from any commission showing Palton Civic, Paltonville Civic Association as a
coordinating RCO, a list of addresses to which we provided notice of our April 1st. I mean this was
the original notice i'm sorry originally supposed to meet april 1st with them that obviously didn't
happen i was supposed to be an in-person meeting there was our certificates of service for that
and then our uh virtual hearing that we had on august 6 and we did mail that again out as um
by certificate mailing to um to the list of addresses that we provided
and then lastly we do have the letter of support
should have the letter support um i don't have it included it may have come in afterwards
but if i can just go to that you have copies of that you have copies of that okay and as you can
see i can open that it should have been that's their letter dated august 17th
and that is as you can see in the third full paragraph that's a support and it was based
upon the submission that we made with the revised materials that we're submitting to the board today
with the revised materials that we're submitting to the board today on August 14th again I did
on august
there is a revised proviso plan form and our revised drawings going with those reducing the
number of units from 25 to 20 reducing the top of the shed dormer by a foot in which then pushes
pushing the bottom up about nine inches, eliminating the ADA ramp in place, using a lift instead,
so getting away from any encroachments onto the footway, increasing the rear yard depth,
even though as little as it was, slight increase to the east side yard.
That's to the building, existing building.
Obviously, we talked about the accessory bicycle storage.
The addition to the north increased in square footage ever so slightly, but there was no effective change in our occupied area, changing the fence on North 38th Street, increasing the width of the light wells by a couple inches, and then revising the dimensions based upon our survey.
And then again, here are the revised drawings.
Excuse me, David, is that increase in the height of the fence going to generate a new refusal?
No, because what we did is, so the provision of the code that deals with that is that if there's a fence between the building and the property line,
it can be no more than four feet in height and can be no more than 50% of the peak.
But what we ended up doing, in the original drawings, it was out here at the property line.
So it was between the building and the property line.
As you can see here, we've actually, and some L&I examiners will say if it's in line with the building, it still needs to be four feet and no more than 50% opaque, which is not what this says.
But we've set it back ever so slightly from this extreme, and I won't say extreme, but the westernmost or the closest portion of the structure, this buttress, to the 38th Street property line.
So since it's set back, it's no longer between the building and that front yard property line,
and it can be the full six-foot height that's permitted as long as it's not in the front yard.
So the answer, that's my long-winded answer to saying, no, it should not generate any new refusals.
We designed it this way to make that happen.
Thank you.
So it would not happen.
And it's three pages of revised drawings.
If I could, if I can have one of my clients, Nagesh or Raju, sworn in to adopt my statements,
and then Kevin or Mark to do the same as the architects.
Frank yes did you wish to swear in sorry yes your name sir please identify yourself
for the record spell your name david is it najaru yeah uh yes okay you can yes you can unmute
yourself oh my god najaru or or yeah it's either raju or nagesh one of you guys
maybe i can move to mark and mark wallace and or kevin korejko
yeah um i accept the testimony okay mark real quickly you have to be sworn first
sorry um mark wallace core design architecture uh 222 west atlantic uh avenue
So, Hedden Heights, New Jersey, 08035.
We're confirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please proceed, David.
Mark, did you hear the statements I made to the board?
Are they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Is there anything you'd like to correct?
And would you adopt those statements as your own?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Getting a guess for Raju, if either of them can unmute themselves, have they?
have they
i guess not um
Guess not.
you conclude yeah i'll conclude okay thank you uh questions from the board no no so just so you
know nagesh has texted me and said he's not able to unmute so no problem yeah no problem is there
For anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter, please raise your hand.
Chair I have Debra McCarty, Debra, you can unmute yourself, wait to be sworn in to testify.
Good afternoon, Ms. McCarty, would you please identify yourself with a record, spell your
yes good afternoon my name is debra mccarty d-e-b-r-a m-c-c-a-r-t-y i live at 3608
hamilton street debra do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do thank you please proceed so i just wanted to uh reaffirm the civic association
the RCO's position, on this reuse of the church, and we appreciate that they have worked with us
and made some revisions to the plans. We believe this would be a really good project for the
community and look forward to working with the property owners on making it a good place for
folks to live. And that's about it. Thank you. Thank you, Debra, and good to hear from you.
Anyone else who wishes to testify, please raise your hand.
Nijaru, now you have it. Yeah, hi, this is Negesh Ribikanti, one of the owners.
you need to identify yourself sir spell your name for the for the
stenographer my name is Nagesh Ravikanti N-A-G-E-S-H is the first name the last
name is Ravikanti R-A-B-I-K-A-N-T-I I live at 43 Zaits Farm Road
West Windsor New Jersey 08550
though. He was, I'm sorry, he was sworn, correct? We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, I'm sorry. Nikesh, did you hear the statements
that I made to the board this afternoon? Every single thing. The only one correction, David,
at one point you said we have reduced the number of units from 25 to 20. I just want to show for
the record it's it's going down from 25 to 22 22 correct but you misspoke okay thank you for that
early on he said 22 later in this presentation he may have said 20. you got it right you got
it right the first time first time all right i was batting 500 so at least we take that any day
right now but um nagesh did uh other than that that that correction is uh was everything else
that i stated true and correct that is correct yes we adopted as adopt me statements as your
own i do and is there anything you would like to add for the board um no we're uh we're just
thankful we're looking forward to you know moving ahead with this project if it's approved thank you
anyone else wishes to testify please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan we support the conversion of
this church into multi-family based on the changes made to the plans and the reduction
of units we have no objection to the granting of the revised variances thank you uh how many pages
david three calendar number three nine nine six two three seven two seven baring street
my vote is yes with proviso revised plan three pages approved today my vote is yes proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso all right this concludes the three
excuse me chairman chico i'm sorry um
ms sunken believes that you did not add the proviso to the ellsworth street decision if you could
revote that
i'm sorry have the dog reloaded with proviso one page one revised plans one page
have the dog
revote
uh hold on let me get my uh okay all right that's the alarm to let you know that you didn't
it wasn't fun david if you keep talking that we're going to sig that dog on you so
wouldn't be the first time calendar number three nine nine five six
one zero one two ellsworth street my vote is yes with the proviso one page stand approved today
my vote is just proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
okay we'll take a 15 minute break be back at four o'clock to start our 3 30 session
can i ask a question sure um sharon did we put on a continuance for fairmount
oh my god sharon you there
are you speaking fairmount on 3 30 we don't have it no two o'clock
Did we put that on record
that it was continued?
If not,
could we state it?
Yeah, I think we should.
Yeah, we should state it.
I have it on my list.
So what is the...
I apologize.
I missed that one.
It is...
No problem.
Just give me the calendar number
and the...
calendar number 39429 387 3857 north fair hill street
correct i'm sorry sharon um if i could mention that this address of question is calendar number
3883 1714 washington avenue we were waiting to see if the attorney showed up uh because we didn't
get exhibit packages so we're going to state that it's continued at this time that's right
all right thank you kindly all right be back around 405 thank you chair and vice chair thank
you thank you tanya okay
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hey, it's a scan.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Let's see. All the board members are here. Tanya, Sharon. Yep. Everybody's here.
we ready you can shake your head then you affirm it thank you
okay good afternoon everyone my name is frank di chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of
adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair miss carol
tenere our board secretary confessor plaza and board members thomas holloman and james snell
along with board member board administrator tanya sunken and board attorney sharon saletta
will also be in attendance for those of you who haven't yeah haven't excuse me for those of you
who haven't participated in one of our virtual hearings i will go through some of the basics of
what you can expect first we'll begin this afternoon session by reading a list of cases
to be continued if you believe any announced case is being continued in error we will give
you an opportunity to respond after reading the continuance list and receiving any feedback
we will take any additional continuance request then once we've confirmed which hearings are
being continued vice chair carol tenere will begin calling the remaining cases listed for this session
When a case is called, we ask that attorneys representing applicants or other interested
parties in the matter identify themselves for the record. We will then hear the applicant's
presentation followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
Interested parties and members of the public not represented by counsel will then be given
an opportunity to testify we will finally hear the recommendation of the planning commission
at the hearing's conclusion we will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion
in executive session any case held for discussion will be voted at the next scheduled wednesday
meeting wednesday morning meeting 9 30 a.m please note the following changes related to the
9.30 a.m. Please note the following changes related to the virtual format. First, we will
be administering oaths to individuals' participants prior to their testimony. Second, for the benefit
of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves
prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding
is being recorded, and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting
star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I repeat, anyone participating by phone,
If you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google pound 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
Again, that is Google pound 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that said, we'll begin.
But before Vice Chair Tenere recalls our first case, we'd like to announce the following matters as being continued.
calendar number 39462 1410 alden street no exhibits calendar number 39427 1501 south 12th
street calendar number four excuse me calendar number four zero zero six five one one nine three
four stevens road i would ask at this time if anyone believes that a case is being continued
in error please raise your hand mr chairman yes on calendar three nine nine five nine twenty
21 north randolph street this is one of five properties on the same block of randolph that
are going to be heard if it could be continued until two o'clock tomorrow all the properties
could be considered together thank you thank you for clearing that thank you for clearing that up
and is there anyone who has any objection to that um statement that has just been read
it read into the record by Ms. Saleta if so raise your hand I just want to mention Sharon it should
be 3 30 right
While we're waiting for Sharon to get back on, is there anyone who believes that a case
is being continued in error.
If so, please raise your hand.
I believe that it's
2 o'clock. There's a
Randstead rather than Randolph.
That's being heard at 3.30,
but Randolph is at 2.
Tanya, I believe Leonard
wants to be on mute.
Sorry, confessor, I didn't
hear that.
yeah not at the spot he's for pine street okay i'm sorry no worries no worries i just have
isaac slepner with his hand up isaac yes uh good afternoon board um sharon slay is
isaac excuse me identify yourself for the record please uh sure thing isaac slepner uh with
matione limited 100 north independence mall west suite 5a northwest philadelphia pa 19106
um you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do um i i spoke with miss saletta this morning about 2021 north randolph street and she is
correct it um it was going to be continued to uh tomorrow august 19th at two o'clock
thank you i'm counsel on that i just wanted to uh chime in on that but thank you
so i have nothing further today thank you all right thank you okay one more time is there
anyone else out there who believes the case as was called in continuance as as being an error
anyone wishes at this time to request a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand
Please raise your hand.
There's no hands up, but Chair, if you could,
could we hold one second while I speak to legal counsel?
This goes here.
Thanks, Chair. We're ready.
Thank you. Carol?
Calendar number 38817, 221 Pine Street.
This is an appeal against L&I filed by the Society Hill Civic Association.
I believe the attorneys are Vern Anastasio and Paul Bonney.
also leonard reuter for the city you know carol if you don't mind just before we begin
i think there's another case that wasn't on our schedule 1408 reed street calendar number three
nine nine five one i'm just wondering if that would be we should take that first because
generally appeals against an online take a little bit longer yes that's why i wanted to
ask our attorney if we could do that it would also allow the planning commission um representative
to leave after this is an excuse so uh mr bonnie and mr anastasia we'll get to you next we'll get
this other case out of the way all right thank you thank you okay calendar number three nine
nine five one 1408 reed street um darwin are you here for that it's darwin and i think meredith
mr bouvier can you hear me now we can so please identify yeah carol please yeah name and address
for the record and then i have two other things to ask you please spell your name as well well
can we also add meredith i'm here i'm here oh okay i am here let me let me it was just
restarting everything good afternoon everybody meredith ferlinger uh attorney for 1408 reed
llc and darwin if you want to go ahead as well i can't i don't know what's going on here your name
is bovier thank you darwin for at dilworth paxton uh for the applicant hey there we
go. How are you? Fine. How are you? My address is 1500 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
19102. Thank you. It's always special. Same address for me as well.
Did he put the address, his address on the record? Yes. Yeah. You did. Okay. Do you swear or affirm,
both of you to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? We sure do. Yes. And do you both agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? We do. We do. Great. So you may
continue. Thank you. And forgive me in advance if there's a noise of a four-year-old and a two-month
old in the background. I sent my husband away with them, but I can't guarantee anything.
and i'm in the middle of broad street so just uh-huh yeah i like that uh zoom uh outfit you have on
today it's a whole suit all right let's begin all right good let me i guess let me share my screen
uh okay all right i assume you can all see this now yes we can fabulous all right so uh again
meredith ferliger uh attorney on behalf of 1408 reed llc i believe and hope that our clients
should be also on the Zoom, Kalfani, Leslie, and Hal Lobson on behalf of 1408 Reed, LLC.
We would also have the architect, Kenneth Johnson, and the editor, Henry.
We would also have the architect Kenneth Johnson and the
The proposal for today is a proposal for a new multifamily development, 1408 Reed, LLC.
You should have your exhibit packet with 14 exhibits that I'll refer to throughout the presentation.
Now, if we start with Exhibit 9, you'll see an aerial of this property, which sits between South Carl Street and 15th Street, right along Reed Street.
So what you'll see here is this property is sandwiched right in between the back of the structures on each of the two opposing streets.
Is that currently the auto body shop?
That is correct.
That is correct.
It's just off broad stretches about a block and a half to the west.
If you refer to the zoning map, which is at exhibit 8, the property is zoned CMX2,
but it is surrounded by prominently residential zoning.
Photos of the property begin at Exhibit 13. As the chairman mentioned, this is a former auto body
shop which is now closed down. Now there is an exit curb cut that is in front of the garage
and which of course historically provided access to the auto shop and as you can see in the photos
and the aerials to the west of the property is a what I believe to be a rehab and recovery center
which you can see
is this larger structure here along South Carlisle Street. So this the structure here on South
Carlisle runs beyond the rear of our property at 1408 Reed. Now if you go farther west towards
South Broad, there is a parking lot and fairly dense commercial uses that front on South Broad
Street. The only other commercial use on on this block of Reed Street is a small corner bakery
which is right at the corner of Reed and South Carlisle Street. Otherwise, the properties that
surround this are a mix of single-family and multi-family homes. Now, if the Border First
plans at Exhibit 5 through 7, to summarize the proposal today, the development is proposing to
renovate the existing structure and to build an additional three stories on top for a total of a
four-story structure. On the second through fourth floors, the proposal includes two dwellings per
floor for a total of six. These are intended to be conveyed as condominiums. Now on the first floor,
the proposal includes six parking spaces. The existing curb cut will be shifted slightly east
and reduced in size to provide access to that parking. There will be no roof deck. Now as you
can see in the floor plans, each of the dwellings is just over a thousand square feet, contains two
bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. Trash will be stored in each unit as well as in the designated
trash storage area in the garage, which you can see is just towards the rear of the garage.
they will have commercial trash pickup for this condominium building.
If you refer to the renderings at Exhibit 7, this proposal does contemplate several unique
facade treatments to liven the block. When we had some very early discussions with both the
Planning Commission and the community, they expressed the desire to maybe do something
unique here. Given some of the challenges of this building, they really didn't want to see a blank
facade on Reed Street. So, of course, you know, they haven't picked one of these designs. These
are really just for example purposes, but the developer is committed to, you know, doing
something really unique for that facade. Now, as you'll see, with respect to the application,
we did receive several or several refusals. So I'll address the dimensional ones first.
At the most basic, we received a refusal for failure to provide 25% open space and a nine-foot rear yard.
for failure to provide 25% open space and a nine-foot rear yard.
Now, this is somewhat unique, and we do submit to a hardship here,
because this variance, it essentially results from the coverage of the existing building.
And our proposal is not serving to increase the degree of the nonconformity here.
So if you look at the existing building, you'll see that it occupies 100% of the law.
So in order to comply with this provision of the code, on the second story through the fourth story,
they would have to step the building in by nine feet and or enough to provide that 25% open space.
However, or of course, option two would be to demolish the rear of the existing building.
So, of course, option two would be quite costly and a very ineffective use of the existing building.
Now, if you again refer back to the aerials, and I did touch on this very briefly when I started,
you'll see that the rear of this structure is sandwiched right in between the back of the structures on Carlisle and Reed Street.
So by stepping in that second, third, and fourth floor by nine feet, or to provide that 25% open space, you effectively only serve to reduce the dwelling units and provide no additional light, air, or usable space for the residents of this building or the adjacent surrounding structures.
um you know as i mentioned to the along south carlisle is this recovery center that has
absolutely no use of the back of their building and then on the other side you have the back of
the homes on on 15th street and by stepping in our second third and fourth floor you're not
providing anything additional to those homes so you're really only serving to to shrink the units
in our building. Now, we did also receive a refusal for the proposed height. The proposed
height of the building is 44 feet, where 38 feet would be allowed. Now, again, we do submit to a
hardship here because the height is not resulting from, say, the number of units that we're
requesting. We're not requesting this height to accommodate, you know, any additional units in
this building. However, it is due to the layout of this existing structure. As you can see in the
plans, the existing cornice line of the existing building is at 14 feet. And although the additional
three stories have traditional ceiling heights, due to the existing building conditions, the
developer is requesting a slight height variance to accommodate how the existing building is
already constructed constructed as well as to provide some additional
accessibility to accommodate that first floor parking. No roof deck is proposed
so you know in addition to the height we're not adding a roof deck on top that
would of course add some additional use up there. We do submit that the height
will not measurably impair light and air to the surrounding structures again
because of the uniqueness of how this building is situated. Because it sits mid-block to the rear of
other structures, there would be no perceptible difference in the height from 38 feet to 44 feet.
And we would also argue that if we were to provide the roof deck on top of a 38-foot structure,
in theory that might impose more of an impact to these neighbors than no roof deck on top of the
44 foot structure. Now we also received a refusal for the proposed number of dwelling units.
Five units would be permitted where we are proposing six. As previously described,
this proposal calls for two units per floor. No additional dimensional variances are requested
specifically as a result of this sixth unit. The applicant does submit to a hardship because the
lot size is only a few hundred feet short of allowing for that six unit, which does naturally
fit within the proposed structure of two units per floor. The Planning Commission District Plan
did contemplate this lot as being RM1, which would have actually allowed for seven units,
and we are only proposing six. Now, with regard to the refusal for parking, this lot would not
be permitted to provide parking unless it could be accessed from a shared driveway,
rear alley, you know, a condition like that. However, as I described earlier,
However, as I described earlier, the property has long been served by an existing curb cut,
the property has long been served by an existing curb cut.
and that has historically provided vehicular access to this property.
The existing building is uniquely designed to accommodate ground floor parking,
as it historically has served a vehicle type of use.
And in providing that parking, the design ensures one-for-one parking for residents
and does not remove any on-street parking that has already historically been blocked by the curb cut.
Finally, we do submit to a hardship in regards to the last refusal,
which is the failure to provide a ground floor commercial use.
Again, as the board knows, this property was historically used as an auto repair garage,
which is an intensive, loud, unneighborly vehicular use that's not even currently allowed by the provisions of CMX2.
As I described earlier, the only commercial use on this block of Reed Street that is the type contemplated by CMX 2 is a small bakery at the corner of Reed and Carlisle Street.
It would be extremely difficult to support a small CMX type commercial use mid-block in this location, especially given how close it is to South Broad Street, where most of the dense commercial uses are found.
As I mentioned, the Planning Commission District Plan did specifically call for this lot to be RM1, which would not have required commercial use.
So we do submit that the variances are the least minimum variance that result either from the existing building layout or the uniqueness of this property.
The units provided are large, and the lack of commercial space is instead replaced by one-for-one parking that is so desperately needed in this area.
The parking will contribute towards the reduction of congestion and will not remove
any existing on-street parking due to the long-standing existing curb cut.
As it is located quite close to South Broad Street, the property has considerable access
to public transportation. We submit that we comply with each section of 143038E of the Code and that
we do not alter the character of the neighborhood, nor do we impair development of the surrounding
area, nor do we tax any resources. Now, with respect to the community, we met with East Point
Breeze neighbors via Zoom sometime last month. There was a fairly split difference of opinion
on what the community wanted to see for this property, which is why you see their letter
that reflects that no consensus was reached. Half the folks in the room were supportive of this,
the other half were not. There was, you know, we had a really great discussion with the community
and ultimately folks were so split on what they wanted that really there was no consensus to be
reached. Now to supplement that letter, we did send our client out and they were able to obtain
several pages worth of petitions of support which you'll see starting at
exhibit 13. Now confusingly we did also receive a letter of opposition from South
Broad Street Neighbors. We'd submit that this letter was submitted improperly as
no representative from this group announced themselves at the community
meeting nor does the letter make it reasonably apparent that anyone from the
group even attended the meeting due to some significant inaccuracies that they put in the
letter. I'm not sure if anyone was even in the meeting or if they looked at plans and
didn't have a proper understanding of what was being proposed. I'm really not sure, quite frankly.
I would be happy to go through it point by point, you know, if the board desires.
So that's all I have. I would, of course, like our client to adopt my testimony at some point
if the board has questions i'd be happy to address them as well and and if i may i just want to make
some clarification i think at one point uh we were saying that broad street was to the west
it's actually to the east as well as so just just to make that clarification why don't we
do this bring on the your clients and to adopt your testimony then we'll open it up for questions
Okay. Cal, if you can hit the raise hand button so they can unmute you.
When you unmute, would you please identify yourself, spell your name for the
sonographer, and then I'll square you in.
how lesbian you can yeah how or kalfani leslie either one is fine you can unmute yourself and
How? Yes. Okay, good. Can you identify yourself for the record? My name is Henry A. Lubson, Jr.,
known as Hal Lubson, and I'm the partner with Mr. Califani on this project.
Lubson, you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Hal, you heard all of our testimony here today?
I did, yes. And would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would
you adopt that testimony as if it were your own? With a correction on the east, Broad Street being
to the east and not to the west, that description, everything else was perfect, yes. Thank you.
Do you have anyone else?
Cal Leslie's name as well.
Can you identify yourself for the record again?
Cal Fonny Leslie.
Can you spell your first name?
K-H-A-L-F-A-N-I.
Last name is Leslie, L-E-S-L-I-E.
Great.
Swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
And, Cal, did you hear all of our testimony here today?
Yes, I did.
And with the correction of Broad Street's location,
would you adopt our testimony as if it were your own?
Yes, I would, and I do.
Okay, questions from the board?
no not for me okay anyone else here who wishes to testify in this matter please raise your hand
and when you're called upon would you please spell your name for the stenographer and then
I will swear you in we have Peter Zutter you can okay can you hear me yes Peter hi uh my name is
Peter Zutter, Z-U-T-T-E-R, 1440 South Broad Street, also president of the South Broad Street
Neighborhood Association. So the first thing I'd like to clarify is that we did have two of our
board members. I just need to swear you in. Oh, I'm sorry. Technically. You swear a firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Peter. Please proceed.
so um to clarify there were two of our our members um i was at the zoom meeting and we
also had jed labin one of our board members who was uh at the meeting um i don't recall whether
or not people introduced themselves but we did have two uh two board members there um
there might be some small inaccuracies uh in in what is in our letter um we did try you know
it's difficult when you see these presentations flash by on the screen and
to try and remember it we did try to reach out to the applicants through
East Point Breeze but we were not able to get copies of the documents to review
any further I think I would just like to make a few points if this is the
appropriate time um so to start with the extra the extra height that they're asking for um there was
somebody there from uh 15th street one of the properties that would be uh right i guess it's
behind if you're on 15th street next to if you're on reed street and and she did mention that you
know the six feet additional height since these these this property is rather large and very close
to the property line would block a lot of light and air from those properties on 15th street that
are adjacent to it um you know they keep saying that it's only six feet and you know six feet when
you're when you have a situation like that it's really it's really quite a bit they're very close
by and I it seems like it would make quite a bit of difference to go to the
front of the building I mean you saw the elevations it's really well not very
attractive and the screening and some of the things that they've proposed you
know it's still kind of a blank faceless wall you know I've seen screening like
that in the past it's usually put there to cover up something that's unattractive and my thought
is instead of covering up something that's unattractive why don't we just build something
that's a little bit better um it just doesn't it just doesn't
better um it just doesn't it just doesn't seem to work um it looks like the apartments there
there seem to be very few windows in the apartments and there there's just a lot of
a lot of areas where there there could be more windows they look like they're kind of um i know
this the square footage is not bad but they look like they would be sort of dark apartments you
have a small window if i recall and again i you know these these plans flash by and and my
photographic memory is not working as well as it used to um you have it looks like one or two
windows that face south and then the rest of them are are facing west basically at the 15th street
properties um you know there are no windows on reed street um i'm not sure how the elevation
fits in with the um catch offices that are on the corner there um but it just seems like there's
a lot of this that could be done much better this is already it's it's a very tall building
when you compare it to even the three-story buildings uh next to it you know the faceless
facade on reed street um those are all things that are just really not very good and caused us
to oppose it um just a few of the things that were um that were attractive about the project
I think it's great that they're trying to include parking.
They had mentioned at one point that there were some structural limitations because of – and there's a very high ceiling height, apparently, where the parking is.
That might be something they could take another look at to lower the whole building so that it's not blocking the light and air.
But in a neighborhood like this, including parking in a development like this is very good.
They also have, it's probably one of the few times that I've seen a property that has a realistic trash program.
You know, they have a, what I guess would be a dumpster or a compactor that's there in the parking that would be accessible to all of the apartments.
You know, we don't usually see that in these multifamily projects.
And we found that when they don't have trash disposal on site in a central location like that, that's when the trash ends up out on Broad Street in front of the Big Bellies there.
And as you know, that's been a problem for years with a lot of these apartments.
So we could not support it for those reasons.
Anthony outlines a lot of that in the letter.
It's said much better there.
So I think that's going to be it for me.
Thank you.
if we may mr chairman yes if we may uh just a quick response you know i i appreciate the their
their comments but um i i believe um one of the issues with respects to the height is that uh in
the rear there there that we have every right and and are entitled to build at minimum 38 feet so
So I appreciate him advocating for the woman on 15th Street, but even at the meeting, she concluded that even if we were to build as of right, the light and air would be impacted.
So she understood that, hey, 38 feet is still what it is, and she concluded that she would live with that.
Second, he mentioned that about the facade and about the windows.
I'm sorry, those aren't refusals.
The developer, the applicant, has suggested several different facades, and we're still up in the air as to what those facades should look like.
They were actually offered in our presentation as part of the plans submitted to L&I.
So given that, we still submit that we have the least amount of variances
or we're responding to the refusal by providing the least amount of variances in this.
And the impact is actually pretty positive because we're taking away this harsh garage that had cars parked in the street, that dealt with all kinds of business hours, if you will, that conflicted with home life there.
And what we're proposing, we're not proposing that these are rentals.
These are going to be home ownership, condominiums, right, that actual individuals who are going to become part of the neighborhood and even part of the RCOs that are listed and actually contribute to that block in the overall neighborhood.
thank you any other witnesses anyone else wish to testify please raise your hand
Thank you.
Any other witnesses?
Anyone else?
and spell your name for the stenographer and then i will swear you in
no hands up at this time chair okay thank you um
planning commission hey members of the board uh i'm mason austin representing the planning
Commission. While the lot is currently zoned for CMX2 mixed-use commercial, it is indicated
on the comprehensive plan for RM1 multifamily residential. Due to that indication, the planning
commission has no objection to the number of units or lack of commercial space. Likewise,
because the parking proposed does not exacerbate the existing conditions, we do not object
that variance however the combination of additional height and lack of open space on
floors above the additional the existing structure would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent
properties on 15th street further the proposed height could otherwise be earned uh by right by
meeting the requirements of bonuses already available on this site to the within the zoning
code consequently the planning commission recommends against approving these two-dimensional variances
well that leaves us perplexed yes please no i'm just saying that leaves us perplexed right
i have a question about this height issue sure it's it appears to me that the height of the
existing garage you're building it you're going to build above that right you're not
is there a way of compressing that down because what's the height inside that garage
it's it's about 14 feet um and and really mr chairman i mean sure could could could it be
compressed in theory yes but you know to the the cost involved in doing that instead of working
within the confines of the existing building it's it's really an ineffective use of of what's
already there um what i'm getting at what i'm getting and that they're up the roof of the
building currently is that going to be the flooring of the first level of residence
or are you putting more joist in and if you are could that roof be lowered which would give you
a little bit you know you can push it down whatever it is six feet or whatever you still
have enough room height in the garage. Cal, are you still unmuted? Can you just briefly explain
to Mr. Chairman and the board, when you took a look at this building, why you ultimately decided
in working with your architect that this additional six feet in height was necessary?
hi mr chairman yes please so to answer your question specific to the
existing roof that's on the building uh we will incorporate new floor joists and that ceiling
height will no longer be at the existing height of 14 feet we actually have it at nine feet
as which would be the ceiling height for the garage space so that we're coming down you're
taking up um five feet or five feet of that height you're actually pushing it down correct
okay that that was where i was going i didn't realize you did that okay okay all right uh i
know i raised some questions the board again anybody on the board have any other questions
no no okay calendar number three nine nine five one 1408 reed street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you thank you mr chairman members of the board all right i appreciate everyone thanks
i don't know what do we do now now you take your bow tile go play in traffic
there is no traffic intel that's the problem that's true
heredith i told him that for years i'm still trying sharon one of these days
all right we're ready for uh we sure are calendar number 38817
221 pine street this is an appeal against lni filed by society hill civic association
i believe the attorneys are vernon astasio and paul bonnie
miss miss uh madam vice chair my associate attorney is also with us attorney
Madam Vice Chair, my Associate Attorney is also with us, Attorney Harry Cook, and we
ask that he be allowed to join in as well.
He's just sitting second, Chair.
I am unmuted.
Hello, everyone.
Can everyone state their name and address for the record and spell their last name?
And then I have two other things to ask you.
Also, Leonard Reuter here for the City of Philadelphia.
So I'll just introduce myself then first.
leonard f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r for the city of philadelphia address would be 1515 arch street
15th floor philadelphia pa 19102 i think thank you mr reuter burn yes anastasio anastasio law firm
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107.
And Harry?
Harry B. Cook, C-O-O-K, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, PA, 19107.
And Paul?
Paul Bonney, representing Society Hill Civic Association.
My office address is 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1109, Philadelphia, PA, 19106.
Thank you. And do all of you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I'd like that for it once.
Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Who's going to begin?
I'll be happy to begin. Thank you.
On behalf of the board, we thought you guys resolved this a year ago, but apparently not.
Well, we'll get into that.
that sarcastically i meant that seriously because i thought there was an agreement but obviously
there is well i i have some opening remarks um before i dive into the matter and i want to give
uh mr anastasio an opportunity to make an opening he may have an objection to some letters that came
in um that's already on i think that's already on the record of just just to make clear this is not
an evidentiary hearing. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Yeah, I was going to explain. This is
just oral arguments. We've already submitted our briefs. They're part of the record. So this is
merely just oral arguments and then adjournment. Is that correct? Do you agree on that? Correct. I
agree. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Well, members of the board, just to start off and clarify that,
you know, we all reached agreement that the facts in this matter are largely agreed to.
And so, therefore, rather than present evidence to the board, we would just submit letter briefs, which both private counsel have done, and argue the matter to you today, and then ask you, you know, for your decision.
So, you know, we worked hard together to streamline this so that we could be as quick as possible.
This matter involves a challenge. We are challenging the issuance of two building permits.
Those two building permits were issued, one in 2017 and the other in 2019.
The legal reason that we're challenging these building permits is that we don't believe that there was an existing zoning permit in place at the time.
And as I'm sure you know, before you can do any new construction or alteration in the city, first you need a zoning permit, and then you need a building permit.
And if your zoning permit, as we believe in this case, expires, then you need to get a new one before you go ahead and get the building permit.
But I wanted to just jump somewhat to the chase, cut to the chase for a second so that the board can understand exactly what we're asking for, so that you can sort of see what this case is all about in the real world.
we're asking for one of two things and we would greatly prefer the second of the two
the first would be that the board simply invalidate both building permits which we think would send
the property owner all the way back to square one and he would have to get new zoning variances all
over again and we think that would take a lot of time and is really not is really not in the
interest of anybody to go ahead and do that. And so that's why we greatly prefer the second thing.
And so what we're asking for and we're hoping for is that the board can approve or reaffirm
the issuances of these building permits, but with one, what we believe is a minor modification.
But with one, what we believe is a minor modification.
And if I could, I don't know how to share the screen, but do I have the ability to share my screen?
I guess if I click this screen.
Let's try this.
Can everybody see this drawing?
so this is the rear of the house at 221 Pine Street and I'll show you a little
bit more about where we are in the neighborhood but as you can see at the
rear of the house is where I'm putting the cursor these drawings show a patio
or a rear deck above the first floor in the rear and right behind that railing
you see a sliding glass door. And what we're asking for is the board to modify the building
permit to show that this sliding glass door would actually be a window. And that would
make it unable for the property owner to use this as a recreation space and that
is what we're seeking. Now up here on the third floor as you can see and
actually here's a side view so here's a side view of that rear deck area there
is a rather large deck up here on the third floor so it's not like there's no
deck there's actually two decks a very large one and a very and a very very large one on the third
floor and a very small one here off the second floor and it's only this second one this small
one that we would want to be made inaccessible and of course this is what we had agreed to
as the chairman alluded to we can get into more details but you know at a certain time this was
agreeable to the homeowner and all we're trying to do is um get to that agree you know effectuate
that agreement um so i'm now i'm gonna uh sort of go through uh our our case if you will but i
wanted to just sort of cut to the cut to the chase to show you what this matter is all about
and i'll go through the chronology very quickly but uh 10 years ago um 2010 um the applicant
the owner came to this uh board to seek uh variances and um it took a took a couple years
i think that the board may have issued a denial and then it went up to the common police court
and then back down again, but ultimately those variances were granted, and those variances were
to allow a rear L, a rear addition to the property, and there were some significant
dimensional variances that were needed and that were granted by the board, and so after the board
granted those variances, the applicant, of course, obtained a zoning permit, and that is the, in
January of 2013. That is the one and only zoning permit that exists in this matter and that's the
one that we contend has expired and I think Mr. Anastasio is going to argue that it has not expired.
So it's that January 2013 zoning permit and that's attached to our letter brief.
that permit is only good for three years in fact it says on the permit quote a building permit
must be obtained within three years from the date of the issuance of this zoning permit so it's
only good for three years now let me go through a little bit more of the history after that you
know what happened after that after that there was I guess a series of stops and starts a little
bit of construction. Well, of course, the building permit was obtained after that. So
the, and after that, a series of stops and starts and long periods of cessation where no work had
been done. And indeed, work that was outside the boundaries of the approved drawing. So illegal
work was done. And in fact, illegal work was done intentionally. The property owner intentionally
built out a certain number of square feet larger of a footprint.
a certain number of square feet larger of the footprint than was allowed and there was also
a series of violations a wall that was collapsed and at some point the applicant wanted to try and
legalize the illegal work and he went to the historical commission in 2016. This is now
three years after the zoning permit.
Again, the zoning permit was January 2013,
and the Historical Commission meeting was in March of 2016,
so more than three years later.
Can I interrupt you, Paul?
Paul, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't want to get too far ahead.
But 2013 was the date that the zoning expired, correct?
well january 2013 was the zoning permit so you have a permit i'm sorry right so you have three
all right and you mentioned something about work began off and on about and they built beyond
what was permitted is that we're speaking just about that that patio or are we speaking about
more of the structure of the of the product well i think you're talking about the
the rectangle that is the rear addition
rear addition meaning that that patio off off the second floor or was there other was there
other construction aside from that that changed the dimension of the footprint it it it may not
have been the rear patio that sort of where the where the addition connected to the main building
there was a little bit of a jog and it and it may be in there that that was the illegal work that
was done. I'm not, I'm not saying that the patio, that the pat, the pat, that rear deck patio was
shown, I believe, in the original drawings from 2013. It looked a little bit different because
at that time there was a, what the plans showed was a very large outdoor spiral staircase
that would take you up to the third floor deck so you could get from one deck to the other,
the small deck up to the larger deck. And that's actually part of the arrangement that we worked
out. And we said, well, wait a second, rather than have that, because, you know, now you have
to have this small deck to get you to the large deck. Why can't you just access the third floor
roof deck directly right off the third floor? Much easier for everybody. You just walk right
out to the deck instead of a spiral staircase so we all worked together with the historical
commission with the applicant to figure out a way to access the third floor roof deck directly and
that and we had to convince the historical commission but we did you know we basically
changed a dormer into a door up on the third floor and it was a little tricky but the architect is a
good architect and we were able to figure out a way to do it and so therefore that part of the
it functions similar to a pilot house something correct correct and so therefore the the the
agreement was now that you don't now that you can just walk right out to the third floor you don't
need this second floor um hop skip and a jump thing so uh up through the spiral staircase and
that that was you know the grand bargain that we all made that was a compromise by everybody
we actually weren't really happy about the variances being granted in the first place but
we said you know what give it to him let him have everything he wants let him have this edition and
all of everything he wants we'll just um get some more privacy for the neighborhood because this
you know, overlooks other people's backyards by not even removing this little deck, just making
it inaccessible. So it can stay there, you know, but at least he can't walk out and have parties
on the back, on that little back deck. So, but this was agreed to by everybody. So for better
or for worse, that was the grand bargain, the grand bargain that we made. But as I could sort
to just jump back into my chronology a little bit so this took years and the the work and i you know
i don't fault the owner i know sometimes the funding isn't there or life throws a curveball
or whatever and you can't complete the work you know this month as you wanted to but it went on
and on and on and there was a there was i think violations and finally the historical commission
said that there's demolition by neglect because some parts of the building sort of walked away,
I believe, and the Historical Commission took them to task.
And the Historical Commission took him to task and even said that, you know, this has been laying fallow for years.
And so finally, the applicant came back to this board to try and legalize that extra square footage.
I think it was eight additional square feet of illegal construction and came back to this board in 2017.
And therefore, the LNI at that time generated a new refusal.
And that refusal listed not just the eight feet that would need to be legalized, but also all of the other original variances that had been, in my view, in our view, expired.
And that's why L&I reissued them again as areas that would need new variances.
And at that hearing, you may remember, at 2017, we explained that this is more than a matter of just eight feet.
This is really trying to get all the variances again and that those have expired.
And the Planning Commission, I believe, is on record at that hearing as agreeing with us because Mr. Bednar at the hearing testified that any relief for this property was previously approved by the board, legal permits have expired.
And so he said legal permits have expired. And so then at that time in early 2017, which is now four years after the original zoning permit, this board denied those variances, denied those variance requests.
So we think it's pretty clear that not only did three years pass, not only was there work stoppages for long periods of time, and that some of the work did include violations, that four years later, L&I issued a new refusal that re-upped or teed up again the need to get all new variances again,
that the variances four years ago had had expired. I'm at a tutorial that that's my
let me just make sure I'm still online I got another call. And so the board denied those
variances requests and no appeal was taken. Subsequent to that these two building permits
were obtained and we believe that of course they were obtained improperly because no valid
zoning permit had been in place at that time during those we appealed both of those but
building permits after we appealed as we appealed the first building permit we reached a settlement
and that settlement was as i described just a couple minutes ago where we agreed to work
with the historical commission to allow easy access to the third floor and therefore the
second floor deck wouldn't be needed anymore and could be rendered inoperable and that was agreed to
and unfortunately the plans that were submitted to this it still needed historical commission
sign off but they were on board but unfortunately the plans that were submitted to the historical
commission included those sliding glass doors which were specifically prohibited by what we
had agreed to and of course we needed a continuances from this board in order to let that
happen but you know unfortunately different plans or wrong plans were submitted to the
historical commission at odds with what we had agreed to and so that's why we're here today
um to ask that either we think you know it would be proper for the board to just say these
permits were wrongly granted because the zoning is expired or we think it would be in much
betters everyone it would be in everyone's interest to actually just say we can affirm
the building permits but make this minor change so that instead of sliding glass doors it's a window
and i guess i'll stop there for the time being and uh turn it if i'm happy to answer the
questions or that and that issue that the issue of the sliding glass doors
is only because they do not want anyone being able to step out of whatever room that is
onto this little juliet whatever you would call it patio correct and if it was a clear glass
window the same size of dimension of the proposed sliding glass doors that would be okay correct
And the physical patio, I'll call it, right?
Or balcony.
Provided it was not functional, I guess is what I'm saying.
Provided it was not functional, I guess is what I'm saying.
That's correct.
That's correct.
That would be okay.
Mr. Chair, this is Sharon Saleta.
Let me ask a question.
I'm not going to the merits of the appeal, but to the relief that's being requested.
Mr. Abani, in your letter brief, you note that the board shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken.
do you agree that if we find that the permits were issued
correctly that they were indeed by right permits we have no right to we cannot this board does not
have the right to add provisos to a by right permit if on the other hand you're correct
and the underlying zoning permits had expired, this board also does not have the authority to
add, to approve construction where there is no underlying zoning permit. Doesn't this have to
be an up or down vote? Well, if so, I'm looking at the part of my letter that refers to the zoning
code that we cite, 1430315A5, which gives, which talks about the powers of the zoning board.
And I believe it says that you have the power to modify the order or the decision and to make such order or determination as ought to be made, which I interpret as meaning sort of in the interest of judgment, in the interest of justice.
I believe. But you were not completing that sentence. And I'm not finished. I'm not finished speaking. Yes, that's correct. I didn't finish yet. And it says, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. So I don't see that that last part limits the middle part.
You have always seen it to limit it. We have never, the board has consistently refused to place any conditions on a by-right permit. If the permits were issued correctly, if they are by-right, the board cannot add additional conditions to a by-right permit.
If they were not issued correctly, if there was no valid underlying zoning permit, then neither can they approve construction that requires a variance without that variance being granted.
Okay, well, I hear your interpretation, and I think we have different interpretations, but I hear what you're saying.
Thank you.
one mr anastasio i'm sorry thank you thank you mr chairman have you finished your opening
statement mr bonnie say it again sir mr bonnie have you finished with your opening statement
yes thank you thank you mr anastasio thank you mr chairman members of the board i'm going to be
really brief um because this is a very simple case even though that's a very complicated tale that we
just heard. The appellant appealed a permit issued by L&I. Now Mr. Bonney ended the beginning of his
remarks with what this is all about and it's all about making a door a window. I could get into
very good reasons why that door has to be a door. It's the skinniest house in Philadelphia
and we could, it's the only place we can get furniture through but I don't need to go there
because the question is this is the only question that we have to answer today
did l and i improperly issue the permit of 2019 that's it appellate says that the um
yes of course because the zoning permit of 2013 expired
and i'm going to bring that up if you don't mind i can find it here
i thought i had it but maybe i don't i could put you want the 2013 permit yes if you want i had
it put it in my queue but uh give me one second please 221 there it is
see it that's the permit was this a permit that expired sorry it's not up burn it's not up oh
well i can yeah double click right on the actual file
i did that i already did that
and is your actual document open
and is your actual document open yeah you're doing as a burn you're you're
sharing the Explorer screen if you go on share go back into share and you should
have the option to share the actual document because what you're doing is
Yep, you almost had it.
Do you see it now?
Any luck?
Want me to try and do it?
Because what I'm trying to express, if I could, if you could unshare, right?
Unshare your screen, then go to the file and open it.
Then share your screen and touch on the file, the actual document.
so stop share and then go back to share document is open the document is open now share your
screen hit the green button at the bottom and there it is and it should be a red box around
it thank you do you see it yes yep yes awesome thank you okay thank you so yeah this is the
permit. Did it expire? We say it didn't because there's zero evidence that it
ever expired. My client secured a zoning permit, they started work, they generated
building violations and those building violations were provided by the
appellant and these building violations all here 2015 right here that I'm
circling with my cursor it says comply. There's another one August 2015 rear
addition all complied which means folks had to come out from L&I and review the work. Now
nothing in the archives, nothing in the property history, nothing in any file either paper or
electronic indicates that this property has had that that particular permit expired. Just because
the appellant believes that it has the authority to determine when a permit issued by L&I expires
as a result of violations doesn't mean it's true. Mr. Bonney mentions that the Planning Commission
mentioned it, but the fact of the matter is the Planning Commission has zero authority
to revoke any permit. The only people who have the authority to revoke that permit is the Department
of License and Inspection. They didn't do it. Now, yes, of course, oftentimes work goes beyond
three years. And a lot of times, L&I doesn't revoke the permit, realizing that some jobs are more
difficult than others. This is the skinniest house in Philadelphia, 221 Pine Street. So there
were some very unique challenges. So I'm assuming L&I decided that they would not revoke and expire
the permit. If there's any evidence that the permit expired, then it needs to be provided.
it. Otherwise, the actual permit that was issued by L&I at 2019 is valid. That's the first point
that I really think is important. The applicant is not L&I. The planning commission is not L&I.
And therefore, the only folks who can do this is L&I. L&I inspectors had been to that property.
They knew what was going on. They threw down violations. Those violations were complied with.
the plans were reviewed before that those stamp before the 2019 plans were stamped
these are the same plans that mr bonnie showed you someone had to review them someone had to
look at the history of the property someone had to see where they where this property has been
before the time that they've approved these on the march of 2019 so nfl and i just determined
had decided that that use permit from 2013 was still good and the work subsequent to 2013
was consistent enough to keep that permit alive, then LNI had every right to stamp those plans.
And LNI also had the right to issue the 2019 permit. There's nothing on the record to suggest
that that 2013 permit expired secondly appellant wants you to act based on an alleged contract
breach well here's the deal the zoning board doesn't have the subject matter jurisdiction
to adjudicate a settlement agreement the appellant doesn't cite in fact a single case
that would provide the zoning board with that kind of jurisdiction now appellant tries to force
ZBA jurisdiction by claiming that when you granted us the continuance in 2017 to work out an
agreement, somehow that empowers the board to adjudicate the matter. It does not. A continuance
to adjudicate the matter it does not a continuance is not a final determination as you know
is not a final determination as you know.
it's not a notice of decision it's not an appealable order and it's certainly not the
board's role to analyze legal terms of art like consideration or mutual mistake within this
context in the administrative hearing to do so if you all would do that without subject matter
jurisdiction then you would be in violation of my my client's procedural and substantive due rights
the appellant has these folks society they have a remedy
they have an opportunity for relief if they feel somehow this
agreement was breached and that's the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
that's the appropriate venue to hear in action to enforce a settlement agreement
not the zoning board you just don't have the jurisdiction
and finally the the appellant is asking you to do some legal analysis
based on case law. And that's not appropriate because the applicant doesn't, you know,
we don't dispute the fact that there was an agreement, but that agreement was entered into
because there was a misunderstanding that in fact the 2013 permit had expired.
But that agreement and all terms and conditions of that agreement are out the window once it's determined and realized that there was, in fact, a mistake.
and there's there's case law on that go sick because it under Pennsylvania law a contract
made under mutual mistake as to an essential fact and in this case it's the validity of that 2013
permit which formed the inducement to it may be rescinded the contract may be rescinded on
discovery of the mistake if the parties can be placed in their former position with reference
to the subject matter. In this case, the actual permit. So that's 417 Pennsylvania Superior Court
406, 1992 settled case law. Now if this board is prepared to analyze that case, I would say that
that's probably a job best left up to the Court of Common, please.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. I don't believe that issues relating to the settlement are
before the board or that they have jurisdiction to consider those. Thank you. Thank you.
And that's it. I mean, honestly, obviously the first point I made today, that permit,
there's, you know, there's zero evidence that permit ever expired is what you have to determine
you're you're ruling on but I did want to just lay those two related arguments with respect to
the settlement agreement I'm not going to get into anything else that was in Mr. Bonney's very
well written brief other than to say that my client may have been intentionally doing something you
know duplicitous that's honestly just a bunch of malarkey so thank you and and if I may uh chairman
and members of the board, this is Harry Cook,
speaking to the overbill that was discussed,
the eight-square-foot overbill.
That had to do with accommodating an ADA-compliant bathroom
for applicants' elderly mother.
Had nothing to do with the rear addition itself.
Thank you.
This is Leonard Reuter for my part.
First, I did indicate to the board that we were joining in the brief of Messrs. Anastasio and Cook.
I want to clarify that we were joining the brief only with respect to the issue of the legitimacy of the underlying zoning permit, the 2013 permit, that is, and the 2019 building permits.
We're not taking any position whatsoever on any of the settlement agreements or anything like that.
As the board may or may not recall, it was back in, some of the board members may recall back in 2017,
there was a separate, there was another appeal against L&I that was filed.
There were about 235 different continuances that were granted while people were trying to work that out.
eventually it did get worked out to the best of our knowledge by virtue of some kind of
settlement agreement which the city itself didn't enter into by the way because the settlement
agreement that was reached did not require L&I to do anything and what's particularly I think
important about that is that 2017 appeal was basically withdrawn ultimately is my understanding
ultimately is my understanding uh is that it was ultimately withdrawn um and the settlement was a
is that it was
ultimately withdrawn
private agreement between uh who was mr bonnie's client i believe at the time and mr anastasia's
client at the time so the the 2017 the 2017 the 2017 appeal was the same issue it was whether or
not the 2013 zoning permit had expired so because that was resolved without any outcome
the 2013 permit was certainly still alive by that time in 2017 because the city had taken a position
that the permit had not expired um and more more importantly we do agree with mr anastasio
uh that the key isn't really whether it could or should have been deemed expired the fact is the
only really critical issue here is was it ever revoked and the permit clearly was not revoked
And, you know, the revocation of a permit because there's been some violation of a condition is, I guess, what you call a condition subsequent.
It's something that the department has to do in order to invalidate the permit.
So, in other words, let's say if the city had believed, again, that the zoning permit were no good, the city would have denied the building permit, and then we would have been compelled to revoke it.
we didn't either the city deemed that the permit was still good um because again there had been
work that was done this is a lot of evidence in a non-evidentiary hearing well i know but you don't
know that well actually see this is kind of part of the problem that i've had with this entire case
in that uh the parties agreed to go forward on stipulation on on briefs but you can't do that
unless you have stipulation of facts and the facts as i'm relating them or what's in the record and
what's in the record is the fact that this permit was never revoked by l and i and that is the only
critical fact in terms of whether or not the building permits were legitimate i'm not saying
that a reasonable person or a plans examiner might not have made a determination that the
perm that the zoning permit was expired but the plans examiner really wouldn't be the one to do
that that would be an inspector uh and or somebody in in that capacity somebody who does the
enforcement side of things who would say this permit is needs to be revoked because it's now
been expired uh so the plans examiner sees the fact that there is a part this is argument right
isn't it so the plans examiner sees that there is a permit that exists and again i think that at
least there's a stipulated fact that the permit exists isn't there you told me you just said that
the planning examiner saw that the permit exists and i would like you to know how in god's green
earth you know that and you know you know how do we even have this argument unless we're stipulating
to that if you're if you're assuming if if we're having a legal argument here you have that the
argument has to begin with the fact that a building permit was issued which a building
permit cannot be issued unless there's a valid zoning permit so i think we have to assume that
the plans examiner believed the zoning permit was valid if you think the plans examiner didn't think
the zoning permit was valid then we can't even be having this argument because that's got to be a
that seems to me that has to be uh an assumed fact here but again let's get beyond that and
just simply say I think everybody agrees the zoning permit in fact was not revoked right
I see a couple heads shaking I'm not agreeing to that you're not agreeing there's nothing in the
record there's nothing in Mr. Boney's exhibit to indicate in the atlas record that the permit was
ever revoked I can I'll speak to this after Len is finished okay well again there is certainly
nothing in the record to indicate that the zoning permit from 2013 was ever revoked again whether
or not somebody could argue that it could have been deemed expired at some point since 2015 I
guess that didn't happen it didn't happen in 2017 when the when this when the original appeal was
filed it didn't happen in 2019 when this new appeal on essentially the same issue that was
brought in 2017 was filed uh so as long as that permit was not in fact revoked the building
permit itself is good and i don't believe that i mean if this there isn't any basis to revoke
the to revoke that zoning permit at this point so any any of the other issues that have to deal
with like what what result you know could be reached here by that board i'm not gonna i mean
you know could be reached here by that board i'm not gonna i mean i tend i certainly i think i
i tend i certainly i think
agree with miss aleta that the board can't grant a condition on a buy right permit uh i'm not even
sure that the zoning board can grant any kind of condition one way or the other on a building permit
which is technically the only thing that's really before you now uh i mean again it you're being
asked to uh to invalidate a building permit on the basis that the zoning permit was not valid
but again the zoning permit is valid simply by virtue of the fact that it was still out there
and had not been revoked by lni and again i do believe the non-revocation of that permit has to
be a an assumed fact here and you know if it's not i'm not sure what we do because it seems to
me that's got to be one of the basic you know abc facts that the parties would have certainly i would
have understood that as being one of the stipulated facts that would allow us to go forward on on
argument rather than introducing witnesses i mean if had i known this was going to be an issue i
certainly could have called somebody at LNI and say hey can I just can can you come over here and
just testify this permit was not revoked and they would have said you know presumably sure
popped up popped open atlas or equipped and said yep there it is still there not revoked
I mean if you need that testimony I guess I can bring it but I don't see the point because I'm
pretty sure that we wouldn't be here if that permit had been revoked that's not not to interrupt
No, but that's not our burden. The burden is for the appellant to produce evidence or testimony that the permit was revoked. None exists.
Well, again, I don't disagree with it. What I'm saying is that it was our understanding, my understanding at least, that going forward on briefs meant that there was a stipulation of facts.
the most basic one of which, to me, is there was a zoning permit that Mr. Bonnie's client believes
should have been revoked because it had expired, but wasn't. So, I don't, you know, but that being
said, anyway, the point is, is that, you know, any, whatever the board wants to do with respect
to the other stuff, I mean, we'll just simply take a position that I think it would be problematic
to issue a condition a decision that conditioned a building permit but you know certainly if the
parties want to spend time and see if they could work something like that out i have nothing to say
about it but um again the the the building permit is good again it's our position the building
permit is good solely by virtue of the fact that the the zoning permit had not been revoked uh and
I can say that there are reasons why that wasn't revoked, but because, again, it was my understanding
that that was a precondition of even having this argument go forward, that it was understood that
it wasn't revoked, I didn't bring anybody to testify about why it wasn't revoked, and I didn't
brief on why it wasn't revoked, but there are, in fact, reasons why it wasn't revoked. I mean,
that much I will represent that this issue came up in 2017. Again, there were at least three or
four continuances of the case in 2017 the plans examiner that was available at the time uh he and
i and ms baldwin went over this matter i'm familiar with what happened in that time and
you know anyway so you can't say there's evidence to support your position but you're
but since you can't bring in the evidence just you said we were doing this just trust you that
the evidence is out there that's not fair game but excuse me i'm sorry this is i've been asking
that for two months what facts were you guys stipulating to and nobody responded so it seems
to me the only reasonable fact that i would stipulate to was that was the existence of
a zoning permit that hadn't been revoked nothing else really matters to me that's the only fact
that i'm stipulating to because it's the only one that matters when you're finished i'll go
Okay, let me interrupt for one minute to, excuse me.
Sharon, yes.
Yes, Mr. Bonney, isn't it your burden of proof to show that these permits were issued in error?
And if you believe they were revoked, weren't you required to submit evidence to that effect?
And if you believe that any L&I employee acted improperly, I mean, you understand that there is a presumption that L&I employees perform
their job properly, and that their decisions are correct, unless you are able to rebut that with evidence.
I understand that, and I'm making a slightly different point.
We're talking about two different, there's two different
we're talking about two different,
there's two different terms being mentioned here
in this argument.
One is that the permit expired
and is void because it expired.
That's what I am arguing.
And I am arguing that how can it be
that a 2013 zoning permit that lasts for three years
didn't expire by six years later, by six years later.
Now, this is not a case where somebody is proceeding
with the same work, that it's the building permit
that's just taking more time to build out,
that it's the same.
No, this is a different building permit.
In fact, it's the third building permit that has been obtained.
First, a building permit in 2013, then a building permit in 2017, and now a third building permit in 2019.
And I would also remind the board that when the applicant came before you, when the owner came before you in 2017 to do what he only thought was the legalization of the eight additional square feet of overbuild, he came to you with a refusal that was issued by L&I at that time.
And that refusal listed all the old variances as still needing to be obtained by the board.
It did not say that all he needed was a variance for the eight additional square feet.
It said that all those original dimensional variances that we believe had expired,
it seems to me that L&I by issuing the refusal and listing all those things as still being
needed as variants agreed with us or else why would they have listed the need to get
all those variances that had already been obtained but let me contrast that with what is being
argued by my learned counsel and in the question from the ZBA solicitor, was in fact the zoning
permit revoked? I don't know whether it was revoked, and I'm not here to say that it was revoked.
That's not my case. That's not my argument. And if you believe, if the board believes that a zoning
permit that is not revoked is therefore still valid, period, well, then you have to rule against
me. But I would say that you can't make that determination because that's not the law. That's
not the code as I read it. The permit is valid for a certain period of time. After that period
of time comes, you can't continue to use it. Now, I would lay out the following hypothetical because
I think six years is enough, because six is more than three, but let's make it even more
outlandish. Let's say a zoning permit was issued in 2013, as in this case, and 100 years goes by,
and in 100 years, the applicant goes for a third building permit on reliance on that 100-year-old
zoning permit now no one at lni in my hypothetical affirmatively revoked it so it doesn't you can't
see on the computer that it says revoked because i don't think they go around and say i don't think
that's l we don't know for a fact that that's their job i would kind of doubt that that's their
job to monitor all zoning permits issued and after three years check to see if there's still
workmen on site and blah, blah, blah, and if not to go ahead and revoke it, my guess is it just
sits there on the computer. But we don't know that. But I would say that in that case,
I think everybody would readily agree, and I'm hoping you readily agree about six years,
but you'd equally agree after 100 years that that permit has expired. It expires on its own terms.
it evaporates um too i don't even know if it's worth mentioning that the uh american with
disabilities act doesn't apply in this situation that's not relevant i guess i'll just leave it at
that mr chairman if i could just respond very briefly i don't want to break i don't want to
break the rhythm but i guess that's fine is the sonographer does you do you need a break
okay so i would just mention that what is missing from mr reuter's what is missing from mr reuter's
recitation is the possibility that i think is pretty clear that the zoning that the zoning examiner
that I think is pretty clear that the zoning that the zoning examiner made a mistake. And I think
it's that the buildings that the building plans examiner made a mistake that that that to me is
obviously what happened. But I can't, I can't explain what was going through that person's
mind. But I can explain that when you look at a permit, and it's six years old. Now, Mr. Chairman,
there are ways to extend permits in this city. There's a state law, if you need an extension on
a permit. There's a state law that allows you to extend it, I believe, a number of years. You can
fill out a form and pay a fee and get an extension. That wasn't done in this case. Excuse me, let me
ask one more question. Mr. Bonney, if you believe that, that the examiner made a mistake, weren't
you required to call him as a witness? No, because I believe there's already evidence in the case that
the zoning permit had expired um if i could again respond um
i i'm not denying that mr bonnie has the authority has the ability and the right to
argue that the plans examiner expired again my understanding of going forward on a stipulate on
on briefs is and a stipulation what the facts are is that the plans examiner did what the plans
examiner did in other words why the plans examiner did what they did is not you know if we accept
like say as an offer of proof that the plans examiner were he called to testify would say
i looked at it i saw the zoning permit i believed it was still accurate i issued uh i issued the
building permit i don't need to bring in a witness to do that because i think that's something
everybody would stipulate and agree to that's in fact what happened mr bonnie wants to argue the
plans examiner made a mistake that's fine he can he can argue that i'm not saying he doesn't have
right to argue that but uh what i'm saying is that again the with respect to what the plans
examiner did the plans examiner looked and saw that there was not an expired uh that there was
not a revoke there was still there was still a live zoning permit i do want to also point out
that the the three-year rule the three-year rule the a zoning permit uh expires in three years
if the construction or operation that was pursuant to the permit
had not begun within the three years.
So again, it's not like, yes, Mr. Bonney is 100% correct.
If you don't do anything for more than three years,
it should be deemed expired.
I don't have a problem with that.
What we have in this case, though, is a series of building permits
that were, in fact, issued over the years,
some of which were exceeded.
There were violations that were issued.
that's that's between you know uh the the private parties here you know to deal with that's mr
anastasia's problem that's his client's problem but the fact is is that there were permits that
were issued over the year in 2017 when we came here there was a permit that ultimately got issued
and whether again mr bonnie thinks or mr anastasia think or they both agree that the you know the
agreement wasn't followed again it doesn't really matter that's an agreement between them the fact
is is that there were permits that were issued so once those building permits are issued and work
takes place the three-year rule disappears anyway the three-year rule is only if you have
like three years of inactivity or three years of of doing nothing so even so again
what mr bonnie's arguing is that if i if i get a zoning permit and then i get a building permit
And let's say just out of a pure, honest error, there's mistakes in what I've done on the building permit, and now it's in violation, and I'm down to the third year.
Now I lose my zoning permit.
I've got to go back and start over the whole process.
That's not how it works.
That's never how it works.
The clock doesn't run out.
The clock doesn't run out as long as – so, again, I don't think – and, again, I don't know, but I don't think the allegation is everything that the property owner did here was wrong and illegal.
So, again, some of it was, clearly, because L&I issued violations.
But there was work that was done that was consistent with the zoning permit.
So the three-year clock gets told every time there's work that's being done that's legal, at least.
And actually, even if it's not legal, again, unless L&I believes that it has to be revoked because now he's doing something completely different.
Like he gets a zoning permit to build a deck, and he goes and puts in a garage or something completely different.
So, you know, exceeding footprints, things like that, you know, again, I'm not going to get into like what are the different things that might warrant a revocation or some other action.
But again, that's not the case here.
So we're not talking about 100 years of somebody doing nothing.
I'm not arguing that.
I'm saying in this case, the three-year rule didn't really – it certainly was – let's put it this way.
Again, it is self-evident that L&I made a determination that the three-year rule didn't apply because, in fact, they didn't revoke the permit.
and if you're saying they shouldn't revoke the record well again we're making argument here to
And if you're saying they shouldn't revoke the –
That's not a record.
me that's just that is that is that is a logical conclusion if you can say that but it's certainly
not in evidence that the building argument of course it's not evidence okay all right
thank you the violations i don't really have anything else to say here so all right thank you
i just want to say very briefly mr chairman the violations dated 2015 are uh prima facie evidence
that work had commenced.
In fact, work commenced in 2013
and there was work in 2014
and then there was an unintentional build-out.
So then there were violations issued 2015
and then there was improvements
to comply with the violations in 2015 and 2016.
And then 2017, he came back for more relief
through the zoning process.
So at no point was there not work being done.
um so and that's that's the rule as len knows better than anybody can i make a final statement
or questions quickly please okay well first of all mr anastasia you represented to this board
two years ago that it was an intentional um overbuild and so you can't say now that it was
an unintentional overbill but um that's that's not the point the point is whether it was intentional
or unintentional the point is does that permit survive and it does right i believe that thank
thank you members of the board and opposing counsel and board solicitor i believe that the
that the record is clear and that the evidence in front of the board is clear that the 2013 zoning
permit expired. And the evidence is that in 2017, when additional refusal was generated,
L&I listed all those original variances again. At that hearing, the Planning Commission agreed
with us and said on the record, legal permits have expired. At that hearing, this board denied
All of those variances. So I think the board is bound by its 2017 decision. I believe that this board in 2017 and denying all of those variances
um concluded and and uh uh resolved that there's no zoning in place for this matter
and i i believe that the point being made by the other side that we cannot put before this board
a piece of paper that says that that permit was affirmatively revoked by the city is not
the end-all and be-all of this case. I believe we all know how to count three years, and if
this was a matter that went in a straight line where someone just needed more time,
that would be a different case. I'm not asking this board to make a sweeping conclusion
that three years after the date, you know, everything evaporates. I'm not saying that,
but in this case, given the facts that I just laid out and the term determination that this
board made in 2017 that Mr. Holloman said testimony in 17 and the fact that this is now the third
building permit in six years I believe makes our case and thank you very much for your time.
not to be closing thank you again this is that that's a lot of uh words but the bottom line is
very simple did lni issue improperly the 2019 permit uh and the appellant i'm sorry the appellant
did not meet its burden they had to provide some sort of evidence either documented or in testimony
that in fact the 2013 permit either expired or was revoked and they could do neither they've done
if they thought that the examiner made a mistake the building examiner that he needed to be here
and the fact of the matter is that three-year rule as I said a little earlier as did Len that
that three-year rule applies to projects that there's never any work done. There was work done
in 13, 14, 15, violations complied with in 15 and 16, and then a new application in 17. There was
constant work. And for that reason, I don't think, in fact, I know that permit wasn't expired.
Mr. Bonney says he believes it was. Well, we can believe a lot of things, but we need evidence in a legal proceeding. And unless or until he could produce that, I'm asking this board to deny his appeal.
Mr. Bonnie says he believes it was. Well, we can believe a lot of things, but we need
thank you then just just very briefly again just so the board understands it was my
my understanding uh that between the private parties private council in this case that we
were going forward on our on briefs and argument only uh this was a case where i think
the facts that existed were pretty much um i did agree that the facts were pretty much understood
And the fact was, Plans Examiner reviewed the 2019 building permit application, saw that there was a live zoning permit, i.e. one that had not been revoked, and issued the building permit.
Those are the basic facts that I was assuming would be stipulated to by everybody.
and on that basis i didn't see any reason uh i i believe that the the brief that was filed by
miss mr anastasia mr cook was fine it covered all the points i didn't need to brief separately
and it because again it was this it was my assumption maybe it was my mistake to assume
this but it was my assumption that the fact of the thing that el and i did that triggered the
appeal would at least be the one thing that everybody agreed had happened i.e that the
plans examiner issued a permit based upon the plans examiner's apparent assumption that their
that the the zoning permit was live and and again let me put let me put it this way had i believed
if if if in my discussions with ellen i ellen i told me oh the plans examiner made a mistake i
would have just told everybody the plans examiner made a mistake and we would have reacted in that
way. So, I mean, you have to accept my explanation as an officer of the court that the L&I, if the
L&I inspector were called to testify, the L&I inspector would say that he believed that the
permit was validly issued because the zoning permit was live. I would not go so far as to say
whether the plans examiner would answer, well, the permit should or should not have been considered
expired because that's not a plans examiner's role that is an inspector's role to determine
whether or not a zoning permit is expired so i don't even think that a plans examiner had a plans
examiner been present we would have had an answer from a plans examiner about the expiration the
issue of the expiration of the underlying zoning permit because that's not the role of a plans
examiner that because that's an enforcement issue but again that being the case it
it's simply our position that the 2019 building permit is correct that the zoning permit in fact
was still valid it had not been revoked and that it had not expired because there had been
enough of a continuation of work uh that the three-year rule didn't kick in i mean there's
plenty of construction projects that take far longer than three years and there's stops and
starts and even without intervention by the government like of course we're doing right now
due to covid even without that we don't go requiring people to go get new zoning permits
every time there's a delay in construction because they might be hitting up against the three-year
rule and again whether or not l and i should have done that whether or not that might be better
governance somebody can argue that but we didn't do that you're giving a ton of testimony and it's
i just want to state for the record that it's highly inappropriate for you to help his board
and what they would do if they were i think it's i think he's mr rooters going to the point of the
argument that you're making here there's a question of of the people act appropriately
down on L&I or inappropriately and I think he's addressing that. Yeah I mean I'm making an
argument based upon what I believe are the basic facts of the case that really are not denied by
anybody. So you know again so anyway I think you know there's no point in belaboring the issue
with respect to whether or not the board can split the baby as it were in the way that Mr.
Bonnie has suggested. Again, I'm not going to take a firm position on that one way or the other.
I do think it's problematic, although for the city, I would say that it would be difficult.
I can't say whether or not if a decision like that came out, I don't know what Ellen and I
what l and i would say with respect to that uh that possible outcome i mean if the board issues
would say with respect to that possible outcome.
a decision and says this is what we want to happen then i guess it's just a question of
whether the city would appeal that kind of a decision um and you know so so i'm not gonna
i i just have not been able to get a response from l and i in terms of that kind of a condition i do
agree that you generally can't impose conditions on buy right permits although we have had
settlement agreements where we have done something similar to that by adding additional language that
maybe explain we did that with the um we reached agreements on a couple other cases where we added
some additional language to buy right permits but generally that additional language was consistent
with the actual original approval mr reuter can i interrupt you to say that those were
settlements that were reached between the party who held the permit and the law department or the
city the zoning board was not involved no that's right and we actually wound up breaching those
decisions in common please court and then we went back and essentially asked for kind of a
stipulated decision so again it's a little bit different here but again i i would well i would
I just don't, I don't know how Ellen and I would react to something like that.
That's fair enough.
If I may, Harry, come here.
If that were to happen, if one of these suggestions by Mr. Boni were to take place after the permit's been issued, after everything's been built and relied upon, it becomes a vested rights issue in addition to anything else.
Thank you.
We're going to, at this time, going to ask the board if they have any questions.
no no mr chairman may i mention i'm going to go down this yes paul okay i i just want to thank
mr reuter for touching upon what it what it is we're actually seeking which is you know a slight
modification so that the uh door becomes a window and that is what we're asking for and if and if
reuter has any idea about i'm gonna i'm gonna throw something at you i'm gonna throw something
at you just as a hypothetical the balcony is okay as long as it's not somewhat they don't
have the sliding glass doors suppose they put a double hung window a hung window in place of the
sliding doors somebody opens the bottom half of that and decides to climb out onto the balcony
nothing's been accomplished you're still gonna have use of it i'm not trying to be sarcastic
Like it just, either you put a solid window that is not able to, you can't open it, it
stays shut all the time.
But to say we don't like the sliding glass doors, the owner of the property can decide,
you know what, I don't want to fight this anymore.
I'm going to put a double-hung window in.
Well, I have a better idea, which is actually goes with something that Mr. Anastasia spoke
to which is for 200 years including in my house um we'll have a window uh that um for 200 years
could pop out just like many windows in philadelphia so that when you're moving in a couch
or a refrigerator you can your candy man can pop out we would be fine with that type of window they
can pop it out and then decide to stand out there and have a smoke or something i mean it's just they
want to pop it out like that god bless them but i'm saying that that would be okay under the
language that we're suggesting to you. I hear you. I hear you. I don't think the double hung would be,
but anyway, we leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman, that pop-out window might be good
for me. Yeah, something. Anyway, I'm not making light of it. I'm just... I understand, no. I can't
believe that all these years, you're still arguing this case, but everybody's entitled to their day.
Well, I think part of it is that we reached a deal and the deal was broke. And if that's,
if that's the case we we there's a venue for that this is not the venue right well exactly this is
but if it's not so you know that's fine okay maybe maybe there's still an opportunity with that i
will ask if there's anyone out there who wishes to testify please raise your hand spell your name
i will swear you in and i'm asking you to be as brief as possible uh chair i really believe
everybody is going everybody has left okay thank you thank you very much all right planning
commission they don't weigh in on this right right now cleaning doesn't weigh in calendar number
yep somebody's going to say something i'm sorry no they're going as well yeah okay calendar number
three eight eight one seven two two one pine street my vote is to deny the appeal appeal denied
appeal denied appeal denied appeal denied thank you gentlemen thank you mr chair and madam chair
thank you gentlemen thank you mr chair and madam chair and members of the board thank you thanks
and members of the board thank you thanks everybody
everybody good to see everybody take care thank you so much take care i'll see you walking past
my house one day okay bye-bye all right i think that concludes everything or tanya we're done
oh yes jaren everything is all right see you all tomorrow morning have a good night stay safe
Bye-bye.
Take care.
Be safe.
Good night.
Take care, everybody.
Good night.
Thank you.
Bye, Sharon.
Get some sleep.
I have tomorrow's summaries to do.
Oh, my God.
Say hi to the dog, Sharon.
I will.
Thank you.