Okay, Chair, we have 36 attendees and counting, so we can proceed as you wish.
Thank you.
I'm ready to go.
Good morning, my name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning's ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ishmael Shaheed.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chair.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Chair.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and also our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
Video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property in question. And lastly, the question and answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our executive director,
Tanya Sunken. Let's look at today's list, this morning's list for continuances.
Number one, MI 2023-001-026-4353 Paul Street. The case is continued. Number two, MI 2022-007-343-6020
Lansdale Avenue. The case is continued. And number 11, MI 2023-001-044-2853 North Bailey Street.
That case is continued. Does anyone have any comments relative to the three cases I just
continued? Good morning, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. I will be co-hosting today. I have one hand
raised from
Young I've allowed
them to speak
Hi could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter
Always Young are you present
Excuse me, Chair. It appears that she had two devices that she's logged into. We'll try the second one if you like.
You got it.
Hello?
Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Eloise Young, E-L-O-I-S-E, last name Young, Y-O-U-N-G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Which of those three cases are you interested in?
60-20 Lansdowne Avenue.
Let's see here.
Okay, so that case has been continued.
we need more time for community feedback. This is the second time it's been continued.
Okay. As soon as we get the community feedback, we will make sure we get this on, okay?
I'm from the RCO. I'm confused about needing community feedback.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. This is Hillary. I'm sorry. This was handled. This is handled. It's going to be continued.
Thank you. Are there any other requests for continuance?
Chair, there is a hand raised from a number ending in 3552. I will allow them to speak at this time.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, this is Adrienne Fernandez of Swamp Pool Neighborhood Association, RCO.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Yes, my last name is spelled S-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
Yes, my last name is spelled S-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What case are you calling about?
I'm calling about 2712 North 16th Street, and I am requesting continuance because the applicant was listed as an expediter named Baditsa.
and um the affected rcos received no email notice for the uh community meeting and also
the rco coordinator did not comply with the code to consult with all affected rcos for the meeting
also this property so so hold on a minute is allegheny west civic associates has a letter
of support for that, right? I have no idea because I asked for documents and they were not sent at
all. We have... Algeny West Civic Association has a support, has a letter of support for that
project. So what we're going to do is we'll hear the case. We'll hear the case. And when I open it
up to the public, you can come on. Okay. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Hold on. This is Mr. Chair.
Sorry, this is Hillary. Mr. Chair. So this, this case does have an attorney. That's Darlene
three i see her hand is raised um she will be presenting the case today okay do you want to
bring her one right now i'm allowed to speak sir hi good morning could you state your name
please and spell for the court reporter good morning commissioner darlene three
r l e n e three t h r e a do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but
two things you turn your volume up just a little bit please yes yes okay proceed
uh good morning commissioner i am handling this case on the expedited bedita cadelia it's my
understanding all notices were sent i have the notice that was sent out and the proof of mailing
there were 22 people at this meet a letter of support i know but i i think that's where i am
And what I'm going to do is we're going to hear the case.
Can I say one thing, though?
Can I say one thing?
The meeting that was held, we received no communication at all by email.
She's speaking about what was mailed out by.
OK, so you're going to have a chance.
You can raise that.
You can raise that when we call the case.
We're going to go on with the case.
Are there any other requests?
Are there any other requests for continuances?
uh mr chair i have michael bowman with the hand raised i've allowed them
mr bowman please state your name for the court reporter
morning mr bowman michael bowman please unmute and wait to be sworn in
i'm ready all right mr bowman just state your name and
please and spell for the court reporter good morning commissioner michael bowman
m i uh the last name you spell b-o-w-m-a-n right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do and you want a continuance for mi 2023
3-0-0-0-9-9-0-8129 Germantown Avenue? That's correct. All right. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Approved. Are there any other requests for continuance?
No further answers, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go to number six,
MI-2022-001-992-4101 Germantown Avenue.
There are no exhibits, third listing.
No one appeared for the applicant at the prior listing.
Case was continued, must be heard.
Julio Garcia and the listed applicant is Charlie and Sookie Cho, listed owners.
Mr. Chair I have Yvonne Haskins with her hand raised okay allow them to speak
Ms. Haskins yes good morning good morning could you state your name please and spell for the
court reporter. Yvonne Boone, Haskins, H-A-S-K-I-N-S. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth?
H-A-S-K-I-N-S.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you involved in 4101 Germantown Avenue?
I'm involved in, no, sir.
I'm calling only because I have a number of people who are in the community to make sure that our case has been continuing.
And I can't really remember that it's a three-story.
Ms. Haskins, you're breaking up.
Are you involved in this case here, 4101 Germantown Avenue?
Can you hear me now?
Can you hear me now?
I hear you now, but what I'm saying, are you involved in this case?
Yes, sir.
I am calling to sign out of a case that's scheduled.
Ms. Haskins, I'm in the middle of hearing this 4101 Germantown Avenue.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
Ms. Haskins, I did get your email.
We will be announcing the continuances on the 3.30 list at 3.30.
Oh, actually, that's what I wanted to make sure.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience from 4101 Germantown Avenue?
Sir, there are no hands.
Thank you.
So MI 2022-001-992, 4101 Germantown Avenue.
This is the third listing.
No exhibits.
No one appeared the last time.
I vote to dismiss.
My vote is to dismiss.
James Selma, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
We're going to go to our regular list now.
I'm going to start at number 7, MI 2023, 000818773 Shawman Avenue.
Ernest Pertikin is the owner applicant.
It's a pro se.
There was an RCO meeting held on 3-8-23.
We do not have the letters of yet,
but there's a petition of support signed by 21 neighbors,
along with five other letters of support.
Mr. Pertikin.
Mr. Peterkin will be rejoining as a panelist.
Hold on a second.
Good morning, sir.
Mr. Peterkin, you have to unmute yourself, please.
all right good morning good morning could you state your name and spell please for the court
reporter my name is ernest peterkin my name is spelled e-r-n-e-s-t my last name is p-e-t-e-r-k-i-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do could you turn your video in please yes sir
Thank you. Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Yes, sir.
Good morning, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right.
okay all right you start mr chair can you read the refusal into the record please
sure i will this application is for the legalization of the fence size and location
as shown in plan any fence located nearer to the lot line than the required building setback or
the actual distance of the building from the lot line whichever is greater shall not be more than
four feet in height and no more than 50% opaque, whereas the plan shows six feet in height and
almost 100% opaque. Proceed, sir. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning,
members of the board. My name is Ernest Peterkin. I'm the owner of 773 Shawmont Avenue. Thank you
for hearing my case. I'm here today seeking a variance for my property that would allow my
front fence to be six foot tall and almost 90% opaque. My lot is oddly shaped similar to a
triangle with the front of the home facing the point. Here I have an image from 1909. Here you
can see the shape of the lot and I'm going to scroll down and I'll actually show some plans
for the fence so you can see the shape of the lot here. Due to the shape of the lot and the house
setback, a large portion of the usable outdoor space is found in the front of the
a large portion of the usable outdoor space is found in the front of the property.
I understand that zoning laws are made for the safety of the public.
Traffic safety is of utmost concern for street-side fences.
I'm prepared to demonstrate to the board that not only does my fence enhance the corner,
but more importantly, it does not negatively affect traffic safety.
Before I move forward, however, I have to acknowledge one of the many mistakes I've made
along the way. This fence was constructed without first applying for a zoning permit.
I'm well-versed in interior home remodeling, but my experience has not included extensive
exterior work such as larger fences. For the construction of this fence, I sought help from
a subcontractor to aid me. I was assured at the time that I didn't need a permit.
Perhaps my subcontractor was simply mistaken, or perhaps he misunderstood the circumstances.
Regardless, the fault does lie with me.
My fence construction was not a deliberate act of zoning disregard.
It was a mistake.
At the time, I thought I was taking all of the right steps.
I even hired the city to perform a survey of my property for the fence prior to the construction.
uh this here is the order for the survey that went through the city of philadelphia
for them to come out and survey the property prior to constructing the fence
this process has been quite a learning experience especially in dealing with my neighbors the vast
majority of which have shown a great deal of support for my fence but i'll speak more about
that momentarily the first thing that i would like to bring your attention to i'm scrolling to it now
Okay, first thing I would like to bring your attention to is the traffic impact analysis.
Hold on one second.
This impact analysis was executed by the civil engineer Timothy P. Reilly of DJS Associates.
If you'd allow, I'd like to read a portion of the report.
All right.
All right.
According to the available data, an application was made to the City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspection for the legalization of the fence located on 773 Shawmont Avenue.
This application was denied as it was found that the subject fence violated Section 14-706-3A1 of the Philadelphia Code.
The reason of the refusal from the City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections was that any fence located nearer to the lot line than the required building setback or the actual distance of the building from the lot line, whichever is greater, shall be no more than four feet in height and no more than 50% opaque, and the plans shall six feet and almost 100% opaque.
The section of the Philadelphia Code referenced by the refusal letter is related to the desire to prevent opaque fences and walls from obstructing otherwise open site triangles.
The code referenced by the refusal letter applies the same concept to front lots within residential districts specifically.
Though the subject fence certainly does not meet these requirements, the evaluation of its impact on the site triangle at the intersection of Shawmont Avenue and Wigert Avenue needs more context.
The process of evaluating intersection site distance involves placing operators at their respective decision points and ensuring that each operator has an unobstructed view of other approaching vehicles at the location where decision to proceed must be made.
These decision points are determined either by traffic control or stop signs and by the distance reasonably prudent operator for an operator to perceive.
For a typical four-way stop-controlled intersection, or in this case, a three-way, all-way stop-controlled intersection, each vehicle operator will be at their decision point when located at their stop position in the vicinity of the stop sign.
For more context, consider the following from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Mr. Peterkin, we actually have in our notes the whole report.
Okay, so you have the whole report.
So we have the report and we have the results where they said, you know, a site inspection was performed by the office.
So we have it.
All right, so I'll skip through.
All right, thank you.
My apologies.
No, no, you don't have to apologize.
We understand this.
This analysis confirms that my fence does not negatively affect traffic safety.
This analysis confirms that my fence does not negatively affect traffic safety.
Looking at the pictures from the report, and I'll show these pictures here, and I know you have those as well, you can see full sight lines of the corner of the property.
My fence is actually not in the sight line at all.
So this is as if if you're coming from Wiggard Street and you're turning on the Shawmont, you're here at the stop sign.
I'll scroll down to the next sight line.
this is coming from shawmont street and making a right on the wiggard on the far right corner would
be where my fence is set back about 30 feet from this distance here all right um
perfect so that's that's there for that my fence has been up for over two years now and i honestly
believe that it is a fact that my fence does not make the corner any less safe for traffic
I'm going to scroll down to my next exhibit. On the screen, I have a collage of fences in my
immediate neighborhood. All of these pictures are from street-facing fences within seven blocks of
my home. They're literally everywhere. I did not provide addresses to these fences as it's not my
goal to bring any unwanted attention or hardship to my fellow neighbors. I took these pictures just
to show the board how common six-foot, low-opacity street-facing fences are in my immediate
neighborhood. Many of these properties are also corner properties. With these pictures visible,
I'd like to speak about my neighbors, not only the ones that are for the fence, but also the few who
are against. The community meeting on March 8, 2023 rendered a split vote with nine opposed and
10 unopposed to my fence. One of the unopposed votes was actually from the president of the
meeting. Some neighbors showed concern that I didn't get the zoning permit previously.
Others stated that they simply didn't like my fence, claiming it was an eyesore.
But when I look at these fences in our neighborhood, I see all kinds of fences,
some of which I love and others aren't my personal taste. However, in this neighborhood
in Roxborough, as far as my knowledge, there are no bylaws that prohibit certain color
or styles offenses like these ones here. Aesthetic taste alone shouldn't be good enough of a reason
for a family to be denied offense that doesn't affect public safety, traffic, or the usability
of their neighbor's own property, if the zoning board allows, of course. I've done all that I can
to address the neighbors that are opposed, including writing letters. But at the end of the
day. I don't know how to address or convince certain people that hate just because they hate.
This fence was constructed for two reasons, and I have a picture here of the fence within the
collage as well. The fence was constructed for two reasons. One, my children's safety
and my wife's peace of mind. Several years ago, my wife was a victim of a sexual assault in the
yard of her childhood home. Since then, she's had a hard time being outdoors. I built this fence for
her not to anger myself from my neighbors. I fully understand that an assault alone is not reason
enough for a variance, but when said variance doesn't actually harm the community, I pray that
the board will consider it. But as I previously stated, the vast majority of my neighborhood
in the affected area has shown support. Here is a petition, which I know you also have,
but I'm showing it as an exhibit. Here's a petition signed by 29 neighbors in support of
my fence. We purposefully only canvassed in our immediate area within a couple blocks of our
house so that we would get as many signatures from affected neighbors as possible, the same
neighbors that we had to write the letters to for the RCO meetings. We have 26 signatures in total
from the affected neighbors and i also have another three letters of support um from neighbors that
weren't able to sign the petition for whatever reason perhaps they weren't home almost everyone
we spoke to were in support or indifference to our fence um i also have a few letters and notes from
the neighbors uh that i would like to read i'm assuming you have read these letters as well
You don't have to read. We have every letter here.
Thank you. I regret the errors I made in the process of constructing my fence, but I'm also aware that some of my neighbors who are opposed to the fence are using this variance request as an opportunity to target their negativity.
Prior to me purchasing this property, that corner was covered in litter and was a frequent hangout for teenagers and others to drink and participate in other activities.
The exterior surrounding my property was a mess. My family and I clean outside of the fence and collect left behind trash on that corner every week. We've been trying to add more beauty to an already wonderful neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you for your consideration.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, chair, chair.
Yes, Thomas.
Questions from the virtual audience.
Sir, I have a Stephen Folster with their hand raised.
I have enough of them to speak at this time.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Stephen Folster. First name is Stephen with a P-H-E-N. Last name is F as in Frank, O-E-L-S-T-E-R.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir. Are you a neighbor? Are you a neighbor?
I am a neighbor. And actually on the screen now is the letter that my wife and I wrote in support of the fence.
Just not to go through the entire letter, but I would say that we've lived on the block for over 40 years, and the intersection of Wigert and Shawmont was a hazardous intersection for a number of years, but they've now put four-way stop signs in, and most importantly, when the fence was constructed, there was a cedar tree.
There is a cedar tree at the point of the triangle, which for years, branches spread out into the traffic lanes on Shawmont Avenue, making it virtually impossible to see traffic on Wigert and vice versa to make a turn.
Those were totally trimmed back to the curb line.
And my wife and I are both in agreement that the fence actually improved the sight lines of the intersection.
Thank you so much for taking the time to call in, and we appreciate your comments.
Thank you.
You're welcome, Mr. Chairman.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
A Ron Perlman with the hand raised.
I have allowed them to speak at this time.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
I'm going to move on to the next person, sir. I have a Barbara Mancini with her hand raised.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Barbara Mancini, B-A-R-B-A-R-A-M-A-N-C-I-N-I, and with me is my husband,
wait a minute well just do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do are you um are you a neighbor yes i am are you in favor of or against i'm against
i oppose okay all right um thank you for taking the time to call and we appreciate your comment
can i anyone else is there anyone else in the virtual audience let me say anything
Yes, there's a John Witherup with their hand raised.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, everyone.
John Witherup, J-O-H-N-W-I-T-H-E-R-U-P.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Are you in favor of this or against?
In favor.
Thank you so much for taking the time to call, and we appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, David Quain with her hand raised.
I haven't got them to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and please spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is David Quain.
Last name is spelled Q-U-A-I-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
are you in favor or against the project i'm in favor of it thank you very much for taking the
time to call in we appreciate it is there anyone else in the virtual audience yes diane tadillo
with their hand raised i've allowed them to speak at this time sir hi could you state your name
please and spell for the court sonographer diane tadillo d-i-a-n-e-t-a-d-e-o right do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do are you a neighbor yes i
am are you in favor or against the project totally in favor of the project thank you so much for
taking the time to call in is there anyone else in the virtual audience yes a mary ellen g i've
allowed them to speak at this time i could you state your name please and spell for the court
sonographer. Yes, my name is Mary Ellen, M-A-R-Y-E-L-L-E-N.
Yes, my name is Mary Ellen, M-A-R-Y-E-L-L-E-N, last name G as in George, R-Y-S as in Sam, E-W-I-C-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Are you for or against the project?
Absolutely for it.
Thank you so much for taking the time to call, and we appreciate that.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair. Roth Perlman raised her hand again. Do you want me to let them speak?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Roth Perlman. R-O-T-H-P-E-R-E-L-M-A-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And your neighbor?
I live directly across the street.
Are you in favor or against the project?
I'm opposed to the project.
Thank you for taking the time, Colin.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Barbara Mancini.
Didn't we just have her?
Wait, I believe we did.
I'm sorry.
Anyone else?
No, Chair, no further hands.
All right. Planning Commission, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
David DeFecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
the appellant requests permission to legalize a fence installed without benefit of permits
that exceeds the allowable height by two feet and the allowable opacity by approximately 50%.
The appellant has not shown that an economic detriment would accrue if the appellant were
required to install a code-compliant fence. The City Planning Commission recommends the board
deny the proposed variances for legalization of a code of a non-compliant fence. Thank you.
um hillary we don't have the letter in hand we do have testimony that that a meeting was held
what the vote was and we also have 29 neighbors who sent petitions in i think it's appropriate
to vote today do you agree um yes mr chair the the meeting was was months ago it appears that
appropriate notices were sent out and we did get testimony as to the vote all right thank you very
much. MI 2023-000-818-773, Shawman Avenue. I vote yes.
James, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Sir, you have your votes.
Mr. Chair, I cannot hear Mr. Holloman's vote.
I think he said yes. We'll try again. Tom?
Thomas Solomon. Thank you very much, Tom. Thank you. Now we're going to go to our regular list
here. Second one. We're going to go to number four. MI 2023-001-039-2712 North 16th Street.
Darlene Treet is the attorney.
Letter of support from Allegheny West Civic Association.
Darlene Treet will be rejoining as a panelist.
Good morning, Council.
Good morning, Commissioners. Darlene Threat on behalf of the applicant.
Darlene, we're having a hard time hearing you.
Let me see if I can move a little bit. I'm having Hussain
this morning.
Is this any better, Commissioner?
It's a little bit. Yep. Thank you.
You've already been sworn. Just state your name for the record.
Darlene 3, 4,
Pennsylvania, 1, excuse me,
Ballack-Kinwood, PA, 19104.
Right. Is the stenographer hearing her okay?
Right. Is the
stenographer hearing her okay?
Mr. Chairman, I believe I heard most of it, but I am dropping a word or two. I apologize.
Okay. Darlene, try to speak again.
This is Darlene 3, East City Avenue, number 496, Ballot-Kinwood, PA, 190.
That's better. That's better. Okay.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My client is Flores, Rental, and I have Mr. William Akaya on the line today.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, they were.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
are you able to see my screen yeah but we're still struggling hearing your voice
I'll try and speak up and I'll try and get a better location next time
now good morning commissioners I'm representing the applicant at
12 north 16 street uh they two darlene i don't i don't think this is not darlene i don't think
the stenographer is hearing you yes mr chairman uh there are not hearing could you do me a favor
why don't we're going to go on to another case could you see if you can have this fixed
please. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Number nine, MI 2022, 003-753-825-South 13th Street. Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Letter support from Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition.
Joe Consul will be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Consul.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yeah, it's Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, Consul, C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yeah, the client is Mr. Pasquale DiGiulio, the owner of the property.
Okay, our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
my packet come up yes all right 825 south 13th street uh was purchased in 2003 by um
mr di julio um at that time it was a dilapidated three unit uh it's been fixed up over the years
and they did not seek the appropriate number of rental licenses until recently.
The refusal comes because while this is zoned RM1, the lot area is only 961 square feet,
whereas 1,080 square feet will be required for the three units.
So our hardship in my estimation is that it's a de minimis difference in the amount of square feet that are required for that third unit.
And as it's already set up as a three unit, we believe that the variance should be granted for that third unit.
we appeared in front of hawthorne and we got a full support of both the board and 27 meeting
attendees a very well attended meeting so we're hopeful that'll have some support this property
So we're hopeful that'll have some support.
This property is right across from the Hawthorne Pool on 13th Street.
All the properties there are two, three, three units, two units, four units.
And we believe ours fits in the character of that block.
Here's some photos and plans.
We've included some interiors as well.
Property has been fixed up nicely and is ready to be rented out.
And in addition to that, we've included our tax compliance and project information form, as well as the deed showing that was actually transferred in 2019 to him and his wife, but he had purchased it in 2003.
With that, I'll call my client to raise his hand and adopt my testimony.
They've been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. Good morning, everyone. My name is Pasquale DiGiulio, P-A-S-Q-U-A-L-E.
Last name, D as in David, I, G as in George, I, U, L, I, O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. DiGiulio.
Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your property on 13th Street?
Yes, I did, sir.
Was it true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, sir.
All right.
I have nothing further.
Questions from the board?
Do you have any questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no further answer, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair, and good morning. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The proposed variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed dimensional variance.
Thank you. MI 2022-003-753-825 South 13th Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, Board.
Thomas?
Oh, sorry.
Mr. Consul, you have your three votes.
Thank you.
Number 10, MI 2023-001-040-1204 East Chelten Avenue.
Roger Perry is the attorney for the owner.
There was a letter of opposition from the 12th Ward Democratic Committee, RCO.
Mr. Perry will be rejoining as a panelist.
Right.
good morning mr perry morning could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yes my name is roger perry r-o-g-e-r-p-e-r-r-y and i represent the owner of the property
sandrina williams all right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do our vice chair has just a few questions good morning council do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate towards adequacy i do have the email and all
the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days
advance of this hearing yes i have thank you please proceed and share your screen
okay i have several screens to share um this is uh the photographs are probably
the easiest thing well let me go all the way back to the beginning
this is the deed i represent sandrina william she uh purchased this property as an individual
mr perry nothing there's nothing up there's nothing up uh
You're coming up now.
Oh, great.
Thank you very much.
Here you are.
Start at the beginning.
Sandrina Williams purchased this property a year ago.
a year ago. She lives in the first floor of an over-under duplex. She understood when she
She lives in the first floor of an over-under.
purchased it that it was a duplex, and indeed the records of the city go back to 1997 when the
property was operated as a duplex. And purchasing it last year, she felt it was a duplex, and it
was indeed renovated and metered and so forth as such. When she went to get her current rental
license. They indicated that the use had expired for, you know, non-licensing over the years and
so forth. So we had two meetings with the RCOs. There were three RCOs involved. They weren't
particularly concerned about the duplex use. This is the second unit and this is the first unit and
so forth, adjacent properties or residential properties as well. Their concern was that
there were some issues at the back of the house. So this was the second meeting. We both noticed
and flyered for both meetings and so forth. These are the adjacent properties.
Property historically was adjacent to a commercial use. This is the property at 1202,
which you can see as a corner was used as a traditional commercial property but as you move
further up 1204 1206 and so forth you had traditional residential uses and so forth
this is miss williams apartment on the first floor you can see it's all occupied and so forth
separate bathroom and kitchens this is the rear yard area in the rear yard area this is a letter
of opposition, if we read the letter of opposition, they indicated that they were concerned that this
rear had wires that were low hanging and a compressor on the rear deck for fire egress
primarily. They asked us to request a fire safety certification and that was attempted through the
fire administration and then they said they don't do fire safety certifications and all the people
that were contacted just do sprinklers and so forth nobody was willing to come in and said this
is this is safe in the event of fire although the second apartment is very nice this is the
upstairs apartment this is the over duplex has windows to access both the front and the back
decks and so forth nice layout they have separate entrances although the the RCO noted that there's
a primary entrance on the front deck. Once you get in the primary porch entrance, they have
separate entrances, one going upstairs and one to the lower apartment unit. This is her affidavit
saying that she, and that's a tax clearance certificate. Let me go back and show you the
separate entrances if I can. That was noted as rear deck, rear.
That's probably it.
I don't know.
It's probably a bad photo.
Let me see what else I have on my notes.
Oh, it has a main, one main entrance, but what you get inside, it separates.
There's a door to the lower unit, and then there's stairs up with a separate door to the second upstairs unit, which is this one.
As you can see in the photos, the adjacent properties on both sides and going up the lot, going up the street, which is here, are substantially similar residential properties.
And because she indicated that she thought it was a duplex, she didn't confirm that with the city, took these photographs from the initial posting, and then we took a second set in July.
But it is listed as CMX2, but that was generated historically back in the 90s by the use of these properties here.
But as the board can see, the properties from 1206 going up in numbers are all traditional residential properties.
So I would say that we tried to comply with the RCO's request.
There were no opposition, neighbors and so forth.
Only the RCO appeared and asked if we could get a safety certification as to access to the roofs and so forth.
And we were unable to do that.
So we think that, you know, because of the history of the property and the fact that it would not be used as a commercial property, and that would be a hardship to tear down the duplex and or the first floor for commercial use, we feel that a variance would be appropriate for this traditional use.
Mr. Perry, what's the earliest date that this was a duplex?
1997 is what I have.
Do you want to bring your client on, please?
Yeah, sure.
Are you here, Sandrina?
They've been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
You're going to have to speak up. We can't hear you, ma'am.
Are you hearing me any better now?
Yeah, we hear you better now.
Okay, good morning, everyone. My name is Sandrina Williams.
Name spelled S-A-N-D-R-I-N-A, last name Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. Ms. Williams, it's Roger Perry. Did you hear my testimony and statements in terms of the use of the property and the work that was done with the RCOs?
I did. And can you adopt that testimony to the best of your knowledge is true and correct?
Yes. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i do not see any hands mr chair planning commission thank you mr chairman and good
morning david vecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
a change in zoning in this location from commercial mixed use to residential single
family the appellant has shown that the configuration of the property presents a
clear hardship requiring relief from the commercial ground floor provision of the zoning code the city
Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed variants. Thank you. MI 2023-001-040-1204
East Chilton Avenue, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you very much, chairman. Sure. Number 12,
MI-2022-005-273-744 Lombard Street.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from Washington Square West Civic Association with provisos
and also a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
And as a...
Good morning, Mr. Mattione. Could the record, could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer? Certainly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Sure. It's James and Amy Shin and Shin Properties LLC, the owner of 744 Lombard Street.
All right, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good morning, yes.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Mr. Mattione, this is Hillary.
I just had a quick question.
The deed listed two LLCs beyond properties and SHIN properties.
Is the principle the same for both of those LLCs?
Yes, it is.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
And like we said, we did present exhibits in advance, including the tax clearance refusal.
A non-opposition letter from Council Member Squilla.
And again, the refusal is just because we're proposing a business in the first floor of this three-unit property in an RM1 zoning district.
And we have a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla with two provisos, the same two provisos that Washington West also asked for.
here's the letter of non-opposition from Washington West. And again, they asked that
we have two provisos not to have body art and that no fortune telling in the
business. As you can see, there are the provisos. And on their summary letter,
as you can see, there were 13 people that voted. 13 people voted to not oppose.
nobody voted to oppose. So it was a unanimous non-opposition.
That's an old floor plan. Coming down, the photos, this property is at 8th and Lombard
on the southeast corner. As you can see, it is two residential units above and a first floor storefront.
Two residential units above and a first floor storefront.
And just some additional photographs to get the full view of the building.
And it's got the traditional windows that a storefront would have.
And this, from what we can tell, has always been used as a storefront.
When you go back to 1965, there was a permit for a vacant store on the first floor with multifamily units above.
1966, again, another use registration permit with a vacant store on the first floor and apartments above.
And again, they would like to have a barbershop in this facility.
I just want to show some interior photos, again, from the rear. That entrance is solely for the residential units above. There is no connection between the store on the first floor and in the basement and the residential units above. They're totally and completely separate.
it. And as you can see inside, this is a clear space. There is a restroom. There is no kitchen
facilities. There is no shower or bathtub in the restroom. This is and has always been a
commercially used property and looking the other way towards Lombard Street. And again, a couple of
a photograph showing, let me get into the next photograph, showing the basement, just a,
just a clear span basement. The business itself, again, it's across the street from another
business. Cidrone's Flowers is right across the street on the other side of 8th Street.
There are residences on the other corners, but they're clearly residentially used properties
built as residences. This property is a much older property and was clearly built for commercial
purposes on the first floor. They seek to operate a barbershop here, five chairs for customers to
sit in seven days a week, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. They estimate 10 full and part-time employees. Any
trash that they have will be stored in the basement and will be have private trash pickup.
When you look at this building, the physical constraints of it are clear. It's not a residence.
The residences are separate. They're above the storefront. There is no way to get from the
storefront to the residences. So you couldn't add this to the existing residences. The windows and
the physical configuration make it clear that this is meant to be used for a commercial purpose.
and we have some old permits that show prior commercial uses.
We believe that between the physical constraints of the building and the past uses that this
meets the requirements to show a physical hardship to the land that requires or where
the variance requested should be granted.
And the use is, again, a relatively low impact commercial use, a barbershop.
It's not some bar that would have a ton of impact on the community, negative impact.
So, and, you know, the other requirements for a variance, we believe, are met as well.
What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is call on my client, James Shin.
Good morning, Mr. Shin. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, my name is James Shin, J-A-M-E-S-S-H-I-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes I do proceed counsel
thank you Mr. Chair James
did you hear my statements
yes and are they true
and correct yes
they're correct and do you adopt
them as your testimony
yes I have no
further questions for
questions from the board
no Mr. Chairman
no chair
questions or comments from the
virtual audience
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir, and good morning.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
This property has a documented history of commercial use dating to at least the middle 1960s.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use variants for personal service.
Thank you.
MI 2022, 005-273-744 Lombard Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
No body, art, service, or fortune-telling service.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right, number 13, MI 2022-005-284-109, Renard Torres.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from the Somerton Civic Association.
I'm coming back in as a panelist, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 2016 Spruce Street, Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
yeah i represent stephanie lee lynn who is the uh agent uh for the owner of the property and our
vice chair has just a few questions thank you good morning council do you agree to wave the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance
of this hearing i have thank you please proceed to share your screen thank you sir mr chair just
Just for one brief note, Attorney Emerson can confirm this.
We are unable to secure a tax clearance.
My understanding that we'll be putting the case on and then pending that, you'll make a decision.
That's right.
Yeah, she mentioned that to us this morning.
Good enough.
Thanks for your patience and getting oriented. Okay. 109 Renner Terrace. It's for the legalization
of what they do is they put two sheds on the property. It's a large lot, but the containers,
basically they're container storage sort of storage containers. They're more than 130 square
feet. And that's why we're here. There are two of them that kicked in the refusal, although
there are three sheds total. And one of them is 640 square feet, one of them is 320 square
feet. And as a result, they'd like to get them legalized, which is why we are seeking
the zoning relief. Here are the plans that show it.
There's the existing main house and then behind in the yard, we have two, two structures that
are in question 1640, which is more than is permitted.
it, and the other one is 407.
Photos of the property and the storage units are behind their fence.
the larger of the two you can see from the sidewalk
and it's just personal storage equipment I know there was a question of whether or not there was
some sort of business activity but that's not the case and my client will affirm that as well
we did meet with the community organization on 13th June in person
and 53 individual households were mailed when my clients moved into this property they did have an
extraordinary amount of of uh items and materials that needed to be stored thus the two uh the two
container storage containers being placed on the lot they did not know that that that uh the sizes
would exceed what was allowed by code, and therefore they're requesting the relief so
that they can maintain them. In the alternative, if they were to be allowed to have a temporary
variance to keep the smaller of the two for at least 12 to 24 months, they would be able to
slowly empty and get the materials out but as an alternative i understand that the community would
like them both removed and i believe my client would be amenable to that if the board did not
And I believe my client would be amenable to that if the board did not want to grant the variance for both, but only ask that the larger of the two be removed immediately.
I want to grant them.
And then the second, the smaller, much smaller, 320 square feet, be allowed until, you know, temporarily.
With that, I'm going to ask my client, Stephanie Lynn, to raise her virtual hand.
they found out to speak could you state your name please and spell for the courts of honor
yes stephanie lynn that's s-t-e-p-h-a-n-i-e lynn l-i-n right do you swear affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed counsel thank you mr chair
Stephanie, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Was that a yes?
Yes, I did.
And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Do you have anything to add?
No, I do not.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to rest my case.
All right.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have Alice Udovich with their hand raised. I have allowed them to speak.
Good morning, Alice. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Chairman, members of the board. Alice Udovich, U-D-O-V-I-C-H, on behalf of Councilman Brian O'Neill.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Chairman, I think you'll agree this is quite excessive, especially in a purely residential neighborhood. The neighbors are quite upset about the current conditions. The councilman opposes the granting of the variance for these storage containers on that property.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further hands, Mr. Chair.
planning commission thank you chairman and good morning david effecto with the city planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at
this location the appellant seeks to legalize two large sheds that were built without the benefit of
permits the appellant has not shown that they cannot derive value from the property without
the two sheds and there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property
that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code the city planning
Commission recommends the board deny the proposed variances for accessory uses and structures.
As we stated earlier, we're waiting on a tax clearance. We will hold this until we receive
the tax clearance. Mr. Chair, if I could just put one final counter to the Planning Commission's
comment on the record, just to preserve the record. Thank you. Just a note, the larger of
the two, outside of the larger of the two, the very top of it being able to be seen from the
road, neither of these sheds adversely impact anyone's light or air or access to their particular
property. It's simply an aesthetic thing as it relates to the larger of the two. So their
existence and their continued existence for as long as it had been did not disrupt anyone
any of the immediate neighbors and or their quality of life. So just for the record. Thank
you. All right. Thank you for that. And once the taxes are cleared up, we'll bring that back. Thank
you. Appreciate it. This is Hillary. I just want to note that the record is otherwise closed except
for the tax information. Thank you. Thank you. Number four, MI 2023-001-039-2712 North 16th
treat Darlene's treat is the three is the attorney
then we were joining as a panelist sir thank you
mm-hmm
thank you
Good morning, Council.
Good morning, Commissioners.
I've changed my location.
Thanks for bearing with me.
Arlene, we can hardly hear you at all.
could you try again how about now commissioner can you hear me not very well okay commission
Could you try again?
We'll see you again.
i'm going to ask that my case be continued i'm going to have to get all right thank you
thank you thank you so mi 2023 001 039 27 16th or 16th street this case will be continued thank you
Thank you very much.
Number 14.
MI 2022-003-935-2627 West Oxford Street.
Raymond DiRizio is the attorney.
Okay, Mr. Derizio, could you state your name, please, and spell for that?
oh i'm sorry actually this is um the property owner ray said he'll be back in a minute let
you guys know that um he just said that okay so we're gonna we're gonna go into another case and
we'll call him again okay we'll call this back thank you thank you
I'm going to go to number
for three. MI 2022-007-450-5207 West Mount Airy.
Kenaya
Chestnut is the attorney
there's a letter of
opposition from West
Mount Airy neighbors
also the RCO
has supplied letters of opposition
from six neighbors
they will be rejoining as a
panelist sir thank you
Good morning, counsel.
Unmute.
Good morning, sir.
There you are.
Thank you.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Thank you.
Kenia, K-E-N-N-I-A-H, chestnut, C-H-E-S-T-N-U-T.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes. My client who is present today is Shaz Wanner, S-H-A-S-W-A-R-N-E-R.
Right. And our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Yes, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Good morning, sir. Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir, I have.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, members of the board and Mr. Chair.
Again, my name is Kenia Chestnut, and my office represents the applicants, Chaz Warner, Ms. Jaffone Warner, owners of J. Excellence Event Hall.
Again, Ms. Warner is present today.
We are here this morning on appeal to the Zoning Board for application for the issuance of a special exception for the use of the property located at 5 through 7 West Mount Airy Avenue.
Specifically, a permit for an assembly and entertainment use in an existing structure with other existing uses in the same structure as previously approved.
The property currently has an exception to be used as a daycare and house of worship, and we are seeking to add the use to assembly and entertainment.
My clients are sisters and along with their mother, who were all born and raised in Philadelphia, have had a business providing daycare services to the residents of Philadelphia since 2018.
Most notably, they provided daycare services to the residents of Mount Airy for nearly five years.
Most notably, they provided daycare services to the residents of Mount Airy for nearly five years.
They have been members of the Mount Airy CDC for the past three years.
In keeping with the mission of the Mount Airy CDC, these entrepreneurs have contributed to, quote,
the preservation, empowerment, and enriching of a vibrant and diverse Mount Airy.
As African-American women, they decided to expand their vision for their business
by providing event planning and venue services to the community.
Ms. Jaffone Warner brings eight years of experience in planning private parties,
baby showers, graduation parties, and small weddings to J Excellence.
As established business owners in good standing with the City of Philadelphia,
my clients have shown themselves to know what it takes to be good corporate citizens.
As applicants, we have the initial duty of presenting evidence and the burden of proof
that the proposed use meets the definition for use permitted by special exception. We submit
that assembly and entertainment meet the definition for this use. Additionally, we have the initial
duty of presenting objective evidence and the burden of proof that the grant of a special
exception will not cause the following detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond that which
normally might be expected from the proposed use. Will the special exception cause congestion
in public streets or transportation systems beyond what would normally be expected from
the proposed use? We submit that answer is no. Will the special exception cause overcrowding
of the land beyond what would normally be expected from the proposed use? We submit
the answer is no. Will the special exception impair the adequate supply of light and air
adjacent properties? We submit that answer would be no. Will the special exception burden the water,
sewer, school, park, or other public facilities beyond what would be normally expected from the
proposed use? Again, we submit that answer would be no. Will the special exception impair or
permanently injure the adjacent properties? We submit that answer would be no. And will the
special exception impair the adequate supply of light and air adjacent properties? I apologize,
the answer is no to that also. Will the special exception be inconsistent with the comprehensive
plan of the city? We submit that that answer is no. I'd like to direct your attention to
to the comprehensive plan of the city of philadelphia
the comprehensive plan of the city of philadelphia is entitled philadelphia 2035
the goals and recommendation of philadelphia 2035 are organized into three forward-looking themes
thrive connect and renew the thrive theme addresses issues related to neighborhoods
economic development and land management most notably philadelphia 2035 envisions a thriving
metropolis and i'm quoting from the from the website in part residents can choose from a
variety of housing choices to match all income levels and vibrant commercial corridors meet
the demand for convenient local shopping economic development goals are built on a vision of diverse
economy offering opportunity to everyone the city goes on to say despite the loss of industry
philadelphia continues to diversify its economy with growth in its successful education health
health care cultural and hospitality sectors philadelphia's many neighborhood oriented
commercial corridors also provide opportunities for jobs and business growth especially among
growing communities. Finally, they say although Philadelphia is gaining
residents again after decades of loss, our infrastructure was built to support
twice our current population. Philadelphia 2035 calls for coordinated
policies for vacant land and structures. The property is situated next to a
commercial business and feeds into the commercial corridor of Germantown Avenue.
So, this is a picture of the property.
These are the residences on the block, and just directing your attention to this area
And just directing your attention to this area right here, this is where the houses end.
right here. This is where the
And then the commercial corridor begins.
This is the, I apologize for the rotation problem.
So this is the first property that begins the commercial corridor.
It is the property before my client's property.
More specifically, there is a restaurant and bar which recently closed that sits 20 feet away.
There is an event venue that sits less than 50 yards away across on Germantown Avenue.
And there is a bar around the corner, not to mention there are various restaurants, a theater, and other commercial businesses that contribute to this flourishing neighborhood.
The property is an 8,900 square foot facility and was clearly constructed for commercial use.
it's comprised of three separate event spaces including a main banquet hall that is approximately
1200 square feet and seats 1200 people a second ballroom that is approximately 540 square feet
and the third ballroom that is approximately 500 square feet, which both can accommodate 50 people.
Additionally, the venue includes five small rooms designed for photo opportunities.
The ballrooms can be used for a variety of events such as Christmas parties, business meetings, engagement parties, birthday parties, graduation parties, and more.
The venue also features five separate selfie content rooms, which are immersive and interactive spaces for visitors to create social media content, take selfies, record podcasts, host intimate celebrations, art gallery, and co-working space slash office space.
My clients will also offer event management services ranging from backyard birthday parties to corporate events.
J Excellence Event Hall aims to serve individual clients as well as small businesses.
The proposed hours of operations are Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. through 9 p.m., and Friday through Sunday, 9 a.m. through 12 a.m., with one hour provided for cleanup.
My clients will arrange for private trash pickup in the event that a large event is scheduled.
They are not speaking to make any changes to the property, they plan to upgrade the venue in order to offer an elegant venue space for all occasions.
The issuance of the special exception will not add a burden of traffic to the neighborhood.
There is a public parking lot on Germantown Avenue that has approximately 45 parking spaces, as well as parking on Germantown Avenue that can accommodate parking when an event is held.
i just want to show you a picture of the parking lot
and this is free parking so there's there's no um charge for the parking
my clients were born and raised in philadelphia they have strong connections to this mount airy
community and felt it only made sense to expand their business services in this thriving Mount
Airy area. In some, it is their vision to become a premier event venue in this vibrant city.
They want to be known for their integrity, exceptional service, attention to detail,
and team-oriented approach to planning and executing memorable events for individual
and corporate clients. The objectors have the duty of presenting objective evidence and the
burden of proof that the proposed use is substantially likely to cause a detrimental
impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, exceeding that which normally might
be expected from the proposed use. The RCO submitted its letter opposing this application.
It also submitted letters from some of the neighbors. My client vehemently denied during
My client vehemently denied during the public meeting that she provided services for a party
the public meeting that she provided services.
that began at 2 a.m. and ended at 5 a.m. Philadelphia is not a 24-hour city, and there was no evidence
provided to substantiate this baseless claim. Further, claims of public urination are
unsubstantiated. There are several bars and restaurants on Germantown Avenue, and there
is no evidence, and there was no evidence provided that this alleged person was a guest
of J-Excellence. Further, the residents have not and cannot show that the proposed use is
substantially likely to cause a detrimental impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the
neighborhood, exceeding that which normally might be expected from the proposed use.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the committee approve this application for special
exception for assembly and entertainment. Thank you. Can you have your client to want to adopt
your testimony? Yes. Ms. Warner, are you present?
They've been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Shaz Warner, S-H-A-S, Warner, W-A-R-N-E-R.
Hi, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Warner, did you hear my presentation on your behalf to the committee this morning?
I did.
were were my statements true and correct to your knowledge um yes everything but one minor detail
on the square footage in the main ballroom okay could you correct that for the record please
two thousand square feet thank you very much and to your knowledge was everything else that
i stated correct yes do you adopt this presentation as your own testimony yes
thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from the virtual
audience mr chair i have a ralph pinkus with a hand raised i have allowed them to speak at this
time hi sir could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
can you hear me i can my name is ralph pinkus that's spelled r-a-l-p-h pinkus spelled p-i-n-k-u-s
i am the chair of the west mount of the west mount area neighbors zoning committee
and i also sit on the board of west mount area neighbors all right wait a minute do you swear
for him to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed, sir. I attended
and chaired the meeting that was held in our community on August 2nd, about one week ago.
We did send a letter. It was referenced by you, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the hearing.
I just want to highlight a few points regarding the concern of the neighbors.
Westmont area neighbors received 25 complaints regarding the use of this property.
What was not mentioned by Ms. Chestnut is the fact that the owner or the operator, it's not the owner, the operator, the appellant, has actually been conducting events at this property since March.
And there's already a track record of activities that have taken place, those activities with the observations of the neighbors that were mentioned at our community meeting.
there were 23 near neighbors who attended the meeting, another nine community members.
They observed that at least, if not the incident that Ms. Chestnut referred to,
there were events taking place into the early hours of the morning.
This is starting in March and lasting up until recently.
Radios were heard blaring of people using or attending the events.
there was trash on the street and the sidewalks after the events. We were also advised that the
community meeting, that if all of the event space is being used, it can accommodate at one time
320 persons, 200 persons in the large room and another 60 persons in each of the other side
rooms, so that on a given evening, a Saturday night, there could be 320 persons attending
the event. I just want to describe Mount Airy and this block. West Mount Airy is a very diverse
neighborhood and is known for this fact. There are over 40 homes on the block. This is the last
commercial property on the block, which has that particular zoning. And from the neighbor's
The neighbor's comments and my own observations, I've been down, I've lived in the neighborhood for 40 years.
comments and my own observations, I've been down, I've lived in the neighborhood for 40.
This building appears to be a former carriage house.
The street itself, the unit block of West Mount Airy Avenue, is a one-way street.
There's parking on both sides of the street, leaving only one lane for traffic.
And if you notice from the pictures that were presented by Ms. Chestnut, you'll see that the street is pretty well filled with cars because there's no off-street parking, so the residents use the block for parking.
And as far as the neighborhood parking lot, if one were to look more closely, and I've been in that lot many times trying to find parking, it is most regularly filled by people attending either the restaurants in the neighborhood, the bars in the neighborhood, the businesses in the neighborhood, or the immediately adjacent fitness center.
So that lot is, and it's not one that is right next to the property, it's actually around the corner and has to be walked to.
We had a community meeting, as I mentioned, of those people who attended, there were 23 near neighbors comprising 16 households, all of whom voted to oppose the requested special exception.
And I mentioned, and you mentioned the six letters that were submitted also in opposition.
We had six members of our zoning committee present, all of whom also voted to oppose.
There were no votes at any time at this meeting for any support for the proposed special exception.
It's believed that granting this special exception will have a substantial detriment in the community.
Thank you, Mr. Pincus, for taking the time to call us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, sir, a Teresa Spross. I have allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello?
Teresa Spross, are you still available?
could you state your name please
and spell for the court sonographer
Teresa Spross
T-H-E-R-E-S-A
Spross
S-P-R-O-S-S
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
are you a neighbor
are you in favor of the project or against
against
I would like to have
Can I add a couple of little items?
You could add items that have not already been covered.
Well, I just wanted to say that the property, the commercial parts of the street don't stop where she pointed out.
Actually, I live directly across the street and there's another home that's across the street.
So there are more houses than she's indicating on that side of the street.
OK, so I just want to thank you very much for taking the time to call and we appreciate your comments.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have Charles Richardson with the hand raised. I've allowed them to speak at this time.
Morning, Mr. Richardson. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
Richardson spelled R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, room 508 City Hall. You swear affirm the whole truth,
nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed, sir. Housewoman is opposed to granting this special
exception. We've been receiving a lot of, and when I say a lot of, I have at least 30 complaints
in our system since April of this year about this property and about the things that they have been
doing to the community. It seems that they ran a daycare, but a daycare does not have the same
type of volume of traffic or anything along those lines as an event space does. And these folks have
been contributing to congestion, the things that Ms. Chestnut tried to go over, but everything that
that she said that they don't do, they do.
The congestion, overcrowding,
whether it injures the folks that live on that block,
whether the comprehensive plan says it wants to do
the wonderful things that it wants to do.
It has nothing to do with the fact that these people
have been inconvenienced by this venue.
by this venue. In fact, they have been operating illegally since March or April, and they were
In fact, they have been operating
informed of that because we have sent them email with regard to the fact that they needed to not
conduct any further events because of the fact that they were not in compliance. It was mentioned
that they thought that something was, that they thought that they were in compliance because of
certain factors that was at the community meeting. I did not attend, but I was apprised of everything
that was said. And, you know, and we informed them that they were not. And they went forward
anyway and have continued to. And I've also been informed from the notes of the community meeting
that they have events already planned for the future. It's not a place where they need to be,
you know, if they need to do an event space, they need to do it elsewhere other than at that
location. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. We appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else in the virtual
audience? Yes, sir. Sidney Blackwell, with their hand raised, I have allowed them to speak.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Always. They put their hand down, so there's no further hands. You can make proceed.
Any more further hands? No, sir. Okay. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, David Decto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that the proposed assembly and entertainment will have no detrimental impacts beyond what might be expected from this use.
We understand the neighbor's concerns, but we have not seen any recent code enforcement violations in the city's Atlas website.
uh the city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed special exception for
assembly and entertainment mi 2022 007 4505-07 west mount area avenue i vote no
thomas holloman my vote is no
james snow my vote is no
ishmael shaheed my vote is no
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, sir.
Number five, MI 2022, 004-477-2633, Oxford Street.
Donald Funk is the attorney.
We have letter of opposition from Bridesburg Community Action Alliance.
We have letters of opposition from two neighbors on the same block,
including an adjacent
neighbor
Donald
Funk is the attorney
they'll be rejoining
as a panelist sir
Mr. Funk, are you available?
Mr. Funk, you're muted.
Can you hear me now?
We can hear you.
Are you on the video?
Do you have a video?
I'm trying to get that on, too.
I was trying to.
Bear with me.
It should show up.
Mr. Funk, it should be a little icon at the bottom that says start video.
You will have to click on that.
It is.
Mr. Funk, I'm going to call you back in 10 minutes.
I have one.
I apologize.
We're going to call you back.
Number 14, MI 2022-003-935-2627 West Oxford Street.
Raymond Arrizio is the attorney.
So the coordinating RCO, which is Brewery Town,
The coordinating RCO, which is Brewery Town-Chargewood Community Civic Association, has voted 20 in support, 1 in opposition.
Shardswood Community Civic Association.
Also, the applicant has provided a letter of support from the neighbor on the block.
Mr. DiRizio.
we'll be back in as a panelist now
so the owners are showing up as ray maybe we're using his link um this is the ratio there
is that the owners of the properties using mr devizio's link
Yes, this is the link that he provided.
Would that prevent him from getting back in?
Because he said he was in.
No, that won't prevent him.
We're about to promote him now to panelists.
Okay, so he's in.
Yes, Chair, he'll be coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Mr. D'Orizio, could you state your name, please?
Still waiting for him to promote.
He'll be back in.
Thank you.
Raymond D'Orizio, spelled D-O-R-I-Z-I-O.
My address is to Penn Center, Suite 520, Philadelphia 19102.
Thank you for your patience.
I'm here on 2627.
All right.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, the whole truth, the whole truth?
My clients should be here.
That's Verne and Kevin Dixon.
They're the applicants and owner.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
So if I can bring up the screen here.
Mr. DiRizio, can you hear me?
I will show my package. Mr. DiRizio, Mr. DiRizio, Mr. DiRizio, Mr. DiRizio, you're not listening.
I'm not very, uh, oops, sorry. DiRizio? I don't think his audio is lurking.
Advantageous. I don't think he can hear you, Chair. Due to circumstances.
Okay, no, Mr. DiRizio, we can't, we're not going to, we can't hear the case. We can't hear you.
Hold on, sir.
Sorry about that.
So 2627 West Oxford.
Hold on, Mr. Derezzio.
Mr. Derezzio, can you hear me?
Refusal was for denied because there were going to be consumer goods that are being proposed on the first floor.
No, no.
Mr. Derezzio.
Block him out.
Put the complaints on.
Start on the first floor.
I have the deed there that I'm showing.
I'm sorry.
Mr. Derezzio, we can't hear you.
I just chatted with him, letting him know that we're unable to, he's unable to hear.
Hello.
We can't hear you, sir.
All right.
Oh, my God.
So, Hillary, we're going to continue this.
Okay, Mr. Chair.
All right.
So, MI 2022-003-935-2627 West Oxford Street.
The case is continued.
we cannot communicate with the attorney.
Thank you.
And then we're going to go back here to
MI 2022 004 477 2633 Oxford Street.
Donald Funk is the attorney.
There's opposition from Bridesburg,
opposition from neighbors.
Mr. Funk, Donald Funk will be coming back in as an analyst.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note that this is Orthodox Street and not Oxford Street.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. I just got off of Oxford. I'm sorry.
Hello, sir. This is...
Can you hear us?
Yes, I can hear you.
Mr. Funk, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
my name is donald funk last name is f-u-n-k right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir my mr funk do you have a video i'm trying to
get my camera to work and for some reason it won't work um are you going to be able to present the
case? I'm trying my best. If you give me, for some reason, the Zoom would not, it wouldn't,
it wouldn't allow.
It wouldn't allow me to work it.
Is he able to share his screen?
This is Hillary.
That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Can you share your screen?
Sir, can you, Mr. Bergman, can you hear me?
I can hear you.
I can hear you.
Can everyone hear me?
But I can't get my camera to work.
Here's the question.
can you share your screen to get the documents up? So my client, Michelle Cruz, who is
applying for the variants, she has her documents. Can she come in as a panelist?
She has her documents ready to share. Well, why don't we do this? Why don't we
we can bring her on let her work the documents right and then you'll you'll testify to the
documents is that okay yes she will test and then at the end then at the end we'll bring her back
on to adopt your testimony all right yes okay jason we okay with that chair if you would just
let me i know what's wrong with his uh his camera he has he has like a a strip over his camera a
protective strip he should slide that over no there's no protective strip okay it looks that
way to us but thank you can you see me we just see the the strip that's covering your camera
so now we see the documents right can you see the documents Mr. Funk
i am no i cannot i wait bear with me yes there thank you okay okay so you've already been sworn
am i correct yes sir yes okay so why don't you start your presentation the uh the property in
question is uh owned by michelle cruz it's 26 33 oxford street she's applying for a variance
or a um for a permit for visitor accommodation
what she's uh seeking is your documents are nailed down we don't see the documents anymore
bear with me michelle can you hear me
i think my docu i think the documents are coming up right now
one moment we're going to promote her as a panelist please
And we start the documents over.
Mr. Funk, do you see the documents?
Yes. Okay. So let's start the documents over, go back to the beginning of the documents.
So Michelle, since she's now a panelist, she is the owner of the property. She's going to give
the testimony and the documents on this. Bear with me. Excuse me, Mr. Funk, this is Hillary.
um so ms cruz owns the property as an llc that's why she's required to have an attorney and you
need to present the case on her behalf before the board you can call her as a witness and ask
her questions but you need to give the presentation what we're going to do is i'm going to request a
continuance on this okay all right so okay all right MI 2022 004 477 2633 Oxford Street
this case is continued but must be tried next time must be tried okay yes all right
um is there anyone from the 930 list in the virtual audience whose case has not been called
as of yet i'm sorry i have a lucille markowski with the hand raised okay
they've been allowed to speak good morning could you state your name please and spell
for the court stenographer. Hi, good morning. It's Lucille, L-U-C-I-L-L-E.
Hi, good morning. It's Lucille, L-U-C-I-L-L-E, Mokarski, M-O-C-A-R-S-K-I.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
What case, ma'am?
I just wanted to clarify, it's 2633 Orthodox Street. I know that that keeps getting mixed up with Oxford.
no so 2633 orthodox street yes you had to continue it the attorney could not get
correct the attorney's technology wasn't working properly so that case is continued i know that
this address keeps getting mixed up because the last zoning notice that the owners of this llc
put up on their front door was posted for the Oxford Street location, although they know that
they were the Orthodox Street location. So I just wanted to make sure that that mistake doesn't
happen again. Okay. We will take that into consideration, but 2633 Orthodox Street is
continued and its mark must be tried the next time. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for calling
in and taking the interest. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience
whose case has not been heard? Mr. Chair, Ray D'Rizzo has his hand raised again. Do I allow
him to speak briefly? Sure. Looks like he's put his hand down again now. Sorry. Okay. Is there
anyone else whose case has not been called? No further answer, Mr. Chair. Thanks, sir.
See everyone at 2 p.m.
Thank you all.
Good afternoon, my name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this afternoon ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid, our Board Member Thomas Holliman.
President, Mr. Chairman
And our board member, James Snell
Present, Chair
Thank you
Also present is Hilary Emerson, our attorney
And our executive director, Tanya Sunkett
Here's our virtual format
Be advised, proceedings are being recorded
Video will be available by contacting
tanyasunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and
witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, you wish to
testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement,
call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Finally, the question answer box is not for testimony or comments.
All comments should be directed to our executive director on an assignment.
Let's look at this afternoon's schedule.
Number 11, MI 2023-003-241-1607-09 Ridge Avenue.
This case is being continued by the board.
Are there any other requests for continuances in the audience?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. This is Jason Hand. I am once more co-hosting today.
Thank you.
I do not see your hands at this time, sir.
Okay. So we're going to go right to our list. We're going to start with number 12.
MI 2023-002-342-1716-18 Addison Street. Robert Day is the appellant.
this is appeal against lni leonard reuter is also going to be on the case
mr day
okay mr chair both parties have been promoted to panelists
mr day could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
Hello, this is Rob Day.
hi could you spell your name please for the court reporter sure robert day r-o-b-e-r-t
Hi, could you spell your name, please, for the court reporter?
Sure, Robert Day, R-O-B-E.
is my first name last name d-a-y right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes okay and also uh leonard reuter please
Leonard. Hi, Leonard. Hi, there you are. Can you state your name, please, and spell for the
court stenographer? Sure. May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter for the City of Philadelphia.
I'm also joined today by Willow Jessup, who is the plans examiner. Okay. If I could ask that
Willow be promoted. Let me swear you first. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.
Jason, do we see the planet of Tamner?
I see her.
Will it be said?
Okay, she's already put vote.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
willow jessup w-i-l-l-o-w-g-e-s-s-o-p right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes mr day you you have a case this is your appeal gets l and i
um you want to would you want to start please for me and give us what your issues are sure absolutely
let me start by saying I thank the board for its time. I've never done one of these before.
That's okay. I am an attorney, but I'm a somewhat green attorney. So please let me know if I can
clarify things or if I'm not speaking the language. I think it's helpful to just give a
bit of background to what we're trying to do at my house. I live in Philadelphia with my wife and
two children they're both young two daughters one's four one is about to be one years old
and what we're what I'm ultimately trying to do here is provide for their safety
we live in a beautiful block we love our house we love living in Philadelphia I work in Philadelphia
from Montgomery McCracken and we want to stay there but there's no secret that you know crime
is up throughout the city. At this point, Mr. Chair, I'm going to object. It's an appeal against
L&I, which is essentially a strictly legal issue. This isn't a variance case. So, Mr. Day, why don't
we do this? I hear your issues you're trying to put forward, but I think I want you to do is to
concentrate on what the appeal against L&I is. Sure. Okay. So, okay, great. So, yeah, okay. So
So essentially what we applied for is a parking permit.
My house, I have, I think I submitted to the board the plans.
I can share my screen, I think, and show it if we need to.
But essentially, we have two properties, 1716 and 1718.
The 1718 side is open on the first floor.
It basically has, there is an entrance, it used to be two houses. So there is a door on the 1718 side, but it basically is, it's on the side of the property and it is about the size, the entryway is about the size of a coat closet and basically just gives you, originally just had steps to the second floor.
So what you're left with on the 1718 side is a completely open space that's over nine feet wide that can fit a car.
And we know that because we did a lot of work to figure out whether we could.
But it has an open space that is big enough for a car.
And it goes completely through.
There's no sort of back wall or front wall.
It's just an open area, the second floor above it.
And it leads straight through to the back of my property. And then there's what's basically an alleyway that's parallel to Addison Street. And from that alleyway, you can access the properties of basically a bunch of the Lombard Street houses in the back and also other Addison Street properties adjacent to my own.
And so and that through way is.
And so, and that thruway is, has an easement attached to it. That easement gives my neighbors a right-of-way to use the passageway to transport for various usage. It's a right-of-way easement.
Mr. Day, it would be helpful. Do you have a picture or a drawing?
Yeah, sure. I'll share it.
Why don't you put it up? I think it'd be easier if we looked at it.
Yeah, sure. Let me just see if I can. Okay, let me see if I can do this.
Share your screen on the bottom, the green dot.
Yeah, I know. I should be Zoom competent, and yet I'm failing right now. Okay, here we are.
this is the design that was actually originally approved by the lni is it is it showing
yes we should okay and so the shaded area is the through way it is this is this was a originally
the plan that we submitted to lni that was approved after back and forth um and
And so essentially, what I believe the legal issue here is and why it was rejected, it was because it was viewed as an improper parking space given our zoning.
And I don't know the technical details of our zoning, but it forbids certain kinds of parking spaces with certain exceptions.
And I'd like to just pull up that language real very quickly.
I think I should be able to do it by just clicking right here, Accessory Parking, and
what was cited is C1 here.
Is that showing?
A C1 says that you can't have parking unless it can be accessed from a shared driveway
or alley.
So parking is prohibited unless it can be accessed from a shared driveway or alley.
And the key question here legally is whether my somewhat odd application property situation satisfies the requirements of either a shared driveway or an alley.
And I think it does.
I'm no zoning expert, but when I look at the language of what an alley is and what a shared driveway is, it seems to straightforwardly apply.
Here's the definition of a shared driveway.
It's a common right-of-way shared by three or more budding landowners or building owners that provides vehicular access to one or more lots of vehicles.
Now, vehicular isn't further defined in the code, but it is under Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition.
It's an object that carries goods or persons.
And my neighbors have used the easement for precisely that purpose, to provide vehicular access.
They use it to carry their bikes through our space.
They use it to have their repairmen carry appliances through our space.
And so, in my view, by the letter of this code, it has been used for vehicular access.
And in fact, it would continue to do so because it has plenty of space to do that.
And so that, in my view, because there's an easement here and because it's an open space that leads to, I think it's about 10 properties in the back.
So, Mr. Day, here's the issue.
So you received a zoning permit on 11-1-22.
Is that right?
Correct.
Something like that, yeah.
Then on March 13, 2023, Ellen and I said they were going to revoke the permit.
Is that right?
Correct.
Okay. All right. Now, one other thing. Do you have a picture of this?
A picture?
Or just a drawing?
I just have the drawing with me.
Okay. That's fine. Okay. And you disagree that it was, shouldn't have been revoked. Is that what you're saying?
Correct. Yeah. And it was revoked on the basis of this code. So that's why, that's the legal question.
okay and so you you you think you had the right to do with where you are right the permit as the
lni board originally said okay all right um uh leonard do you want to uh sure yeah um let me just uh
Sure, yeah. Let me just, if I can, I just have a couple questions for Mr. Day. I'm just going to try to share my screen here.
mr day can you please stop sharing your screen so that mr reuter can share thank you we can
only have one share at a time sure so i was just trying to show the definition of alley but
that was completing my legal argument i think it qualifies as a legal as an alley or a shared
driveway. Thank you. So, Mr. Day, I'm just going to share my screen, hopefully.
Can you all see that? It's coming up. We see it now. Sweet. All right. Mr. Day, would you agree
that this is your property here 1716 has the green door and the 1718 has the
opening that you see there are these are these two your properties correct okay uh and those are
now have that that was consolidated right i mean there's no that's not in dispute so what do you
mean by consolidated well you're treating it as a single address now right
So it's your intention that this opening here would provide access to a vehicle to go in there and park.
Is that right?
That's correct.
And it's also your intention that the vehicle would access that proposed parking from Addison Street, correct?
that that's correct and we have applied for a curb cut permit and i mean obviously there's
certain you know renovations that would need to occur we've already received um permission to put
a curb cut there um and from from i think it's the sidewalks agency but there's going to be
obviously it's not going to look like that with steps uh when if if and when we implement this
plan okay now we're going to go down uh a little bit this is a 17th street and you would agree
that that is uh one end of the block is 17th street correct yep okay and this here would you
agree that this shows um the entrance to the uh what you're calling an alley i think that's right
this is the 17th street side of that uh alleged alley well i i don't know that i would call that
backspace and i mean i don't know what the technical definition of alley is but that that's
what i was describing earlier as the passageway that and and people take their bikes back there
and presumably some people will take their trash out that way or it provides a secondary means of
egress in other words is that right yeah yes correct and okay well i actually i actually
So I can't speak to how people use that entryway, but I just know how people use the alley through my easement.
But you would agree that a vehicle can't get down there?
A vehicle could get down there. A car could not get down there.
Well, okay. A car could not get down there. You would agree with that.
And this is the other side of the backs of these properties, and this is the 18th Street side. You'd agree, correct?
Correct.
Okay. And while you might be able to get a bicycle through one of these doors, you couldn't get a car through there, right?
So I believe just, yeah, I'll answer your question.
Could you get a car down there? An automobile, motor vehicle.
Couldn't, but that's not an entryway to the passageway. Those are people's backyards.
Right. But this is the other end of that thing that you were reporting could be considered an alley.
right well it depends what you mean by end yes it's the other side but i i believe just to be
so let me put it this way you would agree you would agree that a motor vehicle a car like these
things here couldn't get through either end of this thing that you're purporting could be considered
an alley well if i were representing myself i'd object to the question but so because it's
compound a motor vehicle like a scooter a motor scooter probably could get through
a car could not okay that's fair right all right i have no further questions for uh mr day
I have no further questions for Mr. Day.
Leonard, do you have a witness?
Are we, let me, I'm going to continue sharing.
And if I could just ask that Willow Jessup be sworn in.
I did swear in, Leonard.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I missed that part.
Willow, if you could unmute yourself.
And if you have a camera, if you could put it on since the board.
Usually needs that.
Now, could you just state your name for the record?
Hello, dress up.
And what's your position?
Do you work for the city of Philadelphia?
And what's your position?
Plans examiner, or civil engineer two.
Okay. Now, are you familiar with the application that we're talking about here to provide motor vehicle access and parking at 1716 to 18 Addison Street?
Okay. So, at some point, a permit was issued to allow that, and then, is that right?
Okay. But then that was subsequently revoked?
yes okay sorry about that um now in terms of i'm gonna share
i'm gonna go close that all right now i'm gonna go to this section
uh this is uh 14803 sub 1 sub c uh and are these the regulations applicable to
parking regulations applicable to specific zoning districts
leonard could you make that just a little larger it's a little hard to
uh no if you can't that's okay no i might be able to hold on
what happened there
sorry okay uh i should be able to
that's that's that's fine there
Yeah, except it's the wrong section.
There we go.
All right, let me scoot this over here.
All right, there we go.
What zone, if you remember, what zoning classification is the subject property?
RSA 5.
So, and does this show that there are some regulations, additional regulations for RSA 5?
So, and what does that section say?
You can read it.
Just so we have it in the record.
In the RSA 5, RSA 6, RM 1, and CMX 2 districts, accessory parking for any single family, two-family, or multifamily use in an attached or semi-detached building shall be prohibited unless it can be accessed from a shared driveway, alley,
or rear street, on which no on-street parking is permitted on the side of the rear street
directly abutting the lot.
Now, the way this section reads, do you agree that the parking itself has to be accessed
from that rear alley or street?
I'm going to object.
I don't know if this is proper, but I'm going to object.
it's asking for a legal conclusion which is well listen listen i'm going to let the question stand
and sure and i would just respond that that as a plans examiner this is exactly her job is to
interpret this provision and apply it to applications that's what she's paid to do
so you repeat the question sure uh is it your understanding then that in order to
allow parking under these conditions the vehicle in question the thing that's going to be driving to
that parking has to access the parking from the shared driveway alley or rear street
well it says unless it can be accessed from right okay and as a result of this now again
Right. Okay. And as a result of this, now, again, the permit had initially been issued and then it was subsequently revoked. Were you in contact with the applicant or was the department?
I don't remember. I think my supervisor may have been. I'm not sure.
Okay. Was that Curtis Daniels?
I'm not. Well, my supervisor is Andrew Culp, but I'm not sure if he or his supervisor.
OK, so you didn't see the revocation. You didn't see whether there was a revocation letter sent.
I don't I don't remember. It was a while ago. That's fine.
I may have had to send it.
All right. I actually don't have any further questions.
Mr. Day, do you have any follow up? I do, actually. Hi, Ms. Jessup. How are you?
so you just testified that my plan was the plan was initially approved and then was not is that
correct yes it was approved in error why why was it why did that why did you change your mind
i did not change my mind it was brought to my attention that i misread something
and thus issued the permit in error. So what did you misread? Let me find it really quickly.
The definition of a rear street, my error was that I was
reading. Actually, if I could share my screen, I can show the section.
Can you see my screen? Yep. Yep.
The definition of a rear street. The lot has at least one primary frontage designated by the
commission and the street is designated as um one of these options and b section b is met but
section a is not but both have to be met and i must have misread this as or well i don't well
can you explain what you mean sort of because i i'm actually just curious because i experienced
it firsthand so what what exactly can you just sort of explain it in vernacular rather than just
So, okay, so for a street to be a rear street, you have to have two streets on the, like, two streets on the lot, and you have to have, the rear one has to be designated as a certain type of street, like, such as local, lower density.
Your street is designated as one of these, I don't remember which exactly, it may have been shared narrow, but there is no other street.
so it can't technically be a rear street if there's no front street.
So Addison isn't the front street? Addison is the front street, so it can't be a rear street.
So you were thinking Addison was the rear street? Yes. That was my error.
Okay. And who brought this, your error to your attention?
I don't remember. I'm going to object to relevance.
She's already answered. She doesn't remember.
Was it someone within the agency or was it someone else?
I don't remember.
So it could have been someone who you don't work for that brought this to your attention?
Objection.
It was most likely my support.
I'm sorry.
White employment.
I think she said she doesn't remember, and I think we're going to end it at that.
Okay. That's fair.
Honestly, I'm just kidding.
No, I understand.
Okay, so then can we go back to the original parking provision 803, 14803?
Would you mind bringing that up again, Ms. Jessup?
Sure, one moment.
is this it what you're looking for let me see i'm sorry i have my own
i should be better at this okay um yeah c1 c1 which is where we just you just had it a second
ago yeah great so it sounds to me like and again i'm just apologizing
Yeah, great. So it sounds to me like, and again, I'm just apologize if I'm messing up, but it sounds like you were initially convinced that it was a parking unit that was accessed from a rear street on which no on-street parking is permitted?
Yep, and that was an error.
Okay. So you have no opinion about, so it was not based, it was not based, sorry, strike the question. It was not based on a determination about the, let's just call it the easement, the passageway itself, and whether that was an alley or a shared driveway?
It was not based on that.
Okay. So it's actually, okay, that's, let me just think if I have a further question about that.
Do you have an understanding of what access from actually means?
Well, presumably it means you come off of that to get to the thing.
Meaning you have to use the, you have to use the, let's just call it the rear street, for example, to access the parking spot.
Is that kind of what you're thinking?
I guess so.
Do you have any any understanding of what actually strike that?
No further questions. OK, thank you. I have no no redirect.
OK. May May Ms. Jessup be excused.
She can. And Ms. Jessup, thank you. We appreciate you.
Thank you. Look, we've heard both sides of this.
What I want to really want to do is sit and talk to the board and we're going to vote on this next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Could we let each side have a closing statement?
If they want. Sure. Sure. And just make sure there's no, and make sure, yeah,
as I say, I make sure the board doesn't have any questions. Okay. Mr. Day, do you want a closing
statement? Yes. I actually feel better about my position after Ms. Jessup's testimony.
Accessed from is something that she just testified is, you know, a way to access a parking spot.
She has no opinion whatsoever as the city about whether the past and her opinion did not, was not based at all about a definition about what the, or about identifying what the easement itself was.
So it's completely consonant, the city's position is consonant with my interpretation, which is basically that you can't access, the parking spot is smaller than the easement.
It cannot be accessed by any other way than through the shared driveway that will be open, even that is open and will remain open and will allow my neighbors access to their property and vehicular access defined as a, you know, that could include bicycles, motor scooters, even carts right under a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition.
And so I fail to see, you know, I don't really understand exactly what happened, why the initial, you know, what changed about our application.
But to me, the city focused on the wrong words.
This is a shared driveway by the code's own definition.
It's also an alley by the code's definition.
and the parking that I seek is clearly the accessed only through that alley or the shared
driveway, however you want to describe it. And I cited a case from the Commonwealth Court about
how to interpret the code. It's a literalist interpretation. So in my view, it's a very
straightforward interpretation of the code and should be allowed. Thank you, Mr. Day. Leonard?
uh thank you uh and you know kudos for trying but this is about as self-evident uh a case as i think
that i've had uh in the years that i've practiced before the board that it is clear from the code
language crystal clear that in order to have parking in this situation on an rss rsa5 the
parking itself must be accessible from the shared driveway or the rear alley or rear street.
As could be seen from the street views, which were undisputed, there is no possibility of a vehicle
accessing the proposed parking space from the rear of the property. Whether that might be
considered an alley or an easement is beside the point it has to be the vehicle in question which
in this case we're talking about a car needs to come to that parking space from that shared
driveway alley or rear street the initial mistake was in it was in confusing the location of Addison
The initial mistake was in confusing the location of Addison Street and thinking that that was the rear street when Addison, in fact, is the front street as determined by the Planning Commission, and it can't be both a front and a rear street.
There is no rear street here, and therefore parking is strictly not allowed. A refusal should have been issued. We apologize for the error in issuing the first permit, but it was revoked, and I think the language here is not ambiguous,
and therefore it's not subject to any, you know, deferential interpretation.
This is as clear as you can get, and I think it's self-evident what the intention of the code is here,
that the parking at this location is simply not permitted.
Mr. Day can take the refusal and seek a variance, but it's clearly not permitted.
And again, we do apologize for the error, but, you know, these things happen.
And that's it.
Any questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
So we will vote on this next Tuesday at 2 p.m.
And thank Mr. Day and thank you, Leonard.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have another case later
so I'll just
we're going to go to number four
MI 2022
2000 Hain Street
Aaron Stratford is the owner
applicant it's a pro se
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but I do not see Aaron Stratford in the virtual audience.
It looks like we have a Shamaya Stratford. That could be them.
All right, they will be rejoining as a panel shortly.
mrs stratford hold on a moment mr chair please excuse me
i've allowed them to speak at this time
hello hi mr strafford could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
can you hear me hello can you hear me
can you hear us
we may be having audio trouble sir okay um
why don't we do this um it's gonna be hard to tell them but um unmute yourself
mr straffer please unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
i'm sorry how does tanya mr jason it appears as though they're having audio problems can you
please text them hello let them know we have sound problems with them we'll do right now
Thank you kindly.
Chair?
Yes, why don't we move on?
We'll go to something else.
Thank you kindly, Chair.
Number one, MI 2023-001-448-3739 North 16th Street.
Alan Knackson is the attorney.
Letter of support from 13th Ward RCO Committee with an enforceable, one enforceable proviso.
There are also a petition signed by 11 neighbors, two from the 3700 block of 16th and nine from 1600 Butler.
and nine from 1600 Butler.
Mr. Nockamson.
Mr. Nockmson.
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockmson.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Hanu Investments Properties, LLC,
and in a virtual audience is its member, James Chunk.
All right.
our vice chair has just a few questions
Thomas could you handle it for me please
yes Mr. Chairman
good afternoon counsel
good afternoon
did you email all the exhibits
and documents as required
five days in advance to this hearing
yes please proceed and share your screen thank you
again i'm here to present 3739 north 16th street uh this project we're proposing uh a tribus
and in my presentation materials we'll review the notice of refusal the letter of support from the
13th Democratic Ward, a petition of nearby property owners in support of this. Also,
it's not out of character on this block to have nearby multifamily, which is RSA 5. So we have
a map that we created showing that. My client purchased a property when this was an R1 property.
Given its lot size, we could put a quadplex, or he could have put a quadplex if he would have
you know, sought a zoning permit before the change in zoning classification of this property.
So we're part of this process because the zoning changed on them, but he's only seeking a triflex
here. So as part of our presentation, we also showed you Bill 210484, which changed the zoning
classification after my client purchased the property. We'll review maps of the area,
have photographs of the property on plans and drawings. More applications for appeal we filed
on behalf of my client, Hanu Investment Properties LLC, the deed to the property showing that Hanu
Investment Properties LLC is the owner, and the certificate of tax clearance. Again, in the virtual
audience is James Chung, the owner's representative. I would ask that Mr. Chung virtually raise his
hand, be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him about what I presented. So first things
first as you can see this is an rsa5 property and what we're looking to do is a triplex so we're
taking the existing building structure and we're just repurposing it as a triplex
if you look at the letter of support it's unanimous that 11 people showed up to this meeting
including the board of the coordinating rco the 13th democratic board and they're all in support
of this project as indicated there are a few provisos which we have no objection to i think
The only enforceable one, I heard the chair mention this, there's one enforceable one.
I would think the enforceable one is trash stored indoors.
But they also ask for a Jacob's Ladder, which we have no objection to.
They talk about a maintenance team with address landscaping upkeep, which obviously we have no objection to.
And then to also post the property with the owner's contact information or property management company.
Alan, pardon me. Could you just speak up a little bit, Alan? We're having a hard time.
Sure. Sure. Can you hear me better now? Yeah, we're fine now.
OK. So anyway, there were like four provisos that were in the in the letter or proposed provisos.
I have no objection to them, but I only believe the enforceable one is to trash door and doors, which we have no objection to petition.
Again, what we did was focus on people that were nearby. So we have several letters, a petition signed by nearby neighbors.
And then it's not out of character to have multifamily on this block. So 3745 North 16th
Street is a triplex. 3730 North 16th is a triplex. 3732 North 16th Street is a duplex.
3741 North 16th Street is a triplex. 3728 North 16th is a triplex. And then you can see the
property certificate my client obtained when they purchased the property in late 2020. This was an
RM1 property. My client bought this property, anticipating to use it as a multifamily structure.
But unfortunately, based on this bill that passed, my client's property is the dot in red. This was
originally RM1. And after passage of the bill, it turned into RSA 5. But he purchased
And after passage of the bill, it turned into RSA 5.
But he purchased it, paid value for this property as a potential multifamily structure,
which would allow four units.
We're only asking for three.
And then here's just, again, just showing the bill and passage dates and things like
And then maps of the area.
We're still not that far from RM1.
I only showed you the RSA 5 properties that are multifamily, that are legal.
So most of that block is multifamily, just they don't have active rental licenses as
And then you can see we're not that far off of Broad Street, a commercial corridor, and
near mass public transportation as well.
We're hoping by way of this triplex to help support that commercial corridor on Broad
Street.
And then photographs of the property.
Again, we're not changing the property in any respect from the inside or expanding or
demolishing any portion of the building structure.
This is the orange notice poster showing that we properly posted the property for today's hearing.
This is North 16th Street to the right of the property, to the left of the property.
And then our plans of drawings are pretty basic.
Each floor is its own unit.
And then we met on August 1st at 6 p.m.
169 addresses were notified of the meeting.
Here's the list of the addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses.
they also wanted my client to hand deliver the flyers as well which he did and we have an
affidavit in that respect as well and then our application for appeal that we filed on behalf
of Hanu Investment Properties along with the notice of refusal and the project information
form the deed showing that Hanu Investment Properties LLC is the owner of the property
and a certificate of tax clearance showing that my client owes no money to the city with respect
to real estate taxes for this property. With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Chung
virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
Mr. Chung, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Can we see his hand, Jason?
He's been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell it then for the court stenographer?
Mr. Chung, you have to unmute yourself, please.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
James Chung, last name is spelled C-H-E-U-N-G.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Chung, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Charles Richardson.
I've allowed them to speak.
Mr. Richardson, just state your name.
You've already been sworn.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
Councilwoman has no opposition to grant invariance.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, I say Fiona Bertha.
I've got them.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
Fiona Bertha.
State your name and please spell for the court sonographer.
It's F as in Frank, I-A-U-N-N-A, last name Bertha, B-E-R-T-H-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
proceed um i live right next door to 37 39 north 16th street the apartment the papers that you
were going through um attorney allen um i never received that paper in the mail me and my mom i've
been living there for 39 years and i never received that form that you said that you
mailed out and it was several people on the block that was discussing this yesterday because they
thought they missed the zoom meeting and i had told one person to attend the meeting and it was
a lot of people that came to me and said they didn't never received it in the mail so the one
that you said that was placed in the door i got that um it was a couple days prior and that was
concerning the first meeting but the one for today if you didn't screenshot it they won't be at this
meeting but the one for today if you didn't screenshot it they won't be at this meeting
meeting.
I'm probably I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on the block that's attending the meeting right now
because I didn't hear anybody that was on the that was in my area concerning this because a lot
of people were complaining about the house that's next door to me because of the fact that the I had
maybe I had maybe the um concern to a lot of people in the neighborhood that when the roof
is leaking into the house into my mom's house my mom is disabled she's 70 and then on top of that
they a lot of the houses that's on the block they turned them into like multi-units and this used
to be a nice block I grew up around this block since 1980s and it always was nice it was beautiful
houses and everything then they turned into apartments and then a lot of drug trafficking
started to come in as we as now as we speak because of these multi-units not only that but
it's not a lot of parking around and then the roof that's next door to my mom's house is leaking into
my mom's house my mom is 70 and then people are squatting next door in that house next to it
because they coming into the um second floor window and they coming into the bottom getting
into the house then one guy scared the hell out of me because i was coming out of the shower scared
the heck out of me and I had to slam the window and close it and then I told my mom and then I'm
scared for my mom because my mom sweeps downstairs so it's more like it's a 70 year old woman she
can barely get out of the bed and then when they bombed that house and my mom's nurse was there
it was a smell that was coming from next door they could have killed my mother with that smell
I'm a I'm a surgical technician and I work in the hospitals as well and I help people just like you
guys and I'm going to school for PA and I thought that was really wrong what they did they could
told my mom to come outside they went across the street and sprayed that house that was terrible
like they could have killed my mother that's all that i have okay okay all right mr chair as as far
as the notice um we originally had a meeting with the group no one showed up and then it was asked
of us to resend another notice for a new meeting and for my client to hand deliver the notices so
So if if Miss Bertha received a notice like that was hand delivered to her, that was for the second meeting, you know, and then we just mail out the notices.
So whatever addresses are given to us, those are the ones that we mail out to.
And we have a certificate of mailing in that respect.
All right. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No, Mr. Chair, there are no further hands.
Planning Commission.
Hi, this is, I'm Paula Brumblow Burns and I need to be sworn in.
Okay, okay.
Sorry, it's been a long time since I've done this.
Just spell your name, please, for the court reporter.
Paula, P-A-U-L-A, Brumblow, B as in boy, R-U-M as in Mary, B as in boy, E-L-O-W, Burns, B-U-R-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The proposed variance is in line with some uses on the block.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed use variance.
MI 2023-001-448-3739 North 16th Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Interior trash storage.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Mr. Nackamson, you have your three votes.
Thank you.
Number two.
MI2023, 001-736-1828, West Venango Street.
Alexander Perry is the attorney.
Letter of support from Allegheny West Civic Association.
They'll be coming back.
The applicant did provide a petition of support for three dwelling units, signed by 30 neighbors.
Mr. Perry?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, Mr. Perry.
Are you please state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir.
My name is Alexander Perry, A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R, P-E-R-R-Y.
I'm an attorney for the appellant.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
My client is the owner, Nala Saleh.
Okay. Our board member, Mr. Holloman, has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
yes sir with the provision that we got the letter of support after that and i provided it when we
received it thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you sir
mr chairman and the board this is our index for our project we have a letter of refusal we were
seeking four units in an RSA 5 district. It's a single family home based on the size of the home
of over 3,000 square feet and the desired use in the neighborhood. We were seeking a variance for
four units. This is our application for appeal. It was timely filed upon the refusal for the project
information form, tax clearance current for the property. And in discussing the project with the
neighbors, we received limited attendance at our RCO meeting. We follow up with both the RCO that
held the meeting as well as another close RCO. And based on feedback from the RCOs and neighbors,
We agreed to a proviso for three units rather than four.
We changed the diagram and provided a change form to the board, which removed the basement unit and only has a single unit on the first floor, the second floor, and the third floor, confirming to the neighborhood feedback.
And we then went door to door and got the signatures of support from the neighbors, noting that change as requested.
it. This is the deed to the property to my client. Sorry about that.
As well as some pictures of the property. Here's the property. It's in a neighborhood. It's a
rundown full renovation property. Next door is an empty lot, which after purchase, they've worked
TO CLEAN UP. THERE WAS A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK TALKING ABOUT THE TRASH. THEY WENT IN,
TOOK OUT THE TRASH, AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO FIXING THIS PROPERTY UP. THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET.
THERE ARE A FEW THREE-UNIT PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET. HOWEVER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO NOTED
THAT SOME WERE BEING USED AS THREE-UNIT PROPERTIES WITHOUT ANY PERMITS OR LICENSES,
AND WE NOTED TO THE COMMUNITY THAT THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO DO
everything above board and be legal this is a posting of the property
and again another picture of the house it's a full renovation job here's the notice
about the rco meeting as well as today's hearing and proof of mailing
if i can ask anala to raise her hand so i can ask her to adopt my testimony
what's the adjoining properties yes Mr. chair multi-family the adjoining property one is an
empty vacant lot and I'm not sure if the neighboring property is a multi-family or
single-family use several of the properties along the street are used as multi-family
many of them not registered or approved or permitted as such some are thank you
Thank you.
You want to bring your client on?
Hello?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Nala Saleh, N-A-H-L-A, last name S-A-L-E-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Nala, did you hear my testimony that I just gave?
Was it true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt that testimony as your own?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I have Charles Richardson again with his hand raised.
Mr. Richardson, you just state your name.
You've already been sworn.
Thank you again, Mr. Chair, Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Vass, Room 508 City Hall.
Councilwoman has no objection to granting the variance.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Thank you, sir.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Don Stevenson. I haven't got them to speak.
All right, Mr. Stevenson, could you state your name, please, to spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Donald Stevenson, D-O-N-A-L-D. Last name Stevenson, S-T-E-V-E-N-F-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed, sir.
All right. I am the chair RCO for Tioga United. I apologize if my computer crashed. I was not able to give a letter of support, but Tioga United does support this three-unit dwelling.
Mr. Stevenson, thank you so much for taking the time to close.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
It's Shemaya Stafford, but she's funded up that original case number four, number four.
Okay, we'll get to that in a minute.
Planning Commission.
This is Paula Brumbalo-Burns.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
Proposed variance is in line with similar uses on the block.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed use variance for three families at this location.
Thank you. MI 2023-001-736-1828 West Vanagli Street. I vote yes. Proviso. Maximum three dwelling units.
Thomas Holloman. My vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell. My vote is yes with Proviso.
Counsel, you have your votes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Board.
Number three, MI 2023, 001-601-924 Kimball Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Bella Vista neighbors did not reach an agreement.
They are opposed unless certain conditions are met.
Letter of opposition from Counsel Person Squilla.
Mr. Anastasio, you've already been sworn. Just please state your name.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
I represent Mr. Jesse Frank, who's the owner of the property.
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions.
Thank you.
good afternoon good afternoon council did you email did you email all of the exhibits and
documents that's required five days in advance to this hearing i did thank you please proceed
and share your screen. Thank you.
Mr. Chair,
just for a point of information,
I forgot to mention, the applicant
provided a petition of support signed
by 29 neighbors
on the 900 blocks
of Kimball and Lake Street.
That's correct.
Thank you. This is a rear addition
to an existing structure.
Actually, it's not
an addition at all it's uh it's a rear deck on an existing structure uh and
the circumstances for this uh it's will be familiar to the board because
this board granted the variance of under the same set of circumstances for let me see here
for this property here both 922 and 924 were once owned by the same family okay and each
had a landing on the back because the top floor did not go all the way to the end to the property
line when the same family owned both properties they built a solarium and a room that was
it had glass on the roof and it went from the east side of 924 all the way to the I'm sorry
the west side of 924 all the way to the east side of 926 and it was a glass solarium that covered
both flats. When the family sold these properties, one went to the Calvarese family and one went to
Mr. Frank, it was pretty apparent that the glass enclosure was leaking and causing lots of damage.
enclosure was leaking and causing lots of damage. Therefore, at the time it was removed,
the Calvarese family built a room, a bedroom on their section, which needed zoning approval by
this board. And that approval was received exactly 12 months ago by this board. Mr. Frank,
Mike, however, did not build a room. Instead, he just put a deck. And that's why we're here today, to legalize the deck, which I believe, you know, I think, inarguably, we can say that the deck is far less intrusive than entire room. And this is, this is the property in question.
There's the deck.
Not a very big deck, but one nonetheless.
And then when it was constructed, my client made sure that there was a three-foot setback.
Let me show you here.
three foot setback from the adjacent lot so that this this deck starts three feet in
this is the decking this is the space uh that we decided not to build on
uh as to keeping any concerns that this adjacent property owner at 926 might have
There's very limited, it's a very small house. It's only one bedroom. And it's on a very small street. Very limited outdoor space. There's a patio on the back of the first floor that's primarily used for trash and a compressor for the central air conditioning.
That deck does provide much-needed outdoor space for the folks who live there.
Here is an unupdated signature list with practically everyone who lives on the block.
I've also sent over under separate cover to board council an updated list that included Ms. Elizabeth Franz, who was ironically a protestant in the previous case from a year ago with the other owner.
But she is also in support of this particular variance simply because what was there was deteriorating the property.
It was built by someone else.
When they sold these properties to the two respective owners, these owners had to remove it.
One owner put a room on that this board approved.
One owner did not, just put a deck on.
and that's why we do believe given the history of the property next door and the board's position
in support of that variance that this board would be inclined to support what would be a much less
intrusive build out. We did meet with the community at Bella Vista Neighbors. They did not come to a
position. It was sort of a mixed bag. So they're leaving it up to the board. 145 folks were mailed.
It was very poorly attended. But we were able to shop our plans to everyone, everybody on the block.
And as thus, we've gotten not only petitions here from people on the block, but we have several folks
who are going to be testifying in support of this variance as well.
I showed you the proof of posting.
Here are the plans, just so you can see them.
And I've already showed you the rendering.
As again, right there, you'll see the three-foot setback from the adjacent property
so as not to interfere with anybody's light, air, or quiet enjoyment.
And with that, I'm going to ask my client, Mr. Jesse Frank, to raise his hand and be recognized.
Frank, please state your name and spell for the court's stenographer.
Mr. Frank, please unmute yourself and wait for me some more time.
I, could you state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Could you state your name and spell it for the court sonographer?
Jesse Frank, J-E-S-S-E-F-R-A-N-K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Frank, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
Yes, I did.
And is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
All right. And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
I do. Thank you. I have nothing questions. My client. No chair. No, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Chair, comments from the virtual audience. I also just for the for the record, I wanted
to share with you the notice of decision dated October 2021. Where in fact, not 922 Kimball
is granted the variance
for that flat being
replaced by a bedroom.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair. Ronald McManus
has their hand raised. I've allowed them to speak
at this time. Hi, sir. Could you state
your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Ronald McManus,
M-C-M-A-N-U-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed.
I actually there are pieces of Mr. Anastasio's testimony that are not accurate.
The deck is not set three feet back from the lot behind them, nor is it set three feet back from my lot.
As you can see in the plans, the deck actually extends to the end of the lot.
I am concerned about the footprint of this deck, which covers the entire paved patio in the back.
It does not have a three feet setback as Mr. Anastasio claimed, nor does it have a three feet setback from my property at 926 Kimball.
okay all right um thank you for calling in and thank you for your the information
permission permission to cross mr bergman proceed go ahead thank you mr mcmanus are you still online
i am thank you sir um you're saying that the plans as submitted and which will be reviewed
and stamped by LNI, they are inaccurate
and there is no setback from your property line.
That's not what I said.
Oh, okay.
So I wanted to make sure that that was the case.
It's not what you said.
They are not inaccurate.
I direct your attention.
I characterized your discussion in your testimony as inaccurate
because the deck is not three feet back from 927 league,
nor is it three feet back from 926 Kimball.
It's definitely, we know it's not,
we know it's not only the property itself,
the property itself is not set back.
You're right.
Well, I'm talking about the rear, right.
From the rear deck.
You're right.
It's not set back three feet as you testified.
Do you amend your testimony to say
that it's not set three feet back from 927 league?
Listen to me, listen to me.
Mr. Chair, the plans speak for themselves.
He's questioning you.
You don't question him.
That's where we are.
And Mr. Chair, the plans speak for themselves.
If it's 2.8 feet instead of three, the plans speak for themselves.
There is a setback to keep it specifically designed not to interfere with Mr. McNanis' property.
Mr. McManus, I'm going to ask, I'm sharing my screen, and I'd like you to tell me if this document,
this notice of refusal for your home, 926 Kimball Street, if you recognize it.
I would have to read it to be able to say that.
Yeah, it's from 2002, where you've submitted an application for the erection of an entire third floor edition penthouse and a roof deck.
Do you recall that?
um i mean i'm sure there was but and do you recall that there was a refusal for for all of this and
that you know i really don't okay so you don't remember appealing to the zoning board
i my partner had submitted the plans so i don't i couldn't comment about the details from something
And let me show you this document here. This is a letter from Bella Vista Town Watch at the time they were dealing with community zoning. It says here that you presented for your
It says here that you presented for your zoning relief to build an entire third floor and a roof deck at 926 Kimball Street.
Do you recall this meeting?
I mean, yeah, it's, yeah, yes, absolutely.
And here again is, does this look familiar to you, this notice of decision by this board?
Does that look familiar?
Okay. And just so you understand what you're looking at, you're looking at a notice of decision by this board to grant you a variance for a third floor addition and a roof deck.
Correct.
That did not meet any of the dimensional requirements. Are you familiar with that now?
I am not familiar with your last statement that it did not meet all the dimensional requirements.
Well, if it did, you would. I'm really trying to understand the relevance is to the current
for a variant. Excuse me, sir. Please answer the question. I did to my house. I'm just asking you
if any of your journey, your zoning journey to secure variances for your addition and roof deck,
which the refusals were based on dimensional variances because your lot is undersized.
Would you say that's not that dissimilar to what my client is trying to do?
I would say that it is very dissimilar to what your client is trying to do.
Thank you very much. That's all I have for that.
And I just have one more document that I think might be germane if I could get that going.
Give me one moment.
I don't know if you heard the beginning of my presentation, but I did mention that 924's
immediate adjacent neighbor, which was 922 Kimball, also sought a variance of almost
a year ago because their rear was built out with an entire room. Are you familiar with that
particular zoning case? No. Okay. Would it be shocking to you that you received the same notices
for this particular 922 as you did for the case at hand today, 924?
I would also like to state that I'm not sure the property that is two doors down from me is relevant to my testimony about the property.
Mr. McManus, please answer the question.
I'm not sure what the question is.
If you're familiar with this, if you're the question is, are you familiar with the zoning relief sought by 922 Kimball, which dealt with the same rear encroachment?
I am familiar with it now.
OK, so you weren't back in October.
OK, so you didn't testify against that particular variance, did you?
No, and I would not have.
OK, thank you.
Because it was not adjacent to my property.
i see it was uh 16 feet away but okay thank you very much appreciate your time i have nothing
further anyone else in the virtual audience no further hands mr chair
i think there should be some folks uh testifying on behalf of my in support if they're still on
and calvary
and andrea fine
don't see them in the virtual audience
there's one hand though it's from a number ending in 3199 allow them to speak
yep thank you
hi could you state your name
and spell for the court stenographer
hi this is
Ann Calvarese
A-N-N-E
go ahead
do your last name please
spell your last name
C-A-L-V as in Victor
A-R-E-S-I
do you swear for him
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do proceed. So I am the, uh, uh, resident at 922 Kimball street. And, um, as they have laid
out here, um, you know, this has been, uh, an unfortunate, um, slew of events with purchasing
an unfortunate slew of events with purchasing a home where the rear is basically falling apart
a home.
and damaging the inside. So both Mr. Frank and I have had to go through this and dealing with it.
And, you know, he's building a deck just to protect the inside of this home that he owns.
So I am in full support of him being able to maintain that deck and to be able to move forward.
Thank you for taking the time to call us.
Okay, is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Hi, I'm Paula Brumbalo-Burns.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The appellant seeks to build a deck that encroaches into the rear yard requirements and has support structures right on the property line.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed variance.
Please note, Mr. Chair, that the deck has already been constructed along with Ms. Calvarici's room as a result of the falling down atrium.
And then I will state that if they had had the benefit of the building permits, we would have been able to address this earlier before construction.
So MI 2023, 001-601-924 Kimball Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you. Number four, MI-2022-006-500, 2000 Hain Street, Aaron Stratford.
Letter of support from the 10th Ward Democratic Committee.
Okay, Mr. Chair, I am re-promoting them to panelists.
Mr. Stafford, could you state your name, please?
We're still at the same place, Chase.
Mr. Stafford, we can't hear you.
They have two devices, Chair.
I'm going to try to see if I can
promote them with this one and try the other one, okay?
All right.
All right, thank you.
Mr. Stafford?
I'm ready to promote them with the other one.
That's under their name, sir.
Please forgive me.
Do you have to delay?
Hello?
I am Mr. Stafford.
We can hear you now.
Oh, sorry.
Thank you.
We apologize.
We've been on here for the...
We've been...
Sorry for the...
That's okay.
All right.
Who's going to testify?
yeah my wife i'm having a lot right shut up could you state your name and spell please for
the court stenographer shamaya stratford shamaya spell f-h-e-m-a-i-a-h stratford
s-t-r-a-t-f-o-r-d right you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes all right excuse me this is hillary um mrs stratford um are you on listed on the deed
to the property no i'm not okay we will need i'm sorry but we will need your husband to testify
because he is the record owner of the property okay yes thank you sorry mrs stratford could you
Could you state your name, please?
Aaron Strattford.
And spell it, please.
A-A-R-O-N-S-T-R-A-T-F-O-R-D.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir.
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
and required to proceed with this case but it's okay thank you please proceed and share your
Please proceed and share your screen.
screen so this application is for a group child
So this application is for a group child care on the first floor with existing single family dwellings above and an existing attached structure.
The proposed use group child care is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning.
The proposed multiple uses on a main lot is prohibited in the RSA 5 district zoning.
So please proceed, sir.
i'm sorry chair i hate to interrupt but this is tanya if i may depending on what the applicant
would like to do if it is an issue and a concern for him speaking i could grant him a two-week
continuous if that would help is just a um something if it would help him with his voice
thank you mr strafford you're the ones going to have to testify if you want to wait we could give
you two weeks and by then maybe you could be back to where you need to be no it's okay i can speak
okay all right all right um please share your screen all right you have your documents yes
so we transitioned to our our cell phone so i don't know how to share on this one second
so there should be a share screen button at the bottom
okay so i have to get i have to pull up the the the email on this
and i say if you need to if your other device if you had the documents you could use the other
device to share and then this device to speak okay okay we just need we need to re-promote
your other other device okay i think i found it all currently is not listed you have to reconnect
it to zoom okay sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience your voice is getting
better.
Okay, Mr. Stafford, both devices are connected, you can proceed.
Okay, I'm ready.
Well, it's going to have to put the documents up, okay?
Okay, we're doing it now.
excuse me chair and um going forward whichever device you're not using to speak with please
mute it that way we won't have any feedback or echoes please okay
do you see the green screen the green button
i'm trying to find where we are joining
okay well we try to pull it up but I just want to say we purchase the property with
the tensions today and transmission our family child care business to hand free we would like
service our neighbors with a small group daycare we are also asking for a special exception because
use of a space and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and community
we are asking to be considered because our business will not cause harm to the city or
environment we live in the community as well have received a lot of support from our near neighbors
because it promotes a healthy and safe space for the children in our zone district rs5 rsa5
okay so that's all but we need to see some of the documents okay we're trying to get
Mr. Stratford did you post the property for today's hearing because that was one thing we
did not receive is a proof of posting we sent it yesterday yes I sent it yesterday well we sent it
yesterday okay you may need to resend it because I have not seen it so if you can if you when you
pull up your screen if you can show us that and then send it again for the record that would be
great thank you yes ma'am i'll be making out we're finding it on the documents
How do we make it out? We're finding it on the documents.
Chair, this is Tanya again. We're going to have the staff look for the documents that we received.
Okay, we're going to move on.
Okay, and we can come.
I have it.
We have it.
But can you put it on the screen, ma'am?
yes i'm pulling it up now share screen all right here we go
can you guys see that no
all right i hit share screen
turn your mic mrs straffler yes you want to open the document first unshare your screen
open the document, and then click share screen once you're able to visualize what you're trying
to share. Yes, that's what I did. So now I'm hitting share screen, but it's not sharing what
I want to share. All right, here's the document. Excuse me, this is the court reporter. Could I
ask that one of the devices be muted? I'm starting to get a little echo.
thank you so mr strafford we're going to move on and come back to you we we we really have a full
schedule today see if you can get this straight but i'm i'm going to move on to the next case
and we'll call you back okay okay number five mi 2023 001 733 6798 essington avenue
Dawn Tancredi, and Clementine Amazine are the attorneys.
Letter of support from Southwest Philadelphia Consortium of RCOs.
The 40th Ward Republicans serve as the coordinating RCO.
Ms. Tancredi is coming back in as a panelist.
Hello.
Hi, how are you?
State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
Good afternoon. Dawn Tancredi, T-A-N-C-R-E-B-I.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this product?
Sure. I represent SRM Developers, LLC, owner of 6798 Essington Avenue.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that
are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, my office
did that. Thank you very much. Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
Okay, so we are here seeking a use variance for a nightclub in order to utilize what has
been vacant, unfinished, and unused space at the rear of the property at 67.
what are you doing okay at 6798 essington avenue
this is the interior space that we're seeking a variance for and these are some photos of the
property. You can see Essington Avenue is a multi-laned corridor. This is the front of the
property here. You can see the Oasis Club. That's the front parking lot. And then there's access to
the rear of the property through this side drive area. And you can see a large parking lot at the
rear of the property and separate access to this separate space where the proposed nightclub would
be. So the property is in the middle of an industrial area. Surrounding uses include car
dealerships, collision centers, the parking authority, impoundment lot, car rental companies,
and a wholesale produce market.
There are no nearby residents. It is highly industrial.
There are no nearby residents.
It is highly industrial.
Here again on the site plan, you can see the proposed space is about 4,000 square feet, and there will be a proposed vestibule here at the entrance.
The proposed use does complement the existing use on the property.
We have a rendering here of the space.
The hours of operation would be 10 p.m. till 3 a.m. Thursday through Sunday.
Plus, the space could be rented at other times for private events.
It's anticipated that the proposed use will create a minimum of 40 jobs and potentially even more.
The business in the front of the property already has security and commercial trash pickup. The proposed business will as well.
I do want to point out that permitted uses in the I-3 district do include vehicle sales,
wholesale distribution, and industrial use, a lot of what we see surrounding this property,
and those permitted uses are not compatible with the existing business on the site.
They would take away parking spaces, number one, and number two, they would entail a lot of truck traffic, which would create a dangerous situation where consumers are walking around the parking lot.
So taking you back to the site plan, I do want to point out that the plans do include extensive landscaping in the front here.
and that will help beautify Essington Avenue further the operators of this proposed nightclub
are John Meehan and Wayne Schulich who are available today to testify if the board has
any questions for them each of them in their own right have 25 to 30 years experience operating
restaurants and nightclubs in Philadelphia and throughout the country. John also is a member
of the entity that owns the site. We did meet with the RCOs and we have a letter of support.
I believe that Craig Melodosian is also on this call and can speak for himself.
The architect Michelle Kleschick is also on the phone and she's available to answer questions as well.
If there are no questions, I would ask for my client to be unmuted so that I could ask him to adopt my testimony.
Why don't we bring your client on?
John, are you on there?
what is the client's name john mehan or wayne schlick
i've allowed john mehan to speak okay sir could you state your name hi could you state your name
and spell for the court stenographer my name is john mehan m as in mary e as in edward e as in
Edward. H as in Harry. A as in Apple. N as in Nancy. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. John,
have you heard my testimony this afternoon? Yes, I have, Dawn. Is it true and accurate to the best
of your knowledge? Yes, it is. And do you adopt it as though it were your own testimony? I do.
Okay. I have no further questions.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Craig Melodosian, I have allowed them to speak.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Craig Melidosian, C-R-A-I-G, last name M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair Bergman.
Proceed, sir. And you speak for the RCOs.
Yes, sir. I just wanted to say that Council Verily adroitly summed up the operational issues that challenged the site.
I also wanted to further indicate that the owners that we met with, John and Wayne,
I also wanted to further indicate that the owners that we met with, John and Wayne, along with the wards council, showed a level of engagement and relationship building that we normally do not enjoy from other applicants.
We think that this would be a less onerous use than some of the other things that could go in there.
And with the construction of the Bellwether District with about 10.5 million square feet of logistic space and about 350 or 3.5 million square feet of life sciences space taking place directly across the river, that this will bring us an additional venue that will serve for both food and meeting spaces.
the corridor at this point is rather downtrodden. So as we put into the letter, we're very
appreciative of the landscaping efforts, as we say so often other applicants trying to escape them.
Just wanted to say we thank them and we look forward to working with them and we appreciate
the potential for employment opportunity that they'll also be bringing into our community.
Thank you very much for calling us and your input. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further hands, Mr. Chair.
Aye, Planning Commission.
This is Paula Brumbelow-Burns.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the heavy industrial zoning at this location.
The appellant requests to expand
a legally non-conforming use.
The appellant has shown that the proposed expansion
will not injure the use of adjacent properties.
However, to bring the property closer
into compliance with the zoning code,
staff recommends approval with the condition
that the appellant submit a landscaping plan which complies with section 14-803 section 5
parking and landscaping screening section of the philadelphia zoning code
thank you and thank you the landscaping has been shown on the plan that's been submitted
um mi 2023 001 733 6798 essington avenue i vote yes
james snell my vote is yes
Thomas.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Counselor, you have your three votes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Have a great day.
You too.
MI-2023-001-708-941-North 6th Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from Northern Liberty's Neighbors Association
with proviso for a maximum of two dwelling units.
Mr. Nockmson, you've already been sworn.
Could you just state your name for the record, please?
Yes, Alan Nockmson.
And can you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Gouman Properties, LLC.
And in the virtual audience is Talbinder Gouman, its principal member.
All right.
And Mr. Holloman has a few questions.
good afternoon council do you email all of the exhibits and documents as required
five days in advance to this hearing uh yes we have
please thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you
oops that's not it let's try that again all right here we go
all right i'm here to present 941 north 6th street um and we do have a few provisos uh so
we'll go over that but first we'll review the notice or refusal alan try to get a little
closer to the mic, please. Sure. Sorry about that. We do have a few provisos we want to go over with
you, but first we'll review the notice of refusal, then the letter of support from the Northern
Liberties Neighbors Association. Then we have the revised plan form completed with bullet points of
what we're changing on the plan. We also have a use permit that shows that this property was used
as great as five units at one point, and most recently as three units. Then we have nearby
multifamily properties that are RSA 5. And then one of the other refusal, we have a use refusal.
that are RSA 5. And then one of the other refusal, we have a use refusal for multifamily use. And then
the other refusal has to deal with the five-foot side yard, showing that it's not out of character
to have a side yard of less than five feet. Maps of the area, photographs of the property,
our plans and drawings, our meeting notice, our application for appeal, showing that GUMON
Properties LLC is the owner of the property by way of the application that we filed on their behalf,
as well as the deed to the property showing that they own the property and our certificate of tax
clearance. At the conclusion of my presentation, I'll ask Mr. Umann to virtually raise his hand,
be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him as well. Our notice of refusal. As you can
see, this is an RSA 5 property. It's a rather large lot that, let me see, it's a rather large
lot that's 1,710 square feet. Originally, we were looking to put three units in here,
but after talking with the neighborhood as well as the community group, we're agreeing to a maximum
of two units by way of provisos. We have three refusals. The first is with the roof deck access
structure. Because of how the roof deck access structure is configured on this lot, it's
technically less than five foot, it's less than the five foot set back in the rear. So that
pilot house is being considered as part of the height of the property. The community had no
objection to that. The second refusal has to do with the multifamily use. Again, they had no
objection to the multifamily use. Their objection had merely to do with instead of having three
units, they wanted two units instead. And then the third refusal, we're providing a side yard
of less than five feet. We're actually providing a side yard of three feet. And the reason why
we're doing this is to allow the residents in the building to store their trash in the rear so they
can go from back to front and front to back to store their trash as well as to move their trash
during trash day. And the neighborhood had no issue with that either. It was really just the
the amount of units and the way our building was configured, where the side alley was,
in essence. So we got a letter of support from the neighborhood based on the modifications which
we made, which is in our revised plans. But they said that they supported maximum of two units
reflected on the plans. They included our plans, which is exactly what we're showing you today.
And you'll see that. And then we made these, these are the plans we revised. And we're doing a reduction from three units to two. We inverse the building footprint. So the property owner to the left of us wanted the side yards, this three foot side yard on their side to provide them more light and air for their property. So we agreed to do that.
We also reoriented the pilot house because originally the pilot house was on one side, but once we inversed the building structure, the pilot house had to be reoriented and inversed as well.
And so we just want to acknowledge that in our revised proviso plan form.
And then finally, because we reduced the amount of units from three units to two units, we also reduced the building depth from 78 feet and 10 inches to 50 feet.
So now we have an open area of 40 feet or a setback of 40 feet in the rear.
And that was also important to the neighbors to the left of us.
They didn't want our building structure to overpower the building structure that's next to theirs.
So we reduced our building structure significantly to provide them with the necessary light and air.
so as you can see from this building permit or excuse me use permit originally this property
or at one point this property as late as 2007 was five units it got converted and downward adjusted
to three units so what we're offering as two units is not out of character to the property's
history it's also not out of character to have multi-family use on this block even though this
block is now primarily RSA 5. We see six separate instances where similar properties are multifamily
in nature, even though it's a RSA 5 block. So we have 941 North 6th Street, 951 North 6th Street,
965 North 6th Street, 975 North 6th Street, 983 North 6th Street. And we have actually two
properties on the back on Randolph, 988 North Randolph and 932 North Randolph, which are also
multifamily in nature. So this is, and these are the pictures of those properties as well for the board, 951.
So this is, and these are the pictures of those properties as well for the board. 951, 965, 975, 983. And then these are the Randolph Street properties, 988 and 932. And then again, we want to look on Atlas. It's not of character to have a side yard of less than five feet. You can also see that through our presentation.
And then maps of the area. We are across the street from CMX2 and RM1, so we're not really
that far off from what you would see as multifamily. Also on 7th Street is completely RM1.
And then photographs of the property. As you can see, this is our property, the front of it.
This is our proof of posting on the property for today's hearing. 941 North 6th Street has
been vacant for some time. It goes as far back as September of 2009. We believe it's because of
the difficulty in complying with the code to have a single-family residence on this block, which
has a pretty large multifamily presence. And then this is North 6th Street to the right of the
property and to the left of the property. And then these are our plans and drawings. Again, we
inversed our building originally this was the alley side and the door was on the other side so
we completely inversed it and this is the property owner that we've been working with on the left
who wanted us to inverse it so we have the side alley essentially um to our left and to their
right uh and again we we decreased the depth of the building structure as well at their request
and then these are just our floor plans again we have two units we have two by levels one
unit number one is on the first floor and lower level unit number two is on the second and third
floors unit one will have access to the rear yard for their outdoor space unit two will have
access to the roof deck for their outdoor space uh the meeting took place in june on june 5th
at 6 30 p.m 135 addresses were notified of the meeting listed the addresses proof of mailing to
these addresses our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of gumon properties
the notice refusal that went with it the project information form that went with that
our deeds of property showing that gumon properties llc is the owner of the property
and their certificate of tax clearance with that being said i would ask that mr gumon virtually
raise his hand and be sworn in please raise your virtual hand and wait to be sworn in
they're on mr guma please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
hi please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
do we see him he's on but uh he's still muted he's been asked to unmute
okay sorry okay my name is my name is talvinder guman spelled as t-a-l-v like vector i-n-d-e-r
Last name is G-H-U-M-A-N.
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Gouman, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission
this is paula bremblo burns the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the single family
residential at this location there is no hardship to the vacant land to justify the overuse of the
property with a multifamily dwelling where a large percentage of the block face is being
is currently used as single family. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that the
variance does not be granted. MI 2023-001-708-941-North 6th Street. I vote yes with provisos.
Maximum two units. Revised plans, one page. Stand by ZBA, August 9th, 2023.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Mr. Malcolmson, you have your votes.
Mr. Nackamson, you have your...
Mr. Malcolmson, thank you. Have a great day.
Number seven, MI-2022-007-371-406-West Somerville.
For Letta Turner is the listed owner, third-party professional Melvin Johnson.
Letter of support from 42nd Democratic Board Executive Committee.
I'm excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Joe Consul has his hand raised.
Ken, please.
It is done.
Hey, board.
Joe Consul.
I was hired very last minute for this as board as attorney for the applicant as they're a company.
Are you going to are you ready to go right now, Joe?
I saw I reviewed all the emails and Hillary can confirm or disconfirm.
but it seems like they sent in everything.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I can confirm that all required documents
have been received in this matter.
All right.
Joe, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record again.
That's Joseph Consul.
And can you identify your client
and relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Pedro Cordero.
He is the principal for Michael J. Construction, Inc.
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents that's required five days in advance to this hearing?
The team did, yes.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. My screen should be up on the refusal. As mentioned, I was literally just hired for this case. However, I believe that we can move forward.
This is 406 West Somerville Avenue. This application is for two units, each with two bedrooms and one bathroom. The property is zoned RSA3.
I think the most salient point here is that on this side of the block, just a quick cursory glance at the time I had, two unit approvals were granted for 404, which is the property to the left if you're facing the property, for 408, which is the property to the right if you're facing the property.
Also, 410, and then I saw 430 is two units, 434, 444, and 446 are all approved for two-unit living in existing family structures, all zoned RSA-3.
So we don't believe that this proposed two-family use is out of character with the neighborhood or specifically this block at all.
The folks, minus myself, presented in front of the new 42nd Ward and received a letter of support. The letter of support speaks of, you know, not really provisos, just some issues to discuss regarding trash and that sort of stuff, which is all contained in that letter.
Also included is the Certificate of Tax Clearance and the deed showing that the property was, and sorry, I said LLC, but it's Michael J. Construction Incorporated, received this property in June of 2023.
three um i have some pictures which are not the normal size or quality that i provide but this
is what i got uh the property is in disrepair uh and is overgrown and we believe would benefit from
this variance as it will be uh fully rehabilitated and improved some other shots
okay with that I'm going to call Pedro Cordero to adopt my testimony
can you raise your hand Mr. Cordero
Mr. Cordero could you state your name please and spell for the stenographer
Pedro Cordero
Pedro Cordero
will you spell your name
let me spell it for him because he can speak
very good English
my name is Juan Peña
give you his name
for him
Hillary what are we going to do with this
if Mr. Cordero
himself is unable to speak,
then we're just going to have to take Mr. Consul's
testimony. We were not
advised that an interpreter is needed.
Joe, you're an
officer of the court. We will
take your testimony.
Yes, I apologize for that.
Okay. No, no, no.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any further answer, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commissioner.
This is Paula Brumbelow-Burns.
The existing single...
Excuse me, hold on.
I'm not on the right line for a minute.
The comprehensive plan indicates this for single-family dwellings.
The existing...
Sorry, I am...
somebody came to me right at the time so let me do it again i'm ready the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location this property has
no documented use as two dwelling units the applicant has not shown that they cannot derive
value from the currently approved single dwelling unit the applicant has shown however that requiring
parking on this lot would not be feasible or desirable the city planning commission recommends
that the board grant the variance from the parking requirements but deny the use for two dwelling
units. Thank you. And I apologize for that confusion. I was on the wrong block in the
spreadsheet. Mr. Kahn, so we're going to hold this. We're going to talk about this in executive
session. We'll have this for you next Wednesday at two o'clock. All right. Thank you very much,
board. Sure. Number eight, MI 2023-001-457-2830 South Alder Street. Michael McElhenney is
is the attorney letter of support
from the South Philadelphia Community Civic Association.
Applicant also provide 18 form letters in support
and non-opposition from neighbors,
16 from the 2800 block of South Alder Street.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court stenographer?
Michael McElhenney, M-C-I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y.
Do you swear, affirm, and tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My clients are Sabrina and Matt McEvoy, M-C-E-V-O-Y, the owners of the subject property.
And our Mr. Holloman has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
So on, I've just shared my screen with my index of exhibits, the preliminarily, our zoning appeals at exhibit eight, the property was posted with photographs at exhibit nine.
Our neighbor notices for the RCO are at exhibit 10.
We did meet with the South Philadelphia Communities Civic Association on, what was it, July 20th.
And that was an in-person meeting, not Zoom.
My client's deed is at Exhibit 11, showing Sabrina and Matthew McAvoy as the owners as of May 2021.
The letter of support that the chairman just referenced is at Exhibit 18, and their letter
of support with two letters of non-opposition. My client's tax clearance is at Exhibit 13,
just showing a zero tax balance for the subject property and the RCO position letter is at exhibit
one showing a letter of support there were two neighbors that showed up at the meeting
in opposition one neighbor Betsy Walsh her concern was not so much about the variance request
more about the construction activities upon the erection of the third story that we are seeking
more about the construction activities upon the erection of the third story that we are seeking
to build. But the second letter of the community position letter just states that they are in full
support of the requested variance. Exhibit two is the notice of refusal for the subject property.
My client is requesting to erect a third story addition with a roof deck access structure
for use as a single-family dwelling, and we are proposing to not have an eight-foot setback at
the front of the property, which creates one zoning refusal. The property is zoned RSA 5.
Exhibit 3 is a zoning map just showing the property and the surrounding properties are
single-family in nature, and that is what we will be using the property for and continue to use it
for. I've included an aerial map just to orient the board. The property to the south is Bigler
street to the north is johnston street this is in this property is in south philadelphia down by
the stadiums exhibit three also includes some aerial photos again just to give the context of
the neighborhood the first photograph just showing the view of the properties to the north
many single family structures with three and four story structures to the northern end of this block
of alder street and the neighboring blocks i know we're running behind so i'm not going to go through
all the aerial photos. Exhibit four are the site photos for the subject property in the block of
Alder Street. The property is the two-story white-sided property in the middle of the screen.
And this property is on the west side of South Alder Street. The properties going south are
other two-story single-family structures. The properties to the north are two-story structures.
And then at the end of the block, we have an existing three-story structure without a setback at 2810 South Alder, which is comparable to what my client's proposing.
And then the next property to the north is 2809 South Warnock, which is a four-story, six-unit apartment building.
The next photograph is just a view from Johnston Street to the north, looking south at the context of this block, consisting of two-story structures, three-story structures, and the four-story structure on the corner.
The properties on the east side of the block, again, are just two-story single-family structures throughout.
Going to page six, I took a photograph looking north.
This is the rear alley behind the subject property.
Alder Street's on the right.
Warnock Street is on the left.
As you can see, there's just a three-foot alley between these properties at the rear, and very congested at the rear of these properties.
the subject property is improved currently with a small one-story addition at the rear with a
roof deck above the first story and then I just took a photograph showing 2833 Warnock Street
that has a three-story addition behind the subject property the remaining photographs are of other
three-story structures without setbacks in the immediate neighborhood 2806 South Warnock Street
2841 and 47 south 12th street which is about three blocks to the west
2734 and 36 south marvine which is a block to the north
2710 south marvine 2947 south 13th that's a little farther away on south on south 13th street but
just showing the context of other three-story structures in the immediate area i was not able
really to see many that had setbacks. Exhibit five are some interior photos of the property.
These are very small properties. They are two bedrooms, one and a half bath.
They consist of living room, dining room, kitchen on the first floor, and then two bedrooms,
small hallway, and two bedrooms on the second floor. My client's zoning plans at exhibit six.
It's a three-page document, and I'll go to page two.
The proposal is, and I'm going to zoom in because this is hard to see.
The property currently exists.
It's a 60-foot deep lot with about 14 feet wide at the front.
The two-story structure goes back 30 feet deep, and then there's that one-story addition
at the rear that's nine feet, six inches deep.
My client's proposing a third-story addition over the existing two-story portion only,
the first 30 feet of the building, and we're requesting not to have that front set back
at the building.
What's unique about these properties on Alder Street, unlike some other areas of South Philadelphia,
we do have existing front yards that sets the property back from the street level.
we have a 10 foot curb. We have a 2.9 foot building area and a front yard combined. That
is almost an eight foot setback from the property line. So we already have a buffer from the sidewalk
So we already have a buffer from the sidewalk due to the existing conditions of this property and all the properties on Alder Street.
due to the existing conditions of.
The rear yard is staying the same. There's no addition to the rear. It's a 13 and a half foot rear yard.
Looking at the cross section on page two, again, we would have the full third story addition without the eight foot setback.
We would only be extending over the existing two-story portion of the house, and we would have that roof deck access structure above the third-story addition.
Turning to page three of this document, one of the cross-section that's on the screen now, just to make clear, if the setback was required, basically the entire front of the property would be eliminated, and you'd be left with a very small portion that's buildable.
and what happens when we get to the third floor layout as you can see what we're proposing is
the living room kitchen dining room stays the same on the first floor the second floor is a
large bedroom bathroom and a den slash office space if and going to the third floor level
that we're proposing we have a master bedroom master bathroom washer dryer and walk-in closet
If the setback was required in this instance, the front bedroom gets eliminated.
The eight-foot setback is approximately where this line is next to the bed, and you end up
with a hallway.
You end up with the stairs, a three-foot hallway, and a room where the bathroom is that's about
six foot, six inches wide, and you need a seven-foot wide room for a bedroom under the
So with the setback at this size property, it creates an impossibility to make actual
living space and additional bedroom, which is what the clients are looking to do for their family to
expand living space and to stay in the neighborhood long-term. And then the third floor, the roof
deck level is just the roof deck pilot house, which is by right above the third floor level.
Finally, I did include at Exhibit 7 just a zoning map of the other properties I referenced earlier.
that are other three-story structures that most of which do not have that front setback.
So one thing I do want to say before I call my client is just to point out on the ground level
of these properties, these properties all are set back from the front property. As you can see,
they're all front patios and then the sidewalk and then the road. So they're all already have
a setback from the property, from this, the property lines that create some light and
air where some other properties, the setback actually helps preserve light and air to the
neighborhood. This property, because it's unique in how it's set up, does not have that
hardship. It does not have that characteristic. With that, members of the board, I would request
that my client be allowed to raise his hand. Okay. Bring your client on. Mr. McAvoy, can
you please raise your hand?
I've been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Matthew McAvoy, M-A-T-T-H-E-W-M-C-E-V-O-Y.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you see, counsel?
Mr. McAvoy, did you hear the statements that I presented to the board today?
Were they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And is it your desire to add this addition so that your family can stay in this neighborhood long term?
Would you adopt my statements as your own?
Is there anything further that you would like to add to the board or explain to the board about your new property in South Philadelphia?
No, sir.
Nothing for other members of the board.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Paula Brumbelow-Burns.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The proposed addition does not set back
the required distance of eight feet,
and this is out of context with almost every existing home
that fronts on Alder Street.
and this is property is mid-block the city planning commission recommends that the board
deny the request of variance thank you MI 2023-001-457-2830 South Alder Street I vote yes
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes James Snell my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shahid my vote is yes thank you thank you counsel
Thank you. Thank you, counsel.
Number 10, MI 2023-001-691-3000, Cotman Avenue.
Julie Bernstein is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from the Mayford Civic Association.
They'll be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Julie Bernstein, J-U-L-I-E, last name Bernstein, B-E-R-N-S-T-E-I-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My client is St. Matthews, R.C. Church, and they're the owner of the property.
um our vice chair has a few questions ish yes good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing i have yes thank you please proceed and share your screen
okay can everyone see
so good afternoon my name is Julie Bernstein as I mentioned I represent the applicant
Matthews Roman Catholic Church. They own property that's currently zoned RSA 3. So it's a residential
zoning district. And they're currently looking to add to the front of their property, which is
improved with the church rectory and adjacent school, the St. Matthews School, a freestanding
sign and the location of an existing freestanding sign. So this is just a goal to upgrade and
modernize the signage that's currently on the property. The new sign would be electronic to
make it easier for the parish to change the messaging, to announce what's happening at the
church, such as upcoming events, holidays, and services. This type of signage is considered
animated. However, it won't flash, pulsate, or blink, and it contains modern features that allow
it to dim at night and freeze, if anything, malfunctions. St. Matthew's hired a team of
professionals to ensure that the size and distance and location of the sign makes for it to be
legible, while not disruptive to the neighborhood and distracting to cars. And again, as I mentioned,
this is solely meant to be an upgrade. But in order to do so, they require relief from the code.
So I'm just going to run through. I have my exhibit package here,
um which i would like to have um incorporated into the record um at exhibit a1 we've
thank you included the notice of refusal which explains um that the particular sign that's being
proposed isn't permitted because it's within 200 feet of an intersection it's in a residential
district or located near a residential district and as mentioned the entire church property is
located in RSA 3. The code also restricts freestanding signs in the residential district
or this residential district to a smaller size, 15 square feet by seven feet. What we're proposing
would be just under 51 square feet per face and eight and a half feet tall. The regulations are
tailored to a residential district, which restricts the sign to size and format that would be very
difficult to read from the property. As such, we have applied for relief from the board. So at A2,
we've included our application for appeal. And at A3, we have the project information form
as required. And then at A5, I'm just trying to run through quickly for you guys, we have the
proof of ownership. Thank you, Hilary Emerson, very much for helping us locate this old deed,
demonstrating their ownership of the property and as their church they are not actually
obligated let's see to pay taxes but we included that no taxes are due
and I'll move on to the signage package so here we have our proposal for the particular sign
As you can see, to just help orient you, this is the whole property, and E1 right here is the location of the existing sign.
This is the exact same place where they will end up placing the new proposed signage, which we can see on the second sheet here.
This is the exact same place where they will end up placing the new proposed.
So up in the upper right-hand corner, you can see what the existing signage looks like.
And then in the larger lower left-hand corner is what is being proposed.
As mentioned, this would be electronic and in line with modern sign standards.
And as such, it would be set to dim down at night.
It'll have a dark background to minimize glare.
and it will make it easier for the parish to change their messaging. Just to be clear the
signage would not be used for any kind of commercial or advertising purposes and again
it's not going to flash or pulsate. It also is able to freeze if something malfunctions
and can be shut off if there's any type of issue. We have included at A7 our posting
for the hearing and um we have existing condition photographs which as you can see this is it's
really far away which makes it challenging to see at the size that it currently is the sign is pretty
weathered um and so they really would like to upgrade it um to make it more in line with the
neighborhood and keep the property fresh and up to date uh we have our rco meeting documentation
and our near-neighbor letter, notice letter, and then our certificate of mailing to all of the near-neighbors.
I don't know that you want to see them all.
And we did attend the Mayfair Civic Association meeting on the 15th of May.
It was well attended by the neighbors.
There were 31 neighbors.
Everyone voted in support, as did five additional members of the board.
and there was just overwhelming support for this parish, which I think does a lot of great
things for the neighborhood. And again, it's just looking to keep the property up to date
and nice and modern. I have with me Father Welsh from St. Matthew's Roman Catholic Church and Jim
who's the business administrator for the church. They can adopt my testimony. If you have any
technical questions. I do believe that Rob Mehmet of Philadelphia Sign, who assessed the property
and made the plan, as well as Tiffany Hanna of Watchfire Signs, the actual signage company,
in the audience, if there's technical questions for them.
Let's get your client on. Okay, so Jim Mujic, could you raise your hand so that they can let you in?
hello hi hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
james james wujic w u j c as in charles i k right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel um did you hear everything
that i just had to say about the proposed new signage for the property yes i did and do you
agree with everything i said as being true and truthful and accurate yes i do and would you adopt
this testimony as your own as if you had presented it yourself yes i would okay questions from the
board no chair no no no mr chairman no chair okay questions or comments from the virtual audience
Mr. Chair, I have a Stan C with his hand raised.
I have a lot of time.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon.
My name is Stan Swinski, C-Y-W-I-N-S-K-I.
I represent Council Member Mike Driscoll in the 6th Council District.
Hold on.
Hold on. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Sixth Council District supports the variance request.
Good. Thank you so much for taking the time to cause. We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
follow up from below burns this the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location the sign requirement of the code intentionally does not
allow animation and illumination in residential zoning districts because of the potential negative
impacts to adjacent homes the city planning commission recommends that the board grant
the dimensional variance is allowing a freestanding sign but deny the variances for animating and
and illuminating that sign.
So you can respond to that.
So I think the reason why they're asking for the animation and illumination is really, as you could see, if I can't go back to kind of the existing conditions photograph, it really shows that, you know, from a distance, if it's not lit up, you can't see it at all.
So I think the reason why they're asking
for the animation and
It's really difficult to see. And by animating it, it allows, again, there'd be no flashing or
glaring the ideas that, you know, potentially because modern signage is generally like this,
they could have, you know, like a American flag at July 4th or something like that. But primarily
the goal is that it makes it easier for them to change the signage so that it can say that,
you know family masses on Sunday at this time or you know Christmas you know holiday events are
happening on this time and it makes it easier for them to switch it up the location of the signage
also is really it is quite set back the property is pretty far away from everything else there's
residences I apologize I did we didn't include great photographs but they are quite far away
from where the signage would be located
so that the location and setup of the sign
would not glare into any kind of neighbor lawn,
which presumably is why the residential requirements
are as they are in the code.
All right, thank you.
MI 2023, 001-691-3000 Cotton Avenue.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
So let me go back to number four, MI 2022-006-500-2000 Haines Street.
Mr. and Mrs. Stafford, are we?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I did see, I'm not sure where we are from a technical standpoint.
I did, there was a photo sent showing the posting to the board, which the staff forwarded to me.
It does not appear that actually the proper paperwork was posted.
It's difficult to tell in the photo, but it does not look like the zoning poster.
Thank you.
So we may need to, we may need to continue this one. I don't know if,
if let me just see if I can get them back on too,
because if we continue and I'll make sure the next time that they're a little
bit better technology wise, Mr. Stratford.
I've been about to speak. Okay. I'm Mr. Stratford.
Can you hear me?
Mr. Stratford, I can hear you.
So we don't believe that the property was posted the way that it should be.
So we're going to have to continue this case.
And what we'll do is we'll make sure that before the next case, you have an opportunity to talk to people in the office to make sure we have everything in line for when this case comes up again.
Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. So MI 2022-006-500-2000 Hain Street, this case is continued.
Now, before we go to number nine, Hillary, I'm going to take a five-minute break because this
one will be a little bit longer. Yes, Mr. Chair. And then the issue will be is we'll take a five-minute
break. This case will be longer, but the 3.30 list is pretty short, so we'll be able to get
through, okay? So everybody take a five-minute break. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kelly, are you back?
Yes, Chair.
We okay to go?
We ready?
Let me see if all the board members are here, Mr. Snell, Mr. Halliman.
Snell is back.
Wonderful.
Mr. Holloman?
Dish is here.
Okay, Dish is here.
Okay, I'll rename you, Mr. Shahid.
Yes, I apologize.
I got to keep logging out and then because some reason you all can't hear me.
Hi, Chair.
This is Tanya.
We do have three members if you wish to start.
Ready.
Okay, so are we recording?
Yes, Chair, we are.
So number nine, MI 2022, 007-347-224-30 West Top of Hocken Street.
Michael Phillips is the attorney.
Also, Steve Masters represents the Protestants.
They're both coming back in as panelists.
Hi, Mr. Phillips. How are you, sir? Good. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Could you just state your name for the record, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Michael Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransberg, on behalf of the applicant, Topohokin Mansion, LLC.
Right. Do you swear to firm and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And Mr. Masters, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the record?
steve masters s-t-e-v-e m-a-s-t-e-r-s from the law firm of just laws right do you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do so excuse me mr chair mr chair excuse
me one moment can we also promote um leonard reuter on behalf of the city um the uh at a later hearing
i believe a witness from the city will be called so um if we can please promote him that would be
Great. Thank you. That has been done.
Good afternoon. May it please the board Leonard F Reuter, senior attorney for the city of Philadelphia.
That's fine. You've already been sworn.
um so mr phillips i understand where we are today you're going to bring on your traffic
engineer am i right yes right and um so let's let's let's move and we'll start okay uh i would
like to call uh david horner on behalf of uh the applicant excuse me mr chair this is hillary again
Before we start, I would like Mr. Reuter to just address for the record, there was a question about the refusal that was raised by Mr. Phillips at the previous hearing.
So if he could, Mr. Reuter just had something to address related to that.
So if we could do that first, that would be great.
Mr. Chair?
So the applicants received a few refusals, but one, they did, at least in the Notice of Appeal, make a challenge to the refusal for the dry vial.
I believe their position is that a dry vial is not required by the code in this situation.
by the code in this situation and therefore they don't need to meet any minimum width for their
And, and, um, they're
for the dry bile it's the city's position that you know there are other refusals that they're
not challenging and insofar as the application materials including the plans were submitted
and they they are what they are I don't think anybody's contesting the
accuracy of the plans in terms of you know the plans that are being relied upon for this hearing
or the same plans that were reviewed by ellen i so our position is that that's a strictly a legal
question and that we don't need to uh present any fact witnesses for it in other words whether or
not the code requires a dry vial or not is is a question of law it's our position that it does
And if Mr. Phillips is going to address that, I can just simply address what the language of the code is and we can move forward.
Because if there were to be an appeal and that were to be an issue on appeal, that question would be heard de novo by the reviewing court anyway, because it's a legal question.
So and I think that's where we can just proceed that way.
So I don't know if his if his traffic his traffic engineer, of course, is free to address that question if if they want to.
but i'm just saying that um we're not presenting a witness on that challenge just because it's
in this instance it's a purely legal question of what the code requires
yeah if i may um at the appropriate time i would like to make a comment on that also
um so it on behalf of the applicant it's our position that uh the two of the refusals are
correct. The refusal for the minimum aisle width of 18 feet was issued incorrectly because there
is no aisle proposed. Therefore, there's no aisle width. I agree with Mr. Reuter. This is purely a
legal question. And in the alternative, in the event the board decides or determines that
the refusal is accurate relative to the minimum aisle width, in the alternative, we are arguing
that there is a hardship that prevents us from complying with the 18-foot isle width due to the
existing conditions of the property. So we'll get to the, you know, the same place either way. It's
a legal, purely a legal question of whether or not an isle width is required. And, you know,
we respect the city's position. We just disagreed. Right. And if I could, just so it's in the record,
the section of the code at issue is 14-803 sub 2 sub b and also the table 14-803-1 and i'll just
very briefly say just so it's in the record the city section 803 sub 2 sub b says off street
parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards shown in table 14-803-1 based on the
angle of parking and or parking space type uh and for a parking angle uh type of regular space being
90 degrees that is you enter it's it's not a diagonal parking space it's a it's a regular 90
degree angles to get into the parking space the minimum stall width is 8.5 feet minimum stall
depth is 18 feet and the minimum uh aisle width uh is 18 feet um and then uh so i you know our
position is that you have to meet the minimum standards and if there is uh because they all
have minimum aisle widths that is part of the minimum standard so they have to have an aisle
so in other words the minimum aisle width is not zero it's 18 feet uh so you have to have the aisle
and it has to be 18 feet wide.
So again, I understand that it's a question
of how to interpret the language
if you're not having any drive while with aisle at all.
I'm not sure how you get into a space without an aisle,
but that's okay.
And that's basically it.
Yes, for our perspective, Mr. Chair and members of the board,
as you will recall, we have a memo of law
as exhibit one in our objectors exhibit binder,
which details what we believe is the the proper legal standards to be followed in this appeal
because it's an appeal to modify or revoke a proviso it's not an appeal for a variance and
to that extent there are refusals that are missing from the record specifically the refusals concerning
the board's proviso no additional curb cuts along Pastoria Street. That should have been
a clear refusal because the applicant is proposing multiple additional curb cuts along
Pastoria Street. In addition, the proviso requires that tenants have ingress and egress only from
The proviso requires that tenants have ingress and egress only from Tobahawken.
I understand Mr. Phillips disagrees with that, but that's our position.
And that is the position that we believe that the board took also.
And therefore, the refusal should be that this proposed plan does not restrict ingress and egress for the tenants to Tobahawken.
um the the final one is that um there's a proviso that says no parking along pastoria street
and while there is a refusal uh that's related to um accessory parking along pastoria street it
should reference the proviso and not just the the portions of the zoning code so that's really what
we're here for members of the board is to decide whether this proviso remains gets clarified or
gets modified and and all of those factors are not included in the notice of refusal
and and just a brief response to that it's the city's position with respect to whether
we agree in principle that if there is an existing variance for a property or existing proviso for
the property pursuant to case law, that in effect you would be seeking basically a new
variance from those provisos, and whether or not that requires the city to issue a refusal
for those based on those provisos, I'm not sure, but we will simply defer to the board's
determination of that.
So if the board decides that should have been a refusal, I don't think that there's any reason why it needs to go back to L&I to have them add those refusals.
The board's perfectly capable of hearing Mr. Masters' argument on that and Mr. Phillips' response to that.
And, you know, you can just simply incorporate it into whatever decision you ultimately make.
So whether or not additional refusals should have been issued on the basis of the provisors that had previously been issued by the board and then ultimately upheld by the Commonwealth Court and what those actually were, which, of course, is also a subject of a little bit of a debate, as you may recall.
um that's again that's we've had situations in the past where people have come to this board
and everybody was cognizant of there having been a missed refusal and as long as everybody is aware
of what the missed refusal was the board we've determined in the past that the board could
proceed as long as everybody understood that um and in this case given who mr master's clients
are there isn't any real issue of notice or anything like that i mean this as you know this
is a matter that's been going on for several years so i think everybody is up to speed on
what's going on or not going on at the property so we again we'll just simply defer to the board
on that question that mr masters just raised so let's get back to where we want to be today right
so mr phillips do you want to call your traffic engine yes uh but just before i do i do want to
note, just to clarify something that Mr. Reuter said, the traffic expert is not here to speak to
the legal question of whether or not a parking aisle is required or not required. We'll stand
on our own legal argument for that. So we're just here to have the traffic expert speak to other
matters. And with that, I would like to call David Horner. Sir, could you state your name
and spell, please, for the court stenographer.
Please raise your virtual hand.
Can we see him, Jason?
He's unmuted.
Okay. Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes. My name is David Horner, H-O-R-N-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Phillips.
Good afternoon, Mr. Horner.
Sorry to interrupt. Excuse me. If Mr. Horner is not promoted to a panelist, can we do that so we can turn on his video?
Okay. That has been done.
Thank you.
There we are.
Good afternoon, Mr. Horner.
Good afternoon.
Have you testified? Well, first, can you please let the board know your professional occupation and title?
Have you testified?
Well, first, can you...
Yes, I'm a licensed professional engineer in Pennsylvania.
I'm a certified professional traffic operations engineer, president of Horner and Cantor Associates, a traffic engineering consulting firm, approximately 35 years experience.
And have you testified before the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment in other cases?
I have.
And have you been accepted as an expert witness in the field of traffic engineering before the Zoning Board of Adjustment?
I have.
Okay, and I would just ask if Mr. Masters or Mr. Reuter would be willing to stipulate to Mr. Horner's qualifications so we can skip voir dire.
I am not willing to stipulate to his qualifications in this case today because you haven't laid any foundation that he's participated personally in any of the traffic studies.
What you introduced in your exhibit was a bunch of students who did some kind of a, what you call it a traffic study, but we don't know whether Mr. Horner is testifying to things that he's done himself, or he's actually been to the property, or if he's just reviewed the work of all other people.
Mr. Horner is here to testify regarding his traffic report that has been submitted as an exhibit within the applicant supplemental exhibit packet.
So we can go through, though, his qualifications first, and we'll go through voir dire then.
um just so it's clear to the board uh other than whatever the ultimate recommendation of the city
planning commission is on the variants the city's not actually we're not i'm only here basically
because uh there was the challenge against ellen i on the dry bile question and then also because
mr masters has subpoenaed a city witness uh for his portion of the case which i doubt is going
they're going to even open today so um we're not i i'm not taking a position on anybody's expertise
i'm i'm not going to be participating in questioning or anything like that because we're
not taking again other than whatever the city planning recommendation is uh we're not really
participating in the variance portion of this case so you don't need to ask me for permission
any more about anything thanks um okay yeah uh so mr horner just a few uh background questions
just on uh qualifications before we um you know before we get into the substance um so can you
please uh let the board know about your educational background uh yes i have a bachelor of civil
engineering degree from the University of Delaware in 1987. Okay, and you said you've owned
Horner and Cantor Associates for 35 years? I've been practicing as a traffic engineer for over
35 years. I've been a principal in Horner and Cantor Associates for approximately 20 years.
And you had mentioned earlier that you had been accepted as an expert before the Philadelphia
of Zoning Board of Adjustment. Have you been accepted as an expert witness in traffic engineering
in any other jurisdictions? I have. I've been accepted as an expert in traffic engineering
by probably over 100, 150 boards in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Okay. And
you are a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers? I am. Okay.
Okay. I will offer Mr. Horner as an expert witness in the field of traffic planning, unless Mr. Masters has any cross-examination.
Do you have any questions?
I don't have a cross-examination as to his background.
Okay, fine. I accept it, Mr. Phobos.
Okay, thank you.
I'm going to share my screen, and then we can get into the substance.
All right.
Can you see my screen? Yes. Okay. Are you familiar with the property at 224 West
Bruno, can you see my screen?
Tulpa Hawkins Street? I am, yes. And have you personally visited the property?
I have on a number of occasions, yes. And just for purposes of orientation,
do you see where I'm circling with my cursor, would it be accurate to say that that is the
property? Uh, yes. Okay. And just to further orient, uh, where I'm dragging my cursor now
is Tulpa-Hopkin, and then we have Green Street, Wayne Avenue, and then here at the rear is West
Pastoreas. Did I state that correctly? That is correct, yes. Okay. And you were asked, uh, to,
uh, go to the property and, uh, observe and prepare a report. Is that correct? That's correct.
Okay. And just for further clarification, as you see this, does this appear to be
the condition of Pastoria Street as we sit here today?
Okay. And is this the angle that I'm going, is this heading from Green Street towards
Wayne Ave heading in a westerly direction for the property?
I believe it is, yes.
And as we continue to head down to the right here, this is the subject property, is that correct?
That's correct.
All right.
And you had referenced in your report there are some other garages along Pastorius for ingress and egress, correct?
You personally observed those?
So in your report, I do want to note one thing.
Now, you state in the beginning of your report that this project received approvals from L&I in late 2022 with no modifications.
Is that correct?
No, that was misstated in the report.
The sentence you're referring to is the end of the first paragraph in my report, where I summarized that paragraph.
I summarized the history as I understood it from the applicant and the sentence I stated, these 15 spaces were approved by L&I in late 2022.
That should have stated by Streets Department. So that was a misrepresentation in that sentence.
It should have been Streets Department. And you've seen Streets Department approval of.
of this parking plan. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Can you explain for the board
your observation of Topohokin Street versus Pastoria Street? How are the two streets
different? What are their purposes? Can you just let the board know what you observed relative to
those two streets? All right. Well, West Topohokin Street in this area, and I'm talking about the
block between Wayne and Green that this property fronts on. That's got a two-way cartway width of
about 36 feet with parking on both sides, and it serves as, we'll say, a collector street in that
it does extend beyond Green and Wayne. West Pastoria Street in this area is approximately
14 and a half feet wide, two-way traffic, no parking on the street in terms of the cartway,
and it tees off, it ends at Green Street and Wayne, so it serves essentially as a residential
street in this context in the property frontage. Do you have any knowledge of the historical use
of uh pastoria street uh i don't i my only knowledge is from what i observed uh as to
what uses are along pastoria street and the traffic conditions of it okay um did you evaluate
the impact of of providing uh 15 perpendicular parking spaces along west pastoria uh street i
I did. And did you also observe the traffic patterns in and around the area?
I did. And in addition to observing traffic patterns, our office performed traffic counts along West Pastoria Street for a four-day period, including a weekday and a weekend day, to document the daily and the hourly traffic volumes.
Okay. And can you advise the board about your observations?
advise the board about your observations of other curb cuts on Topolhockin Street,
excuse me, on West Pastoria Street? Yeah, so there's multiple curb cuts for various
residential properties. There's also a driveway for the parking garage for Wallington Apartments
That's got 18 spaces in it.
That's got a driveway that is between this property and Green Street.
But, yeah, there's multiple curb cuts along Pastoria Street currently.
So as we're heading down on the left, you see there are curb cuts here for garages.
That's correct.
And one of these, the ones that when you refer to Wallingford apartment?
Yes, and it may be where that vehicle is pulling out in that photograph is where the 18th space parking garage entry and exit is.
Okay. And continuing on, then there's another curb cut here on the left. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay. And continuing on, there's a curb cut here on the right. This is after 224. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay. And then, does this depict the additional curb cuts as we're heading towards Wayne Ave.
for the other property? Yes. All right. And this accurately depicts Topa
Hawkins Street as well. Is that correct? It does, yes. Okay. So, did you
make any, did you reach any conclusions or render an opinion
as to the ability of West Pastorius Street in particular to handle this sort of traffic
that would be generated by placing 15 additional parking spaces on the site?
I did.
Okay, and what was your conclusion?
Well, my conclusions are provided in our report, and I can summarize them here.
So the first is that the traffic volumes generated by the apartment development
which we project to be approximately eight vehicles in the morning peak hour, approximately 10 in the afternoon,
some of which are already on Pastoria Street, but they are consistent with the existing use and type and volume of traffic along West Pastoria Street.
It's residential traffic, residential uses. This is consistent in terms of type and volume.
Uh, the existing traffic volumes on Pistorius street, like I indicated, uh, we accounted those
volumes on a 24 hour basis. There's approximately 124 vehicles total with about seven in the morning
peak hour and 12 on the weekday afternoon peak hour. That is extremely low traffic volumes.
And it's understandable, given that Pistorius Street is essentially a residential street, not a collector or through street.
In terms of providing access to West Pistorius Street, we did take a look and made the determination that it is, in fact, conducive to serving as the primary access for the off-street parking.
One reason is the very low traffic volumes, which means very low conflict with vehicles.
The West Pastore's access itself is 24 feet wide and is of appropriate standards to handle two-way traffic.
That's the access that's in and out of the site, separate from the 15 parking spaces.
In comparison to West Alpahawken Street, that provides currently a 12-foot wide access for two-way traffic onto a street that carries higher traffic volumes and has some limits in terms of site distance for drivers exiting onto Alpahawken because of the on-street parking in particular.
Um, so my conclusion was that providing the 15 parking spaces and maintaining, of course, the two way access that is currently there for the site, uh, will have no adverse impact.
Uh, the, the three primary reasons I stated were one, the, the low traffic volumes and therefore limited traffic conflict to there's no site distance limitations along pastoria street in this vicinity.
So there's no safety concerns in that respect.
And finally, we looked at the parking turning maneuvers to make sure that they could be accommodated into and out of those spaces without requiring, let's say, a K-turn or some awkward movement.
without requiring, let's say, a K-turn or some awkward movement,
and they can be accommodated in that cartway with no issue.
and they can
So that was our conclusion, was based on those points.
Did you notice any site limitations or any other sort of limitations along West Pastoria Street
that would negatively impact the ability to park in one of the proposed 15 spaces?
I did not, no.
I just want a clarification.
Michael, when you said sight, are you saying S-I-T-E or S-I-G-H-T?
Appreciate the clarification.
In that one instance, it was S-I-G-H-T, sight distance limitations, as in visual.
And that's how I understood the question.
Now, in terms of the parking directly, I guess, you know, these 15 perpendicular spaces, did you also look at the ability of vehicles to easily turn in and out of those 15 proposed parking spaces?
I did. It was critical for me to be confident that the vehicles could execute that maneuver, and they can based on the orientation of the spaces as they are perpendicular and the width of West Pastoria Street, which is sufficient to accommodate those movements, as it is for the other movements at the other driveways along that street. Very similar situation in terms of the maneuvers.
and uh with respect to uh strike that did you view uh the conditions of off-street parking
and the availability of off-street parking uh in the uh vicinity when you visited
if you could ask that question again i'm unsure i followed the question did you did you view the
availability or lack of availability of on-street parking, excuse me, that's probably why you were
confused, I said off, of on-street parking in the direct vicinity of the property?
I did. I didn't do a count over duration of several days, but I did make observations, yes.
Okay, and what observations, if any, did you reach?
Well, the observations were that there's very limited availability for on-street parking on West Alpahokan Street. Parking is allowed, and it's full, essentially, in the times that I was present. Pastoria Street does not allow on-street parking within the cartway, so there's no availability there as well.
Okay. Is it your professional opinion that this additional parking that would be provided on site would be critical and warranted to handle the total parking demand on site?
Yes. Yes, I believe it is. I think without the additional spaces, there's not the sufficient off-street, on-site parking within the lot.
Did you render any opinion regarding whether the addition of these 15 additional parking spaces would cause any adverse impact on the public?
I did render an opinion, and my opinion was it would not cause adverse impact, and that's based on the low volumes we're talking about in terms of the residential activity for these 15 spaces and also the existing traffic on West Pastoria Street itself, as well as the other things I cited.
The site distance is available, the turns can be made in one movement sufficiently.
So those are the factors that led to my conclusion that there's no adverse impact.
And you see on my screen here, is this the streets department approval that you were referencing in your letter?
I believe it is, yes.
And I just want to clarify here, because I do see that this shows what appears to be three stacked parking spaces here. Is it your understanding that no stacked parking spaces are being proposed as part of this application?
Yeah, that's my understanding. On this plan, there were 18 parking spaces, 15 of those in the front along the frontage of Pasteur.
15 of those in the front along the frontage of Pastore Street, the other three, the ones you had pointed to, essentially behind three other spaces, those three, as far as I understand it, are no longer part of the proposal.
Correct. And I'll just reference that the 15 we're talking about are four plus three plus three plus four.
And then we have the one right over here to that adjacent now.
So are you aware of the curb cuts that are proposed there in terms of providing access directly to these off-site parking spaces?
Well, they exist currently, if that's what the question is.
right um did you see uh do you perceive or view any issues with um the location of these parking
spaces um relative to the uh the property okay could you um repeat yeah do you uh you know what
i'll take a step back because i where i'm trying to get is you also made some recommendations of
best practices that you think could improve or should at least be taken into consideration
for this plan. Is that right? That is correct. Yes. Okay. Can you advise the board what some
of those considerations were that you thought could be taken into account? Yes. And they are
also provided within my report. One consideration is that the 15 barking spaces could be restricted
to back-in only use, just an enhancement of the safety of having them be able to pull
out of those spaces forward as opposed to backwards. So that is a consideration and a
recommendation I provided to the applicant. Another consideration, which certainly is beyond
the applicant's control, would be that West Pastoria Street could be signed to be one way,
and the recommendation would be from Wayne Avenue to Green Street. The reason for that is simply
that the cartway with suggests that that's appropriate. And given the ability for vehicles
using Pastorius Street to circulate around as necessary beyond, you know, once they get to
Green Street or come in from Wayne, I think it certainly would not cause a hardship to either
the existing use of Pastorius or the subject site. And the other consideration that I provided
to the applicant was given the fact that the Tulpa-Hawken Street access, which is narrow,
the access itself is narrow, and has some site distance limitations for traffic pulling out onto
a higher volume road that either eliminate the internal connection that links the two accesses
or more desirably perhaps change or restrict Tall Pahawken Street access to one-way entering.
Just because I believe that Pastoria Street access is far safer condition and if all the
exiting traffic is oriented to Pastoria Street, that would be a better situation from a traffic
perspective. Interesting. So, we will hear at some point, you know, the objector's position that
all traffic should be diverted and utilized on Tulpa-Hawkins Street, but what you're saying is
that in your professional opinion, West Pastoria Street is a far safer place for ingress and egress?
Yes, it is.
Okay. Now, those recommendations that you made, are any of those vital to your opinion that the addition of these 15 parking spaces would not cause or detrimentally impact the public transportation system or public safety?
No, they're not vital. My opinion, it was made without those considerations in place. And if none of those considerations were implemented, my conclusion remains the same, that it is a safe proposal and no adverse impact for all the reasons I stated previously.
Okay. And is everything that you've stated here today true and accurate to the best
uh true and accurate to the best of your professional opinion yes it is i have no
of your professional opinion? Yes, it is.
further questions for mr horner
the ministers um yes you probably want to know that my share
excuse me do you want me to stop my share oh yeah that'd be great
Good afternoon, Mr. Horner.
Good afternoon.
I'm going to walk through a lot of your report and ask you questions about it, but I just
wanted to start out by asking you, could you restate again how many days you did your traffic
study? The traffic counts were conducted over the course of four days, actually three and a half
days. It was three full days, June 1st to June 3rd. Right. My calculation of June 1st to June 3rd
is three days. So was that a mistake in your report or did you make a mistake by saying it
was four days? It was conducted over three and a half days, three full days, which was June 1st
to June 3rd. So that's where the reference came from. I wasn't really counting the half day in
terms of the traffic numbers. So when I stated four days, I was referring to the four days that
we were present but it was really three days full three full days of count so i apologize for any
confusion okay so you rounded up a bit but it's i didn't round up i i we were there for four days
but there's three full days of data so that's okay all right so you described both pastoria
street and top walken street and i got a bit confused um at one point you said that uh you
You thought that traffic on Pastorius was better than traffic on Topohockin because you said that Topohockin only has 12 feet for cars to travel, whereas there's 22 feet to travel on Pastorius Street.
Isn't that completely false, though, Mr. Horner?
I mean, Topohockin Street is...
Objection to the compound question.
You just asked the question.
You should allow the witness to answer.
All right.
What is the 12 feet on Top of Hocken you're referring to compared to 22 feet on Pastorius?
Yeah, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was referring to.
So the width of Top of Hocken Street, which I did testify to, is 36 feet.
That's the street itself.
And that includes the on-street parking on both sides.
The width of Pastorius Street is 14 and a half feet.
That's the actual cartway.
When I referred to the 12-foot and the 22-feet that I had mentioned, the 12-feet is the actual access width of the site's driveway on the Topohockin.
So not Topohockin Street itself, but the access driveway width, that's the 12-feet.
Okay, so we're talking the curb cut on Topohockin versus Topohockin.
The curb cut, yes, that's correct.
Is there any reason why the curb cut on Topohockin couldn't be enlarged?
I did not study that issue, whether it could or couldn't be.
I know it's been there quite a while in its current form.
So I just looked at it as what it is currently at 12 feet.
Right. I get that.
But we know that you were told that the curb cuts were,
there were many additional curb cuts being added to Pastorea Street.
Is that true?
I'm not sure I understand that question.
Are you aware that before this property owner had his application in 2017, that there were only two curb cuts along Pastoria Street? Are you aware of that fact?
I am not. I don't know how many curb cuts there were in 2017.
Got it. And when you did your inspection, you saw quite a few curb cuts along Pastoria Street on this property line. Would that be correct?
uh quite a few on pastoria street between green and wayne that's correct
no i'm talking about the boundaries of this property of mr ability this property
uh yes the the 15 spaces which are currently and they have curb cuts uh i believe because it was
approved previously by streets department well that's actually not true but yeah but mr horner
There's curb cuts, basically the entire the entire boundary on Pastoria Street from the from the corner of the property through the driveway.
there's curb cuts basically the entire the entire boundary on pastoria street
Would that be would that be fair? Every every one of those in that case, you're talking about 14 spaces.
Every one of those spaces has a curb cut in order to access Pastoria Street. That's correct. Yes.
Right. And those are all constructed by Mr. Bilby in the last few years. But perhaps you don't know that.
I would believe that's the case. Yes.
Okay. So what would be, what would be, is there anything that you know in your professional opinion to stop the expansion of the curb cut on Tubble-Hawkins Street? Is there anything in the streets code, in your study of professional engineering that would require that the curb cut on Tubble-Hawkins Street be limited to 12 feet?
No, nothing in the code that would limit it. I don't know if there are physical features that
would limit it. That I can't say. Well, weren't you there, Mr. Horner?
Objection. I'm there. Did you notice any physical features
when you did your inspection and you studied this property?
Well, I know there's a wall that supports the gate. I don't know exactly where the property
boundaries are to know whether that could be widened. I don't know if there's any elevation
or grade issues. I didn't observe it because that wasn't what I was looking to advise the client on.
So did the client in fact give you kind of a direction as to what they were looking for in
your report? No, the client asked me to look at the safety and ability for the 15 spaces and the
two-way access onto Pistorius Street and to reach a conclusion as to that. That's what my direction
was. Okay. Why did you choose the dates between June 1st and the middle of June 4th for your study?
Well, we wanted to include a weekday and a weekend. And we were authorized to do counts. So once we were authorized, we scheduled them and we wanted to make sure we did not schedule them over the Memorial Day weekend. So we did not. So that's why we did the counts when we did.
Have you done traffic studies where you've done longer periods of time than these three and a half days?
Sometimes, but usually, as long as we have reason to believe the days are representative, studying it for one weekday, one weekend day is sufficient.
Are you aware that there are times where there are differences in traffic along streets, depending on the time of the year and other seasonal variations?
There can be, yes.
Okay. It sounded from reading your report and listening to you today that you were focused on vehicles. Your traffic count basically was focused on vehicles. Is that fair to say?
That's correct, yes.
Are you familiar with the Complete Streets protocols for the city of Philadelphia?
Are you familiar with the Vision Zero project for Philadelphia?
you on? I'm familiar with it, but not really enough to opine about its contents. Okay. Are you aware
that there are non-vehicles that use pastoria streets, such as pedestrians and bicycles and
other vulnerable users of the street? There are pedestrians and bicyclists that use it. That's
correct. Did you monitor or count those at all? Well, our video counts do include that
activity. I didn't document it in the report, but yes, there was some of that activity, absolutely.
When you're talking about the safety of the surrounding community,
do you have specific findings around bicyclists and pedestrians?
brands? Well, when we're looking at safety, what we're looking at is volume of vehicles is
important because that can dictate how many conflicts there would be with pedestrians and
bicyclists. Yes, but I'm asking you just specifically, did you make any specific
findings around safety for bicyclists and pedestrians? Yeah, I was getting to that
in my response. But most importantly, it's the site distance. If a driveway, in this case,
or a parking space, a curb cut, or an intersection, if there's sufficient site distance
If there's sufficient sight distance to allow for both pedestrians and bicycles to see vehicles approaching or entering into the roadway, and the vehicles to see the bicyclists and pedestrians, and the combination of the volumes is low, as is the case here,
to allow for both pedestrians.
then my opinion is that there is no issue with that conflict um and that was so so when we're
talking about sightways um one example uh would you agree is the fact that when people are backing
up their cars they have much less sight way in in terms of where they're where they're um how
they're navigating their vehicle than when they're moving forward in a vehicle um yes and that's one
reason why I said consideration in order just to enhance it would be to require vehicles to pull
out forward on from those curb cuts. Right. I understand that that was a recommendation. And I
think that, you know, if that was to be the if we are to have parking there, then then that that's
a clearly important example. But you're you're testifying that even if you don't have back in
only parking along pastoria street that you're not you're not increasing danger to pedestrians
and bicyclists by people backing up without being able to see little children who are walking to and
from the school for example well my my conclusion was no adverse impact um there's conflicts between
pedestrians and vehicles uh exiting and entering driveways currently uh not to mention around
many, many streets within the city. So it's really not a matter of, is there ever any conflict
between the two? It's really a matter of, is there proper sight lines, proper design for the curb
cuts, and low volumes and activity in order that that's not an adverse situation? And my conclusion
was it was not an adverse situation. So you're saying with your license on the line that you
say that it's safe for people to back up
onto Pastoria Street and potentially
not see small
children or other vulnerable
users of the street.
I mean, on the one hand, you're saying
objections that you should
back in. And on the other hand, you're saying
that if people back out, everything
is fine. And I'm not really sure how to reconcile
I'm saying
that, yes, in
this situation, backing
backing out onto Pastoria Street, in my opinion, is a safe condition.
I recommend that it be considered that it be a pull-out forward because that's still preferred.
It doesn't mean the other is unsafe, but it's still preferred.
Are you aware that there are elementary schools within a near vicinity of the property on Pastoria Street?
period? Yes, I remember seeing elementary schools in the area. I don't know the walking patterns of
those students as it may affect Pastoria Street. Right, because you did your study in June when
they don't go to school as opposed to during the school year, and you couldn't have seen the school,
the students walking on Pastoria Street to school because you didn't go during the school year. Is
that true? I believe that the school year was still in session, but I'd have to confirm that
fact, but... Oh, might it be right at the end of the school year? We did the counts when we did,
yes, June 1st to June 3rd. Did you notice any sidewalks on Pastoria Street?
um no not not per se no not that I recall right so we're talking about um you said
pastoria street is how wide 14 and a half feet approximately and it's two ways so that means
that cars can pass each other on that on that street correct correct and if one or more people
are pedestrians on that street with a stroller with a wheelchair or just or just with their legs
they all have to share that 14 and a half foot width is that correct they do i mean unless a
consideration is to ban pedestrians which is certainly an option but that's not what i'm
recommending uh but sure yeah they'd all be sharing the width uh-huh correct so on top of
hawkins street are there sidewalks i can't recall um should we show you a photo then
if you need to. Okay.
Steve, why don't you show a photo of the sidewalks on Pastoreas while you're at it?
Steve, why don't you show
a photo of the sidewalks on Pastorious
while you're at it?
We have testimony that there are no sidewalks on Pastoreas.
You just showed all the...
I'll deal with it on redirect.
No, the testimony is from Mr. Montanez in our last hearing that he showed that there's no sidewalks.
Okay, I'll deal with it on redirect.
All right. I'm looking in your binder, so I don't know where the...
So, both of you know, we gave this an hour, we're five minutes away from an hour.
you can stipulate that there are sidewalks on top of hawk and would be glad to pull up the
photos to move things along or an area can you tell me what page it's on i was just going to
pull up atlas to make it easy oh but
and i agree i i looked in my notes uh and that does confirm there are sidewalks on
topahawken street okay so we have sidewalks on topahawken street and and we have i didn't i
didn't get what because you were both talking over each other i believe you didn't let him
finish answering a question what was the end i just said there's also some sidewalk on pastoria
street as well which i didn't recall uh where is there a sidewalk on pastoria street and how wide
is that um i believe it appears it's between green street and this site on the other side of
the street, there's a sidewalk. The width, I'm not sure what that is.
Are you looking at a photo now yourself?
I'm looking at photos that are in my file, yes.
Okay. Did you give those photos to the attorney?
Okay. All right. I can't find, I don't know your binder.
So, all right.
so did you walk um in the interior of the property during your during your study i did
okay did you notice that there were any parking spaces in the interior of the property
uh yes there are um did you notice how many
I did notice and I have documented, I believe it's approximately 20, but I could be off by a few.
You could, there could be more.
If you give me a second, I can get the actual number.
All right, sure.
Again, I don't know why we're belaboring issues like this.
We can stipulate there are 22 existing parking spaces on the site.
The plan clearly shows that.
All right.
Mr. Horner, did you notice if there's any open space on the interior of the property that could accommodate more parking spaces?
uh no i did not see any logical areas for more part i didn't ask you for logical areas i asked
you did you notice that there are spaces behind the new townhouses objection beyond the scope of
the expert report he testified that he walked around the inside of the public mr masters how
much longer do you think you need? I have more questions, Mr. Chair. Okay, so in four minutes,
we're going to break. Okay. Mr. Horner, in your professional opinion, is there any barrier to
the property owner creating more parking spaces on the interior of his property?
Renewed objection. I can't speak to that. I did not study that.
Were you instructed to only look at parking along Pistorius and not to look at parking
on the interior?
I was, my charge was to evaluate the parking spaces, the curb cuts on Pistorius, as that
was the subject of this hearing, I understood it to be.
I was not asked to evaluate whether more off-street parking could be provided anywhere.
That was not my assignment.
So it's it's not your so your testimony is not is has no conclusions.
So your testimony has no conclusions as to whether or not there could be additional parking spaces on the interior?
Correct.
Is that what you're saying?
Correct.
But you did testify around the availability of on-street parking in the surrounding area.
I did, yes.
But you specifically omitted the possibility of more interior parking to address the, if we don't have these 15 parking spaces along Pastorius, if we just put them in other parts of the property, we would also not have additional parking on street.
Would that be correct?
I'm not sure I follow your question, but I believe that, well, I'll just state that I did not look at on-site, off-street parking options. I did not evaluate that in any way.
Why would you recommend that West Pastorea Street become one-way?
Well, the width of West Pastorea Street is more conducive to one-way flow than two-way.
More conducive for safety reasons?
um yes okay so you have a street that has a two-way street that is not completely safe
what what i didn't say that but so mr masters let's mr masters how much longer do you think
you have um i think maybe five minutes okay we'll stay with five minutes then mr phillips
we'll do redirect the next time okay so let's do mr masters for another five minutes
so i mean mr horner it has to be if you're saying that there's safety issues that would
um that would suggest to you that it should be a one-way street that means that there are safety
issues with it being a two-way street now right i did not say that i just asked you and you said
you said it was for safety reasons that was a reason why you would make it go one way
No, what I said was, the width of one-way streets are typically 14, 15 feet wide, which is what Pastoria Street is.
That makes it conducive, we'll say a candidate for being one-way.
It's also a candidate for being one-way because it basically ends between green and wane, and it's not serving a through-street purpose.
When you ask the question as to why would one way be better than two way?
Yes, it would be safer as one way, but it doesn't make it unsafe as two way.
There's a difference.
Can you quantify the amount of safety that you save by making it one way?
I cannot quantify it, no.
So if a client comes to you and says, look, I'm thinking about making something one way,
but it's going to cost me a bunch of money. Do I do it? Or is it better to just make it two-way
and have some people hit each other from time to time? Objection.
He's already said he can't quantify it. Mr. Horner, are you aware of a traffic fatality
that occurred at the foot of Pastorius and Wayne? Objection.
what's the if he knows
uh no i'm not aware
would the information about about traffic fatalities in the vicinity that you're
studying be important to you when you're making uh determinations around safety and traffic safety
objection
i think he can answer the question
uh no it doesn't and here's the reason there's a lot of reasons why a fatality may occur
uh what i focus on what traffic engineers have to focus on is is that reason have to do with
the configuration or the safety aspects of the road itself not whether a driver was impaired
or whether the pedestrian was not looking or whatever the case may be.
So what's really pertinent for my analysis is the physical and operational and volume conditions of that roadway, not whether there may or may not have been an accident.
So what's really pertinent for my analysis is the physical analysis.
Okay, I can understand that, Mr. Horner, but you weren't even told about the fatalities, so you couldn't look into it and figure out what caused it and whether there was a concern there.
We're testifying about facts that are totally not in evidence. And Mr. Masters is just, you know, clearly doing this.
So, so, so, so purposes. So, Mr. Masters, you got two minutes left. Can you do it in two minutes? Sure.
you testified um around an access issue with um that was around no safety corners
I wrote that down but I'm not able to read completely right road here I'm assuming you're
referring to my testimony about cars pulling out onto top of hawkins street from this access
that's where i referenced that the site distance is limited because of on-street parking in
particular ah okay um and the site limit the site distances are limited when you're backing up
from from um those new parking spaces onto pastorius also right uh no they're not there's
no sight limitations when you're backing up a car onto Pastorius? There's no sight limitations in
terms of oncoming traffic or pedestrians or bicycles seeing a car backing out or the driver
backing out in terms of there's no obstacles that prevent the driver from seeing in the area that
the driver would need to see to back out. There's no sight distance limitations. Okay. Your test
justifying before that as a best practice,
people should not back out of these new parking spaces.
They should back in and leave by driving frontwards.
And now you're saying that there's no difference
as to whether you back out or come out frontwise
on these new parking spaces.
How is that possible that you have,
that you're ambivalent about something
that you recommended before?
What I was stating was that the back out maneuver
is safe. There's no adverse impact. I did say that consideration should be given to
pulling forward because pulling forward is a more desirable condition. It doesn't make
pulling out backwards unsafe. It just makes the pulling out forward more desirable.
What's the minimum with that? Mr. Manchester, we're going to have to break.
This is my last one.
What's the minimum width of a cartway for two-way traffic in Philadelphia?
I don't have that answer in front of me.
Would you say that it's basically around 14 and a half what we have in Tobahawken?
I don't know.
I'm sorry.
Say that again.
I didn't understand your question.
Are you saying that our streets code allows cartways that are even more narrow than we have in Pastorius to have two-way traffic?
I don't know what the code says.
Clearly, because Pastorius is two-way, it meets the code or it wouldn't be two-way.
But would it be fair to say that it's basically at the limits of the width for a two-way street?
Again, I can't speak to what the code says.
I don't have that in front of me.
in terms of traffic engineering standards in general.
Yes, the minimum for a two-way cartway
realistically is about 14 feet
to allow two cars to still pass.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the answers.
Okay, thank you.
Hillary, can you hear me?
Yes, I'm here, Mr. Chair.
So what we're going to do is
um we'll pick up on redirected the next hearing yes in um chair just you know because we have a
number of you know individuals and witnesses um probably dozens on each side who have been you
know uh at least on my side of waiting today i'm not sure mr masters uh i've needed have been
available today but you know i was just wondering when we could get um you know back before i
understand we have to post for two weeks but i'm just wanting to see if if there was a you know
way to get back on another list as soon as possible. And we'll be happy to work with Tanya
for that. But I think we'll try to get you back as soon as possible, as we possibly can. Okay.
Do you think it could be a Tuesday? So it would be a bit, so we could have a longer special session?
So what I'm going to do is I'll meet with the team and figure out if we could do that, Steve.
What I'm going to do is I'll meet with the team and figure out if we could do that, Steve.
And I just wanted to note, so after we're done with Mr. Horner, we're going to move to Mr. Master's case, and we will be in discussion about the witnesses that will be called in that case, because we still have to have time for public testimony and the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Well, I believe Mr. Phillips has a lot of community witnesses also that you wanted to put in your case in chief. Is that true? Or do you want them as community witnesses, like after the arrest?
I have a number of community individuals as of Mr. Masters. I was going to have perhaps a few testify in the case-in-chief, recognizing that whether they testify in our case-in-chief or as members of the public, that it's within the board's discretion to weigh the evidence and to weigh their testimony.
Hold on. Looks like we lost the chair. One moment.
we we will be in touch about the witnesses there may be um so some of the witnesses on your list
they may need to testify the public testimony part as opposed to your cases in chief just due
to time constraints okay and that would be a limitation on one or two minutes per for each
witness then
Thank you.