Here we go.
Chair, we have 43 attendees, and we can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
Sorry, I believe the recording hasn't started yet, or has it?
It has.
Oh, it has.
Sorry, thank you.
I didn't I didn't hear the the prompt. It took a couple of tries. The Internet's running really sluggish over here.
OK. All right. So we're good. Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning's meetings with me.
Is our vice chair, Ismael Shahid. Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston. Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Tanada Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board member, Michael Johns.
Present.
And our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting KathleenGrady at phil.gov.
For a court stenographer, we ask witnesses and attorneys to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to Kathleen Grady.
Here's our schedule for today.
Number four, MI 2023-001-512, 1307 East Moymencing Avenue.
John Griffin is the attorney.
We have a request for contingence.
Mr. Griffin, please.
see mr griffin in the audience good morning chair this is jasmine wexler i will be your
co-host today i do not see mr griffin in the audience at this time
excuse me mr chair he he's there under um jake griffin so i do i do see him listed there you
okay he has been allowed to speak good morning mr griffin could you please state your name
and spell for the courts and arms sure john griffin uh g-r-i-f-f-i-n good morning chairman
bergman and the other board members i had sent a request i know hold on mr griffin hold on one
minute do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do sir so mr griffin we know you have a request and this is the third listing we'd
like to know where we stand with this? I have a meeting set up with the RCO through their
community director that is scheduled for September the 9th of 2024. Okay. I'm going to continue this,
but this is going to be marked must be heard. Okay. Absolutely, sir. Thank you. So MI 2023-001-512-1307
East Boyd Menacing Avenue. This case is continued. Mark must be heard. Number five.
MI 2023-004-794-4701 Takawana Avenue. This case is continued. Attorney moving party.
Number eight, MI 2023-005-586-1206 Annan Street. Cases continued.
Number 10, MI 2023-005-621-254 South 54th Street. Cases continued.
Number 14, MI 2023-007.
MI 2023-007-092-789 South 2nd Street.
Case is continued.
And number 18.
MI 2024-001-174-1819 North Natrona Street.
Case has been continued.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Chair, I have the hand up by Vern Anastasio. He has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Anastasio.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir. Vern Anastasio, V-E-R-N-A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, on behalf of Liz Cuevas.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
What's the location then?
42450, as in Oscar Street.
That's number 17 on the list, Mr. Chair.
All right.
Just for a point of information, we're going to continue this, but there has been no exhibits submitted for that case, okay?
That's correct.
Yeah, we're just waiting on an RCO meeting.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
So MI 2024-001-037-4245-O Street, cases continued.
Any other requests for continuance?
I don't see any hints at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
So we have several cases here with no exhibits.
Number three, MI 2023 001 445 611 Distant Street. Darlene Treat is the attorney. No exhibits. Third listing.
I do not see Darlene Treat in the audience at this time.
Okay. All right. So, number three, MI 2023, 001-445-611 Distance Street. This case is continued. Mark must be heard.
number 12
mi2023005673 6530 tarsdale avenue george borsky is the listed owner this is the second listing
sorry i do not see anyone in the audience with that name at this time
So this is the second listing. The case had been continued once before. So MI 2023-005-673-6530, Tarsdale Avenue, I vote to dismiss.
my vote is uh to dismiss my vote is to dismiss my johns my vote is to dismiss
i am when my vote is to dismiss ishmael shaheed my vote is to dismiss thank you number number 13
MI 2023-005-685-1335 McKinley Street.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
I do not see Richard DeMarco in the audience at this time, Chair.
How about Kajid Green?
Khadijah Green.
No, Chair.
I do not see their name either.
Okay. All right. So, MI 2023, 005-685-1335 McKinley Street. This case is continued, Mark, must be heard. And number 17.
We have that already.
And then number two, MI 2023, 001-368-1623, North 33rd Street.
This case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our add-on cases.
Number one, MI 2024-000-148-8430 Busselton Avenue.
The vote in this matter has been moved to the start of the 2 p.m. list today.
Number two, MI 2023-004-943-21.
MI-2023-004-943-2104 North Franklin Street.
Hold on a minute here.
I vote yes with proviso.
No commercial on first four, three dwelling units approved.
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes with Proviso
Michael Johns my vote is yes with Proviso
Cheryl Gaston
Cheryl Gaston my vote is yes with Proviso
Tannetta Graham my vote is yes with Proviso
Iowyn my vote is yes with Proviso
Number 3 MI 2024
003-409-401
Martin Street
This appeal is granted on the basis of vested rights only. Zoning permit ZP 2023-005-450 is hereby reinstated.
This is Cheryl Gaston. My vote is yes.
my vote is yes um so there is a proviso with this one uh yes with proviso thank you
michael johns my vote is yes with proviso
tennetta graham my vote is yes with proviso i win my vote is yes with proviso
thank you going to our regular list we're going to start with number seven
MI 2023-004-870, 5702 to 04 Chu Avenue. Giuseppe and Adam Marino are the owners.
This is a pro se.
Mr. Chair, just to update our records, we did receive a letter of unanimous support from Faith CDC.
Thank you very much.
I don't see anyone in the audience with that name, Chair.
Giuseppe Marino or Adam Marino?
Still no hands?
No hands at this time, Chair.
All right.
So, number seven, MI2023004.
Excuse us, Chair.
So my body name of Tia Clark raised their name, and they have been allowed to speak.
Hi, my name is Tia Clark.
Could you spell that name?
Could you spell that for the court stenographer, please?
Tia, T-I-A, last name Clark, C-L-A-R-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Are you involved in this case at 5702 to 04 Chu Avenue?
Well, our address is actually 5712 Chu Avenue.
I say you're going to be a witness in the case.
Well, we're we're tenants.
So I so I here here's the we need to talk to one of the Marinos.
You need to talk to one of the Marinos.
All right, let me, I'm going to call them and tell them to get on the line.
Is that okay?
Yeah, but I'll tell you what.
Tell him that he has a case today.
I'm going to get back to him in 10 minutes, okay?
He's older, so.
Okay, thank you.
Number 11.
MI-2023-005-623-3031-St. Vincent Street.
Mr. Lin, L-I-N, is the tenant.
Chair, I don't see anyone in the audience with that name, but I do have a hand up by the name of Zin Jin.
They have been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Chair.
good morning could you state your name please oh yes are you are you center are you representing
this this person yes all right thank you so um state your name is spelled for the court's not
State your name and spell for the court stenographer, please.
please one second
One second.
I think I just got an invite to join as panelist.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning.
For the record, just state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Yes, my name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, their relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Ms. Lynn.
She's actually the tenant at the property.
She has a lease agreement with the owner of the property for the use that is being proposed before the board.
Our vice chair has several questions.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Before we proceed, Mr. Jent, we did not receive proof that an RCO meeting occurred,
either the RCO letter or proof of a notice from the notice went out from the applicant about a
meeting. We also don't have a proof of posting. So I don't know if you have those items, but they
were not provided by the applicant. I have the proof of posting. I know that there was two
meetings with the RCO, and they should have issued a letter.
I believe the position was in opposition.
I'm not sure why that's not the case.
I'm going to share with the board the posting, at least at this point, and maybe my client
may have access to the proof of mailing.
All right.
Thank you.
And I would also go back to the vice chair for his question.
Good morning, Counselor.
Do you agree to wait another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I believe they were submitted, but obviously no letter was received from Mayfair Civic, the RCO for the property.
Understood. We can hear the case, but we may have to hold it with the letter.
Understood.
Thank you. I'm going to share first the posting, the proof of posting.
So, this is the picture of the posting that was put out by my client at the property.
There are other photos which we will share with the board as we present.
So, the application itself is for a use of a retail consumer goods store, essentially bedding sheets and pillowcases.
This property is zoned RTA-1 and in the past had a long-term prior variance for use as essentially a nail or beauty shop.
The beauty shop itself is no longer active at this point.
In fact, the landlord let the beauty shop out of their lease a little bit early due to the pandemic and then subsequent drop in business.
the beauty shop could not continue at this location. Once the space was vacant, my client,
Ms. Lynn, entered into a lease with the landlord to open this shop here as a consumer goods
to sell the bedding and sheets. Because the space was already set up as commercial,
they were under the impression, of course, that they would be able to get this over-the-counter,
which wasn't the case, as the prior use was itself a variance, and therefore a new use triggered another refusal for the current use.
My client actually has met with Mayfair Civic multiple times, including once with myself.
And the feedback from Mayfair is that they do not wish to have a commercial space at this location.
The issue that was somewhat argued over at the meeting was whether this space should continue to be allowed to be a commercial space.
The neighborhood's position is they wanted back to being part of the residential property.
The prior variants notwithstanding, they also raised concerns that this beauty shop, I mean this
also raised concerns that this beauty shop i mean this consumer goods shop would cause
additional safety issues on that corner my client indicated to them that she would be willing to
not make commercial deliveries to the property it's a very small operation i'm going to show
the board some pictures of the space and the layout so essentially there will be a display
here, and then this is the entire space. It's a very small space, a few hundred square feet.
It is separate from the other part of the building, which is actually residential,
but they're rented out to separate tenants. The neighbors indicated that they have concern with
trash, that the space itself, the tenants above, sometimes would repair their car in front of the
property. There were other issues that were unrelated to our particular space that were
brought up at the meeting. However, in the end, their position is they just don't want a commercial
use at all at this space, and that they feel this will be better used as storage, essentially,
as part of the other spaces above. While we're asking for another variance here,
This variance here is a de minimis variance in the sense that the prior variance is for a beauty shop.
This is going to be for a small display and consumer sale of bedding.
This is all existing in the space.
This is what they're selling.
So my client's actually going to be selling predominantly Chinese branded products of bedding sheets, covers.
As you can see, they have unique designs, and they're from brands that are more recognized by the Asian community in the area than maybe by some of the other residents in the area.
But her target market would be those residents who are interested in these products from Asia because they recognize the brands and they're comfortable with the product.
So that is essentially why we're seeking a variance for this use.
There is a small petition in support.
As you can see, they're mostly Asian residents in the area that are aware of the products and are actually interested in purchasing the products.
And that's really the reason why my client even wanted to enter into a lease for the space in the first place.
We're okay, and we propose this as well to the RCO, to limit the permit if given as a temporary permit for the duration of the lease, rather than doing a long-term permit if they have concerns with the safety and trash.
Again, this kind of a use would not produce trash.
It's not a restaurant.
It's not even selling any kind of prepared goods or anything that would actually generate
a ton of trash.
They did mention that they are concerned about the delivery.
Again, my client actually offered to not have the commercial delivery even come to the site
and have it delivered to her house.
Because the size of the operation, she could just bring the products over in her private
vehicle without much of an issue.
So nonetheless, the final position, to my knowledge, is that Darcio still voted against our proposal.
And that's, as far as I know, would be their final position before the board when they issue a letter in this case.
So that is why we're here before the board today.
We're asking for the opportunity to continue to use this space, which has been long term used as, again, a beauty shop.
It was never really a residential space, nor is it connected to the residential space.
And a conversion at this point to a residential space would still be its own variance because
it would make the property greater than two units, which is itself a variance and would
be at a substantial cost to the owner.
And the owner, obviously, my client is a tenant, not the owner.
But the owner, from my understanding, also is not interested in having to invest that
kind of change into the property.
So I'm happy to try to answer any questions from the board or any or redirect any part of the exhibits that we did submit.
Why don't you, why don't you, Jen, why don't you bring your client on, please?
Sure. Miss Lin, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
slide. Sally, can you raise your hand. Hi. Hi. Could you please state your name as
Hi, could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer?
spell for the quartz stenographer.
Hong Xiu Lin.
Tangshu Ling.
Could you spell it, please?
Yeah, H-O-N-G-X-U-E, last name L-I-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Lin, did you see my presentation,
hear my representation before the zoning board?
Can you verify what I have said
is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony. Yes. Thank you. Counsel, how long is
the lease? One second, Chair. Sally, do you happen to know how long the lease is off the top of your
head? I'm looking at the lease itself. I believe it is for two years. I believe it's three. Three
years. Yeah, there's an option on there, too. Right, there's one renewal option as well for
additional, for additional, let's see, two years, two years. So total, Chair, with, with the option,
the total would be around five years, four to five years, but the base lease is at least three years.
Questions from the board.
My questions are, how are you using this space?
Are people going to come in to actually inspect these products?
Or how is this going to work?
Is it going to really be like a retail operation?
Like people would actually come there, buy the products and leave with them?
or how is this going to work?
So the essential use of the room,
the space itself is more like a,
almost like a showroom, show product.
There will be a small amount of products
that people could in fact pick up and take away.
They will also have an online presence
and maybe sometimes local residents
may come and pick up their product
rather than have it delivered.
The product itself, again,
is originally from overseas.
it will come to my client and then my client would then have that for the customers who are
interested so yes there will be some people coming in to pick up so it is a retail there is a retail
aspect to this okay and the products would come to this location you said or to your client at
another location. So the original idea was to have it delivered to the location. However,
the RCO objected to that saying that there is a school diagonally across the intersection,
and therefore they do not want UPS trucks coming. And again, we're not talking about big trucks
here. It will be delivered by UPS. The quantity is not big enough to justify commercial size
vehicles. But again, the RCO objected. So my client did offer to have the product simply
delivered to her property and then just carry it over in her private vehicle because, again,
it's not going to be heavy quantities of deliveries at one time. So we are okay with
a proviso saying that delivery, no commercial delivery made to the property because she can't
make arrangements without having to have it done there.
Then I guess my ultimate question is, you did mention that there would be some kind
of online presence.
I guess I don't understand why this just couldn't be done online as opposed to having a physical
location of some sort.
If you're saying there will be a limited amount of showroom space provided for this and you're not going to really have, I'm assuming if the RCO is not happy with the idea of products being delivered there, they would be just as opposed to people coming in and out to purchase the products.
Right. So the RCO's essential position is they don't want any commercial use of the property, which I understand.
However, the property's been a beauty shop used as a variant since, I believe, the 60s.
So it's not a new variant. We are asking for a change.
So obviously that is a new variant for the purpose of this hearing.
However, they're taking the hardline stance that essentially they want this property to not be used.
which, given its structure, given its nature, even if we were to go back to a beauty shop,
the level of traffic would be similar.
the level of traffic would be similar. So we're not going to cause an increase.
So we're not going to cause an increase in negative impact in that sense.
And the use itself is actually much more minor, say, even a coffee shop,
which would generate food waste and smells.
We have nothing much in way of waste.
There's almost no trash.
But the level of, again, the level of traffic would be somewhat similar
to if a beauty shop were to go back in there.
And that's why we feel it's not a it's not an increase in impact in a negative form to the community.
OK, thank you. Other questions from the board?
I have a quick question about commercial trash. Would she need a commercial trash pickup?
She she would need a commercial trash because of the commercial business.
But the the most likely thing that would be trash would be maybe some wrappings and most likely recycling the boxes of products coming in.
And would she have storage area for that? Yes, there's a small there's a picture that shows where the washer and other things are.
That's a small storage room where she can put them.
Thank you. Other questions from the board.
questions from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have a hand up by the name of pete mcdermott he has been allowed to speak
morning mr mcdermott could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Mr. McDiarmid
we see his hand
yes chair he's been allowed to speak
and he's on mute
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Mr. McDiarmid
do we think he has a problem yes he may be having technical difficulties
is there anyone else in the virtual audience
i just want to note for the record mr mcdermott is here on behalf of mayfair civic yep yep yep
i'm trying to find a way to get him on
i have a hand up by the name of joe marina okay
Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Hello?
Hi. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes. My name is Joe Marino. J-O-E-M-A-R-I-N-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Marino, are you a neighbor?
No, I'm sorry. I don't even know what I'm doing. I was supposed to be on at 930 for my, the 5702042 Avenue property.
We'll get back to you later. We're going to call you shortly. Okay. Thank you. Do we see Mr. McDermott at all?
Not at the timeshare.
okay all right so um all right so mr mcdermott's with the rco anyone else in the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
good morning john levacar planning commission uh my name is spelled j-o-h-n-l-a-v-a-c-c-a-r-e
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, John.
This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Given the documented use history and the physical circumstances of the site, we recommend that the requested variances be granted provided all past trash storage violations are resolved.
So MI 2023-005-623-3031 St. Vincent Street, I vote yes with proviso. Temporary variance expires 7-17-27.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisos.
My own, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Pete McDermott is back.
I'm not sure if you want to give him a chance to speak.
speak. I think the case is over. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Number seven, MI 2023, 004-870-5702-04-Chew
I think the case is over.
Avenue. Mr. Marino. Mr. Chair, this case actually has an attorney, Deneen Wilkerson.
okay so it's not a person has been promoted to panelists okay yes we were we were not aware of
that prior to this morning thank you good morning mr chairman good morning council uh could you
state your name as spelled please for the court sonographer yes my name is denean wilcerson d-e-n
E-E-N, Wilkerson, W-I-L-K-E-R-S-O-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you please turn your video on?
Good morning.
Do you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yes, sir.
i am representing 5704 i'm sorry 5702-04 two avenue clark tires okay um our vice chair has
a few questions good morning counsel do you agree to leave the read number if you have stipulate
for its accuracy yes the email then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case yes yes excuse me miss wilkerson who did what party did
you say you were representing not the property but the party uh
Okay, you're representing the property owners?
That's correct.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, is my presentation fine?
We don't see it yet.
i mean we see um i'm not sure what it is it's a it's a cover page i guess we don't we don't see
your your documents yet do you see the page one of the notice no no it's sort of a like a purplish
i don't i can't explain what it is okay um you can share your screen at the bottom
where it says share screen yes sir i did you may need to unshare click on your documents and
reshare we did see the notice of refusal briefly but now it looks like it's just the backdrop of
your screen oh no there it is there it is there it is oh okay is that do you see it yep we're good
very good thank you mr chairman for your patience um i'm here today to ask for a variance for the
property located at 5702-042 Avenue. This property actually has been in existence for a number of
years, close to 40, maybe even 50 years at the current location. The initial variance was
not allowed because of the, it says, proposed use in personal vehicle repair. Again, this property
has been in its location for close to 50 years. It is a business that had begun with its father
and is being continued on as a family business with the son now in control of the business.
The requirement for parking and the refusal should not be an issue for the board here because
this is a tire change shop and repair. This is not a mechanic shop where you come and leave your
car overnight for service. This is a situation where people roll up, get their tires changed
or plugged or serviced and they roll out. I had testimony last night that one gentleman
recorded his time in service on his tires at seven minutes. So we're asking for this variance
despite the city's requirement for the parking because it's not required for this business.
This business also has a flower shop that has been incorporated and attached. I would like to
show you a picture of the structure. Bear with me, please. So all the relevant that
Bear with me, please, to all the relevant documents that have been submitted.
One second, please.
This is the outside of the shop.
As you see, Clark Tyres is on the right, and they have added, in addition to the business,
a flower shop here that has been in existence for a little over five years, and has provided
the community with another valuable resource. During the RCO meeting, I had testimony that
Clark Tire is considered a trustworthy business. It's a place where people can come there and feel
like they're going to get service and not get raked over the coals financially. They've expressed
that not only does Clark Tire Service tires in the community, but they also bring resources to
the community and they help people in the community. If you can't afford your service,
they have a program where you can get your tires fixed now and pay later. They've expanded their
service to assist the community by offering mobile services as well, where you can call
them if you're stranded with a flat tire and they will come out. So some of the words that I just
want to express to you with the way that the community feels about this Clark tire, as well
as the flower shop, which provides flowers for them for occasions such as Mother's Days, funerals,
weddings, birthdays. And I must also say that on the RCO meeting, there were people that are not
not even residents of Philadelphia, that wanted to testify to how their people in Philadelphia
used Clark Services and how they were just perfect service.
So some of the adjectives that they've used to describe them is trustworthy.
They say they give back.
They're dependable.
They're reliable.
They've been a savior to the community.
They never have trash outside.
They don't have any L&I violations.
and for those reasons it would be a hardship to the community to remove this staple from the
community at this time because of a parking requirement or because of the new zoning
requirements so it is the request of the community and myself on behalf of Clark Tires that this
variance be granted that this community resource because it's more than just a tire shop at this
point. Over 50 years in business began with Mr. Marino and Mr. Clark's father and has continued
to this day. So we would ask that this resource be allowed to continue in the community
currently operating as the flower shop and the tire repair shop, Mr. Chairman.
Council, what happened at the RCO meeting?
the rco meeting was very um was very very good there was a hundred percent from support from
the community we had a pastor on we had a representative she said she was from the school
board we had people who actually reside within 250 feet of the establishment i had a young man
who's in college and he kept telling us he's 35 now but he went to clark tire when he was 16 with
his first car and i have a man who told me that he has a what he has four cars oh okay okay okay
thank you but we don't have a letter from the rco am i correct not yet sir but the art uh but the
council has assured us that they are loaning lending their support the letter has just not
been submitted yet yes sir just to clarify for the record we did get a letter late last night
from face cdc and it was in support all right yes sir you want to bring your client on
my client i i'm not sure if he is still on the line however miss tia clark it should be on the
line does she work right now has been allowed to speak okay there's mr marino hello how's everybody
doing good i think i already swore you in right yes sir okay please proceed counsel
So, why don't you get him to adopt your testimony?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Marino, were you able to hear my presentation to the board?
Absolutely.
It was beautiful.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for that.
Do you agree with what I presented to the board?
A hundred percent.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, are you satisfied?
Well, let me ask the rest of the board first.
Yes, sir.
Questions from the board.
No questions.
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
i i do have a question uh or
I do have a question.
Or is it, I believe it's acceptable, but I need to check with Hillary, to have two commercial uses on the same site?
Is that what we're doing here?
I didn't see that there was a refusal necessarily for this other commercial use.
it's cmx2 i do not believe i have to double check but i do not believe there is a prohibition for
multiple principal uses for cmx2 i i didn't think so either but i didn't see anything on the refusal
that even referenced it at all so i just wanted to make sure okay thank you so um questions for
attorney. I just wanted to clarify, Ms. Wilkerson, Joe Marino, is he the owner? Because we have
Giuseppe and Adam Marino listed as the owners of the property. Mr. Marino, are you still on the
line? I would like for him to describe that relationship because I have, as you see on
the presentation we have the owners listed one moment and we have okay and we have the owners
listed as marino gillespie and adam marino adam adam marino mr marino yes so my father is uh
i'm first generation in this country my father and my mother came over from italy my father
doesn't speak you know he doesn't know how to even get on the internet um mr marino mr marino
Do you do you work and represent your father? I do. And I used to work actually at 5702 Chu Avenue
for many years. Thank you. Sorry, is your father Giuseppe Marino or Adam Marino?
So Giuseppe Marino is my father. He and my uncle owned the building together. My uncle ended up
putting his half into my cousin Adam Marino's name. But Adam is kind of doing his own thing
right now, so I handle all my
father's bills and everything. My dad's been paying taxes
on that business for over 40
years now. Okay, thank you for
the clarification. You're welcome.
Planning Commission.
John Levacar, Planning Commission.
The comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the commercial
mixed-use zoning at this location.
This appears to be a legalization of
a personal vehicle repair and maintenance facility. If the appellant is seeking a new use in this
district, they would be required to follow the landscaping and screening requirements in the
zoning code based on their adjacency to residential zoning districts. The City Planning Commission's
plan reviewers would be required to review and approve the landscaping and screening and would
be pleased to work with the appellant to walk them through that process. The City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the proposed variances, but with a condition for landscaping
and screening to match the standards in the zoning code. Thank you. MI 2023 004-870-5702-042
Avenue. I vote yes. Proviso owners to work with planning for the appropriate landscaping.
Mr. Chair, I would suggest a proviso of landscaping to be provided per zoning code.
Landscaping to be provided by zoning code.
Can I? I'm looking at this building, right? And I'm looking at the residential property next to it.
the zoning code requires like a five-foot buffer there is no way that they could get a car in
there if they put a five-foot landscape buffer so i'm concerned with that proviso realistically
i mean i'm support i'm in support yeah i so that's why what i first said let them just work
through planning and yeah and maybe they not tell them to do it themselves right put something there
But, you know, a five-foot landscape buffer is never going to work.
Hillary?
So I think in that case, well, so two thoughts.
One, this isn't a new use.
This is, I mean, this seems to be a legalization.
So I don't know that landscaping would be required.
but if i mean we can the only way we can really require landscaping and have it to a standard
is to require it by the code but the code as um board member johnson said may provide may pose
But the code, as Board Member Johns has said, may pose a problem.
So it may be better, you know.
So why don't we do this?
Yeah, to not include that proviso.
MI 2023-004870-5702-2042-AVENA.
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes.
Cheryl, my vote is yes.
my vote is yes thank you everyone thank you council thank you mr chairman thank you to the
okay number one mi 2023 000 901 1402 wharton street letter of support from south broad street
neighborhood association
proviso
and as
we discussed
Cheryl Gaston I am
recusing myself from this
oh thank you thank you counsel
oh no thank you
thank you Cheryl thank you Cheryl
Mr. Chair
I was logging on when
Ms. Gaston was talking
could you just recap that
She just recused herself from this case.
I'm recusing myself from this case.
Thank you.
Vern, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Vern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Did I swear you in yet today?
You did earlier.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yes, sir.
I represent Ms. Deborah Drake, the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to wait to read another refusal?
stipulated to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you.
Counselor, please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, this is a legalization of a pre-existing non-conforming use
1402 Wharton Street. We have a 105-page exhibit packet that I am entering into evidence.
It was the RCO letter of support that you've already mentioned. We met with the RCO several
times in order to get to an accord. The application is for a three-family dwelling.
The lot is zoned RSA 5, though the multifamily household living has been a consistent use in
the property for many years. As you can see, the zoning board had previously granted a
three-family in 1964. Prior to that, the zoning board granted, actually refused a five-family
dwelling in 1957. So, since at least 1964, this has been a three-family dwelling.
the basement is full of mechanicals and this is these are existing conditions on the property
just so everyone understands this is the first floor unit for now here's the first floor stair
we have very large living space and two bedrooms
Two-bedroom unit on the second floor with, again, nice open living space.
And the third floor is the same.
Each unit has space and closets for trash storage.
Here's the property in question.
And this is literally just steps from Broad and Wharton on the Broad Street line on a block with several multifamily dwellings, including this one here to the right and one here that's even more than three units to the very far right.
And this is the subject property in question.
have additional exterior shots from across the street as you can see more not only institutional
uses a funeral parlor house of worship a garage apartments building so it's you know typical for
a block that is immediately off broad street and there is broad street you can see broad street
from the front step is a multi-family dwelling right next door which is the
old furrier on the first floor and several apartments above
And, of course, we have evidence of multiple electrical, multiple water heaters, some interior shots.
and of course we have evidence of multiple
It's very well maintained today.
It wasn't always.
My client had a very difficult time living out of town with the death of her husband, then hiring a less-than-ideal contractor.
But all of those issues have been since reconciled.
This is the RCO letter that was mailed.
One of many, actually.
Also notifying everyone of today's hearing.
Here's the proof of mailing of 116 individual households.
Here's the poster, and of course, we have proof of posting, and then the long history of multifamily use is also being included in this packet.
As you can see, 1973, a three-family dwelling was affirmed, and that's what it has been throughout time.
Included in this packet is the letter of support from the Pascham Square Civic Association.
I'm sorry, South of South Business Association.
There it is, SBSNA sends a letter of support, nearly unanimous.
And of course, there'll be commercial trash pickup, exterior lighting.
and the management team information will be placed on the facade.
With that, we also have our deed, our tax clearance.
And because it's adjacent to a CMX property,
because it's been for a very long time a three-family dwelling,
legally even at several points,
and because this block just steps off the Broad Street line,
is just one of many multifamily homes on the block.
And because we have the community support,
which is evidenced in the exhibit packet,
I respectfully request the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
Counsel, do you have your client to accept,
adopt your testimony?
Thank you.
Ms. Deborah Drake,
if you could please raise your virtual hand.
Ms. Drake?
Deborah Drake has been allowed to speak.
Good morning. Could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
D-E-B-O-R-A-H-D-R-A-K-E.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Drake, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
With one change, just that my husband is not deceased, but otherwise, yes.
Okay, very well.
There was a sickness in the family, so my apologies.
Yes, he is still ill.
I'm glad to hear that he's alive.
And I ask you to adopt my presentation as your own testimony.
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
I have no questions.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, there were some provisos, Mr. Anastasio, requested by the RCO.
One of them essentially requests that a certificate of occupancy be obtained.
Is that something that your client is agreeable to?
Of course, yes. We will be unable to lease all three units without it, so yes.
Okay, thank you.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hints at this time too planning commission
john love a car planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the rsa 5 zoning in this location due to the history of multifamily use in this structure
or PCPC recommends granting the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023, 000-901-1402 Wharton Street.
I vote yes, provisos.
Must obtain a certificate of occupancy
and commercial trash pickup.
Thank you.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisals.
Michael Jones, my vote is yes with proviso.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes with provisals.
Senado Grosso.
Iowyn, my vote is yes with provisals.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number six, MI 2023-004824, 300 West Sesquihanna Avenue.
Justin Crick is the attorney.
there was a meeting kirk is coming in as a penal meeting was held december 13 2023 before nara
square good morning members of the board morning council could you please state your name and
spell for the court stenographer yes justin j-u-s-t-i-n crick k-r-i-k addresses 1515 market
street suite 1200 philadelphia pennsylvania 19102 you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Did you identify your client in relationship to the
property? Yes, my client is Kenzo Holdings, LLC, and I have Adam Garner, the member, with us today.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir. Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to
read another refusal or stipulate to exact proceed? I do. Have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance
of this hearing yes uh miss emerson did advise that uh one of the letters we sent for the
neighborhood meeting was a past one from december but we have since given her the one from april
thank you kellen so please proceed and share your screen thank you very much
members of the board this is an application for both a use and dimensional variance for
the property at 300 West Susquehanna Avenue. The property is located at the intersection of West
Susquehanna and North 3rd Street. It's a corner property that is owned CMX2, which requires a
commercial use along the first floor of the building. We are asking that that commercial use
be negated and that the property be allowed to be solely residential. And with that, we are asking
for a fourth unit, which exceeds the square footage of the lot area by basically just a few
feet, about 40 square feet or so. And it currently would allow for three residential dwelling units.
So this is a variance of both use and four-dimensional purposes. As far as the use
variance is concerned, the applicant is intending to build this three-story structure with pilot
house as I'll show you in the plans. But regarding the use, the property is located at this corner
that you can see here on the screen. And if you take a closer look, you'll see that there's a lot
of vacant land throughout this area that are residential properties that are undeveloped.
And this has created basically a void of density in potential patrons of any businesses for this
area. And as I scroll down, one of the other factors that we believe prohibits a commercial
use along this corridor is that the property is situated next to some large industrial properties
that are better viewed on this picture. You have a large industrial property that runs street to
street for several blocks and a lot of vacant land, which is used for industrial purposes,
essentially cutting off this section of the neighborhood from the residences on the opposite
side of this industrial area and really prevents that sort of neighborhood patronage that would
walk along these corridors from the east. This is the east side over to this corner property.
The property is currently vacant. And as you can see, again, all of these residential properties
are also vacant along this entire North Third Street section and throughout the area. And that
low density has made the assessment for commercial viability improbable and not plausible. Even when
you back out, you can see a lot of the density issues right around this property and the way
that this industrial land kind of cuts off from the possibility or likelihood for safety reasons
or other that people from the east side of American Street, North American Street, might
cross over to patron certain businesses.
Currently, you can see that this is vacant.
It's fenced in by the city, along with several other properties.
This is the corner lot we're talking about.
And you can see this industrial building along the side here.
And a better view of that coming from both directions.
And again, this industrial section along the north.
And again, this industrial section along the third street, opposite side of the street.
Just to get into the dynamics and the dimensions of the building for a moment, one of the reasons why this building would suit a four-unit property very well is that it is a corner property.
And the intention is to provide, with this being the front of the building, is to provide a unit on the second floor with a rear deck, a unit on the third floor with roof deck access, and then the first floor units, two units, would each have their own entrances that would consist of first floor and basement living space for the two units.
and they do have egress wells where necessary because of the commercial, because of the corner
lot allows for the egress wells to be placed along the side of North 3rd Street. This then gives the
second and third floor dedicated entrance off of West Susquehanna and provides for a fairly decent
sized living spaces in all of these. But because this is a commercial unit, we believe that the
density and the dimensional variance requirement for the fourth unit is that there is a good
reason to allow that fourth unit, again, not creating one building with one entrance, but each
person on the first floor having their own dedicated entrance along that side. The density
argument for the fourth unit also relates to parking in that at the moment, you have very
limited number of residences in this area and parking would not be an issue along North Third
Street as we don't believe it would. One of the bigger concerns with the neighborhood that we
have had to work with them and we've met with them and they've been very kind in allowing us
to meet with them back in December as well as again this past April and we've had several
meetings to try and accommodate the notion that commercial activity in this property
is not viable. So the applicant had sought the council of a couple of different real estate
consultants, the first one being the Wyatt Group, who pointed out that since the onset of COVID and
since 2020, there's been a decline in commercial uses and pointed out that there are about six
commercial spaces within a half mile radius of this property, and the majority of which have
been vacant for six months or longer. And then after our initial meeting with the RCO, we were
looking for and trying to find alternatives for uses of the property that may have satisfied
commercial uses. And then more recently and more recently presented to the RCO, we got a report
that was commissioned by select commercial advisors that actually points out very poignantly
that the Nora Square, the vacancy rate in Nora Square is currently at 16.9%, which is double
from what last year was, and that it is increasing, that the trend quarter over quarter since 2020.
And so it's that kind of rising trends that have deterred the development of commercial in this
area. And while the neighborhood did issue a letter of opposition, the vote in that matter
was seven votes opposed, five votes were in support of this, and then there were three votes
that were in support, but they did have a proviso for the residential that required or requested
that some of those units be low-income housing. But aside from the low-income housing request of
those three votes, those three votes did find that residential uses would be okay there. So we
We truly feel that the that the calculation should be more of an eight to seven in favor, although, again, without the without the potential proviso that was requested, the notion that residential is is more desirable than a commercial unit here was what we believe the sentiment of that vote.
And then the idea that this area is suffering from a lack of commercial business entities, which is what the Norris Square Community Alliance recently indicated, we believe that's a direct result of the lack of density of residential units.
And that there would be a need to deliver more quality residential units in the area to support commercial corridors, especially, as you can see, driving traffic along Front Street to the commercial corridors that are nearby.
We do believe that the situation was not created by the applicant, that this hardship of the neighborhood and the demographic and lack of density is what is driving this need to use the property as residential.
along with its location next to large industrial properties, as were proposed earlier on in these photographs.
This is the minimum variance that we believe would be needed for this relief.
This is the minimum variance that we believe would be needed for this relief and that this this extra residential use would not create any extra congestion in the streets or impact the neighbor's public air rights or public facilities.
We believe that it is in harmony with the code, considering its location and the remaining demographics of this area in terms of property density and residential density.
Um, we would like to, uh, have this use, uh, and, and potentially, you know, if, if the board
would see it as such to, to see where this neighborhood develops into and authorize this
proviso without authorize this variance without proviso. But if there was any sort of question
as to whether or not commercial could be viable, the applicant would be willing to enter into a
temporary proviso and possibly revisit whether commercial would be viable in this area in
approximately maybe a five-year proviso or something of that nature to allow the residential
density to occur and to fill in. So essentially, we again believe that the votes that were cast
should be looked at as eight to seven in favor of residential, albeit with some of the provisos
that were not necessarily agreed to regarding a subsidized or low income housing. I do have here
again, and I have attached this exhibits, the letters from the real estate consultants
supporting the lack of viability of commercial activity in the North Square
market. I have a copy of the first page of the deed indicating ownership as well as tax balances
paid. And what was originally submitted in the package was this letter dated November 29th,
which was the notice of our first meeting. We have subsequently added the May 2nd notice of
the second neighborhood meeting. Again, the RCO was very cordial in giving us the opportunity to
present, albeit the vote came in their opinion, seven opposed, five in support with three in
support with proviso. However, and I don't have that letter attached here, but again, if you were
to look at the votes in support, even those with proviso were in support of residential.
It just happened to be a density, I'm sorry, an affordability question. So we did send notices
and mailings to all of the residents as are shown on the left side of the screen through all the
various proofs of mailing. The matter was posted on both frontages of the property. And we believe
that that it's these unique conditions of the neighborhood and the vacant land that creates
gaps between the residential areas and that there's no real possibility of commercial viable
use in this corner at this time and that the residential density would not alter the
characteristics of this neighborhood as it exists and at this time i have my uh i can have my client
raise his hand to adopt my testimony and mr garner if you are available
adam garner has been allowed to speak good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the sonographer yeah my name is adam garner a-d-a-m-g-a-r-n-e-r you swear or
firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank
you mr garner have you had an opportunity to hear my statements and testimony to the board today
yes i have uh do you believe that my statements and testimony were true and correct to the best
of your knowledge yes and would you adopt my testimony as if it was your own yes i do mr
garner i just have a question if there's anything you wish to add to my testimony you are welcome
to do so at this time uh very well i have nothing to add thank you questions from the board
yes i have a question um what is the height of your building in relation to the height of the
other like pockets of building that are along susquin and avenue um i will have to look at the
project here so the overall height of the building is 32 feet nine inches but with the
pilot house, it extends upwards of 41 feet, I guess, nine inches, none of which is in violation
of dimensional height standards. But again, it's hard to approach that question when you say
adjacent properties or nearby properties, when there really aren't, there would still be a gap
here. And there are several vacant lots throughout. So height wise, I have difficulty comparing them
to any of them because there's no houses really right nearby, but it is within the height
restrictions of the code.
I have a question. What are the, what are those lots behind the property there, which seem to have numbers or something attached to them? Are they just more vacant lots?
I have a question.
What are the...
that's correct yes these are so what you're seeing and if if this uh if either of these
pictures i think you're referring to these lots that my cursor's highlighted they are vacant
residential properties as you can see here these are all rm1s so these are all residential
multi-family vacant lots that are next to uh and behind this property and as these pictures show
it runs all the way down north third street and this is from the first structure
all the way towards and the corner is way up here at the stop signs this is all vacant land
and again that's part of the density issue that we don't really have a patronage base
to to put certain stores and that's led to the led to the issue that we're facing
And could we go back to the picture with the colors for the zoning for the area?
So all of this orange is RM1, and then your property is the one that's the CMX?
Correct. Yes. Our property in question is this corner property here at West Susquehanna and North 30th.
And the one on the other is the same thing. It's I can't see the other corner is also CMX, too.
And there are a few CMX properties that are designated. But if you look and compare that with the zoning, there's nothing on this corner that CMX, too.
And there's nothing on these two corners that is CMX, too. There's nothing built.
So it's ultimately, again, it comes down to a lack of density in the neighborhood to create a viable commercial business to to rent.
And that leasing is difficult when there is not enough residential density.
That's what our consultants have notified us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have a question.
Justin, so you've mentioned having two first floor apartments.
My question is, where is the mailbox going to be?
So the mailbox would be on West Susquehanna because that is the that is the it would be on the first floor front of the bill of the building.
And I should also point out that we did put trash storage for trash storage units enclosures at the rear to to address any trash concerns of the neighbors.
But this is the first floor frontage of the building, and the mailboxes for these properties would be, in my opinion, centrally located on this facade because of the actual address of the property being 300 West Susquehanna.
I agree with you legally, but I guess my question is, since you now have two main entrances to those apartments on the other door, I mean, if I was a tenant and I'm getting deliveries from Amazon, that is where I would expect my packages to be on my porch.
And I guess my question is, have you guys considered what you would have to do for an address?
well if this was granted and I do see that point and that's a valid point if this was granted
some of these could be readdressed for delivery and for uh purposes but the OPA would still
consider it all one address but that would make practical sense um you know they will be listed
in a designation of either one two three four ABCD which may help some sort of identifier on each of
these places. But for mail purposes, again, without going and without doing that address
work with the city, for now, the mailbox would have to be or the address would still stick
on West Susquehanna. Again, if granted, I think that is a very practical concern to have,
and we can work with the city to make sure that those units are appropriately designated for
delivery. I guess my question was, is that already a plan that's in place? Because in addition
to needing it for mail you also need it for utility meters yes because they have primary
entrances again if this is granted we can we can go into those when this this property has not been
constructed yet so it's a little bit far off from that level to get those individual meters and
accounts but that would be necessary can you explain the hardship of having four units instead
of three or a less lesser amount so instead of two on the first one especially that's not sure sure
so as and i guess that that with that question i i will not delve into the lack of commercial
hardship but the density hardship simply just refers to the to the fact that we're looking for
Simply just refers to the to the fact that we're looking for quality residential density in this area and that by providing this extra unit, it does add some to the area.
quality residential density
The applicant felt that because of its corner location, it was just more plausible to give the units, you know, and since you have separate entrances, they wouldn't all be clogged within a first floor unit.
So the density of three units was simply just less desirable and truthfully as a dimensional variance that is somewhat economic to add to the property.
The question is from the board.
Yeah. Can you zoom into the unit plans a little bit more? It's hard to see.
Two units, two units entries on the first floor are three, right? No, two.
So the first floor has two units. First unit front, unit one, has its own stairwell down to its basement area and again to egress wells for, you know, as needed.
Second floor, a second unit in the rear has the basement as well. And then the second and third floors each have their own.
Yeah, and I think I'm kind of heading towards Tanetta's point, looking at those two units on the first floor, you know, you come into that unit and it's really not a living room, right?
I mean, let's be real. It's not great living space. So maybe I think, you know, reducing the unit number probably is appropriate.
I think the saving grace is that there is a den on the basement, maybe.
But, you know, if you look at those units, that's not a living room, that's a kitchen.
Correct. It's an open floor plan, but I understand that sentiment.
I have a concern, and I don't want to take time, is that when you don't show furniture,
it's hard for folks that don't read drawings all the time to see whether or not this is really livable.
So if you look at unit two, you come in the door, the door is three feet wide.
You got about three foot to the counter. Then you're going, you got to go through the kitchen and go down to the basement. That's really not a living room. There's nowhere to put another chair. You understand what I'm saying? So, but you do have a den. So, I think maybe a three unit building would probably be more livable and still be practical and still provide density.
Well, and I do I do think that there is a potential for the den and the bedroom potentially to swap in that sense. But I would ask my client if he's still on if that would be something he's agreeable to. But again, if the board would, you know, would feel that as a necessity or grant the three unit, but no commercial, we leave that to your discretion.
thank you yeah so the reason that we have the den in the basement is because of the ada requirements
we have to have a bedroom on the first floor i guess in case someone's handicapped um in terms
of design i would have preferred to have had it on the first would have preferred to have the den
on the first floor rather than the basement but we have to you know follow those ada requirements
how is this ada there's there's there's not wheelchair accessible what are you saying
um maybe not the code says that we have to have a bedroom on the first floor
maybe not ada but that's what's required according to my architect
that that i don't i don't know what you're talking about because on your first floor you don't you
know why would you there's not it's not accessible are you adding ramps or something so i don't know
just go ahead i apologize ada might be the incorrect term um but i do recall when we
were designing this we had to put a bedroom on the first floor all right any other questions
from the board no thank you questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
mr kirk did you say you did receive a letter from the rco
Yes, we received a letter dated June 18th from the RCO.
Okay, if you could please forward that over for our records, that would be great because we did not receive that.
Thank you.
Very good.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have a hand up by the name of Sloan Folks.
They have been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Folks.
Good morning, Chairman Bergman.
My name is Sloan Fulks. I'm from the Office of Councilmember Ketzy Lozada, room 484.
Spelling up, my name is S-L-O-A-N-E-F-S, fire, O-L-K-S.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, Mr. Fulks.
I do, sir. Thank you much.
Please proceed.
Yes, unfortunately, we did send a letter. It was late, and it was under the new formatting.
Unfortunately, we did send a letter. It was late, and it wasn't under the new formatting for our letters to be sent to the ZBA, but it was a letter in opposition, and it did state the vote tally.
I just want to expand on that letter. The letter basically said that based on the outcome of the meeting, we are, you know, the RCO found opposed the project and we support the community and the RCO in the opposition of that.
But furthermore, what I'd like to say is that, you know, looking at the vote tally with the seven posed, five in support, and three support provision, the applicant talked about support the provision of making the, possibly making the vote count eight to seven, but there was no attachment of the proviso and or discussion of proviso.
So we basically support that original vote count as it was forwarded to our office.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Folks.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a hand up by the name of Rodolfo Santos.
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, my name is Rodolfo Santos, R-O-D-O-L-F-O-S-A-N-T-O-S.
right i am i'm sorry go ahead do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes sir are you a neighbor i am the community engagement manager for the north
square committee alliance uh rco sure please proceed i just want to say that uh rco we voted
against this based on affordability um and also because we are experiencing and suffering through
a lack of commercial in our neighborhoods um we also see that there is a lot of development
upcoming and coming on and we rather have commercial there now before all this development
comes up um as far as the provisional votes go they go uh you know they're conditional based on
that these units become affordable and as of now they are not so our rco stands firm in our
position with both letters in opposition to this project thank you for taking the time to call us
we appreciate it other any other comments in the virtual audience i say no hands at this time chair
planning planning commission
john levicar planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed
use zoning at this location uh the appellant requests one additional unit more than is allowed
and relief from the commercial ground floor requirement in cmx2 uh the city the city planning
commission uh noting the opposition from the council member and the rco uh recommends against
granting this variance thank you mr bergman i may just respond um i do recognize that that the idea
that three of those votes uh for residential had conditions upon the um the uh the affordability
aspect, but again, we did feel that the sentiment of residential versus commercial was important
to recognize and that the applicant is prepared or willing to do a temporary granting of this
to allow the neighborhood to grow and to see where it lands in the next few years, whether
or not it is more dense in residential capacity to handle the patronage that a small business
might need.
Thank you. MI 2023, 004824, 300 West Susquehanna Avenue. I vote yes, with proviso. Maximum three units, no commercial.
Mishmur Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Panetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Iowan, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Thank you very much.
All right, thank you, counsel.
Number nine, MI 2023, 005-589-127 West Allegheny Avenue.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from HACE RCO
noting that the three dwelling units are now proposed.
Joseph Consul is coming in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Consul. Could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Good morning, Chair. It's Joseph Consul. That's J-O-S-E-P-H, last name C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
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 the property?
Yes, my client is, well, Peter and Konstantinos Sarianos.
Yes, my client is, well,
I believe Peter Sarianos will be the one adopting my testimony today, but they're the owners of the property.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case?
Five days in advance of this hearing.
yes thank you council please proceed and share your screen did my screen share
no should be the refusal no no it's it's a let me try it again uh
how about that yes that's it jim all right great uh joseph consul here on 127 west allegheny avenue
for the Serianoses, they are brothers, that took ownership of this property in 2017.
At that time, the property was set up as a restaurant on the first floor and four units
above that restaurant. They came to me a couple of years ago to legalize several of their properties
that they realized didn't have the correct number of rental licenses. This was one of them.
This one, they, let me see if I can find the pictures real quick. They lease out on the first floor. I believe at one point they operated it themselves, a diner, Greek restaurant on the first floor, and then it had four units above.
We met with the RCO twice, both times that we met with the RCO.
Originally, they said, well, four units seems tight given the square footage.
But please, at the time we discussed how one entire floor was empty and my client would be willing to reduce the count,
combined the entire third floor into one unit and then keep the two units on the second floor.
So we came back to the RCO and I presented that plan and ultimately we got their full support
on this project. So now what we have is a currently it's a four unit building as you can
see on the existing condition plans. But what we've proposed and what the RCO was on board with
was this third floor turned into a two-bedroom unit and the second floor remaining two one-bedroom
units. As I mentioned, the second floor is currently empty. My clients have done significant
cosmetic work on those units. And let me find those pictures. That's the third floor that
they'll be renovating find the second floor photos the second floor as I said
has been renovated and once we get these hopeful approvals today they'll be
they'll be getting the rental licenses and moving folks in to these renovated
units and then once the third floor is vacant they'll do the they'll submit
their plans for the construction which we've already got the zoning level set
that we showed you and combine the units and then get it inspected and rent them out.
As you can see, the work they've done, cosmetic work they've done on the second floor is nice.
The RCO, the current tenants had no concerns or issues with my clients. As landlords,
there's no complaints against them in that regard. They're trying to legalize everything
and get all the proper licensure and so we asked this board to grant the approval for three units
not four as we originally applied for and to keep the existing approved restaurant on the first floor
and i've also submitted in my packet all the other required information and here's my clients did
pull a two-unit rental license during this process as as a way to occupy those two spaces
during the renovations that they're going to be doing on the third floor.
So there is a two-unit license, and they're seeking approval for the third.
That concludes my testimony.
I'll call Peter Sarianos, if he's available, to adopt my testimony.
Sir Sarianos.
Peter has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir.
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Peter G. Sarianos.
P-E-T-E-R
Sarianos. S-A-R-I-A-N-O-S.
A-R-I-A-N-O-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Peter.
Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your property at 127 West Allegheny Avenue?
Do you agree with what I said, and do you adopt it as your own?
Thank you, Peter.
Nothing further.
Questions from the board.
Thank you.
what questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
none at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
john lavicar planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends changing the zoning at this site
from CMX 2 to CMX 2.5.
There is also a history of multifamily housing
in this structure.
Therefore, PCPC recommends granting the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023, 005-589-127, West Allegheny Avenue.
I vote yes, proviso, maximum three dwelling units.
Michael Johns, I vote yes with proviso.
Cheryl Graham I vote yes with proviso. Cheryl Gaston I vote yes with proviso.
Iowa and I vote yes with proviso. Thank you board. Thank you. Number 15 MI 2024
000956 1351 to 59 Frankfurt Avenue. Adam Laver is the attorney. There's a letter of support from
Fishtown Neighbors Association, which was the coordinating RCO, and a letter of support
from Fishtown Kensington Aerial Business Improvement District.
Adam Laver is coming in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Laver.
We see Mr. Laver?
Yes, I'm sorry.
Mr. Laver, please accept the promotion to be a panelist.
It seems that you declined it.
The second time was the charm.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Mr. Laver, could you state your name as spelled for the sonographer?
Yes, sir.
Adam Lever, L.A., V.A.S. and Victor, E.R., Blank Rome, 1 Logan Square, on behalf of 1359
Frankfurt Associates, L.P., the owner of the subject property.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
All right.
Vice Chair has a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning, Vice Chairman Shahid.
This is a referral.
All of your documents sent in on time, Mr. Laver?
Yes, we would stipulate to the accuracy of the referral, and I can confirm that all documents were submitted five days in advance of this hearing to board counsel.
Why don't you proceed, sir?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll share your screen.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, as stated, Blank Rome represents 1359 Frankfort Associates LP, which owns 1351-59 Frankfort Avenue.
This is a property that runs from Frankfort Avenue through to Crease Street, as you can see in the aerial.
The ownership team does business as the Fishtown Collective and includes Roland Cassis and Jason Nussbaum.
Tom Hallinan is present on behalf of the ownership.
Some board members may recall that we appeared before this board just a few months ago to obtain approvals for two out of three ground floor commercial spaces along Frankfort Avenue.
The recent approvals approved by this board were for a Shake Shack and a Sweet Grint.
This is a current site photograph off of Frankfurt Avenue.
You can see that the site is complete in construction.
The present application concerns the fit-out for the last available commercial space, the third commercial space.
concerns the fit-out for the last available commercial space, the third commercial space
which has not yet been rented until now with your blessing, we hope.
This site was previously approved for 61 apartments with the three retail spaces that
I've mentioned. The zoning is CMX2 and it's subject to the neighborhood commercial overlay
District, North Delaware Avenue. It is this overlay that generates the group medical use
referral before the board, and you can see the referral on the screen right now.
What we are proposing to the far right bottom of the screen is the fit out of the last remaining
commercial ground floor tenant space for the dermatology specialists. This is a 2,000 square
square foot approximate tenant space. And the dermatology specialist is an established known
dermatological practice that employs local dermatologists in locations in many areas,
for example, New York City, for one. We're expecting approximately three dermatologists
to practice at this location with six exam rooms. The project, as Chairman Bergman mentioned,
is supported by the coordinating RCO, the Fishtown Neighbors Association, as well as the other RCO,
the Fishtown Kensington Area Business Improvement District. And in the support garnered by both of
these entities, convenience of a neighborhood practice is noted, the importance of promoting
activity along Fishtown's main commercial corridor is noted. The attractiveness of having
an office that's open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. has been noted. Also, a wider range of insurance
accepted, which is relevant to Philadelphians of all backgrounds. And I think quite relevant for
the criteria before you is that most commercial tenants along Frankfurt Avenue are geared towards
food and beverage and nighttime focus while this particular use would create daytime activity
much needed here you can see outlined in blue the location of the proposed business just next to the
residential entrance and adjacent to the other uses that this board has recently approved those
shake shack and sweet green uses. The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced
by the neighborhood support, and this speaks to the granting of relief being of benefit
to the public and within the spirit of the zoning code. Mr. Hallinan is present and
available to raise his virtual hand and adopt testimony should the board chair wish.
Please, please bring him on.
Thank you. Mr. Hallinan?
Tom Hallinan has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Chair of the Board. My name is Tom Hallinan, T-O-M-H-A-L-L-I-N-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Hallinan.
Have you been present during the entirety of the virtual hearing before the City of Philadelphia's owning Board of Adjustment this morning?
Thank you.
And would you adopt and affirm the testimony that I've offered as your own?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
I have no questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Sorry.
Hold it.
Question.
What about parking?
Is there parking already provided for the other spaces or for the development itself?
No, no, Ms. Gaston, there is not. And the development has been set up in such a way to allow in partnership with PPA for loading zones and good management to the best of our ability in the context, of course, of what we understand to be a busy commercial thoroughfare.
But no, to directly answer your question, there is not off-street parking available.
okay thank you yeah the questions any other questions from the board
questions for our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr questions from the virtual audience yes chair i have a hand up by the name
of robert everett he has been allowed to speak good morning mr everett could you please state
Good morning, Mr. Everett. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
your name and spell for the stenographer.
Yes, good morning, everyone. First name is Robert. Last name is Everett, E-V-E-R-E-T-T.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth, Mr. Everett.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, sir.
As you know, I'm a member of the zoning committee for FNA, just here to agree with Mr. Labor's testimony.
And regarding parking, it's all about a block and a half from a major L stop at front at Girard.
So while people in the neighborhood always worry about it, it was felt that it won't be an issue, as there are some lots in the area that can be used by the clients and the loading zone.
Thank you, Mr. Everett, for taking the time to close.
We appreciate your comments.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hints at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
John Lovacar, Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CMX2 zoning in this location.
The recommended special exception would not cause adverse impacts and is appropriate for the community.
Therefore, PCPC expresses no objection to the proposal.
Thank you. MI 2024, 000956, 1351-59 Frankfurt Avenue. I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Taya Wendt, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Number 16, MI 2024-001036, 5813 Lansdale Avenue, letter of unanimous support from Overbrook West Neighbors Incorporated.
Mr. Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Vern Anastasio is coming back in.
Thank you, counsel.
Vern Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Anastasio.
You've already been sworn.
Could you just state your name and then identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, sir.
Vern Anastasio.
On behalf of Mr. Ahmed Watson, the owner of the subject property.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
yeah my mute button is not working can you hear me now we'll hear you sir all right good morning
counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy
yes sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have thank you counsel
So please proceed and share your screen, and I apologize for my communication this morning.
All right.
Okay, Mr. Chair, I'm submitting a 96-page exhibit binder today.
It will include floor plans of property, RCO notification, and proof of mailing.
In addition, as you said, unanimous support from this particular RCO, which is pretty hard to come by.
So let's see what we have here.
Property is zoned for residential mixed multiple times one.
We are proposing on the first floor a prepared food shop, basically a coffee shop, a cafe.
It is prohibited in this district, and that's why we're here.
As you can see, this is the main cafe area and the service counter.
On the side, there are stairs to an apartment that's not within the scope of this project.
We have the front of house with a few chairs, ADA compliant restroom, the back of house storage and additional storage, and a back of house restroom.
Restroom. There's also trash storage on the side yard. And of course, there will be commercial trash pickup.
There's interior layout of the entire building, the basement, the first floor plan, which I give you in detail, and the second and third floors that are not part of this proposal.
for those who may not be familiar with lansdowne avenue
We have traveling tracks down the center, and as you can see, it's residential and commercial, depending on what side of the street you're on.
we have trolley tracks down the center and as you can see it's a residential
There are also several boarded up and vacant properties and vacant lots at the moment.
See, there's a restaurant there to the right.
This is the interior of the property.
There's the exterior proof of posting.
additional interior. Upon reviewing these photos and the cosmetic renovations pursuant
to the RCO meeting, the immediate neighbors were pretty impressed with the amount of
effort and care that my client has put into this property. They're hoping that it will become a
third space that's not anyone's home or house of worship, but another place where people can
gather in the community and one that is desperately needed as you can see it's
very well-appointed
that's the upstairs that's the exterior again looking in the opposite direction
That's the adjoining vacant lot.
This is the RCO letter that was mailed to all interested parties.
And, of course, notice of today's hearing.
These are all the addresses that were mailed.
For a total of 150 individual households were given notice.
we have the poster and the proof of posting we have a long list of uh former uses as you can
see it was a grocery and a video arcade uh then it was three video machines as they call it which
i'm assuming was some sort of arcade with retail grocery and a single family above
So there is long documented history of commercial use here.
It was as far back as 1958, retail candy store.
We're going to move all of that into evidence.
there is the unanimous support by uh the rco in question not one vote of opposition not one vote
of non-opposition and of course we have the deed and the proof of tax paid
You know, because the project has unanimous support from the immediate community, because this portion of Lansdowne Avenue could desperately need some action, given the fact that there are several vacant lots and vacant properties on the block and our use is consistent with the commercial mixed use of the corridor.
we respectfully request the granting of the variance, and I'd like to have Mr. Ahmed Watson
raise his virtual hand, if he's in the audience. Ahmed Watson has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Watson. Could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Yes, my name is Ahmad Watson, A-H-M-A-D, last name W-A-T-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Watson, did you hear my presentation before the board today about your coffee shop?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board.
I have a couple of questions. Can you go back to the floor plans?
i'm assuming this is commercial trash pickup of course the trash the trash is being kept in the
rear that's correct okay just one thing that you said during your um during your comments you said
that the the bathroom was was ada accessible it's not um and neither is the front it's not
wheelchair accessible well it will be prior to occupancy it has to be the drawings that you
present and what you stated are different that's not a wheelchair accessible bathroom yes i
That's not a wheelchair-accessible bathroom.
Yes, I stipulate to that, Mr. Johns.
But in order for us to occupy a coffee shop, that front-of-house bathroom will have to be ADA-accessible.
So I just want to make sure that when folks come and present to the board that they show what they say.
And this doesn't show a handicap accessible bathroom. So we need to show it in the front is not accessible. But I think this is a good project.
That's correct. Yeah.
How does one get from the main cafe to the handicap accessible potential bathroom with a step?
With assistance.
And yes, a more detailed plan for the building code review will be submitted after this.
But thank you.
Even at the schematic level for zoning, it should show an accurate layout.
Point taken.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
I have a question about how many other commercial uses are on the immediate block.
Well, active is about three, but most of them, again, there's more than half a dozen vacant lots just attached adjacent to our property.
And there are also a couple boarded up previously occupied commercial spaces.
Okay, thank you.
Just one other thing.
I mean, I understand what you said.
And I'm going to go back to that. But the pictures show everything is pretty much done.
So they'd have to reconfigure that bathroom to make it handicap accessible.
The bathroom will have to be outfitted in order to get a certificate of occupancy. Yes, sir.
All right.
my question uh are you saying uh burn that the uh that there's a vacant space on
either side of this property that basically it's kind of a little snaggle to like set alone
the photos in the photos yeah the photos show on the right hand side one vacant lot
And on the left-hand side, six vacant lots.
And not that I think this should be a big problem, but what are we doing about parking for this particular space?
Nothing.
We're not required to have parking.
So, therefore, we're not going to address it.
Okay. And is there any thought of having some sort of outside seating there?
Yes, we actually spoke to the community about that when we had the meeting. They would like to
see us pursue sidewalk seating, even if it's just against the property. So we will be looking into
that as you know that may take up some work with counsel exactly okay thank you questions for our
attorney hillary emerson i just wanted to clarify one thing mr anastasio um there will be um a
single family dwelling remaining above at this property that's correct all previously approved
use is not subject to this review, would be moving forward.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a hand up by the name of Gregory Allen.
They have been allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Chair and Board.
My name is Gregory Allen, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y.
My last name is A-L-L-E-N.
I'm the chair of the RTO.
I know who you are, sir.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, sir.
So first, I'd like to acknowledge Director Johns and share our gratitude because we,
The ADA-compliant bathroom was one of the features that the neighbors were most excited about.
So I appreciate Mr. Anastasio for making that correction as the project moves forward.
But the unanimous support for us is only the second one in our history, and partially that has to...
There's only the second one in our history. And partially that has to do with the makeup of Lansdowne Avenue, that it has been a commercial corridor that is largely waning.
And a lot of owners are using the ground floor for a residential.
So the owner who came and attended the RCO was adamant about the hours and the food and their commitment to business on this business corridor.
And as the Community Development Corporation and RCO, we're adamant about helping them to be successful in this venture.
Mr. Allen, as usual, thank you for taking the time to close. We appreciate your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Sean Levicar, Planning Commission.
A comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1 zoning at this location.
Due to the history of ground floor commercial use in this structure, PCPC recommends granting the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2024-001036, 5813 Lansdale Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso.
Approve use as a prepared food shop with single-family household living above.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Diane Wynn, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston
my vote is yes
thank you and thank you counsel
thank you all
is there anyone in the virtual audience
whose case has not been called
I see no hands at this time
thanks everyone
thank you for your work and see everybody at 2pm
please
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA hearings.
With me is our board member, James Snell.
Present, chair.
Our board member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Our board member, Tanetta Graham.
Present, chair.
Our board member, Michael Johns.
Present, chair.
and our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson,
and our deputy director, Kathleen Grady.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting Kathleen Grady at Kathleen.Grady at Phila.gov.
For our court sonographer and attorneys, for our court sonographer, attorneys and witnesses will identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter a period of statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments or testimony should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunke.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number two, MI 2024-000-593-29 East Mount Airy, that case is continued.
Number six, MI 2024-002-062-6045 Shisler Street, that case is continued.
Number nine, MI 2024-002-378-3943 Mount Vernon Street, that case is continued.
And number 10, MI 2024-002-410-2913-15 Kensington Avenue, that case is continued.
Case number 11, 12, and 13. So case number 11 is MI 2024-002-411-3212 York Street.
Case number 11, 12, and...
Case number 12, MI 2024-002-412-3210 West York Street.
And case number 13, MI 2024-002-413-3208 York Street.
Is Darling Treat in the audience?
Is there a representative from Council Member Young's office or the coordinating RCO rep for Strawberry Mansion Community Concern?
Yes, Chair. This is Jasmine Webster. I will be your co-host this afternoon. Darlene Threatt has been allowed to speak.
Good afternoon, Commissioner. Darlene Threatt on the line.
Hi, good afternoon, Counsel. Could you please state your name and spell it for the court sonographer?
Good afternoon, Darlene Threatt, D-A-R-L-E-N-E-T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-T-T as in Thomas, for the applicants, 3208 West York Street, LLC.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Your Honor. Excuse me, I do a question.
Oh, sure. Is there anyone from Strawberry Mansion on the line?
Yes, Chair. Strawberry Mansion has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
This is Bonita Cummings.
B-O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Is there anyone from the Councilman Young's office?
Chair, I have a hand up by the name of Conlon Crossley.
That's it.
That's it.
Hi. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Good afternoon, chair and board. My name is Conlon Crosley, C-O-N-L-A-N, Crosley, C-R-O-S-L-E-Y.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Counsel, we have a request to continue these three cases.
uh commissioner um i worked very hard to get a meeting for these uh cases before our hearing
today we had a very very long meeting an hour and a half i sent out 186 notices to the community
besides my clients and the architect um there was no one from the community that appeared at the
meeting ms cummings uh did run the meeting and she did express her concerns um about the project
mainly that she just wanted commercial to be developed there and we expressed my clients and
myself that we weren't able to do commercial there and it was not feasible at this time to do
commercial there we have satisfied the requirement with having the meeting and I would
request that we be allowed to present our case today all right Colin could you
walk just to the request for the transfer for the continuance thank you chair can you still hear me
I can. Our office is asking for a one-time continuance so that the community reached out
and they're asking for a little bit more time to study the plan a little more holistically.
All right. Thank you. Ms. Cummings?
Hi, can you hear me? I can. I can.
Hi. We spoke with the applicant with the understanding that we would get a continuance.
And of course, at the actual meeting, the attorney decided that they would not do that.
We used the date that we did with the understanding that we would be able to get a continuance.
but because of the complexity of those parcels and that strip of York Street needing to really
be developed in a way that is the best possible way for our community, we were trying to engage
in a conversation that we knew would need further conversation, which we thought we
had that agreement with Mr. Holloway. Also, even after the meeting, when we went back
as the committee to look at the plans that they had on the, in the meeting, we don't
have those plans. What they sent us was just the refusal and the top sheet. So we weren't
even able to do a better job in looking at the whole projects because we don't have all
I love it.
So, counsel, I'm going to continue this case.
I'm going to I'm going to continue this case. I'm going to mark it must be her.
I'm going to mark it.
Very well, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
So number 11, MI 2024 002 411 3212 York Street.
Number 12, MI 2024 002 412 3210 West York Street.
And number 13, MI 2024, 002-413-3208 West York Street.
All three cases are continued. Mark must be heard.
And number 15, MI 2024, 002-416-3200 West York Street.
Cases continue to turn the moving party.
And number 16, MI 2024-002-423-3108, West York Street, Cases of Continuance, Attorney Moving Party.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
So we're going to go to our add-ons.
And we're going to put some of them aside to a little later today.
But number one, MI 2024-000-148-8430 Busselton Avenue, number TA-224608.
The vote in this matter is being rescheduled to 7-24-24 at 2 p.m.
Next one we're going to do is right with you.
Number four, MI 2024-000162-4346-48 Grissom Street.
I vote yes with provisos.
The temporary address for this application is 4350-52 Grissom Street, TD-313673,
and all show height limited to 38 feet.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with the provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
My vote is yes with provisos.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2022-004-546-3251 Fox Street.
The vote in this matter has been rescheduled to Wednesday, July 24th at 2 p.m.
Number six, MI 2023-002-007-1619 West Maya Ancing Avenue.
I vote no, Maya Ancing Avenue.
Jane Snell, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Senator Graham, my vote is no.
Iowyn, my vote is yes.
We're going to go to our regular list.
MI 2023-006-215-610-South Front Street
Dorothy Ann Hamill is the attorney
Letter of non-opposition from Queens Village Neighbors Association
with the proviso
and letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla
along with the proviso
We have received a petition of six people in opposition
amel is coming in as a panelist good morning mr chairman members of the board
Just for the record, could you spell your name, please?
D-O-R-O-T-H-Y-A-N-N-E, one word, Hamill, H-A-M-I-L-L.
Where are firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Matthew Ramer. He is the owner of the property.
Matthew Raymer, he is the owner of the property.
Do you stipulate to the waiving of the reading and accuracy of the refusal?
Do you stipulate your client?
And have you sent in all your documents and paperwork within five days of this hearing?
Please share your screen and start.
Good morning members of the board, Dorothy Hamill on behalf of Matthew Bramer, owner
of the property at 610 South Front Street.
This application is for the use of a single family property for short term rental.
I've shared my screen with my documentation.
First document is the deed evidencing ownership of the property by Mr. Ramer.
Second document is, that's all the deeds, the refusal.
Refusal was for one use refusal because visitor accommodation is not permitted in the residential district.
um i've attached an application a copy of our application and copy of the information sheet
and proof of mailing
uh this was a prior use permit uh for the property tax clearance we've sent all the required
notices, and we had a community meeting in which we discussed a number of the issues that were
raised in this letter, which, again, unless I'm mistaken, I don't know that the people who signed
the letter attended. I don't know if they attended the actual RCO hearing as we had
talked about these issues at the hearing. Attached is proof of posting of the
hearing. We've also, I've also provided copies of the
View of the property, across the street, down the street, each way, attached are inside
pictures of the property.
As you can see, you know, it's certainly a very nice house, very well, you know, well
maintained mr ramer is very attached to this house and frankly the reasoning for the um
short-term rental is he had had to uh relocate out of the city uh for his uh spouse's
job and it's his intent to return to the city and return to the house so he does not want to
he wants to be able to come back to the property. So the property is almost 5,000 square feet.
It has garage parking. And we discussed having the visitor accommodation. The
The idea of the visitor accommodation would be for families, no more than two couples.
The intent here is not to have, you know, large groups, even though obviously that property is very large.
Mr. Raymer has
no intention and no interest
in having this house
be used
bachelor parties, bachelorette
parties
anything along those
lines. This is really
just for
no more than
two couples
Mr. Raymer has
a not only
outside third-party property manager who'd be managing the property they also have he also has
uh you know someone who is
You know, someone who is literally, you know, within about two minutes of the of the house, who's available in the event that there are any any issues to be addressed.
literally
um they uh we've posted to address security issues um their the property does have cameras
and again the you know the the posting for rental of this property would be crafted in such a way
that it is geared towards families
and no more than two adult couples in the property.
I know that in the letter that was sent
by the neighbors that I just saw this morning,
they talked about apparently there must be other,
you know, somebody else on the block who's doing this illegally. And certainly, you know,
that's not our intent. Mr. Ramer has already obtained a rental license. He has a commercial
activity license. He's registered as a tax account holder. So he certainly will be doing everything
that he's supposed to be doing in order to operate the property legally and within parameters of the
code. There was also a mention of parking. Again, I think it would be our position that this will
not create additional parking concerns for the block because the property has
uh garage parking and when Mr. Raymer and his spouse lived in the property uh they had two
cars one parked on the you know in the garage one on the street uh they're not expecting and
don't anticipate that any visitor would be, would have any more than two cars. So it would not change
the parking situation. Certainly won't change the intent is not to change the character or
nature of the neighborhood. Again, Mr. Raymer is very invested in this community, very invested
in wanting to come back to Philadelphia and to this house in particular. So he's certainly
going to operate the property in such a way to ensure that it is well-maintained,
well taken care of, not creating any disturbance or nuisance in the neighborhood. And finally,
in the letter of non-opposition from the RCO, there was a proviso that approval would be one
year, as it would give the neighborhood an opportunity to review how this is working,
how Mr. Raymer is handling the property, how he's handling the situation.
That, in fact, was a recommendation we made to the RCO was not actually they didn't require it at the start.
But we had offered we'd be willing to accept a one year limitation, which would then require Mr. Raymond to come back and talk to the community group.
If after a year he gets the approval and operates for a year and wants to continue and has not come back to the city, then it would give the neighborhood an opportunity to review the situation again and determine whether they believe that the use and operation has been fine within the neighborhood or if they found any issues.
at that time. So I think that that certainly shows that Mr. Raymer really does want to do
the right thing, do operate the property properly, and be a part of the community.
So why don't you bring him on and have him adopt your testimony?
I would love to do that.
I would love to do that. Dorothy, do you want to stop sharing, Dorothy?
Dorothy, do you want to stop sharing, Dorothy?
Mr. Ramer, could you please state your name and spell for the court's doctor?
Yes, Matthew Ramer, M-A-T-T-H-E-W, last name R-A-M as in Matthew, E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
one. Matthew, you've heard my testimony on this matter. And do you agree to accept my testimony
as if it was your own? Absolutely. Can I add a few comments if that's possible, Mr. Chair?
Dorothy, would you mind stop sharing your screen? There we go. So a couple of things that are
important to me. I've lived in this neighborhood now for probably 10 years. I love this neighborhood.
The right thing to do was to move away for a three-year period for my life partner's work.
I have every intention to come back.
My problem is that a traditional annual rental does not cover my expenses.
The real estate taxes alone are like $24,000.
So my intention was to do the short-term rentals so that I could at least break even.
That is the only objective.
And I want people to understand why I'm doing this, because most people that are requesting short-term rental permission are doing it for profit.
And that leads into what Dorothy had said, which is, I don't want a bachelor party at my beautiful home that I renovated and put a lot of time and spirit into.
I just want to break even.
And that gives me the flexibility to be very picky about who would rent for me.
The professional management company and I have agreed that we will only rent to parties that include no more than four adults minus adult children.
The idea there is it's for a family, maybe two families traveling together.
We will not permit eight 25-year-olds.
No disrespect to anybody here that might be 25, by the way.
I'm making some generalizations.
We are not looking to rent this to people who are coming in for an Eagles game and want to party all weekend.
We will we will forbid it. We also have doorbell cameras so we can see how many adults are coming
and going. As Dorothy had said, the parking issue, I don't I'm not concerned about only because
two families, two cars would be the identical situation to when my life partner and I
were living there. But the real thing that I want to enforce here is I don't need to maximize
profit. I just need to be cash flow neutral. And that's the reason why I've explained to the
management company, you may not advertise this openly. In addition to the professional management
company, we also have what I'm calling a doorstep manager, somebody that I hired that lives one and
a half blocks away to be able to attend to any problems immediately. For example, the fridge
broke a few days ago. And although we didn't have a tenant in there, he was in there taking care of
within 10 minutes. And the reason that we want to make sure that that's available, that extra level
of security and attentiveness is because if there are any concerns about noise ever, I want it dealt
with right away. I'm aware of the owner at 614 South Front. I have confronted that owner.
There are, I found out this morning that there are a number of my neighbors who also want to
file complaints against this person but specifically haven't done it yet because they knew of me and
this meeting and they didn't want to disrupt my ability to get permission to do this right so
this so i think this guy should be shut down but i want so so why don't we do this why don't we
just concentrate on where you are yeah we'll let him over there okay so is there anything else you
want to add? Yes. One final thing. I have a good reputation in Philadelphia. My primary business
is wealth management. We are a registered benefit corporation. Charity and philanthropy in this city
have been a major part of my life. If you look me up, you'll find a lot of participation. And this
has nothing to do with the property, but it has to do with character. And I think the decision to
make on this does, in fact, have to do a lot with character. And so I wanted to mention that.
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Yeah, go ahead.
Did you?
Was that for me?
Well, you can go ahead.
I wasn't sure who else tried to chime in.
Under the visitor accommodation statute, you have to be registered with one of the companies that.
one of the companies that offers these kinds of short-term rentals, like Vroom, is it, or Airbnb
or whatever. You're talking about using your own private management company, which means you're
asking for not just the variance for short-term rentals, but you're also asking for a variance
from the oversight that is specified in the statute.
So I'm a little concerned here that it would put the city in the position of trying to police on its own
every short-term rental situation because, again, they count on and rely upon these
organizations to do screening of tenants, making sure that the folks who are renting
short-term are paying the taxes, collecting and paying the taxes, seeing to trash disposal
and the other parts of this. So I'm a little concerned that what we would be doing is
saying that you get to do things for short-term rentals that no one else gets to do.
No, ma'am. Let me explain. We will be using those companies. Airbnb, Vrbo, we will be using those. The management company was hired for two purposes, to help with the, I say the advertising, but mostly they were hired specifically because the limitations that we will be implementing exceed the limitations of Airbnb.
There is no way on Airbnb to limit visitors to specifically no more than four adults.
So we have a second layer of limitation.
The other reason that they were hired is to extremely proactively deal with any problems,
because even though I'm not that far away, I'm still over an hour away.
So things like cleaning services, if a pipe were to break,
This management company will be listing on Airbnb, on Vrbo. We will not be doing this ourselves. So to reassure you, we're not stepping out of that box.
the management company is to reiterate because the limitations that I've set forth for the type
of renter exceeds the limitations of Airbnb. We can do a higher depth of screening and also to
have a professional management company to be able to deal with things that go wrong, power adages,
a toilet is broken, things like that. But to assure you, we will be using those resources,
is Airbnb, Vrbo, and I'm sure there's a bunch of other ones, but we will not be stepping aside
that. This is an additional layer. So what does that look like? What does that look like for
someone who wants to rent? Who am I contacting? Well, you'd still go through Airbnb. So if you
do an Airbnb, you'd go through Airbnb and Airbnb would connect you to the owner. In this case,
when they connect to the owner, they're going to be connecting it to this company so that they can
do further vetting. It would work exactly the same thing, except there's a professional at the end of
that line instead of me, who's not a real estate guy. So it would work exactly the same for a
potential renter. I guess my question is, can you, how do I ask this question? I like the idea,
quite frankly, but is it legal, but can you do that? Can you restrict? You can do that.
You can. I mean, let's just be real. You know, we live we live in a free world. I mean, people can do their very best to lie. But that said, we are allowed to put our own restrictions. We are allowed to restrict to certain sizes of groups or certain number of adults. We absolutely do can do that because all of these companies allow the owner.
So I'm just like, so like you said, four adults, but a 21 year old is an adult. So you can say I want four adults that have to be 30 years older. I'm just trying to figure that. Can you do that? I just, I mean, I just asked the question.
Yeah, you can. We're going to try. We're going to try because I don't want any bachelor parties in my view.
why why i'm sorry you're you're saying you're going to uh list with a a one of
uh list with a a one of these whatever short-term rental type companies like airbnb yeah like airbnb
if that's the one you choose um but you're saying that somehow or another you have to have
extra cleaning services or whatever i don't understand and or maintenance services that
would be something you would be required to do whether it's a short-term rental or not
If you have to provide a basic and part of the statute talks about the fact that you have to notify and make sure that your tenants in this Airbnb are notified of trash collection services and provided the opportunity to either collect trash themselves.
themselves for you or you collect the trash so that's all part of the whole
that's the intent there's being airbnb is in effect the management company so you're saying
you're going to have a management company and then tell the management company that you have
that well you've got another management company airbnb is not a management company really if i
may. They're not really a management company. They're a broker. So it's my responsibility to
provide a cleanly environment. It's my responsibility to take care of all of those
things. And one of those things is just hospitality. If somebody arrives at my house and maybe the code
they have for the door is not working, I'm a really busy guy and I might not see that message
right away. A lot of Airbnb-ers hire these companies. I don't know what the statistic is,
but my guess is at least 25% of them hire companies because not all owners and hosts
have the ability to respond to questions very, very quickly. So to make sure that there's no
problems, a lot of people hire management companies to basically do what the owner would do
with Airbnb. But Airbnb doesn't manage the property. Like Airbnb doesn't provide
housekeeping services. They require that you have it, but they don't provide it.
that i said that part of the statute requires that you as the person who is has the visitor
accommodation uh uh uh permit and license have to provide for um the uh trash disposal
however you manage it but that's part of what you require to do yes ma'am
And I'm sorry, maybe I'm, I don't understand how this is somehow better in any way, in the sense that we can't monitor anything like this.
We can't, if that's what you want to do as part of getting your visitor accommodation license and permit and then signing up with whoever you have this with, you can do this without us having anything to do with it.
we don't we don't get to tell you who you get to have this with and we don't get to tell you
how you manage it but you still would be responsible as a lessor but but so so so let
me let me try to bring some cheryl let me bring some focus to this i mean it's done like this
because he's not living in the city so we get people and the first thing we say to people
who do you have somebody to manage it and that's what he's basically saying that he hired this
company to manage it through airbnb that's fine i don't i don't have any problem in doing this but
if it's if it's that somehow or another our our job here is to just say yes we want uh you to if
If we're going to grant this, then how you manage those kind of services that we can ask if you have it, but that's fine.
But what you have or our involvement in it is just to say, hey, we would expect you as someone who's renting the property to take care of maintenance, upkeep, collecting trash, making sure that the tenants have a habitable property.
all of those things are things that you would do anyhow.
And the other thing is that as a,
uh uh most of these services do ratings so if you're somebody who is um doing this on a regular
most of these services do ratings.
So if you.
basis your tenants have an opportunity to do ratings and say yes this is a great place it's
near whatever the the management was you know responsive when i asked for this or i had a
problem with that sure sure yeah sure i think i think i think he was just kind of saying that
i'm going to go above and beyond and this this is right so i'm going to manage it but i'm going
to manage it this way because i'm using these great folks that are going to manage it for me
they do this professionally and you're not living local but then that's living local
then that's fine that's fine it's not a you know i think that's a good thing yeah michael you said
it i'm really almost trying to advertise and i'm trying to take steps to go above and beyond i got
it yeah and thank you cheryl i appreciate your questions and your concerns and again i just want
to reiterate i just want to reiterate he's coming back to this house so it's it's very important to
him that he takes that he's on top of that so that when he comes back he's coming back to what he
left that's it all right okay any other questions for the board questions or comments from our
attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair is there comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have a hand up by the name of claudia martin she has been allowed to speak
thank you hi could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
my name is claudia martin c-l-a-u-d-i-a-m-a-r-t-i-n and i swear affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do, sir. And are you a neighbor? I'm a neighbor. I'm
the new neighbor at 602 South Front Street. And this is a horrible way to meet your new neighbor.
And I apologize for that. No, please respond. Please comment. So I guess my question and our
question is, what is, you know, is this a legal precedent where, okay, 610 got the variance,
We want it at 614. You've already done this. And this is just another step. It's, you know, I sort of have a trust problem, you know, of, yes, it all sounds fabulous and easy now.
And we're just going to do for these families and to two adults.
And I don't know how many people will actually how much money that will pay, et cetera.
But it's hard to control people having guests over, et cetera.
And it's not our jobs as neighbors to be supervising.
I thought that you had to be looking at the statute that to have the short term rental in Philadelphia, you had to be a six month resident.
That was your primary residence. You were there six months a year. Is that not the case?
That's if that's if you're getting a limited lodging license.
That's a limited lodging license.
And I understand, I think, Ms. Martin, I think you just moved into the neighborhood a couple of months ago.
And, you know, certainly you already have somebody there who's, you know, going hog wild and not doing anything they're supposed to.
But that's not the case here.
And it's not, you know, every case stands on its own.
And again, this is a...
Dorothy, Dorothy. Hold on. Let me answer the question. So the issue is each case is different.
Okay. And each case would have to come forward and we'd have to take a look at it.
Okay. I hear that. I just, it's, it's not just me who's complaining. These are all the neighbors.
They sort of brought me in. So this is their concern. I understand. I understand. I understand.
Mr. Chair, can I add one comment that I think might help on this?
Now, hold up, hold up, please. I got to move on with this case a little bit here, right? Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Excuse me, chair. Before we let the next person testify, as a reminder, they are here to testify for testimony only, not to ask questions.
I understand. Thank you.
Yes, chair. I have a hand up by the name of Lindsay Scanafieco. She has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, my name is Lindsay, L-I-N-D-S-E-Y, last name Scanapico, S-C-A-N-N-A-P-I-E-C-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And are you a neighbor?
And are you a neighbor?
I am. I'm at 766 South Front Street.
I'm at 766 South Front Street.
Please proceed.
Hi, I just, I just, I share the concerns that have already been expressed.
This is a very residential neighborhood, and I appreciate some of the offers that have
been made about this being for two adult families.
However, I don't know if that's violated what we as neighbors or as a board you're able
to do to then quote like shut it down if it's not working is what i would say i think that's
the main question that i saw so i so lindsey i think what happened is when when the neighborhood
group and the council person heard about this they've set forward that this is not something
that's going to be here it's for one year they're asking for one year and at the end of the year
they can evaluate and the neighbors will have input to where it stands okay i appreciate that
thank you oh well thanks thank you very much for calling is there anyone else
hold on somebody's speaking there um planning commission
thank you chair bergman and good afternoon david effecto f e c t e a u with the city planning
commission do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1, residential multifamily zoning at this location.
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 that the board deny the proposed use variance for visitor accommodation.
Thank you, David.
MI 2023-006-215-610-South Front Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Temporary variance, that expires 7-18-25.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston.
My vote is no.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2024-001-168-8400 East Roosevelt Boulevard.
Number D, Stephanie Boggs Magna is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the Ron Hurst Civic Association.
Vote was, looks like 20 to the sixth, 20 to nine.
and michael johns is going to recuse himself for this particular case yes i'm turning off
thank you michael good afternoon thank you counsel could you please state your name and
spell for the courts to knock sure stephanie magania s-t-e-p-h-a-n-i-e last name is m-a-g-a-g-n-a
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is Penny Pack Associates LP. They're the owner and the applicant for this application.
Do you stipulate to the reading and also the accuracy of the refusal?
Yes, I do.
And have you turned in all of your paperwork within five days?
Yes, I have.
Please share your screen and start your presentation.
Thank you.
So, as mentioned, this property is 8400 East Roosevelt Boulevard, Purcell D. It was originally
part of a larger assemblage that has since been subdivided off. But this site in particular is
split-zoned RSA 1, RSA 2. It is an oversized lot for the RSA district as well. The site is about
seven and a half acres of currently vacant land, partially wooded with frontage along Roosevelt
Boulevard and access as well along Stroll Street. Here are some site photos to put it into context.
As I mentioned, it's currently vacant and part of the site is occupied by existing trees. We are also
adjacent at this location to an apartment building that was approved for 50 multifamily residential
units by the ZBA in 2021. That's on Parcel C here, as well as the Rehabilitation Center and a
medical arts building that have frontage along Roosevelt Boulevard. And we also back up to
Pennypack Park here as well. This application in particular is proposing a three-story building
for multifamily use. 85 residential multifamily units are proposed in total at this location.
Here are some renderings of the project. In connection with the multifamily use that's
In connection with the multifamily use that's being proposed, we're also proposing adequate parking on site. That's roughly a two to one parking ratio here.
being proposed, we're also proposing adequate parking.
And enhanced landscaping. Part of the refusals that we're requesting include allowing for multifamily use at this location.
And because of its size and the location of the property, it is recommended for rezoning as part of the city's central northeast district plan for rezoning to accommodate for residential higher density and mixed use.
So the proposed use here would be consistent with that plan and also appropriate, given that the size and configuration of this lot is not suited to the single family use that would be otherwise permitted in the district, but instead can provide for additional density.
The existing plantings and trees that are located here do make development of the lot without the removal of certain heritage trees in particular and feasible.
So we are requesting a special exception approval in addition to the variance to allow for us to remove certain heritage trees in connection with the application.
But as you can see, the layout and configuration of this building has been very specifically intended to make sure that we're maximizing our setbacks, particularly from the residential houses that are located along Stroll Street, as well as to make sure that we are maintaining as many of the existing trees and specifically the heritage trees on site as possible.
In addition to maintaining those trees, we're also proposing adequate landscaping that certainly meets the code for the tree replacement requirements related to removing healthy heritage trees from the site.
Here's a copy of our refusal for reference, as I mentioned, variance relief for multifamily
use as well as the special exception from trees as part of our application today.
We did present this project to the Ron Hurst Civic Association, who's the coordinating
RCO on March 20th.
We're happy to say that they have provided a letter of support for this application,
which is included in the packet as well.
And following that meeting, we also presented this application to the Civic Design Review
Committee.
they completed their review on May 7th. This is a copy of their letter concluding the review of
the project. And in connection with that review, we made certain minor changes to the plans
in response to the feedback that we received through CDR. So we are submitting revised plans
that we're asking should the board grant approval that they'd be subject to revised plans to
accommodate some of the changes that were shown at that last CDR meeting. A copy of the proviso
plans is included in our packet as well um and with that i'll say that i'm joined today by our
project architect um as well as our project engineer um as well as ken weinhold from the
dupal group who's here on behalf of the owner if i can ask ken to raise his hand at this time
before we move on to questions i'll ask that he about my testimony and can you please raise your
hand? Kenneth Wenhold has been allowed to speak. Sir, could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer? Certainly. My name is Kenneth Wenhold, K-E-N-N-E-T-H-W-E-N-H-O-L-D as
and David. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you, Ken. Did you hear the statements I made to the board this
afternoon? I did. Are they complete and accurate? They are complete and accurate. Thank you. Would
you adopt them as your own? I would adopt them as my own. Thank you, Ken. With that, we're happy
to take any questions. Show the drawing one more time on what the building is going to look like.
Sure. We have several views. This is the front of the building near the parking lot.
We also have another wider view, and this is the rear area where the amenity space is going to be,
and some existing trees kind of in shadow that we're maintaining as part of the development
council council leave that up so then i'll ask the board it's just easier to look at it and
understand a little bit better questions from the board yeah what was the minute what are the
amenities that will be used for that amenity space this is an outdoor open space area um so there's
outdoor seating provided as well as a patio area that connects to the fitness room um i do like i
said i have our project architect and then there are floor plans as part of our submission if we
want to get into any more detail, we'd be happy to.
Other questions from the board?
We have parking for this development.
Correct.
There's 85 units being proposed and there are 168 parking spaces, which is a little less
than two to one parking ratio on site.
That exceeds what is required by zoning, certainly, but it was important to the community that
there be adequate parking at this location.
And the owner also has experience with the development next door at Lot C and that multifamily building there as well.
So it was important that we maintain that parking ratio to make sure there's adequate parking for residents and their guests.
Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilliard Emerson.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilliard Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
David Fechta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and Board members, this proposal completed its Civic Design Review in May 2024.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation or opinion regarding zoning variances, special exceptions, or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from RSA1 and RSA2,
Residential Single Family, to RMX1, Residential Mixed Use.
The proposed RMX1 would allow the proposed dwelling units.
The appellant also requests a special exception for removal of heritage trees.
for a special exception of this type the appellant must show that they are replacing
the removed trees in accordance with section 147051 g of the code the appellant has not shown
that they have met this standard the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the
proposed multi-family use but deny the proposed special exception for removal and replacement
of heritage trees council you want to respond yes if i may um so we are meeting all code
requirements for the tree replacement standards. Amanda Albano from Bowler Engineering is here
to answer questions about the tree replacement plan if the board has any questions, but we are
meeting the code requirements for replacing trees. Thank you. So MI 2024-001-168-8400 East
Roosevelt Boulevard, number D. I vote yes with proviso, revised plans, six pages, stamped by ZBA,
July 17th, 2024.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tannetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Diane Nguyen, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number four, MI 2024-001-411-1104 North 42nd Street.
Vernon Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Central Parkside Community Development Corporation.
Councilperson Gauthier has agreed to go along with the decision of the Central Parkside Community Development Corporation as long as it was in writing and is in fact in writing.
Mr. Anastasio is coming in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Counsel, just state your name for the record.
You've already been sworn.
Vern Anastasio on behalf of Mr. Shulam Teitelbaum.
Do you stipulate to the waiving of the reading and the accuracy of the refusal?
Yes, sir.
And have you had all your documents in within in the last five days?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed. Share your screen.
I'm back, Chair.
Okay, thank you, Ish.
Okay, Mr. Chair, we have a 48-page exhibit binder.
today for 1104 North 42nd Street. It includes an RCO letter of support and some other additional
supporting documents. It's a fairly straightforward proposal on a very large corner property in West
Philadelphia. It's a three-story old Victorian. I'm sorry, that's not true. I take that back.
It's a three-family dwelling in an existing structure at North 42nd Street.
And here are the plans.
As proposed, you'll see the basement is strictly for utilities only.
We've got the first floor being a two-bedroom unit.
And we've got the second floor with a two-bedroom unit, and the third floor with a two-bedroom unit.
Here is some of the streetscape photos.
Here is some of the streetscape.
It's right at the base of the bridge here.
There's the property itself.
Several vacant lots to the right.
One vacant lot that's used for parking on the left.
and other, to the extent that there are
occupied properties on this particular block. It's a mix
of single, double, and three-family dwellings.
Property is in major disrepair and has been
so for quite some time.
This is the RCO notice
and, of course, zoning hearing notice that was mailed to all
appropriate households. And 79 individual addresses were mailed this notice.
group of posting at the property in question
support letter from Centennial Parkside
the market being what it is on this particular block and this
unique location at the base of that bridge
redeveloping this property into a single family home is just it would be unsustainable and just
could not make it work in the marketplace at today's current conditions. And here's an aerial
view of the property in question. Because of the property's unique situation and particular
location because of the various vacancies surrounding the property and because the
market cannot bear a completely rehabbed new single-family home in this particular location
and because we have the community support and the council office affirms that position,
we respectfully request the granting of the variance. Thank you.
Byrne, do you have your client? Yes. Mr. Teitelbaum, if you could please raise your hand.
has been allowed to speak yes sir could you please state your name is spelled for the court
sonographer sulem title bomb s-h-u-l-e-m title bombs t-e-i-t-e-t-e-l-b-a-u-m you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel thank you
Mr. Teitelbaum, did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
You adopted as your own testimony?
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
On that particular block, I know there's some vacancies.
What are there many multiple family units?
There's at least two other multiple family dwellings on that block.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Yes, I have a question.
The lot that you said is used for parking, is that owned by the same person or is that just they're just using it for parking?
Someone is using it for parking. It has nothing to do with us.
And is there any what is there a hardship for providing a duplex instead of a triplex in this particular parcel?
It's a large structure. And as a as a triplex, we're we are providing a two family dwelling.
It's our two, you know, two bedroom apartments. If we were to make this a duplex, they would be even larger.
And we think it would be more difficult to occupy. These are going to be brand new housing units with two bedrooms,
the full going expanding the full floor on each level uh at a more approachable price point and
i we do think that that's probably the best approach in this particular location
as as does the community so what is the outdoor space like for um i think it was the first floor
i guess will be have the yard what was that outdoor space in the yard and can you go to
floor plans so we can see because it's not sure yeah yeah yes i think i even had a
more importantly to your question i have a site plan
uh you have a 26 foot yard
You have a 26-foot yard.
Can you go to the floor plan so we can see?
So where's, yeah, zoom in so we can see all three together.
Yeah, yeah.
Where are the, where are the trash kept?
All the trash will be kept within each of the units.
And that was per the RCO, exterior lighting per the RCO, security cameras per the RCO, and of course, a management company.
i guess i'm i guess i'm back to kind of the same conversation about the size of the living space
for the units in general i mean you look at this is that the dining room where's the living room
for this third floor unit that says dining kitchen and that's literally a kitchen so
where's where's the living room oh this would be just an open space for a living room dining
that's not only dining that's not that's what the plans are telling us i know but that's
unfortunate because that's you know that's obviously can't work and i know i know we can't
dictate the number of bedrooms for a unit right because that's not zoning but that's not a livable
unit well based on your input if you wanted us to i don't think we can do that proviso well then
And my proviso, my recommendation would be that there are one bedrooms because that's not a two bedroom unit.
Right. I mean, that that's what I was about to say, Mr. Johns.
I don't know that that's the legal. I can't. I don't think we can do that.
Hillary, we can agree to we can agree to anything. Right.
It's just a matter of whether or not you all can enforce it.
so the the number of bedrooms is and the size of the units is a building code issue not a zoning
issue um so we we can't provide the things related to that because when it goes for a building code
review it may necessitate changes to the design that would be difficult to do if we already
dictated particular parameters so unfortunately we we cannot specify number of bedrooms
but that's a discussion that we i guess could have with the building code examiners
yeah because these aren't they're not that's not a living room that's not a real living room
dining room that's a kitchen on the third floor then that's it can't put a chair in the i don't
see where you even could put a let alone a table the second floor that's little that's literally
a kitchen there's nowhere to you know and a two-bedroom with it doesn't you know so well
again i point i don't necessarily have a problem with the three three units but i have a problem
with the with the fact that they don't work so maybe it needs to be as to not to not have said
to a two unit unit building that works or three one bedrooms that work certainly uh one bedroom
units or something expect you know the each floor is 48 feet deep that's deeper than many
town row homes as you know uh and 14 feet wide so if uh you know uh per one unit per floor does
make sense however uh living space without ample actual living room doesn't make sense as you say
Right. So I believe what we since this board can't require me to make that third floor unit a one bedroom, we could still put it on the record that my client would agree to the one bedroom unit on the third floor.
I do think there's ample living space on the other two based on design.
Not on the second floor either.
but well i think there's a the kitchen is on one side of this and the living sorry one second i'm
having a hard time with this bar right but the refrigerator is sitting right there right with uh
i guess a chair and a television would be on this side um or just off the bathroom you know
but again these are 48 feet deep so there's i actually um i'm planning to change the layout of
the of the layout from the floors because i the the lady who did for me this plans actually
as you can see she put like very big um bedrooms and the second floor here the the the i just
as you can see she put like very big um bedrooms and
finished out the property which i do the the refrigerator here i didn't put such a big kitchen
she put a big kitchen on third floor and the second floor which actually i want to move up
the second bedroom on the third floor and put this so so why don't we why don't we do this i i think
we're talking some things that are not zoning right yes so is there any other questions from
the board that would be relative to the zoning issue.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a hand up by the name of Jahad Ali.
They have been allowed to speak.
Mr. Ali, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Chairman.
My name is Jihad Ali, J-I-H-A-D-A-R-I.
You swear, Affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do, Y'all.
Please proceed.
Yes, Chairman.
I was at the, and the lawyer's made with me.
I don't know if he recalls me.
But I was at the, both meetings that we had with the applicant and the attorney, actually the attorney came.
And I didn't see if he could put up the letter from the RCO because I believe, I recall, we wanted that to be a two-bedroom because the issue that we had was about the trash.
And at the time he did his presentation, he had attested that he was going to use that driveway on the side.
We were familiar with the owner of the driveway who owns the house at 1108.
eight, we were familiar with him. So the other side, we knew that that wasn't his parcel.
So we were concerned about the trash being in front of the building. So we were concerned about
six units, you know, three units of having trash in front of the building and about the unit count.
We didn't want three, but I can't see what the vote was on that. You know, it's typically not,
But, you know, typically there's a different format that that that group uses because that's not I can't see it.
Yeah, typically it's a different format. So I don't even know what the votes was.
OK, so what a vote is. I don't see what a vote. So.
I don't see that. That's a question for Ms. Gomez.
Ms. Gomez asked that the trash be placed inside each unit, which we agreed to and not use the exterior space for trash.
You know, everything I tested, you know, that's what we said at the time.
I just didn't see the votes that we had as a group because I thought we were required to take a vote and see what the vote was.
Not what Ms. Gomez said.
She's a chair, but did she not send in the vote document?
This is what I received.
Chairman, thank you, members of the board for that.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time here.
planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon david vecto with the city planning
commission uh chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa
5 residential single-family zoning of this location this neighborhood was rezoned in 2017
in accord with the recommendations from the comprehensive plan there is no unique physical
condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance
with the zoning code. However, we are aware of other multi-unit dwellings and single-unit
dwellings on this block face. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant
the proposed use variants for multifamily dwellings, but with a maximum of two dwelling
units. Thank you. MI2024, 001-411-1104 North 42nd Street, I vote yes, maximum two units.
james james snell my vote is yes with proviso michael johns my vote is yes with proviso
tennessee graham my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso thank you very much
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024-002-051.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, did we want to go and take care of the remaining add-ons?
Mr. LeBaron Leonard Palmer is here to assist us with that.
I don't want to keep him waiting.
If we can just take care of those.
Thank you.
Let's see where we are here.
Which one?
Do you want to keep me here, Chair?
we didn't want you to leave
I mean
So, number two, MI 2023, 007-031-4714 Griscom Street, I vote no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
So here, number 16, is this?
All right, here's.
All right, number three, MI 2024, 002-911-3105, Lord 16th Street.
I vote yes with provisos.
Her refusal dated 227-24.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by CBA on July 17, 2024
Maximum two dwelling units, commercial trash pickup
I also certify that I viewed this recording
And voting on this, Ishmael Shahid and LeBaron
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes, with proviso
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, my vote is yes, with proviso
number seven mi 2023 002 780 3122 to 26 west york street this is request for reconsideration
i vote no to reconsideration and hearing
shaheed my vote is no to reconsideration and rehearing lebaron leonard palmer my vote is no
to reconsideration i think that's it right hillary yes that is mr chair thank you thank you lebaron
number five twenty twenty four zero zero two zero five one twenty four hundred to oh six
master street alan knockamson is the attorney
Alan Nockmson is coming in as a penalty letter of support from NARA Square Community Action Network with unenforceable provisos and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Alan Nockmson.
Just for the record, Alan, just spell your name.
Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client or relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is 2400-06, Master ST-LLC, and in the virtual audience should be its representative, Sarju Patel.
uh our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon counselor do you agree to
repeat another refusal or stipulate to a diopsoe i do do you know then all the required documents
and exhibits that is needed to proceed with the police five days in advance of this area
uh yes uh we we have thank you counselor please proceed and share your screen
um so i'm here to present uh 2400-06 master street
this property is in in the north square section of philadelphia
and what we're looking to do is legalized or attempt to have nine parking spots
In the rear of this property, they go street to street from Asher Street to Mudder Street.
So when my client purchased the property, it was advertised to us as a 28-unit apartment building,
as a mix between affordable housing units and market-rate housing.
And there are three affordable units as part of this project.
What we discovered after the fact, there was a mistake in the filing from the previous owner regarding the nine off-street parking spots, which was included as part of our advertising of this property.
So we're here just to legalize that.
So you'll see the notice of refusal, and many of them are technical refusals, really have to do with landscaping.
One does with, obviously, the off-street parking.
And then, but we did meet with the community. And again, we have a 28 unit building that has three affordable housing units in it. And all we want to do is put nine spots off of the street. There's no parking allowed on our side of the street on Mudder Street. So we're not taking any parking.
There's no parking allowed on our side of the street, on Mudder Street, so we're not taking any parking off the street.
We're not taking, we're not hurting the parking situation by taking a car away from on-street parking.
So these nine spots are going to be a benefit for the community where, you know, parking is at a premium.
So we met with the community.
They overwhelmingly supported the project or the nine parking spots.
And then the council member just sent us a letter of non-opposition as well.
Afterwards, we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property and the plans and drawings.
Our RCO meeting notice, there were around 15 to 20 individuals from the community who attended that meeting.
And, you know, again, they overwhelmingly supported this matter.
Then we'll review the application for appeal, the deed to the property showing that my client 2400-06 Master Street, LLC, is the owner of the property and a certificate of tax clearance.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Patel virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him.
So notice of refusal, it seems more intense than it is.
This is an RM1 property, which allows for 28 units.
And we're just trying to get the nine parking spots, which should have been part of the original submission.
The refusals have to do with, you know, landscaping and such.
Again, you know, as we told the community, you know, again, if we put the landscaping in the rear the way we would want to as well, we're going to lose some off-street parking here.
where these cars for this project will then go onto the street.
What we did as an accommodation, and I don't know how enforceable it is,
but we have full intention to do this.
We're going to put as many trees out front as we possibly can to liven up in front of our street.
And you'll see that in the letter, but that's our intention.
So, again, they agreed that, like, we don't want the landscaping here
if that's going to reduce the amount of parking spaces here
because, you know, parking's at a premium already in this neighborhood.
And everyone's fighting for parking. So we appreciate the fact that you're adding nine parking spots off of the street and you're not taking a parking spot away from the street itself on the public streets.
So, but that's basically all these refusals other than one for parking, everyone really have to deal with landscaping and such, which we have intention that you'll see from the rendering to put as many planters as possible and we'll work with the Fairmont Park Commission to plant as many trees in front of our building structure as we can.
So here's a letter of support from the Norris Square Community Action Network.
Again, in the bullet points, it says the applicant agreed to engage our RCO in marketing of the affordable units.
We want to.
We want to reach out, and I think we're required to under the law anyway, to market these affordable units to the community.
They want periodic updates regarding the progress of the construction of this building.
And, you know, we would be more than willing to do that. Construction has already begun as well, because that's allowed as a right, because we do have a building permit for the 28 units.
And they want us to plant pollen-free trees in front, and we have no objection as to that.
And then because of the support from the community as a whole, where I believe anywhere from 15 to 20 members of the community were at the community meeting,
The district council member, Lozada, also is in non-opposition of this proposed use of the property.
And then maps of the area. Again, we're an R-1 property. We're not asking for more use than is allowed as of right.
We're allowed 28 units. And again, we're just trying to legalize these nine off-street parking spaces.
And then photographs of the property.
So this is an older photograph of the property, you know, but we took it from Google Earth of Master Street or what it previously looked like.
And as you can see, we go from Master Street all the ways over to Mudder Street.
And then this is from the Mudder Street side as well.
There's no parking allowed on our side of the street.
What you will see, though, is from some of the, and these are the photographs of the posting of the property from both sides.
But what you'll see from the photographs is that there's a lot of Mudder Street, and this is Masher from the right of the property, Masher Street to the left of the property.
But what you'll see on Motor Street is a lot of this parking on the sidewalk, because there is a situation with, you know, a lack of available parking in the neighborhood.
And we're hoping to help that situation by taking nine cars off of the street.
So you see that here, too, on Motor Street for the left of the property.
So our plans and drawings, I think this is a very pretty facade, you know, again, a little bit of a mix between new and old, you know, the old is from a modern twist, you have a cornice line, you have lentils, you have a brick facade, you're kind of breaking it up in many different ways.
So our plans and drawings, I think this is a very pretty facade.
You know, again.
You have a lot of eyes on the street with this, you know, with with these patio areas.
And there's a prominent opening in the front for 2400 Master Street.
And then this is the rear of the property from a rendering standpoint.
Again, nine parking spots, one lane.
And then this is just, again, you know, what we had to show from, you know, an L&I perspective showing, you know, that we're capable of parking these cars in the rear on Motor Street.
We're not getting any refusals regarding the size of these parking spots or anything in terms of there's no issues with turning radius or anything like that.
And then even though this is not part of our zoning, our presentation, like in terms of requesting use of this,
I just wanted to give you the floor plans that were submitted previously, I believe, to L&I.
And then we met with the community on June 10th at 6 p.m.
And they had specific requests from us in terms of highlighting, you know, some of the information just to make sure everyone knew that this was an important meeting and where it was going to be located and it was in person.
They did change the address last second, but we're able to fix that, like, you know, by resending a new notice, which we highlighted as well.
And then we emailed that notice to the coordinating RCO and as well as other relevant parties on June 3rd and show proof of mailing of that notice to 215 addresses.
And then this is proof of mailing to those addresses.
And this is our application for appeal that we filed with the CBA, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form.
Our deed to the property, showing my client owns the property.
And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance, showing that we do not owe any real estate taxes on account to this property.
I'm going to unshare my screen.
I would be more than happy to go back and forth.
I always just find it's helpful for people to see each other.
And I would just ask that my client's representative, Mr. Patel, virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
sirju patel has been allowed mr patel could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer yes it is uh serju patel first name serju s-a-r-j-u last name patel p-a-t-e-l
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel yes thank you um mr patel you heard everything i had to say today
about your zoning matter yes and is it true and correct yes and do you adopt it as your own
testimony yes thank you questions from the board yes could you do me a favor could you show that
rendering and tell me point out where the trees because i only saw two trees the landscaping
will go are you saying that's yeah that's what you're adding on to it no miss miss um board
remember graham um what i was indicating we showed we haven't changed our plans our rendering from
the meeting the original meeting itself this was the original rendering we showed the community
i try to stay consistent in whatever we showed the community we showed the zba and vice versa
so our intention is to increase the amount of of landscaping in the front and you know again we
we assure them whatever the amount of trees that we i'm trying to get through this um the amount
of trees. There are no trees here right now showing. There's only limited landscaping in
the front, but our intention is to add trees in there. So I don't know if it's an, I don't think
it's an enforceable proviso, but I can ask Mr. Patel on the record so that at least you have
it on the record that, you know, he's in specific agreement to coordinate with the Fairmont Park
Commission to provide a reasonable amount of trees for, you know, for the front of the property.
So, Mr. Patel, you heard what I stated about the tree, the trees in the front.
Would you be willing to provide a more than reasonable amount of trees, plantings in front of your property?
Mr. Patel?
Yes, Alan, we'll make that effort in agreement with the RCO.
and the fair amount
and the fair amount, the organization that you mentioned.
Are there questions from the board?
Can we see the parking?
Oh, yeah, sure.
Let me reshare my screen in that respect.
So here's the parking.
Just minimize it.
so there's nine parking spots across with including one rendering please oh the rendering oh yes
so you're going to provide some landscaping you said where would you be doing that
in in the front so when we as we indicated to the community
If we provided landscape in the back, we would be limiting the amount of off-street parking in the back as well.
So, again, I think they understood the tradeoff here.
This is a secondary street, you know, such that, you know, there is not as much activity on this street.
So we wanted to spruce up the Master Street side as much as possible.
If we would put any landscaping in the rear, we would be losing off-street parking in the back.
Okay. And access to this street, is this a one-way street or?
It's a one-way street.
And then the access is from where to?
So the street is
Mudder Street
goes between the properties between
Cumberland and York. Those are the two
major streets.
We're between Cumberland and York
and we front Masher
and our rear, which we go
street to street, is Mudder Street.
Okay. And then
these would be your
curb cuts here?
Yeah, so they're
actually four curb cuts here there's one that's 24 i'm going to go from i believe left to right
24 standard size parking spaces you aren't required to provide any accessible parking spaces
we have one accessible parking space and every all the size of the parking spaces are all by right
okay and you are providing an accessible space that's correct
okay other questions from the board yeah just just a comment no question really uh
uh you're you're putting in four curb cuts which kind of you know it's kind of why don't you just
do a ribbon curve one and then a recommendation that you definitely install concrete curbs
concrete uh car stops okay yes i don't see that on your plan okay and i appreciate that i don't
know if mr dry logan dry the architect is on as well but i will let him know to make you know those
if he can make those changes to have a ribbon curb cut which you mean it's just straight across right
instead of four different curves no i hear what you're saying um i think we wanted to um you know
just again have a little bit of a breakup but i see your point too so i don't know if mr dry is
But I will I will let him know to see if you can make that change and amend the building permit accordingly.
And then the other item was the car stops, right?
Are concrete stops because there's if somebody pulls in according to this plan, there's nothing to stop somebody from running right into the building.
No, I definitely agree with that, too. Thank you.
That's it.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I don't see any hands at this time, Chair.
My Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon.
David Vecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RM1 residential
multifamily zoning at this location.
landscaping tree planting and screening requirements were placed in the zoning code to
mitigate the impact of additional pavement on the surrounding blocks and neighborhood
the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed landscaping screening and
tree planting variances and the proposed variance for parking in the required front side or rear
yard thank you am i sure yeah oh can i can i comment on the uh you certainly can't comment
Can I can I comment on the comment? So a couple of things. Again, a lot of times when you see these multifamily structures of this sort, there is definitely resistance to approving them from a variant standpoint.
This is one where it was granted by Wright to allow for 28 units, like essentially we're at a three to 10 ratio from, you know, from parking to amount of units, which I think is very responsible in terms of the landscaping requirements.
Again, Motor Street is really a secondary street that many people don't have frontage on.
And I acknowledge that we don't have landscaping in the back, but our intention is to do as much landscaping as reasonably possible in the front on Master Street, which is the prominent street for this property.
Thank you, Alan.
MI 2024-002-051-2400 to 06 Master Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, I vote yes.
Senator Graham, I vote yes.
Ian Wynn, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Nackamson, could you please stay on?
So MI 2024-002-072, 927 North 43rd Street.
Mr. Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a recommendation of support from the West Belmont Civic Association, both with six to two and two opposed.
Six in support, including two in affected properties and two opposed.
Mr. Nockamson.
uh yes alan knockamson mr knockamson could you identify your clients in the relationship
to the property yes my client um is aviad sonino and he's in a virtual audience
and our vice chair has a few questions
mr chair mr shaheed had to um step away for the rest of the afternoon
Do you stick late to waiving the reading of and the accuracy of the refusal?
Yes, I do. And have all your documents been there at least five days in advance?
Yes, they have. Share your screen and start your presentation. Thank you.
Okay, my computer's a little bit slow here, so I don't know if everyone sees me.
Hi, so this is 927 North 43rd Street.
Our property is between Otter and Pensgrove on North 43rd Street.
So first we'll review the notice of refusal, then the letter of support from the West Belmont Civic Association.
So when we made the presentation to them, we showed them that, you know, he really shouldn't even be here today, but for the fact that the zoning changed on my client.
He purchased the property in December of 2022. In January of 2023, not even a month after he purchased the property, a bill was introduced, which is Exhibit 3, which changed the zoning from RM1,
which, you know, if it remained, if this property remained RM1, this property would be allowed for
the three units, and this would be a buy-write project. But, you know, you know, unbeknownst to
my clients, I guess there was internal discussions with city council to change that, which was
formally introduced in January of 2023, and ultimately adopted into law, I believe, in the
spring of 2023 as well. So you'll see the next exhibit is the MLS listing showing that at the
time the property was advertised, and this was true, this was a multifamily structure allowed
to be for a multifamily structure. It's not uncommon for this board, you know, since even
the passage of this ordinance changing the zoning in this particular area to grant variances.
And there are two instances I wanted to show you of where this board under similar circumstances
it's granted multifamily use. It's also not out of character to have triplexes for properties of
this sort. And I have multiple instances, which was, you know, by right projects, but like we're
still triplexes on this block and nearby. Then we'll review the maps of the area and then the
photographs of the property, then our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice along with proof
for familiarity at that notice, the application for appeal that we filed to the CBA, the DTIP
to the CBA. The DTIP property showing that my client Aviad owns the property along with the
property showing that.
certificate of tax clearance showing that he's in good standing with the city with regards to
real estate taxes. So the notice refusal, we're not asking for any variances in a dimensional sense.
We're just saying, listen, this lot, which is 1,266 square feet, we're just asking for three
family dwelling here, which would be allowed as a right if this property was RM1. It was RM1 when
my client purchased it in December of 2022. The next month, a bill was introduced into, you know,
in council, which, you know, downgraded the allowable density to this property, the single
family. My client purchased it in reliance of building it, you know, as a triplex. So again,
we met with the community. And as you can see, it was six in support to oppose the two affected
properties, both voted in support of this project. And then here's the bill, which shows that it was
introduced in January of 2023, and ultimately signed into law in April of 2023. And then this
is what the existing zoning was prior to the enactment of that law. This was RM1. And it shows
Here, the proposed zoning is changing it to RSA 5.
But you'll also see from the MLS listing to go on the internet, it said that this was an RM1 property, multifamily residential.
And then this board, under similar circumstances since the enactment of this law, has supported variances of similar ilk at 4313 Westminster Avenue, which is around the corner from us.
as well as 4329 Westminster Avenue.
It's also not out of character for this board to grant,
excuse me, for the city to have triplexes in close proximity.
So if you look at 913 North 43rd Street, this is a triplex.
I also want to include, because I guess this was in July of 2023,
so I don't even know if it's been built yet,
But a couple of things which are similar to what we are proposing. We have a porch. This is for this other project. And we're set back on the third floor, right? This is a two-story block where there's a setback on the third floor, which we're honoring as well. But this is a porch block, which, again, we're mimicking the architecture. And so did 913 North 43rd Street.
Same thing with 917 North 43rd Street. That permit is for December of 2022. But you can see also, again, not our project, but 917 North 43rd Street has a front porch and the setback on the third floor, similar to our project.
And then 940 North 43rd Street, the zoning permit is issued as of January 2023. This one did not have a front porch, but also is a triplex.
And then the next one is 1004 North 43rd Street, also a triplex. But again, you can see how they mimicked the setback on the third story and also a porch, which is similar to ours.
Again, we're not disputing the fact that we're RSA 5 now, but we were not when my client purchased the property.
And he had no idea that there was going to be introduced into council a change in the zoning classification of this property.
He had no notice of it.
He's also, the properties are also close by to RM1 as well.
So, again, given the fact that there's multiple triplexes that exist or have approval to be built on this block and nearby, we think that it's appropriate to grant the variances for that reason as well.
And then photographs of the property, we're a vacant lot.
We're in between, again, two-story structures, and we also have porches here, which we are going to respect.
this is proof of posting of the hearing notice for today's hearing and then you can see that
this has been a vacant lot since 2009 so it's over 15 almost 15 years so we're hoping to develop that
lot um by putting this triplex here this is north 43rd street to the right of the property again
a porch neighborhood uh north 43rd street uh to left of the property and then our plans and
drawings. Again, as you can see here, we're looking to put a porch here, a nice bay window,
which is more of a traditional looking bay window. And then you can see the cornice line
and the brick facade. We try to emulate as much as possible from an architectural standpoint,
what's in the neighborhood. And then these are our floor plans. Unit A, the first floor,
unit A is the first floor and lower level. That's a two bedroom, two and a half bath.
That's a two-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath.
Second to go up a flight of steps is unit B, which is our second unit, which is a two-bedroom, one-bath.
Second, you go up a flight of steps.
And unit three is on, or unit C is a third unit.
It's on the third floor, and that is also a two-bedroom, one-bath.
We met with the community on June 5th at 6 p.m.
We emailed the notice a few weeks before then to the coordinating RCO and relevant parties,
showing proof of mailing of that notice to 178 addresses.
These are the addresses we mailed it to along with proof of mailing of those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on Aviad's behalf along with the notice of refusal,
the project information form, the deed to the property, which again shows that he purchased
the property on December 30th of 2022, and less than a month later, a bill was introduced
to counsel that changed what he knew as an R-1 property to ultimately be an RSA-5 property.
And then finally, in the Certificate of Tax Clearance, I'm going to stop sharing my screen.
I would ask that Aviad virtually raise his hand.
sir aviad yes aviad solino has been allowed to speak
sir could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
yes aviad solino first name spelled a-v-i-a-d last name is s-o-n-i-n-o
swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed counsel yes aviad you heard everything i had to say today about your
zoning matter. Yes, correct. And is it true and correct what I stated? Yes. And do you adopt it
as your own testimony? Yes, I do. Thank you. We're going to have the board ask some questions.
How wide is that? How wide is that property? You know, it looks narrow. It's actually 15 feet,
10 inches it looks like like a skinny little thing but according to you know the drawings
is 15 feet 10 inches okay questions from the board uh yeah i do i guess similar comments as before
another unit that we looked at if you can go to the layout of the plans
sure to share my screen i'll try to be quick um one on the first floor the first floor unit and
base it's a bi-level unit i assume would you call it now for two living rooms so that kind of
is strange um so i'm assuming that basement is a den in a bedroom yeah i would say so i think when
I think it's his family room here.
So his family room, okay.
And then the other concern that I have
is on the second and third floor units
is there's no natural light
for the living room, kitchen area.
Because you've got bedroom and bedroom in front,
bedroom in the back, and there's no natural light.
So that's a pretty dismal living space.
But in terms of other zoning related issues, it's all two stories on that street. So are you setting back? That doesn't look like you're setting back the third floor. You are setting back the third floor. And is that it?
We are setting back the third floor. It's right. Well, of course, it's our porch, but here's the roof area here, which we do set back.
on a deck that looks like sliding doors is that a deck it just says roof area um i think there
may be i think these are windows just to give more like light in there but um i don't let me
see from the proposal i don't know if we let me see the site plans here i don't have this site
plan hold on a second sorry just trying to no i think it's like uh i don't i don't i think it's
It's just like an open window.
So there's no request for a deck then?
No, there is no.
Not that I see, at least on the description.
In the notice of refusal.
So that's my big issue is that there's no natural light in the living space.
So again, I'm not an architect.
I only see this, but I do see enough of these projects that I can say that
I think what you can do is you can inverse maybe where the kitchen living room area is and switch that with the with the with the bedroom and have a more interior bedroom.
and have a more interior bedroom if that's you know but again i'm not here to to design
That's, you know, but again, I'm not here to design.
but i could see that there's an opportunity to do that as well
questions yep i want to know about the hardship for not being an rsa5 unit are you just saying
just because he bought it and it was flipped over is that like what is the hardship for
not being a single family unit because exactly he bought the property spent money on this property
December of 2022. It wasn't even like an ordinance that was under consideration and then it changed
because that's the whole pending ordinance doctrine. He literally bought it in December
2022. The next month, the ordinance was proposed. If he knew that the zoning was going to change,
he would not have purchased the property. The hardship is he purchased it with the intention
of building multifamily.
And there's multiple instances.
I heard another presentation
where, okay, let's,
well, is there any multifamily around there?
The answer is yes.
There's multiple instances of triplexes
and there's multiple instances of this board
granting variances under similar circumstances.
I definitely think the hardship here
is literally less than a month
after he purchased the property,
the zoning changed on it.
Any other questions on the board?
I have a question because you cited many other triplexes in the neighborhood.
And I want to know, are there any actually fronting 43rd?
Because it looks like for about a four block radius, everything is two story.
So, well, again, there are multiple instances in those plans that I showed you that were similar.
There were, I think those weren't on 43rd Street.
So I'm asking.
They were.
They are.
Here, let me go back.
I remember you mentioning one on 43rd Street, but the other two I thought were on parallel streets.
No, the variances were granted on Westminster, but the ones that are improved as triplexes, 913 North 43rd Street, 917 North 43rd Street, 940 North 43rd Street.
and then a thousand four north 43rd street and all of those are new construction that's right
any other questions and i specifically also let me just stop sharing my screen
um i also specifically attach the the the l and i uh files to show you that they're equally set
back on the third story and I think there were either four or five instances I just referenced
four of the five had porches just like the porches of the existing construction there
and ours also respects that existing construction by also having a porch
and why three and not two because again if this was uh if this this we're asking for a buy right
option essentially like we my client expected to have three units when he purchased three units or
it said multifamily it said three units when he bought it oh yes no no i said multifamily but if
you just do the math it's 1266 square feet of lot size which which as an r1 property would allow it
for three units that's what he was expecting that's what he paid for that's the benefit of
bargain that bargain was taken from him the following month and the city has every right
to change the zoning but i think this there is definitely circumstances here to allow this
to besides the fact that we're mimicking other properties nearby questions from our attorney
hillary emerson not at this time mr sheriff questions or comments from the virtual audience
Yes, sir. I have a hand up by the name of Annette Madar.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon. My name is Annette Madar, A-N-A-T, Madar, M-A-D-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Please proceed.
I'm an owner of a triplex myself on 42nd, and I understand the need of an owner, and I'm by right, didn't need any variance when I purchased.
I understand what happened over here to this owner.
I perfectly understand that hardship of building single family versus a triplex, it's a big challenge, and to buy a lot in a price.
It's a big, challenging, and to buy a lot in a price of a multi-unit and not a single family, it's a loss if he's not going to be able to receive it.
And I do vote yes for the triplex, knowing that it's plenty of triplex in 42nd and 43rd Street.
I think it's fair to allow him the opportunity.
Thank you. Thank you for taking the time, Nicole. We appreciate it. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, sir. I have one more hand up by the name of Idan Shlomo.
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Idan Shlomo. Idan, E-D-O-N, Shlomo, S-H-L-O-M-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I'm a near neighbor.
Please proceed.
I participate in the community meeting as well.
I appreciate that the builder took a lot of our thoughts and concerns into design.
I think, especially as a triplex, that this is really going to help develop our community, build, make it safety.
New construction is better than lots for our safety and bringing potential families and community members together in here.
And I fully support this project.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call.
Anyone else?
Yes, Chair.
I have a hand up by the name of Natasha G.
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, good afternoon.
My name is Natasha, N-A-T-A-S-H-A, last name G-A-L-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
Please proceed.
So I do agree and support the new and upcoming project. I live in a triplex and I'm only a block away. We have several triplexes in this neighborhood. I really don't understand why the city would change the zoning on a land. But lastly, I say yes, and I do support it.
All right. Thank you very much for taking the time to call. Anyone left?
No, Chair. There are no more hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
thank you chair bergman and good afternoon david effecta with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential
single-family zoning at this location the city changed the zoning map from rm1 residential
multi-family to rsa5 residential single-family in 2023 in a community requested map change
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance that would prevent this property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
This is a primarily single-family block face.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed use variants for three dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 002072, 927 North 43rd Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
michael johns my vote is no tana graham my vote is no i am when my vote is no
cheryl you're cheryl
i'm sorry cheryl gaston my vote is no sorry thank you number eight mi
July 2024, 002-321-1252 South 15th Street.
Al Nockamson is the attorney.
The coordinating RCO, East Point Breeze, did not reach an agreement on this.
Mr. Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson?
Yeah, I was booted out as a panelist, and now I'm coming back in.
Okay, all right.
Just state your name for the record.
Yes, Alan Nockamson.
And could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is 1252KILLC, and in the virtual audience is Mark Lahajani.
Mr. Nockamson, did you receive the photos that were sent to the board?
I did.
I'm glad that we have that updated system. So now we get to see notice of if anyone else submits it. So, yes, we did. And I'm prepared to, you know, to at least discuss it now.
All right. Do you agree to the waiving of the refusal and its accuracy?
All your documents were sent within five days prior.
That's right. I mean, we supplemented based on getting that. But yes.
Why don't you share your screen and start your project?
Thank you.
Okay. So this is 1252 South 15th Street. This is in the East Point Breeze section of Philadelphia. We're right off on Broad Street here.
We are between, let me try and say,
Battle and Wharton Street.
So during our presentation,
we're going to review the notice of refusal
and then the correspondence
from the East Point Spree's neighbors.
As the chairman stated,
there was a split vote here.
We did reach out to the community
and we do have like form letters
to support of 21 individuals,
15 of them are near neighbors based on the addresses that the City Planning Commission gave us as affected properties, and we'll go through that.
This was a compromised property when my client purchased it in June of 2023.
Soon or around the time that he purchased this property, there was a make-safe violation or an unsafe violation against the property.
He had nothing to do with that.
You know, we'll see from the Redfin listing that there was work done on the property even before he handled it.
But again, he didn't do that work.
So he inherited a lot of the issues with the property.
So when he purchased the property in June of 2023, soon thereafter, in September of 2023,
he did get a make-safe permit to do some limited work on trying to make the property safe, structural standpoint and such.
and he did the facade work and there was a question of, well, he did some stuff in the
backyard to clean up the concrete or put a new concrete down. He got a violation in February
2024. At that point, he contacted our office and I said, stop all work. Let's just get the use
approved, right? Because the intention was always to have two family household living here.
And then at that point, you can get an alteration permit, and we can go on from that.
So you'll see in my presentation materials the make-safe permit.
Again, it's not out of character to have multifamily, and you'll see that from the materials that I've given.
And a lot of that multifamily is more than two units, but we think it's appropriate to only have two units, to give a nice size units.
Each of these units are going to be 1,100 square feet, and so we thought that that was a good size for it.
We did get community letters of support.
Those are form letters of support, and I marked them in red if they are considered nearby neighbors.
That means affected properties within the 250 square foot radius.
Those are the addresses that are noted by the City Planning Commission, which are affected by way of this property.
And there are additional addresses of some other individuals who are close by as well.
Then we reviewed, we'll review the maps of the area and photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice.
I will say it wasn't that, it was intended, it was intended well, but, you know, it was on Juneteenth.
Like, we were hesitant to even meet then.
We said that, like, you know, it's a federal holiday.
you know obviously it's a special holiday as well and we wanted you know the communities
you know um focus on this project um but you know i don't know if all the people who are interested
in this project came for you know pro and con but we had it because you know we were asked to come
and um you know we didn't want to insult the community group either by um saying that we're
not going to come to a meeting that was asked of us to come to but i'm just telling you it was on
Juneteenth. So we reviewed, you know, our plans and drawings and, you know, we have, you know,
our meeting notice and, you know, we have our application for appeal, our deeds to the property
and our certificate of tax clearance. And, you know, again, at the conclusion of my presentation,
I would ask that Mark, the owner's representative, virtually raise his hand and be sworn in. And then
I'm going to go over some of the materials I received earlier today regarding some people
who are in opposition, I want to go through those and answer that as well. And I'm assuming
some of those members of the community are online as well. And I would like to ask them some
questions maybe as well. So the notice of refusal, again, all we're looking to do is put a duplex
here. It's a rather large lot of 1,305 square feet. You know, again, if, you know, if you look
at, we'll look at the materials, but like there's a lot of multifamily nearby, which is not
surprising given we're essentially a block away from the broad street line. We're not looking to
from the Broad Street line. We're not looking to extend the building structure in any way.
extend the building structure in any way.
We're just trying to, again, take a dilapidated property and completely redo it. It's rather
expensive given the condition of the property. And we're looking to put two units here
where, you know, you've seen a lot of multifamily nearby. So again, we had the meeting. Ultimately,
it was a 7-7 vote. It's, you know, self-explanatory. The comments were this, you know,
in a positive way, you know, I think the community acknowledged that the building and the property
is rather large in nature. And, you know, they appreciated the fact of having two units, you
know, having, you know, in this part of the neighborhood, multifamily, you know, is good
to help support the commercial corridor on Broad Street.
The negatives were this.
I think, you know, I think we're being blamed.
My client's being blamed for the state and condition of the property.
A lot of the issues pre-exist in my client.
My client has tried to responsibly fix them during, you know, the make safe process.
You know, they're, you know, again, whenever you're doing construction,
there's debris and dirt, things like that.
And, you know, I think there's been frustration with some of the neighbors regarding that.
My client didn't start it. And again, I'll have him testify to this.
But my understanding and my client will hopefully confirm this is that there was no work done before the make safe permit was issued.
And there was no work done after the violations were issued in February of 2024.
for I asked him I said ceased operations you know let's focus on getting the zoning approved and
then we can go from there but that's you know that's you know and so a lot of the comments had
to do with my client doing illegal work and electric and plumbing again you'll see from the
redfin listing my client didn't do the electric and plumbing someone else did someone before my
client so I think that's what happens sometimes when you buy a compromised property because if
you look at this and I did update my materials from when I submitted five days before the hearing
but when I heard you know issues about you know you know about you know legal work being done in
there I looked at the listing it says large South Billy partially renovated drywall property some
plumbing electrical complete right that's the advertisement that's not my client that's someone
who my client purchased from and then again to do the responsible thing there's a lot of work to be
done on the outside, especially with the facade, my client got a make-safe permit in September
of 2023, a few months after purchasing the property, and he did work on it. Now, you'll see
that from, you know, I highlighted that the numbers in red are the amount of units within
these properties. So, you can see, like, basically, almost all the properties that surround us
are multifamily in nature. So you have a two-family, a two-family, a two-family, a two-family,
a four, a three is next to us, and to the right of that is another three-family dwelling.
Again, these are rather large building structures and rather large lots, so it's not our character
to have multifamily here. A few years ago, I appeared in front of the board for 1317 South
15th Street under calendar number 36536 in May of 2019, where the board similarly granted
multifamily use for a building structure of a similar size. So again, all I did was I looked
on Atlas. The properties that I'm showing you here are all based on active rental licenses.
You know, we see all the time that individuals sometimes use properties illegally. Our office doesn't condone that. But I also don't want to show the board something where, oh, it's a two unit, but yeah, it's done illegally. So when I when I show this board something, it's based on like documented evidence that it's legal.
So again, for 1240 South 15th Street, that's a two unit. 1241 South 15th Street, that's a two unit. 1248 South 15th Street, that's a three unit. 1250 South 15th Street, that's a three unit.
So, again, you see all nearby are multifamily in nature. And then community support. Again, this is someone who's not a near neighbor, not a near neighbor, not a near neighbor. But then I think I organized it first, not near neighbors. But they're within the effect. They're in the East Point Breeze section of Philadelphia.
but then you see some
you'll see a lot of these
are near neighbors
and i think you can't see it because let's see if i can change that i know that oh there it is
and I think you can't see it because
i didn't see on my screen but you'll see that these are near neighbors from here
so i i specifically marked them on there to note that like we cross-referenced the city
planning's addresses with the address where we had people sign and again i i have my clients
reach out to the community, not just generally, but to be honest about it and say, go reach out
to the people who are notified of the community meeting, especially when you have a meeting
that's, you know, you know, that was scheduled legitimately, but, you know, on a date where
maybe some people are not paying attention. And then maps in the area. Here we are. We're on 15th
Street, again, between Farrow and Wharton. We're not that far off the Broad Street line here.
And then photographs of the property. It's a very handsome or can be very handsome building facade,
a rather large building, a nice brownstone. This is notice of the community or proof of notice of
the hearing. And then this is South 15th Street to the right of the property, to the left of the
property, are plans and drawings. And again, what we're looking to do is two bi-levels. So we have
the first floor and lower level, which by the way, I think there was some indication that we
dug it out. My client did not do that. This is existing conditions, at least that we know,
that, you know, the work that we did was not to dig out the basement.
And then the other unit is the second and third floors.
And then the RCO meeting notice, again, was on June 19th at 6.30 p.m.
And then we emailed that notice to the relevant parties a few weeks beforehand.
And we showed that we sent the notice to 129 addresses.
This is proof of mailing to those addresses.
And then our application for appeal, along with the notice of refusal and the project information form, the deeds of property, and finally, the Certificate of Tax Clearance.
I would also like to show you the opposition.
So let's see what we got here.
So I guess let me let me introduce my clients to the board, and then maybe we'll go through that by and I'll ask some questions about the opposition.
So, Mark, can you virtually raise your hands?
Mark, last name and then L has been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Mark Lajani, first name M-A-R-K, last name L-A-H-I-J-A-N-I.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mark. First of all, for what I presented so far, you heard everything I had to state about that, right?
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
All right. So I wanted to show you, you know, and we went over this.
I think we received this today, the neighborhood opposition to multivariate unit variance for 1252 South 15th Street.
So, first of all, you canvassed the neighborhood for individuals who were close by.
And those were the, you know, those all those letters that we showed. Right.
Mark, you canvassed the neighborhood. Correct.
Those letters of support. OK.
And we've reviewed this neighborhood opposition we received today.
So there are a couple of items.
So first of all, it says, you know, you continued interior demolition and renovations.
You know, did you do any renovation work or interior demolition work prior to you getting the make safe permit?
And, you know, and you did get it.
Obviously, you got the permit for Maysave.
That's right.
Correct.
And did you do any basement excavation?
And did you remove any oil burner system or tank?
Okay. And when you did get the violation notice to state that, you know, maybe the work that you were doing, you know, after the make safe permit, after you completed that work, may have exceeded the scope of that, you stopped that work, right?
um may have exceeded the scope of that you stopped that work right correct okay and and
Correct.
the work that you did was you took like the the i guess the the the rotted wood that was inside of
your building and you you put in the rear yard and then eventually trashed it away right correct yes
yeah and then the only other work that you did and we'll go through the pictures
was you you repaved the backyard right correct okay let's see all right so then that's that
for you know what they stated and let's just go over the photos as well um this this you know
photo on the upper left shows the backyard of your property right right okay and the dirt was
like the dirt to level the backyard like the actual you know backyard so you can
re-cement the property yes correct for the backyard okay and then this was also in the
backyard at one point this is all the debris that was inside the house right for the wood
yes all the rotted wood correct yeah and the reason why you took it out was it was getting
moldy right all right very dangerous okay and then you know this is someone's property and
there is some some some construction debris here right correct there's a little piece of
one brick yes okay and then again you dealt with this you know unsafe work these are pictures i
I assume it was taken by one of the nearby neighbors, but like you see the building facades, you dealt with like, you know, correcting all the issues with the building facade, right?
Correct.
Yeah. And this pre-existed you, right?
And then this is stuff that was inside your property too. Like what's, what's a picture of this?
okay all right so that's just wood of like of a previous fence of some sort yes okay
yeah and then this is this is i guess the other side you did re-cement
your property right the backyard correct yes okay but that was and you you stopped any work
after you got a violation notice in February
2024. Correct. Okay. And then these
bricks here, that's based on the work that you did for the MakeSafe
permit, right? Correct. That's all for the MakeSafe.
Yeah. And you obviously, I don't know when this picture was taken, but you
subsequently removed those bricks after you did whatever brick work
you needed to do. That is correct. I think
those are the only pictures I have from them. So I'm going to
unshare my screen. And
I'd be more than happy to take any questions from the board. Alan, go back to that first
paragraph. There's a lot about L&I violations. Is that true? I mean,
did he receive them? I mean, so some of those violations
and again, let me just go, I want to go on Atlas just to confirm
the dates of them. We'll just confirm the dates. 12,
Some of these violations predate him.
So let's just go into it.
My computer is slow.
Let me check my phone.
Maybe it will be quicker.
But when I reviewed it, Mr. Chair, a lot of those violations preexisted him.
Some of them were overlapped by like a month where he just purchased the property.
He was in the process of getting the make-safe permit.
And then some of it was in February of 2024, where it was alleged that he was doing work that exceeded the scope of the make-safe permit, which he didn't.
But, like, instead of just, you know, he just then hired our law firm to actually just, you know, do the, instead of any, like, instead of focusing on any, like, you know, cleaning up of the property or such, he just decided to focus on the zoning aspects.
So, but, you know, I'm having problems.
I don't have, like, at least it's not working.
Questions from the board.
I have a few questions.
My first question is, this property was purchased in 2022, and I want to know, was it financed or was it a cash offer?
So for my records, the property was, I think, purchased in, again, June of 2023.
Is that right, Mark?
That's correct.
That's correct.
And was.
Was it a cash offer or was it financed?
I used most of my cash and I got a little financing.
And at the time of purchase, what was the zoning?
It was RSA 5.
The zoning has not changed over that period of time.
And then I just want to know specifically, what is the argument for hardship?
the the condition of property was definitely a lot worse than than mark envisioned and again
it's it's been a bear of a of a project um and financing the little bit of financing that
that the client your client got did he uh use a title company and do a title search
well a title search would not i think what you're asking for was whether an appraisal was
was obtained a title search would only show whether there's any liens against the property
it wouldn't mention like what i don't know if you're what a title search is okay so but the
title search wouldn't like show if there's any violations against the property it's true but uh
yeah any other questions any other questions for the board
questions or comments from hillary emerson our attorney
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i yes chair i have a hand up by the name of john schnabel they have been allowed to speak
i could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Yeah, it's John Schnabel, John, J-O-H-N, Schnabel, S-C-H-N-E-B-L-E.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
John, are you a neighbor?
I am. I'm a near neighbor. I'm actually the next door neighbor.
All right. Why don't you proceed, John, with your testimony?
So I'd like to address, I guess, in response to what's been said thus far in the comments on the pictures.
submitted. A number of those pictures are current state, so they weren't done prior to. They are
current state. The timeline that's been presented is simply wrong. The property was closed in April
of 2023 not june um and in april of 2023 um actually before i get there you know the questions
talking in terms of the dates you know and the questions that the owner was just asked by his
attorney um was work done prior to the makes if makes make safe permit absolutely work was done
prior to that permit the basement excavation was done by this owner um the removal of you know
of of all the debris has been done consistently since they bought the house um the work has stopped
only since june of this year when we had that last meeting the juneteenth meeting um and and
And since that point, work has stopped. Prior to that, work was continuing with zero permits, nonstop, almost daily since April of last year.
John, did you take the photos?
I did. I did.
Thank you.
And in April of last year, in terms of the removal of the HVAC system and that that was done in April of last year when this current owner owned the building and was done without permits, of course, the fire department was here with five fire trucks.
the fire commissioner and all right here on our street because there was they found that there was
85 plus gallons of fuel dumped in the basement into plastic containers and so that was removed
by the city they brought it they pumped it into two 55 gallon drums and then the city removed
those drums from the sidewalk. So work has been done nonstop since they bought the house without
permits. The 15 violations have been issued since they've owned the house. And the make safe permit
that they received was in response to a dangerous working condition, work done without architectural
engineer um and the issues with the exterior walls that was all work done after this owner
bought the building and had done work so i don't understand the you know there shouldn't be any
confusion on terms of whether work was done or when work was done the pictures i think clearly
or when work was done the pictures i think clearly illustrate the work that's been done
illustrate the work
Thank you.
um and those bricks you know on the roof are they're there today so um you know i think i
don't think there's any question here that the that the owner has you know maintained a dangerous
work environment um the building has numerous dangerous conditions um they've operated with
total disregard for any rules regulations you know any codes um you know consistently
and i don't see any intention clearly that they're gonna change and so my concern as well as
the neighbors that have signed the letter of opposition that we submitted um is that you know
based on what this owner has demonstrated thus far, there's no reason to believe anything
they're going to tell us about what their intentions are in the future. Um, you know,
the electrical and the plumbing and all of this work has been done in the house since they bought
the unit. There is no question there's, there's actually active violations from LNI for that work.
um and so there's no question whether or not any of that happened or is being done
uh Mr. Nockham do you have any questions no I mean I think again if you look at the listing
from Redfin it stated that there was plumbing work and electrical work done as part of prior
to our ownership of the property I would say that my client is stating that again it's it's you know
it's what is who the board's going to believe and i'm just stating that my clients indicated to me
that he hasn't did no work prior uh to the make safe permit okay that he did he focused his work
to the make safe permit and then there were some subsequent violations debating whether or not
additional work was taking place but i don't i don't think my client debated whether he removed
like debris from the inside, which existed previous. He just thought it was a hazard,
an environmental hazard, having all that molding material in there that was already
like dealt with by the previous owner. So I would ask that maybe what we can do is if there's
an inclination, I would, I always have my clients try to reach out to the neighbors and whatever
the decision of board is, it is, but my client's going to have to work with these neighbors,
regardless. And I would say hold this under advisement. Let's see if we can come up to
some type of agreement and writing that the neighbors feel comfortable with. And then maybe
we can report back to this board after the fact. John, John, thanks for your call. We appreciate
it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Kim
Smith they have been allowed to speak okay hi could you please state your name is spelled for
the course sonographer can you hear me yes okay my name is Tim Smith K-I-M-S-M-I-T-H right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes are you a neighbor
I am please proceed with your testimony okay I'm not only a neighbor I am a homeowner I've been
living on the block for over 50 years i am the block captain and a committee person okay i pulled
i pulled the neighborhood and the majority of the neighborhood is in disagreement with it becoming
a two-family dwelling and one of the reasons is is that we want longevity people move in move out
they're not invested in the property that we have a lot of problems with the people that are renting
in the neighborhood now it's just like a revolving door we want consistency that's number one
number two i'm sorry i'm trying to multitask at the same time all right take your time too when
the gentleman came around uh asking us to sign a petition i believe that he was a little bit
um he wasn't being truthful he said that the owner had intended on moving into the
property, and we've been told that before. I don't think the owner has intentions on moving
into this property. We're also having problems with parking. Parking is a beast in South Philly
right now. Another two-family dwelling means that two more families are moving in with multiple
cars. And I think a lot of the developers are thinking about making money. They're not thinking
about the consistency of the neighborhood. They're not thinking about the safety of the neighborhood.
they're not polling who they're renting to and people are just coming in and coming out and and
And people are just coming in and coming out.
And we don't want that.
we don't want that okay so the
So the majority of the neighborhood, the majority of the neighborhood, I know you have a small petition of people that are protesting it.
But there are more who wanted to sign a petition, but it had to be in five days before.
But I can also share additional information of other neighbors, immediate neighbors that actually live on the block that do not want.
Thank you very much for your call. We appreciate everything you said. Mr.
Notkinson, do you have any questions?
No, I would just say that if you look at the addresses that we put as nearby neighbors,
many of them are the ones closest by to this project. Again, we try to keep it straight.
And I ask my clients when they reach out to reach the people who are most directly impacted.
And we did. I, you know, again, I think it's unfortunate, you know, sometimes when you're dealing with construction projects, it doesn't matter if you're the best developer in the world, there are instances. And that's why I stated, like, if there's an opportunity maybe to hold this under advisement, give us an opportunity maybe to reach over to those nearby neighbors. I always think it's good to have dialogue and see.
Let me see if there's anyone else, anyone else in the virtual audience.
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Kathy Herman. They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Kathy Herman, K-A-T-H-Y-H-E-R-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chair.
There's been a lot of testimony about this project. Are you in favor of the project or against?
I am opposed to the project.
And is there anything else that we haven't heard that you could offer?
Well, first, I'd just like to add that I'm not just a near neighbor.
I am a next door neighbor.
Just a few items to touch on.
The first is that the pictures, particularly of the facade that John Schnabel submitted, those are current pictures.
Those are not historical pictures.
that structural damage which is on the side of the house not the front of the house
has just been painted over ostensibly in the hope that no one will know this
um i am an attorney working from home i hear the construction on a regular basis
so the statements that no um construction has been going on it is is just patently false because i
have witnessed it firsthand. One point of clarification is that the reference to the
Redfin listing and the plumbing being in place, it's my understanding that subsequent to that
initial posting, someone broke into the home and ripped out all of the plumbing, all of the pipes.
That is what the prior owner said to me before the property was sold.
So any statement that the plumbing happened, the putting in plumbing prior to the sale is also not a true statement.
Thank you. Thank you very much for taking the time to close.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no more hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. And good afternoon. David Effecto with the City Planning Commission.
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential
single-family zoning at this location this the zoning of this pro of this block face dates to
1988. the 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 that
the board deny the proposed use variants for two dwelling units. Alan, we're going to vote this
today. MI 2024-002-321-1252 South 15th Street, I vote no. James Snell, my vote is no. Michael
Council. Pre-time. Okay, let's see here. 14, 13, 14. MI 2024-002-414-1441 Chesson Street.
Ronald Patterson is the attorney.
Ronald Patterson is coming in as a penalist. Letter of non-opposition.
ronald patterson is coming in as a penalist letter of non-opposition
from the center city residence association with provisos
mr patterson
Okay, Mr. Patterson, anywhere I'm here.
Oh, Mr. Patterson, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon.
Ronald Patterson, R-O-N-A-L-D-P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N, Claire Harrison Law Firm, on behalf of the property owner and the tenant.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the referral?
Yes, I do.
And have you had all your documents in within five days?
Yes, I do.
Why don't you please proceed and share your screen?
Thank you.
Are you able to see my screen?
Yes, we can.
Okay, thank you.
So this application regards 1441 Chestnut Street.
It is the high-rise property on Chestnut.
It contains the W Hotel, the Element Hotel, Dolce Restaurant, and a few other accessory uses.
in the building. We're here today for this corner retail space on the ground floor.
It's remained vacant. Never had a tenant in here. I've been working on this
project, the building, since the early 2000s. And there were many uses that came through that
I'm supposed to use this corner, but not where the right ones.
Here's a view from 15th Street, including a Vespa store.
That would have been a lot of fun seeing Vespas coming in and out of that store.
So what we're here to propose today is for a Mattis, M-A-D-I-S, coffee shop,
which under the code will be classified as a takeout restaurant.
Mattis has a location at 3527 Lancaster Avenue with coffee, cold and warm sandwiches, salads, bakery items, and the like, pre-cooked, no hoods, no deep fryers.
Go through some other photos here that would help.
These are photos of the interior.
Hard to see there from a phone.
but to your photos.
Sorry, I'm freezing here.
These are renderings of the interior space,
how it would look. 600 square feet, 22 chairs, open Monday through Sunday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Trash would be collected inside and brought to a common trash area that's managed by the building.
Here's a picture of the facility at Lancaster Avenue.
Just so you see what we're looking at here.
and so the property is located in the cmx5 commercial zoning district but also within
the center city overlay as we know any restaurant used on chestnut street walnut street south
east market street and south broad street require special exception to the board we did meet with
the cc search energy residents association ccra on june 25th they voted not to oppose and we agreed
to their uh standard proviso conditions for uh take out restaurants which you'll see here
um we believe that you'll see that we believe that we meet the special exception standards as
this will cause no adverse impacts on the public health safety welfare or traffic as evidenced by
the community's non-opposition, and it will cause no greater impacts than permit it useful.
impacts than permitted use. With that said, I have one witness, Mr. Sabas, SAV.
With that said, I have...
Ron, do you have a drawing for the inside what it's going to look like?
Did you see the new plan I put up?
This is from the site plan showing where the floor plan would go.
and very basic plan here. Seating area here is the kitchen and all. This is where the
trash will be taken in the rear. I just wanted to show you, if you're finished looking at
this small space floor plan here. I did have a photo here of the side of the building on
15th Street. This is the building here. So this is former Randstad Street. This is a
common service street now that services both uh w hotel building and the the ritz building next
door and so that's where the trash will be taken out and removed there's a common trash area
here um that again as i said that the building uses so um if there's anything else mr chairman
and I'll have a Mr. Ron.
Navrosidis,
Navrosidis,
promote it, please.
N-A-V-R-O-S-I-D-I-S.
Savas, last name,
N-A-V-R-O-S-I-D-I-S.
N-A-V-R-O-S-I-D-I-S.
N-A-V-R-O-S-I-D-I-S.
Sir, could you please state your name?
Hi, could you state your name
and spell for the course there?
My name is Savas.
That's my first name.
The last name is Navrosidis.
N-A-V-R-O-S-I-D-I-S.
Hello, everyone.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Sabas, you've heard my presentation and testimony.
Would you agree that it's true and accurate?
Yes, I do.
And would you adopt it as if it were your own?
And if there's anything else you'd like to add as to the nature of the operation,
but I did mention that there are 22 chairs proposed.
is that correct yes and i guess new jobs would be 10 to 15 new employees at this location
approximately yes and the hours of operation are monday through sunday from 7 a.m to 7 p.m
yes and uh you're also aware of how the trash should be handled in storage yes how would that
be we're going to be using the dumpster that has been used by the other restaurants and the hotel
so it's part of the common hotel area it's part of the contract at least with uh yeah
comment in the loading dock yes okay mr chairman i have no further questions um ron did you see
the other venting through the roof the proviso from center city yes we we have no vents mr
chairman just warm plates to eat up okay all right we're fine with the typical provisors thank you
questions with questions from the board no question no questions or comments from our
attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chairman and good
afternoon david effecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx5 commercial mixed use zoning at this location
the zoning in this block dates to 2012. the appellant has shown that the proposed takeout
restaurant will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant or propose special exception
for a take-out restaurant. Thank you. MI 2024-002-414-1441 Chesson Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes. Tyowyn, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Is there anyone in the audience
whose 2 p.m. case has not been called i see no hands at this time chair we're going to take a
five-minute break and then we're going to come back and do the 3 30 list thank you everybody
good afternoon everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Tanada Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, our executive director, Kathleen Grady.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting Kathleen Grady at Kathleen.Grady at phila.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, press 9 to raise your hand and 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
Finally, the question-answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our executive director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our schedule. Number eight, MI 2024-001173, 7611 Revere Street. That case is continued.
Let's look here.
And also, case number two, MI 2022, 007349, 5652 Windsor Street.
That case has been withdrawn.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hints at this time, Chair.
Okay, we're going to go first to number three.
MI 2023-003-577-1007 East Quarter Street. Chantol Samuels is the owner-operator.
There's a letter of unanimous opposition from the 50th Ward.
Chantol Samuels has been allowed to speak.
The applicant also has a letter of support, petition of support signed by five neighbors.
Santana.
She's coming in as a penalist now.
Thank you very much.
Hi, good afternoon.
Can everyone hear me?
We can.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Chantal Samuels.
It's C-H-A-N-T-O-L, last name S-A-M-U-E-L-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
This application is for use as a personal care home in an existing structure.
The proposed use personal care home requires special exception approval in the RSA 3 zoning district.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, okay?
Keish?
Good afternoon.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits?
Yes, can you hear me?
I can hear you.
you move have you mailed in all your documents five days in advance yes why don't you share
your screen and start are you able to see my screen we do 1007 east okay you hear me now chair
we're good we're fine okay okay uh so my property is located in the mount airy uh area and um as you
said i'm proposing to do what under the requirements says a personal care home it's actually
to be specific um a residential living waiver that i'm trying to operate under
And said waiver would allow me to have up to eight persons who are not related under specific requirements of the waiver that deals with those in a community with chronic illnesses that need help with managing their care.
and said waiver would allow me to have up to eight persons who are not related
So they would be there for nine to 12 months at my home where we show them how to make their doctor's appointments, take their medications properly so that they can live independently.
So eventually, the point is to get them to stay in their homes.
And this is an initiative that was put together by Medicare and Medicaid through various insurance companies, one specifically under Community Health Choices, which is the waiver that I'm seeking.
And in my home specifically, my home is a three, well, four bedroom, three full bathrooms with a basement.
What you could do is why don't you start showing photos of your house as you're speaking?
that we'd be able to see what you have, okay?
So this is my
street.
Okay, this is my street. My home is located
here. And across from
my home, so the one side of
the street is houses,
and the other side of the street is
the park and the
Finley Recreational Center, which my
house is directly across from.
I face their front door.
okay this is the front
see the sign posted
as required
inside of the property
so in 2021 my house sustained um a fire um and so it's under refurbishment it's almost done
actually um i'm restoring it to what it already was so i'm seeking the variance for this but
There's no additional, say, special parking or extension that needs to be approved to be done to the property.
The property will remain as it was before.
I'm just restoring it to what it was before.
Like I said, it's almost completed.
So the pictures that you see are current.
That's why it looks like it is.
and you have eight residents
so i'm allowed to have eight but with the accommodations that i have in my house
i can only have six tenants for this waiver
uh so according sorry this is the petition that you put out yes yeah um i actually i started this
process without an attorney and so it was a learning process and so i i understand there
was a learning curve yes to what i needed to do and who all who i needed to speak to it's been a
very long process as you can see it's been a two-year journey to this point to speak to you
guys um so when i spoke to the rco they were in um full opposition and um for reasons that
concerned parking that I will address, security I will also address. But the meeting ventured
into areas of this is a money-making scheme. I'm going to buy up the properties in the
neighborhood. It kind of took a turn for the worse. So I want to clear up some things
because according to their refusal letter, there are some things in there that need to be cleared
up. I lived in this property for 10 years before a said fire happened. When the fire happened,
my nine-year-old son passed in that incident. And so I ended up moving back to my family home,
which is only several blocks away from the property. And so I raised my children here.
I have no intentions at all of bringing any kind of disturbance to the neighborhood. I was actually
the only one on the block who had children, everybody on our particular block. They only
saw kids who came to the rec center and the park and such. So my household, it's not only an
ownership, but there is sentimental value there for me, which is why I have not sold the property.
I have been a nurse for over a decade. And so this proposed plan is not going to be run by a
stranger. It's going to be run by me. DHS requires that these tenants who are going to be under care
these tenants who are going to be under care management will have 24-hour supervision. So in
management will have 24 hours.
terms of security, these people will be vetted. They have to qualify for this waiver in order to
stay there. Now, I am making it specific so that the neighbors feel comfortable to be women between
30 and 64 years old. These people will not be having records of any kind. They will not be
coming from any nefarious places such as prison or drug and alcohol. They are people that already
live in the community that are going to be referred to us through doctor's office, the
hospitals, you know, they're not showing up to their appointments. They're not, you know,
taking their medications. And so this is a preventative measure put in place, which is
why I said waiver was created. Also, my requirements by the state for supervision is that there
should be three personnel. So I would be house manager, it is my house, and with my nursing,
and then two other personnel who happen to be my siblings.
My sister is also a nurse
and my brother has his bachelor's
in adult family organization.
For security purposes,
there will be 24 hour surveillance on the property.
Also, like I said, we will be present.
Neighbors were concerned about parking.
So let's go back up to talk about the parking.
it's uh right here okay so you can see where my house is located right here and as i said
finley recreational center is directly across from me they host a bunch of events all the time
which uh let me precedent this by saying i have no problem with those events and such but the
neighbors concerned uh were for parking parking is always a concern for us because of the playground
They refurbished a playground. So now it has sprinklers and, you know, a sandbox and a bunch
of other stuff that makes it appealing to those that don't even live in the neighborhood. And
they come there all the time, which is of no consequence, but it does take up a lot of parking.
Now, here's the special thing about parking for us. On the one side of the street, yes,
it's residential, but on this side of the street, there's no, you know, there's just a park and a
rec center. So we have both sides of the street for parking. And then every house on our block
has its own driveway then we have on Mansfield both sides are available for parking
and this is also the Rex and the park which holds a basketball court a tennis court it goes all the
way around to Upsil which also holds one side of residential living and then the other side of the
streets open for parking there's also a field there where they host baseball practices all types
of sports-related practices and games. And then there's Laobar, which has the same thing.
So I would not be causing any detriment to the parking because under said waiver,
none of the six tenants that will live there are allowed to drive. That's part of the requirement.
They're not allowed to drive. Now, in terms of visitors, because they were concerned about
visiting. I totally understand that. I'm proposing that for my business plan, the visiting would be
Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and that is within my purview to do. But I would also like to point out
that said rec center and park have no, there are no protocols in place for who comes and goes
from the park, from the field, from the rec center. Case in point, last year, our councilman,
Mr. Phillips, called a meeting about several, because it got so bad. There are several instances
at particular rec center where there was one on April 14th, one on May 12th, and one on August 26th,
where the police actually had to show up because somebody was outside, which is on my front door,
at my front door i actually caught this on camera this individual with a firearm who came there
because a particular game was being played uh from a school down in uh north philly and they
were allegedly not supposed to be in our area and um like i said there's no protocols in place that
stops who what and when these people who aren't from our community come here whereas though you
know chantel i and i understand that but we need to concentrate on your property and what you're
going to provide and what you have there and not what goes on in the playground okay but thank you
for that all right and so um they won't be driving we will be there 24 hours and so we're talking
about three personnel now prior to uh the fire when living in the house there were eight of us
in the house and we had four vehicles and we never had a problem with um with parking like
Like I said, there's shared parking for multiple reasons for the different people that come.
i said there's shared parking for multiple reasons for the different people that come
Also, we would be there 24-7.
Like I said, there is protocols in place for who qualifies for the waiver.
And in 2011, before I purchased the house in 2014, from 2011 to 2014, that house was rented to four different families each year before I purchased the house.
so there were already people who were strangers to the community that lived there okay
um do you have anything else you want to present for us yes so i wouldn't be operating you know
uh there were also concerns that okay well this is a money-making venture for you it doesn't
benefit the community. I disagree because this is a community need. As a nurse, we see the overflow
of the people who can't care for themselves, and they do end up in long-term care facilities.
This is why DHS has put out the need for different housing opportunities for people. This particular
waiver addresses housing for people who have medical issues and need to be addressing their
care. And when I point out medical issues, a lot of people were thinking, oh my God,
People with mental health are going to be here. People with, like I said, drug and alcohol issues. No. This waiver specifically applies to people who are able-bodied. They just need help getting to their appointments, caring for themselves in terms of, you know, personal hygiene and getting their medical care in order so that they can continue to live independent.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
yes i have a question what modifications have you done or planned to do to the house on the
outside in terms of having access mobility and interior of the house as well i saw some stuff
happen in the basement so what if your clients are you know have some limited mobility so those
wouldn't be the type of clients that um qualify for this waiver all all these clients are able-bodied
and so the house is just being restored to what it was before so my house was a four-bedroom and
there's a suite in a basement so that makes it a five-bedroom and three full bathrooms
living dining and kitchen and a laundry room separate and that's what it was before
the questions from the board okay um you said that it would be 24-hour care for the residents
so i thought you said that it would be you and there would be two others and there are
five bedrooms and i think you said you could have six residents so how are we
dealing with the these uh do these uh patients i'm not sure what's calling clients whatever
yeah tenants clients because they okay all right uh so uh they are there 24 hours a day
yeah so they are still allowed to work or if they volunteer some of them may not have jobs but
they're allowed to volunteer and for those who don't have jobs we are required to get them into
programs um so that they be outside of the home you know involved in the community but the but
there there's a term for how long they stay yes the waiver approves them for nine to 12 months
before they return back to their homes and and this would be in effect temporary housing for them
yes okay and then uh and someone has to be there 24 hours a day yes per the waiver yes and they're
they're living there so you're saying that there are five bedrooms and three baths how how is that
going to work in terms of uh you've got perhaps six uh residents and then three of the staff
which would be you and the two others so you're talking what nine people do the do the other
staff members are you how are you apportioning i guess the 24 hours of care okay so one person has
to for every six for which it works out to be what my house can accommodate there's one person
so we all three don't actually have to be there at the same time okay yes but to answer your
question about how the living space would be designated the reason why i can only accommodate
six because the suite in the basement is actually 120 square footage and that's what's allowed for
two people to share under 120 they can't share okay so you're
they can't share okay so you're gonna have two sharing the space in the basement right and then
you've got there's four other bedrooms you're saying right so how how is that because you
live there right well no I don't currently live there are you going to live there no I'm gonna
to be there 24 hours because I'm allowing for the entirety of the house to be used under the waiver.
Okay. But you're not going to live there. No, but I have to be there 24 hours or one of us,
one of the staffers now has to be there 24 hours. Okay. Someone has to be there 24-7.
right okay but but none of the caregivers are going to be living there no okay and so i would
probably make the shift 12 hours okay all right thank you all right any other questions from the
board so just a quick question so they're trying to get this bedroom arrangement so you've got
two people living in two prison proposal live in the basement or sleep in the basement or have a
suite in the basement and you've got the other bedrooms so each each individual other individual
is going to have individual bedrooms is that how that works and then yes and then there'll be a
bedroom separate for the one of the caregivers that stays no no bedroom for the caregiver that
stays so someone has to be there 24 7 so my in my business proposal the shifts would be every 12
hours so one of us would be there for 12 hours at a time as has um as you do you or your folks
that'll be working with you your brother and your sister um have um um history and working with
these types of uh individuals and in a situation in a situation like that oh yes i've been a case
manager for Meraki for several years and I've also worked extensively in med-surg and subacute
and I currently consult with local doctor's office okay I don't know what the other two
were those are they 24-hour care places yes okay yes and so I just want to point out because there
there was also this misconception this is not a facility the waiver only applies to a home we are
trying to keep them in the community in a home-like setting so that they in turn can go home
and care for themselves. So we're talking about people who may have diabetes, asthma, but they're
not properly managing their own care. And so we're seeing frequent ER visits, frequent hospital
stays from them. And so this was put in as preventative care measure to help said people
who are able-bodied, but for whatever reason, maybe they don't have the support at home or the help.
And so they need to be in a setting, but they don't also qualify for long-term care because they're not viewed as that bad medically.
You know, they're still working or they're still, you know, out and about in the community, but insurance is paying for too much care long-term wise.
And so they want to stabilize them basically for them to get home.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Embers.
Can I ask one more question?
Sure, you can.
In terms of the care that you're providing, which I assume includes making sure that these folks get the medicines that they need and what have you, is that done in this facility or are you transporting them to where they need to get whatever medications they're supposed to take?
oh no this will be here they're living here uh so these are their medications that they would
be taking at home so if they need to take an inhaler every eight hours as prescribed by their
doctor but at home they weren't doing that here we're making sure that they're doing that um
okay we're providing meals and they're supposed to get to their doctor's appointment as stipulated
by the way so we would be transporting them to their appointments to make sure that they do so
Okay. So then the 12-hour shift would have to include some sort of padding to make sure that folks are transported to wherever they need to go to in terms of medical facilities or whatever.
Right. To their appointments or, you know, the only thing we won't be doing is transporting them to work. They go to work independently on their own if they do work.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Go ahead
Well, Chantal, I have a question. Have you considered only accepting four or five clients?
Chantal I have a question
Have you considered only
Accepting
Yes. I just wanted to be truthful about the max that I could because of the setup of the home,
but yes. Well, technically under the max that you could legally without this variance,
you could only have three because only three adults that are non-related can
reside in a single family home together. So I think I'm trying to determine where the six is
coming from. I guess the state program that allows us to have a from the health, the health.
I think it's based on how many my home can accommodate in a home setting.
Yeah, but that's based on their code. So there's like, there's three different codes, right? There's
the program that you're in, there's zoning, and then there's the building code, and they all
dictate different pieces. And right now, based on your type of house, you can only accommodate
three. So I keep hearing you say six. My question then is, what is your intent? How many people are
you intending to house at one time? Okay, well, I would go with whatever, since you're telling me
that there are three different codes, what then is your recommendation? Well, we're only talking
today about zoning. So what we determined about zoning could alter that. But I think my question
is how many are you intending to support or is your intent to support however many like whatever
your max is legally right required okay questions from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time too
planning commission thank you chairman and good afternoon david fecto with the city planning
commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
rsa3 residential single family zoning at this location the appellant has shown the proposed
personal care home will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed special exception
for a personal care home.
Thank you.
Chantel, we're going to hold this
so that the board can talk about it
and really make sure we totally understand it.
And we're going to vote on this next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
2 p.m.
And all you have to do is be on the line
and you'll hear the vote.
Thank you so much, everyone.
No, thank you.
Thank you.
We're going to go to number four.
MI 2023-005-886-2749 Tremont Street.
Juan Benillo is the owner applicant.
There's a recommendation of support from Home Circle Civic Association.
Juan Benillo is coming in as a panelist.
Hello.
Hi, good morning, good afternoon, Mr. Bonilla. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Juan Bonilla, J-U-A-N-B-O-N-I-L-L-A.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you please put on your video?
thank you mr panillo um thank you you're welcome our vice our vice chair has a few questions for
you yeah sure good afternoon sir have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that
is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
uh yes mr luis cartillo for the luis cartillo office he's saying everything
thank you believe we received everything please proceed and share your screen
there's a green button at the bottom of the screen
you have your documents in the machine uh luis cartillo he got it he's supposed to be there
he was in a meeting right now i don't know what happened all right so so you you can you share
your screens uh no i don't have my screen okay so here's what i'm going to do i'm going to hear
the other cases i'll come back to you at the very end and see if your person is there to help you
and see if your person is there to help you do that okay okay i do i do see mr castillo
do that, okay? Okay, thanks.
Mr. Chair, I do
in the virtual audience i don't know if he's he's available right now but i do see mr
mr castillo can you raise your virtual hand
mr christie low is coming in as a panelist
While he's coming in, I just want to note we are getting questions about 5224 Pulaski.
We will be hearing that case shortly.
We just have a couple other matters that we are going through first.
Thank you for your patience.
Mr. Castillo?
so so i think what mr casillo is going to just he won't testify he's just going to move your
documents okay can you see the documents uh yeah i can see the document so that's that's the mailing
that you did yes could you please show us photos let's give us give us an idea what this looks like
tell tell me tell us what tell us what you want to do all right um if you notice i
if you see i see you post i i saw you post it yep yes and the picture i closed my garage
The reason why was because my mother-in-law, she lived with us, with my wife and me and my daughter.
And she was needed to live in the downstairs space because she can't use the stair.
So for this reason, we used this bar for her.
You put a door in the shell going into the space, right?
You closed the garage up.
And you went to the zoning board. You went to the RCO?
Yes, we did.
The community group, and they were in support of you, right?
Do you have any more pictures of the house?
Yes, you stay out of it.
Could you move the photos, please, sir?
another thing I want to mention is we try to get it there for me for for the canopy in the back right
so let's go back so you're in that basement spot is your mother-in-law staying down there in that
spot yeah yeah she used it yeah uh actually right now she's not because she go back and
forth to the dominican republic to my country but when she's here we try to keep it there
because it's so hard for her to go right there in that in that bed there yes is there a bathroom
downstairs yes it is in the garage yes okay all right um when you went to this to the rco they
were in favor of you yes all right questions from the board
Are there other pictures of this space?
That's it.
That's the space.
That's it?
Yeah, it is.
That's the outside.
And this is the canopy in the back.
to it that's the the the canopy in the back is that uh uh the back of you open the back of the
garage to to open that space is that opened into the garage space i know no it's not okay oh that's
that's the second that's like the second floor because your living room was on the second floor
is that how this yes yes it is right and the garage is on the first floor so the garage
is just the first sport exactly so that so the only the only light and uh air into the
into the this this garage space that you enclosed is the door and the other side the
this this garage space that you enclosed
garden of the door in the front and the door in the back i'm trying to get it in my head and then
right to the right of this entry door is the bathroom yes okay so you put a bathroom in the
front of the garage close off the front of the garage put a bathroom there and that's the door
into the space that your mother-in-law
has been staying because she can't go up the steps.
Yes. I got it.
Any other questions from the board?
Is there a window in this little
bathroom? There can't be, right?
I know. The guys hold the fence in the
top. They go to the other side for the laundry
area okay thank you you're welcome questions or comments from our attorney
um yes i just need a little bit of clarification because what's been discussed doesn't appear to
quite match what's in the refusal um mr bonia um so you said that so there is there is sleeping
accommodations as well as a bathroom is there a kitchen space in here i did see a refrigerator
but is there like a sink and a stove as well no it's not okay did you separate out the utilities
um for the for the garage area yes for safety yeah we did okay it's another side
okay so you i i'm not ellen i so i can't say this for sure but i think what you've essentially done
is created a second dwelling unit in your home no i'm sorry excuse me i'm sorry i was confused
when you said utility are you confused with the emphasis we got the laundry and the other side
but the the utility is the same for the whole house okay i mean it's only one water one one
electricity and one for the guards yeah i'm sorry about that that's that's that's okay um this is
yeah this is still kind of borderline i think what ellen i would consider a dwelling unit i mean you
don't have a kitchen that's probably where where they would say you're you're not but i just want
to let you just let you know that you the refusal just talks about removing a garage space and
keeping the house for single family household living so if you have any intent of making this
more of a dwelling unit you're going to need different zoning approval than what you are
seeking today does that make sense yeah i'm gonna say what is your point but uh right now uh this
it's not my intention to do it i got a few years with this unit like that and and i didn't try to
change it it's not my plan no no it's not okay no i understand i just want to make sure make sure
you're clear that this is that what is being requested is only you know single family and
if and if the garage area is being converted to you know a full dwelling unit with a kitchen then
And that is a different zoning approval than what you are seeking.
Okay, but we are clear that we don't have kitchen.
I don't have any kitchen there.
Right.
No, I understand that.
I understand that.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I don't see any hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good evening.
David Fechter with the City Planning Commission, Chairman and Board Members.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA3, Residential Single Family Zoning at this location.
The appellant appears to have converted a garage into living space without the benefit of permits.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variants for not providing accessory off-street parking.
Okay. MI 2023-005-886-2749 Tremont Street. I vote no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Senator Graham, my vote is no.
Anne Wynne, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Okay, thank you.
Number, thank you, sir.
Number three, on this list here, MI 2024, 001166, 4917 Pine Street.
Gordana Gostich is the owner the applicant provided an email from the
Gordana Gostic is the owner.
garden court zoning committee advising that it had voted to support the
requested variance. Gordana Gostich has been promoted to
panelists. Good afternoon could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer. He seems to be on mute here. Gordana? Gordana Gostich, please.
yes do you hear me yeah we hear you thank you could you please yes hi could you please i did
okay well you didn't hear me gordana g-o-r-d-a-n-a last name is kostich k-o-s-t-i-c-h
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do could you uh turn on your video please uh let me see okay
i i did oh it didn't it didn't pick up just a second okay there you are okay thank you very
much um our vice chair a hold on one minute this application is for the erection of a rear deck
which stairs from grade to the deck accessory to an existing attack structure used for two
family household living the stairs from the ground floor to the deck are prohibited in the
attached structures okay yes our vice chair has a few questions for you okay
no ma'am have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed in this case five days in advance in a hearing yes thank you please proceed and share
your screen okay um i haven't done this in a while so i hope uh you know taking this is i'm
to get to my screen and i want to start from um what from showing the the drawings and actually
um the uh there's a second sketch plans with some photos already attached to that
so uh i hope it will open now i was counting on that okay yeah well this is the situation
um hold it you know it did we don't have it yet oh okay so um
well i don't i'm not sure that i understand and how i can um get it to you because i am opening
and i think that my uh screen is shared how do i could someone help me why is it not square
um what do i need to do just a second uh how how do i get you know the scared shared screen
okay sorry tia our technical person so long yeah well you know um
At the bottom of your screen, you should see a green button at the bottom of the Zoom
window.
I see more, is that there?
Share, yes.
At the same time, I have to ask you an incredible favor, is it anyhow possible?
Of course it had to happen right now.
Now, my refrigerator broke yesterday and they're delivering it and they are obviously coming right now.
Is there a way?
Do you want to continue the case to another day?
No, I don't want to continue the case.
I'm just then going to ignore them.
Is that all right?
I thought that maybe you can take someone else before me.
I'll take someone else.
I'll come back to you in about 15 minutes.
Thank you so much very much.
Thank you.
Move to number one.
Number one, MI-2022-005-968-5524-Pulaski.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from Faith CDC and a letter of opposition from Solo Germantown.
We also have two letters of opposition.
sorry terry sean where word has been promoted to penalist good afternoon mr ward
Good afternoon, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward?
We see Mr. Ward?
I believe he's coming back in as a panelist now, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
I don't know why it takes so long to rejoin, but I'm here.
Mr. Ward, could you just state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Sean, S-H-A-W-N, last name Ward, W-A-R-D, Esquire, attorney for the owner-applicant, East Falls Investment, LLC.
You swear to firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards the accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did. But for the supplements which were submitted today.
Thank you, Sean. Please proceed and share your screen.
Very good.
uh mr chair confirming that my screen is shared it is very good thank you
um mr chair members of the board i've submitted my typical exhibit
packet um for 5524 pelaski ave counter number ending in 5968
so you know that you have the picture of the marina up now
oh really philly's looking much better
everybody voted to approve the marina
well uh when i when i share my screen from key west the last two weeks of november that's what
i'm looking at uh out my window but all right hang on a second um let me uh let me try that again
um and for the record i don't apologize all right okay so okay share
how's that it is it's good yeah oh okay all right i don't know
what happened there, but okay. Again, Sean Ward on behalf of the owner-applicant,
East Falls Investments, LLC. Property at 5524 Pulaski. Counter number ending in 5968.
Obviously scheduled for today. In my exhibit packet, A1 is the notice of refusal.
Briefly, it's for the legalization of one additional dwelling unit on the same lot with 11 existing dwelling units as previously approved.
There are two refusals relating to RSA 5.
So we seek to either modify or confirm a use variance.
and I have two additional arguments regarding variance by estoppel and or variance by vested
right, which we'll address later. But for the record, A2 is the ZBA application of appeal.
A3 is the project information form. A4 is the deed from 2012. A5 is proof of tax clearance.
a6 is the originally approved zoning site plan a7 are typical floor plans a8 are photographs
including posting subject property street views aerial views as well as uh not listed there some
interior photographs uh typical of the units uh that we have existing and one unoccupied
A-9 are the RCO meeting notices and certificates of mailing.
We had two meetings.
A-10 and A-11, I was not provided copies of those when I submitted this exhibit packet.
uh provided copies of those when i submitted this uh exhibit packet my understanding is uh
hopefully they have been submitted to the board uh i believe before i was uh booted out and then
rejoined i heard the chair mentioning yes we have faith cdc has a letter of opposition
and solo germantown also has a letter of opposition okay all right so all right the
The board has this. Two other two other letters from neighbors.
OK, yeah, I will address those as you know, as time permits and as we proceed.
A12 is our zoning history, relevant history dating back to 2016.
A13 is the zoning map, as I always include, and the aerial photograph.
So, without further ado, this refusal was dated 9-16 of 2022, seeking the legalization of the 12th unit in a previously approved application.
It resulted in two refusals, as outlined in red here.
One was for multifamily units on a lot.
Again, multifamily use was previously approved.
And number two was the multiple main uses on the lot,
which I don't quite understand because both uses are dwelling units.
In any event, it resulted in two refusals.
We filed our application of appeal.
we included our project information form my transmittal letter to the board um i was unaware
that uh miss sunkett was no longer the administrator i heard a new name uh mentioned
today uh i congratulate her on being appointed or um her elevation and uh i congratulate tanya for
her retirement or successful career as the
administrator. In any
event, we also included in the packet
our proof of tax clearance, real estate. Taxes are clear
as are commercial trash fees.
What I have here is
let me put it down a little bit.
So just for the board's edification and what we're going to talk about, right here is the driveway coming in from Pulaski Avenue, and in the rear is where the units that we are discussing today will be found.
uh we have the proof of the posting uh my uh agent went out and posted on the uh post and rail fence
uh on the porch as you can see uh at the you know from a street view
another close-up and this is an angle photo from the street
as you will see here another uh you know a couple photos of the posting i would point out um
OK, you can see the structures in the rear on where my hand cursor is.
Again, some additional photos of the structure in the front.
These are the marketing photographs, which were quickly available to me, showing the conversions in the rear.
you got dwelling units, you got parking, you know, interior parking spaces.
And then we have some typical photographs of
the interior fit and finish, as you can see.
You have new appliances, new floor coverings,
window treatments,
full stations,
bathroom,
Nice finishes in the kitchens.
So not to belabor that, I think the board gets the flavor of what we're doing inside.
I want to pause on this photograph for one minute.
But as you can see, this is a Google street picture captured in September of 2019.
As you can see, the structures in the rear were formerly stables and garages.
And, uh, garages, uh, you know, the, you know, the, you know, some of the, some of the members of the board might know more than me as to what they were used for, uh, back in the day.
you know
you know the
But, you know, my understanding is they were carriage houses and stables.
But this photograph, I just want to depict that area there because that is what has been redeveloped as an adaptive reuse of, you know, former stables and carriage houses.
This is an aerial photograph, Pulaski Avenue, running from bottom left to upper right.
You can see the driveway coming in from Pulaski Avenue, as evidenced by my hand cursor.
The front structure, which is referenced as Building A, is an attached structure, a twin, to the property next door.
And then in the rear, it was the redevelopment of those stables, which back up to the railroad.
Again, just another angle photo from Google Earth.
These are Google Street Views looking up and down Pulaski Avenue.
Again, the property on the left, this being from Google Earth in 2019.
Again, you can see the fenced off area by the driveway because the property in the rear was still not a safe place to be
And to keep trespassers out.
We have the most recent notice of meeting for the property, which was held on July 11th, you know, just last week with Faith CDC.
It included a copy of the refusal.
It went out to the addresses provided to me by the Planning Commission website.
We have our certificate of mailing.
It went out to 71 different addresses.
Prior to that, last year, we sent out the same meeting notice, which was to be held on April 27th of 2023 and included a copy of the refusal.
We had a certificate of mailing.
I would just add a note that due to a scheduling conflict, Faith CDC did not attend that meeting.
However, Charles Richardson from the Councilwoman's Office attended, and so did representatives from Solo Germantown.
A discussion with Charles afterwards indicated to me that Faith CDC did not participate because of a schedule conflict,
which of which I was not aware otherwise I just would have you know canceled or postponed that
meeting but in any event we had a very brief meeting uh on that eve um a zoning permit was
issued in 2016 pursuant to the board's grant of a variance this is the zoning map as provided by
Atlas. As you can see, it is
we acknowledge it's zoned RSA5, but it is
a very odd configured lot and
obviously not appropriate for one
attached dwelling unit given the
prior uses in the back. And then again,
this is my aerial
photograph via Google Earth.
Again, you have Cheltenham to the upper left,
Pulaski Avenue running from upper left down to the lower right.
So we're between Schoolhouse Lane and Cheltenham,
approximately mid-block, where the red dot is
represents the actual structure at the front.
We have the driveway coming in from Pulaski Avenue.
And then the development of the carriage house apartments is in the rear.
With regard to the RCO meeting, I submitted today via the new document upload app.
I'm still trying to get my arms around that, but I did.
And Mr. Chair, we're looking at my supplemental exhibit, please.
Yep. OK. Yes, sir.
All right. So after reviewing the submission by the RCOs, I was away this weekend.
After reviewing the submission by the RCOs, I was away this weekend.
I didn't.
I didn't get some of them until this morning when I got in.
So I went to work to address those.
The letters, you know, even from the neighbors, had some, you know, objectionable statements
about the deceit, lies, and miscommunications,
intentional or otherwise, which I take objection to.
And I would ask the board to take note of that.
So what I did was I prepared a supplementary exhibit packet,
which includes the notice of decision from the board's original decision in this case.
And I submit that it had no provisos, regardless of what the community requested, what Councilwoman Bass suggested, and I've just asked the board to take note of that, because we proceeded pursuant to that notice of decision, and we obtained a zoning permit.
So, uh, thereafter, uh, at a 16 in my supplemental packet, uh, my applicant and owner, East
Falls, LLC. Excuse me, I need a sip of water.
Okay. I apologize.
So at A16, which
I'll breeze through shortly, we obtained building permits, plumbing permits,
electrical permits mechanical permits and fire suppression permits uh based upon
an amended building permit um and pursuant to that amended building permit there were approved plans
and again this is post you know previous zoning approval from 2016. so uh and in that amended
permit, it clearly identifies 10 units at the rear building.
So when we went to the RCO, I would
point out that, number one, there were
no relevant comments regarding the use of the property
in their letters, and they were all directed towards the process
that we went through. And granted,
this application started in
2022, due to various reasons, which I am sure the chair is well aware of my
predicament, matters were continued, but we were finally able to get the RCO
meeting scheduled with the help of Charles Richardson with Inez at FAITH.
okay so in their letters um you know they claim there's adverse effect uh however there's no
evidence uh raised um with regard to those adverse effects include you know including
increased noise traffic or disruption of quality of quality of life uh to me they're just bold
assertions and they're they're just unhappy with the process not with the actual use
uh again there's unsubstantiated claims of lies and deception by me which i take great offense
to because um you know you know i i take great pride in my reputation working with rcos
and so with regard to the actual rco meetings again the original rco meeting was scheduled
for april 27th notices were mailed and a meeting was actually held i you know i hosted
the Zoom conference at the request or direction of Faith CDC,
obliging them because they don't have the wherewithal facilities to do same.
However, on the night of the meeting, they were unable to attend,
which I didn't know until during or after the meeting.
As a result of that, the case was continued,
And it was probably continued twice due to a medical condition I had.
So a second meeting was scheduled for July 11.
Those meeting notices were mailed.
And the meeting was held.
With regard to that meeting, I want to address the board to near neighbor attendants.
Solo Germantown, in their letter, acknowledges three near neighbors attended, two of which are in the address.
Uh, three near neighbors attended, two of which are in the adjoining property, one, which was not the faith CDC letter has no indication whatsoever as to who is a near neighbor or who was just a, a, you know, somebody within the 250 foot, uh, circumference.
So, again, they claim that the applicant, in those letters, they claim that the applicant owner proceeded basically under the cover of darkness without permits or permission or approvals to do the work.
I submit that the original zoning permit and approval provided for a two-family unit at the front in Building A.
The amended building permit, which I'll show you in a moment, acknowledges that there's 10 units in the rear.
And pursuant to that, we obtain plumbing permits, electrical permits, mechanical permits, and fire suppression permits.
Okay. So here is the decision from 2016. Again, the board granted the use variance. And under further conditions, this is where any provisos would have been enlisted.
okay the permit was issued
and then
April of April of 2018 April 9 2018
for Pulaski Avenue
a building permit was filed for
which included an amendment
and it says to corrected the examiner error
And it indicates building D, which is the very rear building, has six dwelling units.
It included alterations through three buildings, B, C, and D.
Had nothing to do with building A, which is the front building.
It also provided that Building B, two dwelling units, Building C, two dwelling units, and Building D, six units, and they were to be fully sprinkled.
Pursuant to that building permit, East Falls, through their contractors and agents, got the proper plumbing permits to install new water supply and drains for 10 units.
After that, they obtained electrical permits.
Tenants fed off for fire alarms, outlets, switches, smoke detectors, etc.
Thereafter, February of 2020, mechanical permit for the installation of new ductwork, registers, grills, diffusers, warm air appliances, et cetera.
July of 2020, rough-in permit for fire sprinkler system.
Everybody knows, I believe right on this board knows how expensive it is to install fire protection systems.
especially when it involves sprinkler systems.
February of 2021, a plumbing permit was issued for interior and exterior plumbing
in accordance with that original building permit.
I mean, the amended building permit.
Sean, could you try to give us a sense of where you're going with this?
I mean, the issue is we're trying to have one more unit.
Is that what it is?
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, but I mean, I mean, I see the history, but try to get to the point about, I see that there's a new total of 12 as well. Is that what I'm saying?
Yeah, I mean, yeah, that's one, right?
Okay, you know, I just need to make a record and get my, my argument.
Sure, but I just want to, I just want to see, tell me about the one extra unit.
Okay. The one extra unit right now, let me go back to, I think this is going to explain our argument in a nutshell.
Coming in from Pulaski Avenue, you drive straight back.
Mr. Chairman, the original plan, we had.
Mr. Chairman, the original plan, we had dwelling units here because we were, you know, we were placing parking in other locations.
You know, upon recollection or reflection, it didn't make sense to have cars driving up, shining their lights into any dwelling units here.
So the parking was reconfigured to the point where, I'm going to go back to, all right, so here, this was the originally approved plan in 2016.
You came up through Pulaski Avenue, through the driveway, and there were going to be dwelling units here.
The parking, you can see the parking spaces in the garages.
So you would have had to come in and turn around.
But the problem was lights would be shining.
Headlights would be shining into building the residential units.
So the result was that they amended the permit.
Let me go back to, it's right here somewhere.
So what we did was we reconfigured it to put the parking here and rearrange the dwelling units.
So the red dots indicate where the dwelling units are.
So you get one, two, three, four in these two buildings.
And then in building D, you have one, two, three, four, and then on the second floor, five and six.
So in other words, rather than having headlights shine into, you know, dwelling units as they're coming into park, we relocated the parking spaces.
And as a matter of fact, the amended permit, you know, approved the elimination of these interior partition walls to make it easier for people to pull in and back out.
We have an ADA compliant parking space, an ADA compliant unit.
So this, you know, this individual can park and then, you know, wheelchair bound or, you know, whatever other amenity they need.
They can leave their garage and get into their unit. So right now, one of these units and I have Brewer Kirchner in the audience, you know, he can tell me which one.
But right now, one of these units is not occupied because we only have a zoning permit for 11.
Right.
So the unit out front, this one, is in fact a two-family dwelling.
Right.
So that's two, and we have nine in the back plus one vacant.
So the original approval was for multifamily use.
There were no provisos.
There were no conditions.
We kept one unit vacant.
And now we're just looking to, you know, modify the variance to confirm that the multifamily use, as approved on this site, as an adaptive reuse of former stables or whatever they were, are now a productive residential community with plenty of off-street parking.
and there's no change
in the wider scheme of things
to the use of the property.
The issue is initially had 11 units
and now there was a vacant unit
you want to turn into another habitable unit.
So that's one unit plus you want.
Yes, and our intention all along
was for 12 units,
two in the front, 10 in the back.
Somewhere along the line,
It became 11.
You know, and then, you know, we filed permit applications, you know, in my supplement, which all references 10 units in the rear.
And we relied on those.
You know, we've installed duct work, fire suppression, plumbing, electrical.
We have an ADA compliant unit with all street parking ADA compliant.
And so, you know, I mean, I could save my argument for later, but let me let me just bring in Brewer Kushner.
I don't know if he's raised his hand yet.
Brewer Kushner has been allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Kirschner. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, it's Brewer Kirschner. It's B-R-U-E-R Kirschner, K-E-R-S-H-N-E-R.
I, it's
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Brewer, you've heard my representations to the board this afternoon?
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes. Do you adopt them as your own testimony? I do. Yes. And at this point, would you like to add
anything to clarify or expand or give the board a better understanding of where we are in this
and how we got here and what we're looking to do? I thought you did a great job, Sean.
If the board wants me to answer any questions, I'd be happy to.
okay um that's your case right mr ward uh other than argument um i mean i i can do that right now
very briefly um let me go back to my screen share um
uh under the uh you know you know zoning law um you know you ask for a variance if you get a
variance then um and and with philadelphia law i mean i don't have to explain that to charlie
gaston she you know she she you know she probably wrote the code uh but um anytime there's a
modification, well, anytime there's a variance granted and an application on that property
involves that variance, it requires review by the Zoning Board of Philadelphia. So, number one,
that's why we're here. Number two, we're requesting a variance for that 12th unit. However, I submit
that a variance has already been granted for multifamily use on the property. So, this represents
a minor modification of that existing variance. Number two, there's the doctrine of variance
by estoppel, you know, which I have up on a screen now, and I've submitted as a supplementary exhibit
via the download or upload app. I don't know what you refer to it as, but
which, you know, variance by estoppel involves the minister. Excuse me, Sean. Sean, I'm sorry
to interrupt um are you are you arguing that the refusal was issued in error and that you're
entitled to this 12th unit via these two doctor one of these two doctrines
yeah i was just going to say that that means it's a
well because if that if that is the case we have to hold this argument until we can have an attorney
from the city president? Well, let's put it this way. I'm going to submit this for, you know,
food for thought. Okay. If after my submittal, if, you know, Hillary, if you, you know, advise
that maybe, you know, the law department need to be getting involved, you know, you know, I don't
know maybe maybe the board agrees with me and and says that you know a variance should be granted
for the additional unit that you know that would dispose of the case uh but you know i would i would
um you know reserve my right um for variance by estoppel or or or vested right
okay how about we how about we go that way so we i think we will we'll table this for now and if
We think it's necessary to hear further discussion on this. I will advise the law department so that they can send an attorney and we can have a appropriate discussion on this matter.
Okay. Yeah. But I mean, in the event that the board agrees with me that, you know, a variance should be modified or granted, that would end the discussion. If, you know, if they decide that, you know, maybe it's by estoppel or vested right, then we have to bring in. So why don't we reserve that or table those two, but just remember now, we haven't heard from the neighbors yet.
We know that two of them are objected to this, right?
Yes. And I received their letters, which this morning, for some reason, nobody copied me on anything since our meeting last Thursday night.
But but but in any event, Hillary, you just want me to state that I'm reserving the right for argument for various variants by estoppel and or vested right?
yes i think that we will we will do that for now okay thank you yeah i don't want to take
up the board's time with uh something that you know they're not going to decide so
Uh, something that, you know, they're not going to decide.
So, but now I'll reserve my right to argue, uh, variance by estoppel or, uh, by vested right.
Um, other than that, Mr. Chairman, I, you know, I, I just think that, you know, the board previously granted a variance for multifamily use.
Uh, the intention of the applicant and owner all along was.
for 10 units in the rear
in addition to the front structure.
And we would ask that the board modify
or confirm the previously granted variance
and give us a zoning permit for 12 units
so that way we can finalize
the rest of our permits and licenses.
questions from the board yes i just need one point of clarity is the the empty unit is that
in building a or is in the rear one of the rear buildings i've got it's it's in the rear it's in
and it's in one of the i think it's in d building kersh brewer okay i believe it's number five it
might be number eight i believe it's number five but that would be in the d building the very far
back okay correct yes okay uh go ahead michael go ahead we can go back to the site plan yes um
second
just as a as a general michael did you want the uh
this this the plan that showed via that plan this one yeah so
I don't necessarily have an issue with the one unit.
My concern with this plan, and maybe if we do, granted, it would be as a proviso, that there is a defined walkways for pedestrians.
Because this is literally in the back off of a driveway, right?
Right. And there's there's no defined there's no defined space for people to come out of their units and be clear that it's a pedestrian walkway that takes them up to the street in any way.
So we have cars coming in. We got cars backing in and backing out. You know, people could be walking around.
And so that's my concern that the safety issue and particularly since you have handicapped accessible units there.
right okay so you so when you modify the plan it looks like over here you've got some
some area i don't know what that says it looks like it's paving
i'm sorry i i moved it and your your red lines don't my red lines change right so
but but do you understand what i'm saying so you so you show some but this this so this plan would
need to be revised because right because now this is the parking and this is parking so you need to
define you know a walkway that takes you up to up to up the up the up the driveway so that there's
a clear definition of defined space for pedestrians because they're going to be people go to a bus
stop they're going to walk down this driveway go back to their unit cars are back and in and out
There's no real sort of safety mechanism. So that's my concern. I necessarily have an issue with the additional unit, but as a proviso that there is some specific walkways that define where pedestrians inhabit the space and where vehicles inhabit the space.
Michael, I don't see why or how we would disagree with that or object to that, whether it's a actual sidewalk curb or a, you know, at least a yellow striped pedestrian walkway.
You know, I believe on this plan on the screen now.
We have some sidewalk.
Can I can I jump in real quick?
In the back units where the cars are parking and all, that's 15 or 20 foot wide.
There's two 15 by 15 sitting areas on either side of the open space there, that T.
The driveway is landlocked.
So that's been approved and it's landlocked and people walk up and down.
There's no activity.
People do walk up and down.
There's stairs to go to the basement right there.
There is ample room that will walk up and down, but that's existing and it's only it's landlocked there.
So there's no room for there's no room for there's no room for there's no room for there's no room to add a walkway or defined area for pedestrians.
So there's no room for there's no room for there's no room for.
Correct. Correct. And it's yes, correct.
Well, I mean, you know, we could we could always Brewer, you know, maybe do a yellow striped.
Area was the required with the vehicle.
Is it not?
feet well i don't know well michael the the access uh drive has already been approved by streets
but i understand you're concerned about pedestrian safety so what i was suggesting was that you got
a handicap unit in the back and if i'm in a wheelchair rolling down that driveway i don't
care what's happening now but a car is coming up what do i do how do how does how do i define where
i need to be if i'm walking down that or rolling down that that that driveway well no the
go ahead bro the handicap spots uh the parking garage is right beside the handicap unit
so the person would get in their car and drive right down they wouldn't they wouldn't use that
street in there but yeah people don't don't roll down to the store down the street i don't understand
that. That's my concern. If there's no room to do it, there's no room to do it. And that's very
unfortunate because we have a condition that's unsafe. Well, when we acquired the property and
proposed it you know the driveway with was existing um however any handicapped or you know
disabled individuals that requires some ada access you know we provided that their vehicle can
come in suppose they don't drive suppose they're left left off at the at the corner
in front of the driveway of a lift right suppose they don't drive but they're in a wheelchair they
come down there the other thing is you've got this door swing of whatever this is swinging
right into the driveway so somebody swings open a door not knowing that a car is coming
this may not have happened yet but it's a possibility there's no
and this plan doesn't really doesn't really make it safe for pedestrians that's all i'm saying
and if there's a way to make it more safe for pedestrians but by defining some areas where
pedestrians are and where vehicles are i have no problem with an additional unit with that proviso
okay thank you and just so you know there's no doorway there your plan shows again and swinging
out yeah right it's a trash air okay thank you so the door swings swinging into the driveway where
a car is supposedly coming down right am i right or wrong yes right yes that's a door right there
but it's not existing but yes that again creates an unsafe condition if i'm out of the trash for
whatever i'm doing from that door i open the door somebody doesn't see me whatever i swing bam the
car hits me and now i'm dead i mean i'm just no no michael i get it but the testimony and
confirmation by the owner
is that that door does not exist, and that
is a trash storage area.
obviously, you know, we can
make certain that that door does
not swing outward
or, you know, whether
it exists or not.
Brewer just testified
that that door does not
exist.
And again,
this was a unit plan,
not necessarily the approved site
plan um but no well your your point is well taken and you know obviously uh pedestrian safety and
more specifically uh ada uh pedestrian safety is of the utmost importance absolutely not everybody
in a wheelchair have a car questions or comments from anyone else in the board
um i'm i'm having a little trouble with the dots showing the dwelling units so am i seeing this
correctly that i see one two in the back like down at the bottom of this plan and then i see
the handicapped or the um accessible unit so that's three is that two on the other side or
let me the other side or cheryl i think i had my uh cursor on you know dot placement
okay and i think extra dots were being yeah
Okay. And I think extra dots were being inserted as I was speaking. So I believe this is what we started with. These two dots, you know, red represents first floor. This dot, just to point out second floor. Okay.
so coming up the driveway
from Pulaski
there's two units
to your right if you're coming in
gotcha
and then there's two units to your left
so that's four
I think I eliminated a dot here
I don't know how I did that
there's a unit
come on
3, 4, 5
6, 7, 8, 9
I don't know why
Alright
Alright
Alright
Alright, let me get out of the thought
Alright, so
Let me just go up and down again.
That way the page resets.
Now I got dots all over the place.
All right.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
and then on the second floor above here you have nine and ten brothers okay all right so
where the space you pointed to there's no dot there but that's the other that's the other
unit we're talking about where you have the uh the little hand now that's a unit well wait one two
three four uh brewer said it's either five which i think would yeah yes that's it that's the other
unit there's three units there yes all right so three units along there okay so it's four in the
front these three units over here the handicapped one and then the top uh two units are over
the handicapped unit and whatever else is there correct correct you have you have the
It's an accessible unit here, which has a ramp, gets them directly to the, you know, the closest parking space covered.
Gotcha.
So they would come out and get into their unit.
Up the staircase, you would access the two second floor units in the rear.
And again, we didn't erect a second story.
The building, the building was two stories high and we reconfigured it and renovated it to accommodate two dwelling units.
So you have the 10 here and then the building in the front is the other two units.
So you're talking about, are you asking for.
12 more unit
we're asking for
one unit that is currently unoccupied
because we only have zoning for 11
we're asking for that 12th unit
to be properly
so it could be added to the CO
we can occupy it
the questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um yes mr chair i i just need a little bit of clarification because when i look at
when i look at the what was approved in 2016 um and then the building permit um
um so so what was approved in 2016 i'm sorry let me just prove my
sheet what was approved in 2016 was two units in building a only parking in building b
two units in c and seven units in d but the building permit that has the correction
indicates there's two units in building b so there there is an inconsistency
between the building permit and the zoning permit um and that i think that's what's creating why
the map is probably not adding up um for for some individuals who are interested in this case because
um for for some individuals who are interested in this case because the there is an inconsistency
that there isn't.
between which structures have how many units between the building permit and the zoning
approval uh hillary i would agree with you 100 percent um you know it i think it's a classic
case of too many chefs in the kitchen um you know number one i didn't even file
the application. In 2016, I handled the appeal. And you're right. The permit issued pursuant to
the previous case in 2016 called for building A, two-family dwelling. Building B, six interior
parking spaces, right?
Building C, two family dwelling, and four parking spaces.
So I think there was a lot of confusion.
When you look at the, let me find that revised site plan.
all right so building a is out front it's it's not even shown on this part of the plan
yeah we all know what building a is that's the the attached or semi-detached uh structure out
front um so when you have let me go back up one all right so
So clearly we can see this is building C, right?
Does that?
Clearly looks like a C to me.
So, and you can make out somewhat on this plan, building B, right?
so originally building b was going to be parking spaces which required people to drive in
headlights shining into the residential dwellings and then they're going to either back in or
you know make their turn to go in building c under the original permit had two dwelling units
and four parking spaces so again with the reconfiguration parking was relocated back here
so we eliminated headlights coming into dwelling units so
and brewer correct me if i'm wrong we still have
parking units here with two dwelling units in building c correct okay so in building d we have
one two three four units on the first floor plus the two units on the second floor but
reconfigured the parking so that not everybody's getting headlights shined into their units
as the cars come in.
So now they come in.
There's parking on this side, two units.
Dwelling units here, direct access parking here,
and then at the second floor, two units above.
Right?
And then the other thing we did by one of these permit modifications
was they eliminated the partitions within the garages uh that way you know everybody knows you
know you know a two-car garage with a partition down the middle is not really a two-car garage
it's it's two single-car garages so so uh this way it's an open parking field you know with
several but i think sean you've covered that before about that okay all right talk the walls
down i mean i i think at some point hillary we we have to move on or if not we'll do a resumptive
hearing i mean we just can't that's fine we can't keep going in circles here all right okay that is
fine mr chair i'm just i'm just trying to make sure i'm just trying to make sure the board is
um you know questions what we're presenting and where we are questions or comments from
the virtual audience yes chair i have a hand up by the name of robert mccloud
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Robert McLeod.
Evening, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
All right. It's Robert McLeod, M-C-L-E-O-D, just like it does not sound.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. McLeod, are you a neighbor?
i am yes the main the main house of 55 24 is half of a twin right i own 55 26 which is the other
half of that twin okay why don't you why don't you start your presentation i uh
um okay so you you guys already have i think our letter of opposition
and the RCO letter
and Councilwoman Bass's letter
from 2016 should also be attached
to that so you can have those
anyway I'm going to
what I don't understand like Sean keeps telling me
that the intention from the beginning
was to build 12
units and if
that is the case
it is mind boggling
that a request for a variance
was submitted, that was for 11. I mean, we can have this either way. We can't have it like
both ways at the same time. Was it always the intention to do 12, or did it later become the
intention to do 12? Because these have different implications to them. Now, just reviewing the
earlier stuff. I mean, Mr. Ward is correct in mentioning that there was no proviso attached
to the zoning board's ruling in 2016. But he does not dispute that the RCO letter made specific
reference to the owners having agreed to maintain the main house there as a single family unit.
And I didn't hear him dispute that Councilwoman Bass's letter of non-opposition at that time made reference to those items.
And I guess the lack of a formal proviso from the board itself is probably just what happens when one side is represented by the council and the other side is not.
And in any case, that is what they got. So they eventually began building it.
I hate to mention to Mr. Ward, but one of his before pictures is actually a during picture.
The part of how bad it looked back there, because that was after their first group of contractors ripped all the windows and doors out and left the place open to the elements for the next two and a half years before the second contractor came in and started work.
But in any case, if if it was always the plan to do 12 units, then it must have always been the plan to do this, because white in God's name steps weren't taken to legalize that.
Well, I got Mr.
Mr. McLeod, here's the question. Are you against him having this 12th unit?
That's that's what we're here for, about whether or not to add the unit or not.
are you against that yes as as a matter of principle i'm opposed to like after the fact
legalizations because i think it's very a very bad thing for the city
it encourages people to proceed in this fashion okay um thank you thank you for your input we
appreciate one last thing because i don't know if this was mentioned anywhere or if this is
mention to us that there would be a letter of opposition from the
councilwoman's office. Okay. So if you don't have that yet, I would suggest
that somebody contact her and see what's up. Okay. Thank you very much
for your time. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Yes, Chair.
I have four hands up. Robert Mandeville has been allowed
to speak. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Robert Mandeville, R-O-B-E-R-T
M-A-N-D-E-V-I-L-L-E
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I'm about 30 feet away.
You heard this request is for one more unit, right?
Are you in favor of that or against that?
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, could we have Mr. Vanderville's for the record, his address?
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, could we have Mr. Vanderbilt for the record, his address?
5532 Bulaski Avenue.
Thank you.
Sir, are you against this project or in favor?
I am against.
You're against adding one more unit. Is that what you're saying?
Okay. Thank you.
I think this should be denied. I have things to say because he's accused me of calling him a liar.
Well, I'm not, I want testimony about this.
I don't want testimony whether who called who a liar.
Well, I can give you a testimony about it.
I don't need your testimony about who's a liar or not.
I know for a fact that you're against this extra project, and I thank you for your time and call.
Next hand, please.
Charles Richardson has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Richardson, I don't think I've seen you today.
Have I, Mr. Richardson?
No, I actually didn't have to testify earlier because the case was withdrawn.
Okay, well, you stayed around anyway, so could you just state your name, please?
I know for a fact he's been listening all day.
He told me.
Could you please state your name, please?
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room, 508 City Hall.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
at this late day or time of day?
Yes, I do, sir.
Please proceed, Mr. Richardson.
What hasn't been said is that the building in the front
was originally a single-family home
that they were renting out to a family.
And, you know, when considering the permit process,
Sean has said that somehow it got shifted
from their desired 12 to 11 total.
But they built 10 apartments in the back
Although they were only really allowed to have 11 units, which I believe actually probably included the front single family home at the time, you know, whenever the permitting process took place.
And as Hillary has said, there was something that went on with regard to that situation.
But, you know, it's hard to figure out what it is.
During the RCO meeting, the attendees were asking Mr. Kirshner about that process, and his explanations weren't believed by anybody that was in the meeting.
And I actually even asked the same question about three different times, and I was unconvinced as well.
And so at the end of the day, it sounded like they decided that they would be it would be good to convert that front into a two family building, making 12.
So they had to actually keep one of the units vacant in the back in order to match the allowed number that they had.
The councilwoman is going to stand with the community and the two RCOs in requesting that this variance request be denied.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Do you have any questions, Mr. Ward?
No, just a brief comment.
Well, why don't you hold your comments to get the other hand to interrupt, okay?
All right. Other hand, please. Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Yes, Chair. A. Weiss has been allowed to speak.
Yes, hello.
Good evening, Alice. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Allison, A-double-L-I-S-O-N, Weiss, W-E-I-S-S, Solo Germantown Civic Association.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
You've heard a lot of this testimony.
Are you for this project or against it?
Yes, we stand by our letter of opposition.
And I just wanted to put on the record that we did send copies of all of our documents to everyone,
including Mr. Ward. So all of the documents were sent to everyone. Thank you for staying around,
and we appreciate your comments. Thank you. Another hand, please. There are no more hands
at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good
evening, David Fecto with the City Planning Commission. Chairman and board members, the
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this
location the appellant wishes to add a dwelling unit to a previously approved multi-family use
the appellant has not shown that the additional dwelling unit is required to afford the appellant
relief the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variants
for multi-family use and multiple principal uses in buildings on the lot thank you david
mr ward do you want to respond uh yeah uh with regard to uh you know what happened in 2016 and
And what we're pursuing now, I could, you know, as a.
pursuing now, I could, you know, as a simile, I could indicate that in 2016, I did not like
Brussels sprouts. This is 2024. I've changed my, you know, dietary, you know, preferences,
and I might now eat Brussels sprouts. With regard to this application, it's been the
intention and desire of the property owner since 2012 when he purchased it for an adaptive reuse
to to create what they thought was affordable and uh reasonable 12 unit uh uh you know development
um in 2016 there may have been a a single family occupying um the front dwelling
But the intention all along was to turn that into two affordable and well-appointed apartments, in addition to 10 in the rear in what were formerly, you know, stables and barns and carriage houses.
So the board has already granted variance for multifamily use.
I disagree with the planning commission's contention that it's unreasonable or unfounded.
And I would ask the board that we recognize what is in front of us.
And what we have is 10 nicely appointed units in the rear, two beautifully appointed units in the front,
um all of which but one uh can be occupied and one can't um and we're asking for a a minor
modification of the existing variance uh to minute you know permit us to get our co for that
final unit so that way we can you know finally get it on the tax rolls rent it out and
you know, use it. Mr. Ward, thank you for your comments. We've had a great deal of testimony
today about this. Understood. I'm going to hold this till next Wednesday. We will vote on this
at 2 p.m. And I'm going to make sure that each and every board member has a chance to weigh on
where we stand with this. Okay. Understood. And again, I reserve my rights to seek redress under
the variance by estoppel
and vested rights doctrines
as previously discussed
with the board council.
Thank you very much.
Have a great evening.
I'm sorry I took so long.
That's okay.
Number five, MI 2023
005 911
4601 Springfield Avenue.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition
from Cedar Park neighbors.
There's a letter of opposition from Council Member Gauthier.
Vernon Anastasio is coming in as a panelist.
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.
I was uploading when you were speaking.
So I see.
Yeah, I said there's a letter of opposition from Cedar Park neighbors.
Council Member Gauthier has also taken a position of opposition.
Okay, thank you.
Hold on.
um okay okay um mr anastasio could you just state your name for the record yeah it's vern
anastasio on behalf of uh mr jamal uh fulton could you wait uh thank you and our vice chair
has just a few questions thank you good good evening counsel do you agree to either reading
refuse or stipulate to attack
consent? I do.
Have you emailed them all the required documents
and exhibits that is needed to proceed
with this case? Stop these in advance of
this hearing. I have.
All right.
Counsel,
645, we want to get out of here,
so please do.
I got an RCO in
45 minutes, so I got to
get moving.
Springfield Avenue.
a 65-page exhibit. We initially had asked for, submitted for an application for a four-family
dwelling. We met with the RCO, and I think it's important for me to give you a little bit of
backstory briefly. My client purchased this property in 2022. It is a massive, old, beautiful,
on the outside, Victorian home on a lot that's close to 4,000 square feet.
on a lot that's close to 4,000 square feet. It is in terrible disrepair. It has been for quite
some time. He hired a contractor to start renovating it. He learned that the contractor
hadn't been doing it properly for the permits, not that he got very far. He shut it down,
contacted me, and we've been going through this process. Through this process,
When we met with the RCO, we decided to reduce the number of units to three, so it would simply be one unit per floor, first, second, and third floor.
We would not have a basement unit as previously planned, so this basement unit here would be gone.
This first floor unit is a large two-bedroom apartment with really good ample living space and a kitchen with a laundry room attached.
The second floor and the third floor would be the same for all intents and purposes.
Two large bedrooms, a nice size open concept living dining kitchen area, as you can see here.
These are nicely sized units.
Here is a corner shot of the property.
As I said, it is a very large, old Victorian.
There are five homes adjacent to this corner property.
Four of the five are multifamily, three, four, and five bedroom dwellings, including the house right next door.
a three-family dwelling. House next door to that, a five-family dwelling. Also, within 50 feet of
this property, right down, right on the block, it changes from RSA3 to RM1. And those RM1 lots
are exactly the same size as this 4,000 square foot that we're looking at today. If this lot
were zoned rm1 like the other lots just 50 feet away we would be able to get three units by right
so that's why we've landed on the three units the trash is all stored on the side of the property
with a corral that will be placed there for each of the units here's the interior
As you can see, the whole work has stopped, but they began to frame it out.
There's a beautiful old curved stair, center stair, that we would like to maintain, which also would be helpful in having one unit per floor.
There's the rest of it.
We did meet with the community group.
There's the two-page letter of notification, the addresses that were mailed, 89 individual households.
Here's the poster and the proof of posting.
And although the RCO did send a letter of opposition, it was not very well attended as compared to the 45 signatures that we collected for the three-family dwelling.
of the 45 33 are immediate neighbors and others are not but there's still 33 immediate neighbors
of the 45 who signed the petition all of this has been submitted to you by the way
in full support of the three-family dwelling
because this property is on the street with all other adjacent multifamily dwellings
because it's on a lot that is close to 4,000 square feet and if it were RM1 which these here
on Springfield and there's a whole row of them that you can't see across the street on Springfield
For RM1 like those properties, this three-family dwelling would be a buy-right over-the-counter use because it's on a corner where multifamily dwellings and multi-use like this CMX1 property right here is encouraged by the Planning Commission for all those reasons, in addition to the 45 signatures and support, 33 of which from immediate neighbors.
I respectfully request the granting of this variance to breathe new life into this long,
neglected, boarded-up beauty. Thank you. With that, I'd like Mr. Fulton to raise his hand.
Mr. Fulton?
Fulton?
Jamar Fulton has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Jamar Fulton, J-A-M-A-R-F-U-L-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Fulton, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
One quick question.
If you were to force by code to somehow develop this large built family dwelling, would it be marketably viable?
It would not.
Thank you.
I have nothing further.
Questions from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Susan McCullough. She has been allowed to speak.
Good evening. Ms. McCullough, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yeah, I'm not on this particular case.
Okay, thank you.
I want to spell three cases. I don't know why I'm on there.
Thank you very much. Is there any other hands up?
yes sir kathy dowell has been allowed to speak hi could you state your name please and spell for
the stenographer yes hello my name is kathy dowell k-a-t-h-y-d-o-w-d-e-l-l all right you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do are you a
neighbor i am a neighbor and i'm also the co-chair of the cedar park neighbors zoning committee oh
Thank you. Please proceed with your testimony.
I hope that you all had a chance to read the voluminous letter that we sent in.
Mr. Anastasio's version of what occurred is somewhat different from our version.
This property had unpermitted work going on actively for over a year.
when the owner decided to obey the rules and applied for a zoning variance.
They did do the mailing. They sent out the letters.
I thought our community meeting was well attended.
We had 32 people there, all near neighbors.
I think that there is absolutely no hardship here.
There's a very strong market for single family homes of this size in this neighborhood.
and so there's not an economic hardship any economic hardship in this case the owner has
brought on himself i would also like to say that the things submitted today we did see submitted
today at 2 30 for a 3 30 hearing the request for three units and we also saw the petition that the
owner's attorney submitted if the owner would like us as a community to consider a three-unit
building. That's his prerogative. He should withdraw this application and reapply with a
three unit building. The plans that he submitted clearly are for a four unit building. I'd also
like to say that we take a dim view of these kinds of petitions. A lot of the people on the
petition are near neighbors. That's correct. Many of them are not near neighbors. And how one defines
a mere neighbor. I would probably differ from Mr. Anastasio's definition, but we don't know who
these people are. We don't know what they were told about the project. We don't know if they
were shown any plans. There is a pretty clear public process. This meeting was well advertised
both online and in person. We had 32 people at the RCO meeting. So I would encourage you to
to listen harder to those people who came to our meeting and voiced their opinions rather than
people who signed a petition who knows what they think they were signing um i i just want to
reiterate there's absolutely no hardship here and i hope you will oppose this project thank you very
much thank you uh mr anastasia i'm going to see if there's anybody else in the audience and you'll
have a chance to respond to all of it okay anyone else anyone else in the audience yes chair i have
four hands remaining showing markovitch has been allowed to speak i'm mr markovitch could you please
state your name and spell for the court stenographer yes my name is sean markovitch
that's s-h-a-w-n last name m-a-r-k-o-v-i-c-h you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth that is correct are you a neighbor i am i'm a notified near neighbor i live
on Farragut Terrace, so right around the property.
Please proceed with your comments.
Sure. I did send in a letter both for this most recent hearing and then one also
Sure. I did send in a letter both for this most recent hearing and then one also for March 3rd.
I'd like to directly respond to Mr. Anastasio's points that he brought up specifically about the this building is next to RM1 properties.
If you look at a wider map, those RM1 properties are on a commercial corridor and they border a gas station where it makes sense that those few properties and they are all single.
they're all homes. It makes sense that homes that border a gas station and commercial property would
be RM1. This property does not border any commercial properties. This is a completely
residential. It does not make sense. So his saying, well, there's RM1 just down the street,
that is not applicable in this case. I'd also like to talk about the property brought up as CMX
that is directly across. That was CMX. It has been a single family home for over 30 years.
Again, I don't believe that's applicable to his case here.
That is not operated as a commercial property.
It is operated as a single family home.
The one other item I'd like to bring up is that there was extensive work done with no
permits, including turning the basement into an illegal unit.
And there were multiple, multiple stop worker order violations showing that the owner continued
to willfully violate the rules.
I don't believe at all that this statement that Mr. Anastasio said that a single family home in this area is not viable.
There are in my letter that was dated to you on March 3rd, I include a list of comparable homes of single family homes in the area that sold after the applicant bought the property well over into a million dollars, $900,000.
So let me say this.
You're against this project.
I'm very much against it.
And there's no reason that this property cannot be returned as a viable single-family home and sold for a profit.
All right.
Thank you very much for taking the time.
I know you waited around.
We appreciate your comments.
Next hand, please.
Andrew Goodman has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Goodman, could you please state your name as spelled for the courts?
Good evening, Andrew Goodman.
G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the office of Third District City Councilmember Jamie Gaudier,
room 316 City Hall. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? The whole truth is nothing but
the truth, Mr. Goodman. Yes, I do. Please proceed. Thank you. Good evening, members of the board. I
won't duplicate other testimony that's already been given, though I certainly agree with a lot
of what has been said by the coordinating RCO reps. Councilmember Gaudier is asking that the
this does not, not only is there no hardship, it does not fit any of the kind of extenuating
circumstances that the board or frankly, the community will often look kindly upon.
This isn't a situation where the property was recently remapped. This isn't a property that
had a multifamily permit on it some time ago and then lapsed. In fact, this property has been
occupied as a single family home since it was built and only has been vacant less than a year
before this current owner bought it, so the idea that it was some long-neglected abandoned shell
is a misrepresentation as well. No historical non-conforming use, and it wasn't some long-ago
owner that did unpermitted work. It was this owner who willfully destroyed the inside of this home.
I myself tried calling the owner directly in spring 2023 while this illegal work was going on,
hoping that I could stem the tide of it. Obviously, I was not successful, as evidenced by all the
photos of the illegal work in the exhibit packet. And even since his original hearing date,
we've seen the property listed for sale on Zillow, as well as for sale signs outside the property,
even though he told the coordinating RCO at the RCO meeting that he was planning on moving into
the property himself with his family. There's a lot more, but I'll leave it there. We ask that
the board deny this variance. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Goodman. Another hand,
any other hands up yes chair cameron murphy has been allowed to speak how many more hands do you
have after that this is the last hand here thank you hi hi could you please hi could you state your
name and spell for the court stenographer cameron murphy c-a-m-e-r-o-n-m-u-r-p-h-y do you swear
for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes are you a neighbor
i am not but i am someone who grew up in that neighborhood uh my grandmother lived at 50
persons so so so let me let me say this you've heard a lot of the testimony today are you for
this project or against i am i actually helped the owner jamar footton with canvassing the
neighborhood to get community buy-in for the project i helped gather those signatures i spoke
I helped gather those signatures. I spoke to people within the community who all seemed unopposed to this project going on as a government for units in that neighborhood.
to people.
Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. We appreciate your time.
Planning Commission.
I'm sorry, Vern.
That's okay. I know you want to get to it, but this is very briefly.
I opened up our presentation with saying that work had begun unpermitted.
When my client found about it, he fired the contractor, shut it down, hired my office to legalize what was intended.
Again, despite what anyone is mentioning about other properties being sold,
four of the five homes directly adjacent to this property are three, four, and five family dwellings.
The only real single family homes are right here where my cursor is.
They are a small fraction of the size of the homes over here.
Over here, they're all multifamily, and they're multifamily for a reason.
Because when my client had this property listed for sale, no one wanted it.
It's just not a viable option to now rehab an entire huge Victorian
on a 4,000 square foot lot, and then expect someone to pay what the cost of that construction
would be. He did try to sell it in his current condition. No one even bought. There was not
one offer on the property. So I want to make sure that that's clear as well. The unpermitted work
was stopped as soon as he was made notice of it. The property was listed for sale, hoping
to at least stem his losses.
No one was interested.
The basement unit, that doesn't exist.
So we are interested in coming closer to compliance
with just one unit per floor.
And the number of immediate neighbors
who signed that petition in our campus
far outweigh and outnumber
the number of neighbors who logged on to a Zoom.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good evening, David Fecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA3,
Residential Single-Family Zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that will prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
However, the configuration of the lot and the existing residential building preclude the inclusion of accessory off-street parking.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variants for three dwelling units, but grant the use variants for accessory off-street parking.
MI 2023, 005-911-4601 Springfield Avenue, I vote no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
it's not a grant my vote is no
thank you counsel thank you sir gaston my vote is no thank you thank you sorry miss gaston
okay number six mi 2023 006 161 4012 wells street mark danak is the attorney there's a
letter of the anonymous opposition for a Taconi
Civic Association. The applicant did
provide two form letters of support from the neighbors on the block.
Mark has been promoted to
penalist. Good evening, sir. Could you please
state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Sorry, there's a bit of delay once you're promoted.
No, sure, sure, sure.
Mark Danek, M-A-R-K, D-A-N-E-K, Esquire, on behalf of Founder of Knowledge LLC and Ms. Stacey Thompson, the applicant in this matter.
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 evening, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do as to the amended note of the refusal, which is Exhibit 11 in our packet, dated July 2, 2024, but was received by my office on July 6, 2024.
for. Understood. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you, Counselor. Please
Yes. Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed and share your screen.
proceed and share your screen.
Let me do.
Green button on the bottom. Here you go. You're up. You're coming up.
Yeah. Got it. So you see the map? Yes, I do. Thank you.
um so the the property is 4012 well street um on the opa website you can see this is the property
highlighted here um it is uh located one it's one half of a twin and one door away from a mexican
restaurant and a td bank on this corner the property is owned rsa3
and what i'm going to do is i'm going to roll through a lot of the procedural history and
documents and i'm going to call miss thompson to discuss more about the proposal okay so
from our uh exhibit lists starting with exhibit one this is miss thompson's original application
submitted in October 2023. She initially sought relief as a group childcare. And that's a much
larger scale childcare zoning designation than Ms. Thompson actually intended. When I was brought
on board, we reviewed everything and we decided to amend her application to allow for family
childcare. And our request was made for up to 10 children. Today, Ms. Thompson's only seeking
relief to allow for up to six children in a residence under the family child care designation.
It's important to note under the zoning code section 146035A.2, family child care with children
up to with the maximum of six children is allowed by right. However, because Ms. Thompson's property
is in the 55th Ward, there's an exception where she's can only allow to have four or fewer
children, hence the reason for the variance request today. And this is her original application
email. This is the original notice of refusal dated October 12th. Here's the project information
sheet. Here's Ms. Thompson's deed for the real estate. She took title June 12, 2015.
Exhibit 5 is the tax clearance certificate from October 2023, as well as July 10, 2024.
October 6 is the original notice that Ms. Thompson had sent out to the RCO and the neighbors.
and Exhibit 7. So
there should be, I apologize, there should be a letter in here that I submitted and you could
see it referenced here on this document dated February 23rd, 2024, which was in advance of
march 6th um hearing requesting a continuance as well as leave to amend um this letter came out may
6th 2024 authorizing the amendment i then forwarded everything to mr de donato with updated plans
as well as the um you know the request from the board so the i made a request may 7th and may
28th, I did not get a response until, as I mentioned, July 2nd, 2024. This is the we're at
Exhibit 9. So this is your zoning notice placard for the for today's hearing. This was after the
contingence request came out. This is the notice of continued hearing. At Exhibit 11. Now this is
the amended refusal that i referred to earlier in which i stipulated to and this um this is where he
has the note as far as um no more than four children in the area in the um in the property
exhibit 12 um this is the proof of mailing of the original um notice to neighbors and then this
photo here is the subsequent notice that Ms. Thompson had sent out on July 11th,
including the updated notice of refusal from July 2nd. Exhibit 13, this is the zoning placard.
Ms. Thompson had posted it in the front of her property. This is the front door of her house.
This is her neighbor and the twin. And the Mexican restaurant I referenced from the OPA map is to,
from the OPA map is to, I guess, the right of this photo.
I guess, the right of this photo.
Another photo of Ms. Thompson's property with placard, June 19th.
Third photo.
Now, Exhibit 14.
This is an existing site plan of the property.
This shows the existing house.
This is Well Street up here, and this is her rear yard.
Exhibit 15, which maybe I can try to blow up.
this is her proposal I believe Wells Street is on this side of the drawing so the people would
enter into the living room she has a she's having a bathroom installed and then this is the rest of
her first floor this is where she intends to provide the daycare services for the up to six
children um exhibit 16 this is a letter of support from um immediate neighbors
or zero one zero well street and i believe four oh one four wells um that's documents miss thompson
secured uh exhibit 17 this is a photo uh taken in front of miss thompson's house february 14th
421 p.m. This is approximate time that parents would be coming to pick up their children from
daycare. In this area here, these are cars parked for the Mexican restaurant. Over here is T.D.
Bank. And you can see standing from in front of or a little further down in front of Ms. Thompson's
house. T.D. Bank is over here, but this is the parking area. And then this is the street parking.
and this is also at 4 21 p.m and again this shows the parking right in front of on miss thompson's
side of the property that's february 14th 4 21 p.m and this is taken in the center of the road
february 15th 5 30 p.m again you could see the the td bank here the mexican restaurant is on this
side and this is the parking available on the street and this is from miss thompson's front
porch um where you know again you can see the td bank better the on-street parking this is february
16th 6 35 a.m uh more on-street parking february 19th 5 0 6 p.m uh again more on-street parking
february 21st at 4 40 p.m uh and then this is from her porch february 21st 4 43 p.m
um now this is the this is from february 22nd 6 40 council council i think we understand your
point okay we understand your point okay so those are the photos and then um and miss thompson will
speak to this a little bit more um there was uh initial rco meeting that she attended um the rcos
are not in favor um and if anything was submitted today through the the the new tool you know the
filing system i didn't receive any anything in writing from the rcos regarding it um we did
send out i believe miss thompson sent out the the notices july 11th um and when i uploaded everything
i also courtesy copied on email everybody um and then it included you know the the notice
of refusal uh exhibit 20 this is our request to mayfair and then from to coney this is a text
message i received from mr lavavitz uh i guess reiterating the rco's position um that they're
not in favor um and again you know we had explained well miss thompson will explain that
when we reduce the request and then um and this is another email i received from mr lavowitz this
was march 25th uh and then so the last thing i want to show if i can move something here the
zoom things in the way um these are interior photos of mrs thompson's first floor
um and this is the the front door where you come into the living room this is the the bathroom that
she's having installed on the first floor um this is further into her house
i guess this might be the dining room area um and then there's your stairwell and then this
is more towards the back where the kitchen's back here and um with that i would like to call
Ms. Thompson as the witness. Sure.
Stacey Thompson has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name as spelled for the court's
sonographer?
Stacey, please unmute yourself.
Hello, my name is Stacy Thompson spelled S T A C.
Hello, my name is Stacey Thompson, spelled S-T-A-C-I Thompson, T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Hey, Ms. Thompson, you heard me talk extensively about the procedural history of your zoning application.
If you were called to testify, would you agree with what I said?
And do you adopt that, my testimony as your own?
Okay, thank you.
And now can we go to, I want to go back to, let me get to.
Okay, Ms. Thompson, let's discuss.
So presently on your property, you're just a half of a twin, correct?
Correct.
And for the board, can you please describe your proposal and how you intend to use the property?
So my first floor, you walk in and that'll be the first classroom, the main classroom.
Is that the living room area?
Yes, the living room area.
In the pictures, it was with the brown floor.
Well, all of them have brown floor, but it was painted, freshly painted floor.
Then the second room was the, well, it would be a smaller classroom.
And then the back room with the purple wall, we saw in the picture with the purple wall, that'll be where the refrigerator is and the food is kept for the center.
Not necessarily a kitchen, but, you know, where the food is stored.
Hey, and Ms. Thompson, what are your, well, strike that.
Ms. Thompson, do you currently run a daycare service?
Yes, at a commercial facility, a group center.
Okay, and so what, so then you, how long have you been in business?
A year and a half.
Okay, and can you just describe for the board, if they're inclined to grant the variance,
what your days and hours of operation would be at your at 412 wells the same as it is currently
monday through friday 6 30 a.m to 6 30 p.m and um how much can you just describe for the board then
when do parents drop off when do they pick up they normally now they drop off between
8 a.m. and 9.30 a.m., and they pick up between 4.30 and 6.30.
So just so I understand your testimony correctly, then, parents really drop off once and pick up
once during the day, correct? That's correct. And is it, say, regular for your parents to
come in and out all day long, taking kids in and out all day long? No, just pick up time and drop
all time. Thank you. And Ms. Thompson, are there any specific challenges or constraints on your
property that led you to decide to locate the family child care in your residence?
Well, yes, my current business is in a commercial space and I need to downsize to allow for my
business to continue because I can't afford the overhead. So moving into my residence allows me
to focus on providing the best child care possible, while at the same time maintaining
the cost for families that is, you know, maintaining the cost, basically.
Thank you. And Ms. Thompson, do you believe that the requested variance is necessary to allow you
to make a viable economic use of your property? Yes, definitely. And can you please elaborate
on that for the board? Well, family child care is a permitted use already.
however within my ward i can only have up to four children and that's not economically viable to run
the small business and support myself it's it's important to note that i am not seeking to have
10 15 or 20 children coming in and out of my residence i'm not seeking to and making the
highest and best economical use of my property rather i'm only seeking to make a viable economic
use of my property. And Ms. Thompson, do you believe that the proposal will have a negative
impact on your neighbors and community? No. I live in a one-half of a twin dwelling that sits
close to an existing restaurant, and it's catty-corded to the TD Bank across the street.
Given the commercial nature at the end of the block that I reside on,
I don't believe that there will be any negative impacts.
Okay. And when you talk about the commercial nature and the parking, that was represented by the exhibits that I showed earlier, 16 through 18?
Okay, and when you talk about the commercial nature in the parking, that was represented?
Yes, because a concern was voiced about parking on the black there.
Okay. And do you believe that these challenges make your property unique and have caused you a hardship in the effective use of your property?
Yes. If my house was located in another ward, I could get up to six children by right.
And I think that that shows the hardship is related to the property itself and not related to a general requirement of the code imposed on all properties.
Okay. And Ms. Thompson, is there any way for you to develop the property for your desired use without the requested variance?
No. As I mentioned, I run a small business.
It must provide for my bills and expenses.
Limiting the use to four children will not allow me to survive, which is the whole point of me downsizing and relocating to my personal residence.
Okay, and Ms. Thompson, can the foregoing be cured with a request for a dimensional variance?
okay and Ms. Thompson then the variance if authorized represents the minimum variance
that will afford relief and represent the least modification possible of the regulations at issue
is that correct yes
okay and uh Ms. Thompson did you create the hardship of the location of your property in
ward 55? No, it was existing. Okay, and Ms. Thompson, did you create the hardship of locating
your property near a bank and a Mexican restaurant? No, I didn't create the hardship.
And Ms. Thompson, if the variance is denied, will it cause an unnecessary hardship on you?
absolutely i will have to just close the business probably
i'll be in the same predicament that i'm currently in
you're done counsel thank you and and miss thompson the proposed project then in all respects yes
okay you're done you might have froze are your presentation
I still have a couple more. All right. No, I still have a couple more questions. I know we're trying to get out of it.
I think you're starting to repeat yourself a little bit, but go ahead.
Oh, OK. Well, so then the last one I just want to ask, Ms. Thompson, is the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. Is that correct?
That's correct. It won't at all.
Okay. And then, Ms. Thompson, earlier today I showed a photo of the orange placard. Did you place that yourself?
Yes. 21 days in advance.
Thank you. And then in advance of today's hearing, did you mail out the requisite notice to the neighbors in the RCO?
And in advance of today, were you able to speak to any immediate neighbors?
Yes, I was able to.
And what was their reaction?
The two neighbors that are directly beside me, they have no issues with me opening a child care center here.
And then, Ms. Thompson, the last question I have for you is, did you ever attend a meeting with an RCO?
Yes, Tycone.
And could you just elaborate for the board, I guess, the basic tenor of the meeting and how you felt about the RCO's comments regarding your proposal?
Sure. Well, one of my neighbors made a comment during the RCO meeting that I would like to address, actually.
She said, quote, I understand trying to make money, but I'm against this, end quote.
So some of my neighbors may feel this is just about me making money, but to me, it's about
the survival of my business.
I quit my job and took a big leap in making my dream of running a successful child care
business come true.
And I worked hard.
I worked really hard.
But as most small business startups do, my center is struggling.
And in an attempt to keep from going out of business, I'm forced to downsize, which means
which means running a family home center,
which is something I never wanted to do.
So originally I requested to bring
all 10 enrolled children with me,
but since I received such pushback from my neighbors,
I'm requesting to bring at least six of them
i'm requesting to bring at least six of them so i can afford to pay my household and business
so I can afford to pay my house.
expenses so i ask that the board please take this into consideration when rendering a decision
thank you and um with that i have no further uh questions from miss thomas uh thompson um
so count counsel listen one minute so when she went to the went to the rco she asked for 10.
correct right she decided to drop it to six six put her in an because her areas has four only four
am i correct there's an overlay for four yeah yeah the zoning if she wanted to do four she could do
it by right but she needs she was looking for six is that right correct yes that's the proposal
today all right thank you questions from the board i have a quick question uh what is the outdoor
space life in the uh for the first level i have a big backyard it's a deck now
i don't have any pictures of that oh yeah the site phone yeah and this is um she's referring
to exhibit 14 for the record and i can also pull up the opa map um let's see
you can see the big area that she has back here
Thank you.
S-T-I-N-A-E-S-P-I-N-O-S-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?
The whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Are you a neighbor?
Okay, please start your presentation.
So I just want to start by, first, I want to say to Stacey,
I understand her desire to serve the community as well as to make a living for survival.
As a single mother myself, I can, you know, relate.
I'm a single mother.
I work two jobs to be able to maintain myself.
My concerns are more for the Black, for the community, and also for my family.
This is a safety concern that I have.
We, as her lawyer, so nicely point out, she has a restaurant and a bank.
We already have, which if you could see her picture, she's at the end of the block.
And we live on a one-way street.
So in order to get to Stacy, who's the last house of the black on the left, well, the one before the last, who is her other neighbor, Danny, that house, she has to go through the whole street, okay, in order to get to that, which is the issue with the safety, because we have cars, and this is just in the past, and I'm assuming that it's going to get worse.
cars high speeding we have cars that don't know where to park we have cars from all over the other
blacks parking on our block my daughter alone twice i had to call the police because somebody
almost hit them from the restaurant okay that was speeding a delivery person because they have to
get there so as we know as parents everybody's rushing to drop off their kids everybody's
rushing to pick up their kids, which I understand. But at the same time, as a resident of the block,
it's a concern to me. I also get in custody, partial custody of my two great niece and nephew
who are four and two. So now I always have to be more vigilant, which I'm already are, believe me,
because I'm always a parent. I'm a helicopter parent. So I'm already are. So I'm going to be
more vigilant because there's more people coming. I'm also a victim of my home invasion
because there were unknown people on the block i'm already going through ptsd and all this is
because of people and the traffic and everything else if i we have email the bank we have fought
with the restaurant in reference to the safety we also another concern is the cleanliness we we have
to deal with the restaurant we have christina christina christina i i understand your issues
with the restaurant and the bank and traffic.
No, but listen to me.
Listen to me.
Here's the issue.
Are you in favor of her doing this or against it?
No, but can I just quickly point out
some of the issues, the cleanliness,
because the daycare is going to have food,
disposals, diapers, all those things.
Also, like I said, the safety is going to be an issue
because it's going to be a heavier traffic
with the daycare, with the drop-off.
Well, this is six.
She's talking six people now, right?
that's what she said before she said 10 what's going to happen next okay okay so the other thing
that's what she said before she said 10 what's going to happen next okay
is we have a problem with writing again the disposal of the food and things like that i also
didn't even receive a letter for this meeting until yesterday okay last night when i came back
from work because so i could present more civics and emails that we have sent just advocating for
our community i mean i love philadelphia i wasn't born in philadelphia i love the city i want to
stay in the city my goal is for the reason why i moved there is because my resident is very
community oriented and i we already have within two months christina christina i know that
are you you don't want her to have the project is what you're saying no i don't want it because
then i would have to move thank you very much we appreciate that would be a hardship for me
i understand we appreciate your input is there anyone else in the virtual audience
yes chair a little bit isabella robertson has been allowed to speak
and miss robertson could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
isabella please unmute yourself
isabella yes can you hear me yes could you please state your name and spell for the
course of the doctor i apologize this is my friend's computer my name is actually jennifer
j-e-n-n-i-f-e-r isdell i-s-d-e-l-l right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do are you a neighbor yes i'm at the other i'm at the end of the
block. Okay. You've heard some testimony about this in a presentation. Are you in favor of this
or against the project? I'm against. Okay. May I make a few topics since I've been on hold for
three and a half hours? I appreciate that. And we've been sitting here for whatever, but I want
you to listen to me. You're going to have to hear my point. Isabella, I don't want to hear your
points. I want to hear, listen to me. I want to hear points that are different than what we've
already heard okay go ahead we have 31 daycare centers in two mile radius i did not buy a house
on a residential street to have a business put on that street that's going to make it harder for me
to sell my house and for the parking the pictures that he showed he showed the exact same spot
all of those pictures okay they have their own lots you cannot tell me that somebody isn't going
to go in the middle of the street because anybody who lives in this neighborhood knows you double
park. I'm just going to run in and get my kid. And you know, your kid's not ready. So now I have
to deal with a one way street that is now double parked and blocked. Okay. The rats, the smell,
the trash pickup. I mean, is she going to be allowed to have a sign? I don't want to look at
a sign. And she is allowed to have drop off from 630 to 630. That's running into times when people
are coming home just because right now she said she doesn't have anybody till what 4 30 that does
not mean that she can't have people at 6 30 okay the the two businesses were already there when she
bought her house they were there when we bought our house we agreed i did not agree to another
business on the house on the street okay then and again i didn't get my letter till yesterday either
okay so can do we have to deal with a sign is she going to be allowed to have a sign
We do not have, there's not a sign in question here.
We're just questioning about whether or not she can have six kids in her house.
That's the only thing we're looking at.
Well, if she gets approved for the daycare, is she allowed to have a sign?
I'm not talking about a sign.
I'm not talking about a sign.
A sign would have to come back to us anyway.
Thank you very much for your input.
I appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have two more hands up.
Tom Forkin has been allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Forkin.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. It's Tom Forkin, T-O-M-F-O-R-K-I-N. I am Chief of Staff for Councilman Mike Driscoll.
Frank, you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of points of clarification. The assigned coordinating RCO for this matter on Wells Street is the Mayfair Civic.
It is my understanding, and unfortunately my zoning chair is on vacation, that at least two meeting notices were given to the applicant and they did not attend that assigned coordinating RCO meeting or meetings.
They did do an unofficial Taconi Civic meeting where, as you saw, there was unanimous opposition.
And it's my understanding that the majority of the near neighbors are in opposition as well.
So at this point in time, the council district office would ask for a denial of the variant.
So at this point in time, the council district office would ask for a denial of the variant.
Thank you, Mr. Forkin.
You're welcome.
Next hand, please.
There are no more hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Sorry, no, there's just this one hand that's been going up and down, but it's down now.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good evening, David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-3,
residential single-family zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that their amended application for a family child care will
not injure the use of adjacent properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed use variance
for a family child care.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006-161-4012 Well Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, there's an amended refusal that we need to add as a proviso to any decision in this case.
Thank you.
So MI 2023-006-161-4012 Well Street, I vote yes.
What proviso per amended refusal dated 7-2-24?
my vote is yes with proviso
James Snell
my vote is yes with proviso
my vote is yes with proviso
Terrell Gaston
my vote is yes with proviso
okay thank you
number 7
MI 2024
001 166
4917 Pine Street
Gordana Costich
could you please come back
Gordana, just for the record, state your name, please.
Hello? I am back.
Hi, Gordana. Just state your name for the record, please.
Gordana Kostich.
okay could you please turn on your video video is coming now there is video is showing now
there is share everywhere but the video is not here is the video and it's showing yeah i see
okay yeah i'm trying to get out okay it's still sharing okay yeah and i may i be excused if i
I haven't been...
You can, you can.
Great, thank you.
All right, all right.
Berdan, how are you doing with your computer?
Can you bring up the shared screen?
I hope I can, yes.
Oh, there is a lot of things here, so I'm just going to go.
I don't...
Let me see screens, documents.
Why is it advanced?
Give me just a second.
And I am so very sorry.
I don't know how this layout came into all of this while I'm trying to see my, my.
Listen to me.
Listen to me.
There should be a green button on the bottom.
There you are.
There you are.
You're coming up.
Oh, my.
So I should be able now to go to not my desktop.
That's where my things are.
and here is dba hearing submissions and i would like to start probably um i know you saw and i
said i have everything submitted so um since i want to see show me photos of what you're trying
to do yes okay so that's what i was planning to do so these are drawing some pictures so we start
from there wow why is it showing me wait a second there should be
drawings and pictures it's a it's a a lot of these things there why is it i i don't know i really
don't next there um maybe i need to cancel this where am i are you seeing anything now you're
see my kitchen is that your kitchen yeah you see my upper apartment which i was hearing yeah that
means that i should be i have to be able to go to my to my main um main screen where as we can see
i have a zillion things open but i'm gonna close everything here we are here we are
okay so visuals uh this is for um where they are showing luckily so back stair drawings
okay so visuals uh this is for um
okay visual stairs i'll start by showing you um please show me the visuals yes
yeah i'm trying to open them okay finally we we're gonna we're gonna start and i'm gonna have it
bookmarks with only all right so this is you see this right yeah i do get to the stairs show us the
stairs yep okay so here is my block 49 between san bernard and 49th street this is fine we have
the back alley that runs between san bernard 49th and goes actually in a t here uh serving
these two other these kind of it's within our block to say. So the cars would go like this
and then go like this right like that and so on. Okay I am my property is located in the middle of
this block right okay and I can show it again here from the aerial view. So the problem with
The stair is, and now I show in the next picture, the current, you know, what the existing condition, because I did start.
Yes, this is from the front.
This is my, we call it my neighbor's stair, which is actually, oh no, I don't want to recognize this, which is basically my stair as well.
because this stair is supported on one side on 4917, which is my house,
on the other on 4115, and that's how it becomes possible.
So it was a shared stair, but it has been in a bad shape.
My neighbor didn't want to ask to use it especially,
and also they don't want me to repair.
So listen to me.
So you had a shared stairs
You don't like the way it looks
You want to put your own shared
I wanted
I wanted to repair
But it wasn't possible
So I had to make my own
And I have two apartments
Okay, so let me kind of guide us
Now I think I will be able to go
Like this a little bit
That would be a frontal view
Now I am showing because on my blog
Almost everybody
i think everybody has basically these stairs i said show me what you want what you want to do
i see that yeah okay so everybody has a stair i can probably move to my next uh if i just don't
make uh the the next uh document but i hear all of us i'm sorry please move to the next document
we see it okay so you saw all of these pictures so you know how i this is mine okay so you want
to see them so you're building a deck and then you're going to put stairs to the deck am i right
i am putting actually my my main uh thing is a stair the deck that you see is it comes naturally
because i have to provide i have a duplex i have a tenant uh a legal um a basement apartment and i
have a tenant in the basement that they have to have enough room to not only get
in get out their stuff to get in and out therefore I have to protrude you know
from their entry which is at the back of you know this thing then I am forming
in order to position the stairs so that this is possible I you know don't want
to have like in the middle of the air hanging, you know, passage and a stair so that I am
forming this deck that is actually, there is a beam holding, this is a beam and the
tiny deck here, the deck is on one side four feet on the other three and a half, that is
not a deck if i wanted that i might want a little deck for use it would be you know i mean more than
that so listen to me listen to me so you started to put this in and ellen i stopped you and told
you to come to us yes okay all right yeah so now let me let me go somehow and get the uh the next
document uh because i think this one is basically finishing it only has a few more uh chair uh
pictures. It shows that the San Bernard has all of these. So now I'm going to close like
this. Okay. Okay. So success. Now, what I am showing you is a little more, of course,
Now, what I am showing you is a little more, of course, of immediate pictures, because I'm going to try to refer to where we are.
of immediate pictures because I'm going to...
And there is a section. This is the plan of the, what am I?
The stairs, the stairs.
Yeah, the ground. Yeah, I know.
It's the first level, basically, because I'm showing here my neighbor's stair.
here is how it is being supported and then the existing I have a double glass door that I
changed the previous garage so this is my this is this apartment this is their entrance
so I have to get them in and out and to you know be able to get their stuff in therefore
Or, you know, my stair now, now we go, I think, yes.
So here's the stair.
I think it turns a little bit.
Here's the stair.
I know, I saw that, yeah.
I'm putting it.
This is the existing stair.
This is the kind of existing deck, but I am on that, over that existing deck.
I'm running my own, so that is independent structure.
And here under the bay, basically, that bay is that structure that dictated this little deck, which I plan to use in order not to overwhelm, not to have like a four kind of recycle and trash bins and so on.
because this area becomes, for my tenant, downstairs tenant,
that's kind of their entry area.
And I don't want it to be really clogged with trash
and recycles of the upper apartment.
So they can, from week to week, they can kind of hold their stuff above
and then take it down when it's necessary.
The problem, of course, is not being able to do this
is that my tenant on the upstairs apartment,
which is from the street, first and second floor, so it's a bi-level,
those tenants have to go around the block in order to take the trash, you know, out.
And that is very unattractive for rental and everything else.
And also what is my major concern is that I hope these ads are not showing for you that are popping up here.
um my my major concern is that i don't actually have from the upper apartment i don't have an
an exit to the ground floor so you see you see uh and and i have people who are there with small
children they're not supposed to jump from you know the so you want to you want to wait wait
wait so you want to go build a deck build this and then go another stairs up to the second floor
Is that what you're saying?
Oh, no, no.
This stair becomes from my upper apartment.
That is their means to exit to the ground floor.
Okay, all right, okay.
The major thing between, you know, me and this, you know, code, which comes under supplemental decking or under supplemental buildings and decks other than roof decks,
is that LNI sees it as the access from the ground up
and the concern, as it was explained to me many years
into making of this whole process,
is the concern is that someone will come from the ground
and rob the neighbors,
which, you know, in this case really doesn't stand
because already people have it.
We don't leave them.
So we don't want to talk about robberies.
Let's just talk about this.
So you want to put the spiral steps in.
You started to do it with a contractor.
Ellen and I stopped you and said you need to get a variance.
Yeah, I want the spiral stair.
It is real stair.
Spiral stair is least inviting.
I don't want this stair to be used beyond what is absolutely necessary.
And that is, you know, taking possibly down the trash, which I also think I would want to make it possible.
and it's not difficult to actually lower down the trash,
the, yeah, well, whatever, refuse with the hoist or something
and just come down the stairs and sort it out
and then come down when it's...
No, the whole hoist with the trash.
In other words, you just want to...
You're telling me you need a spiral stairs, period, right?
And you want to attach it to the deck upstairs?
Okay. All right.
thank you um questions from the board i have no questions no question i do um what does the
refusal say the refusal says get to the erection of a rear deck with stairs from grade to the deck
from grade to the deck, accessory to an existing attached structure
accessory to an existing attached structure used for
used for two-family household living.
YouTube.
That's the refusal? It's refused for that?
The one refusal is for having stairs from grade to the deck
in an attached structure.
Basically, okay, because decks are not supposed to have permanently
attached roofs or stairs that's not to say that they that i haven't seen them i'm just saying
that the whole neighborhood does it yeah and then the request is to put in a spiral staircase
not questioned what kind of stairs doesn't you know for this i'm not making it uh you know the
escape it is a second uh means of weight of egress but it is not the fire escapes there so
it can be any any form i think she said spiral you're putting in a spiral staircase i am putting
the spiral staircase because it takes the least room and i want them to be able to use as much as
possible of that space as they're kind of and cheryl apparently cheryl she started to put it in
And Ellen and I came out and stopped her and said, you need a variance.
And then did you say that your tenant had small children?
The one on the second floor?
My tenant in the past had small children.
So for me, you know, thinking about like if they're adults and there is a fire and they have to escape through the kitchen on the second floor.
I mean, we somehow, although I'm not comfortable with that, you know, as Ellen and I, people will say, well, you have the door, you just, you know, that's it.
You jump.
Maybe we jump if it's absolutely necessary.
But if you have a child and they have little children, well, will we be jumping with children?
Because I am the one who cannot have the stair and everybody else can have this kind of saying from up, down or down up.
Well, I guess my question is, are you saying currently that you have a tenant with small children that would be using this spiral staircase?
Who would be using this?
Currently, I don't.
Currently, I don't.
But I had tenants in the past.
I had no issues whatsoever with, you know, code and LNI until I started doing this.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else on the board?
questions questions for our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions
or comments from the virtual audience i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
thank you chairman and good evening david pecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential
single-family zoning at this location the appellant has shown that the proposed stairs will match the
character of the block and will not injure the use of adjacent properties the city planning
commission recommends the board grant their proposed use variants for stairs from the ground
to the deck mi 2024 001 166 4917 pine street i vote yes michael johnson my brother's yes
Sonata Graham, my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
Thank you, ma'am, you have your votes
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I see no hands at this time too
Thanks, everyone
We've had a long, long day, got a lot of work done, but we had some complicated cases, especially a little bit later today.
So I do appreciate what everybody did and all your support.
And thanks to everybody.
I'll see everybody next week.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, staff.
Thank you.
And thank you to the staff.
We're sorry we kept you so long.
You know, we try to get you out as quick as we can, but this day was special.
I'm not even going to call.
I usually call Hillary every time afterwards.
I'm not calling her tonight.
I'll hold you to that, Bill.
Have a good night, everyone.