Iowan, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Number three, MI 2024-005-266-1201 Unruh Avenue.
I vote yes with Proviso per amended refusal dated 3-13-25.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Hi, I win. My vote is yes with Proviso.
We're going to our regular list.
Number three, MI 2024, 006883, 219 to 25 Cecil B. Moore Avenue.
Alan Nocklinson is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
Mr. Nockmson, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes, Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear we're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Hillary, do we have another attorney involved in this?
I believe so.
um are you are you entering your appearance of the party in this case for an object or an objector
okay all right please um come up to one of the microphones and be sworn in thank you
good afternoon my name is jordan rand
hi my name is jordan rand entering my appearance for objectors michael scanapico and 1705 to 63
North American, Alpha, LLC.
These are the adjacent neighbors.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please take a seat, sir.
I wouldn't let him sit there, right?
Hold on.
Will he stay or no?
Alan, so this is a resumptive hearing.
And what we need is an update from the applicant
regarding the corrected refusal.
Questions from the Board, public testimony, and the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Yes, good afternoon, Alan Nockmson of Nockmson, PC.
I'm here to represent Millennium Philadelphia Development, LLC, and behind me is one of
his representatives, Umar Sethi, and we were here previously regarding this matter, and
the chairman stated, we were asked to provide an updated refusal given the confusion of
the refusal. So I think I need to be promoted as a panelist. I don't think I am a panelist
right now to be able to share my screen.
Thank you.
And we did provide updated materials.
I just want to explain what the materials are, but I'm not going to give a full presentation.
I just I'll give a summary of that presentation previously.
so these materials were uh was presented to the board uh you know prior to today's hearing um
we have 10 exhibits notice of refusal proviso form and revised plans the correspondence from
the south kensington community partners uh as well as a letter of non-opposition from the district
council member a letter of support from a nearby neighbor posting photos presentation packet from
known architects our rco meeting notice or application for appeal or deed to the property
and a certificate of tax clearance the changes to what you see today as compared to the original
hearing date is first a notice of refusal which we'll review also the letter of non-opposition
from the district council member was not in the original packet it's in the packet today
also there's one uh portion of our presentation packet which includes a ramp or proposed ramp to
what would be under potential underground parking to the property that was not in our packet of
materials we'll i'll review that uh with uh derek spencer the architect who will explain how
it's infeasible to have underground parking for this property as an alternative argument.
And we have our posting photos for today's hearing that were not in the original packet,
obviously, to show that we posted 14 days beforehand. And I don't believe Mr. Spencer
And I don't believe Mr. Spencer was the architect's representative noted in the original materials, so I just wanted to note that as well, but he's our expert witness here.
was the architect's representative noted.
So the first thing I'm going to review is a notice of refusal.
So we updated, we had the refusal updated.
It's the original language in the refusal that was submitted some time ago that we appealed.
Originally, we're seeking 18 units.
We have revised plans. And if this board is so inclined to grant our variance requests, we would ask with revised plans. And I have some other provisos as well. But we originally had 18 units, and we're now decreasing that to a total of 15 units.
We originally, because the fact that this is in the minimum income neighborhood overlay, 20% of those units need to be deemed affordable under that statute, which is 40% AMI.
Because we're decreasing the amount of units, again, by way of a proviso or request for a proviso, that would be three units, and there'll be additional language requested if this board feels so inclined to grant the variance requests for dealing with the fact that there's some paperwork that needs to be filed with regard to that overlay to go down the three units.
and originally we did not have cmx to zone two and a half zoning in the original original the
original notice of refusal we had baking commercial space after talking to the community they felt and
we felt it was appropriate to designate a zoning classification of cmx two and a half um and you
know our intention um is you know either to have a prepared food shop or some type of sit-down
restaurant which was would be allowed as a right you know and in that regard so we went from a lot
of refusals to just two now based on a correct interpretation of of the code this isn't you know
because this is split zoning of rsa5 and icmx we only have two refusals first has to do with the
multi-family aspect of this project of 15 residential units or here 18 residential units
so that's the first refusal and and we'll go over you know the presentation shortly i i don't want
to make a long presentation i think we did one thank you a good job last time but i just want to
you know go into that a little bit um and then it talks about the height of the building so again
we're mixed zoning here um we're you know we are icmx in the front on north american street
as and then we have rsa5 as you go towards you know that corner property cecil b more but behind
us essentially on north american street is uh rsa 5. um here it's saying we're proposing 85 and a
half feet technically originally we did but we met with the community and you know based on
community input um we are proposing now to have a height of 74 and a half feet this is these this
is our revised proviso plan form that we completed we're going from seven stories to six stories
We're going from proposing 18 units to 15 units, and then we're proposing to have, based on the calculation of the min, four affordable units at 40% AMI to three residential units at 40% AMI.
In addition to requesting that the board approve this variance request with revised plans, there are several other provisos that we would request, which we requested at the pre, well, we requested this one at the previous hearing was indoor trash storage for the residential.
you know based on communications we had but from the neighboring property owner who my understanding
their representative is in the hearing room there was a request by them to do to move the commercial
trash storage from the side yard which was in common to where they were on our left left hand
side we have agreed to put the commercial trash also inside so that would be the second uh proviso
in addition to obviously the revised plans the third proviso that we would ask is that we would
be allowed to fill out a revised mint acknowledgement form that would be something
that would be required of us if we would proceed forward with this project the fourth refusal is a
maximum 15 units and then i don't think we need this as a proviso because this it's in now the
current notice of refusal but you know just to acknowledge again that we're asking for cmx to
and a half zoning. So I want to go what was previously proposed and what we're proposing
now. Originally, we had a height of 85 and a half feet, seven stories. We are now at 74 and a half
feet and six stories. Originally, we had 18 units. Now we have 15 units because of the reduction in
now we have 15 units because of the reduction in the amount of units we are now going from
the amount of a union.
four affordable units to three affordable units why is this all important you have to
from a zoning perspective under zoning law in the commonwealth of pennsylvania
part of the equation of uh of of establishing undue hardship is to look at the context of the
neighborhood, in addition to the property itself. We looked at the property last time more so
in terms of the mixed zoning. It's almost impossible in almost every situation
to comply with mixed zoning when you have one property. This property has been one property
forever. It's been a vacant lot as far as we can see online since 1996.
In order to comply with the Philadelphia zoning code, it is rather difficult, you know, to say the least. But in addition to looking at the hardship from the property itself, you look at the context of the neighborhood. That is established case law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
If you look at where we are in the neighborhood on North American Street, the corner of North American Street and Cecil B. Moore, I understand that we have an address named Cecil B. Moore, but for all intents and purposes, our address should really be on North American Street.
If you look what's to the left of us, we have a property called the Lux at 1705-63 North American Street, an ICMX property that in 2020 got a variance for 179 units.
They also got a height variance for 77 feet high.
it would be out of context to require us to have essentially a single family building or
or you know in or actually you came and do it based on the current configuration of the property
it would be out of context to to crunch us down any lower than what we're asking to the height
that we came with the community was lower than what they eventually came back with the board
that this board approved. And the reason why we'll talk about this is that we actually reviewed
the videotape of the hearing that they made their presentation. And it was Herc Ricos of Claire
Harrison, which my understanding Jordan Rand is also a partner there. So they're well aware of
this, of what they argued during the project. But we introduced that into the record. And I moved
that into record, but we introduced that as an exhibit, that video. It's a 10 minute video that
the board should look at but it's exactly the arguments i'm making today and i made last time
here and i actually took screenshots of the the arguments that were made and quotes and we will
quote each one of them which is exactly the same arguments that i've made previously for this
project we also have the americana which is also my understanding owned by the same principles
as the Lux, where they also had got an ICMX property to be significant multifamily as well.
And then we also have the Ray, which is at 1520, that's at 1740 North American Street. We have the
Ray, which is at 1525 North American Street, which is also, again, like a residential apartment
building. So I'm going to stop sharing my screen here, but I'm going to go over the arguments that
were made um by let me just put these up here um and i and i'll defer to the board if they want to
hear the hearing and we can go i actually have the the second those arguments were made the
videotape or or we can go to the screenshots it's up to i defer to the board why don't you do the
screenshots okay i think we'll get an idea but i will introduce these i understand yeah these
exhibits as well as i understand yeah and i also have the full hearing day of four hours yeah i
think we'll skip that one right now but but but i i took i clipped it out for the 10 minutes that
mr grigos argued you know for the same variance many of the same variances we're arguing today
in terms of height and density why don't you just show us like yeah quick snippets of it yeah so
we'll mr goldberg shaking his head back there he gets i mean i i'm just having a problem let's see
by at three minutes and 27 seconds into the presentation but mr griegos for the locks
he stated as part of the community process we we removed the story of the building from seven
stories to six stories that's what we did today thank you
uh at five minutes and 43 seconds into the presentation he stated and indicated that 10
at 5 minutes and 43
percent of the units would be affordable and that commitment was made we looked at the public record
there is no deed restriction in that respect we also looked and we also have and we'll introduce
into evidence the the rental rates that are showing on the lux which are not affordable rates
Not the at least affordable rates of 40% AMI that we're required to produce. So again, I can't speak to whether they've upheld their end of the bargain, but we're statutorily required to provide 20% of our units at 40% AMI over the course of 50 years.
at five at six minutes and seven seconds of the presentation mr griego stated icmx does not allow
residential although as you are aware north american street is changing with similar scale
multi-family buildings ground floor i will note this that our build our size of our lot
is 3,266 square feet, which means based on 15 residential units, we have one residential unit
for every 217 square feet of lot size, while the America Deluxe, which has a building lot size of
28,681 square feet has one residential unit for 160 square feet of lost size.
So they're extremely more dense than we are.
Next, Mr. Griegos, as six minutes and 32 seconds into his presentation stated,
originally the top of the pilot house was 91 feet.
We reduced at that top of the pilot house at 83 feet.
Top of the roof is 73 feet.
As you note, the width of North American Street is 120 feet, which allows for massing of this size.
Our building size in terms of height is slightly less than the Lux, but this is an argument we would make too.
And we agree with Mr. Griegos, who, as a partner at Claire Harrison, made it the time when he represented the property owner who's behind me.
At 6.55 of his presentation, Mr. Griegos said, this is the minimum variance and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
As you know, large mixed-use projects are the future of North American Street.
and in character to what's being built or has been built.
Again, that's an argument I agree with Mr. Grigos,
who at the time was representing the property owner behind me to the left
when he sought variance relief from this same board.
And at 8 minutes and 40 seconds of his presentation,
Mr. Scannapico, who's behind me to my left,
who was represented by Mr. Grigos or Claire Harrison, who's also representing Mr. Skane Pico
and his company right now, adopted the testimony of attorney Herb Grigos.
There's a doctrine under Pennsylvania law called variance by estoppel. It usually applies to when
you know a property owner relies on you know something that the city does or a government
entity does and then you know they they throw the rug out from under you and and then as a
property owner you relied on it and you try to get special governmental relief through that
legal doctrine well and again we'll we'll have to potentially do this and if we have to go
beyond this forum. Mr. Scannapico should also be stopped from making the arguments in reverse
to what he made in front of this board. Mr. Scannapico, my understanding, is upset that
we're building something as high as he built, that there could be a potential shadow effect
on his building. There was no thought about the shadow effect it would have on our property.
If you look at our site plan, we are required to have, under ICMX zoning, an eight-foot side yard.
We actually provided the side yard of 10 feet, two inches, and change.
We were mindful of the fact that there is a property to the left of us.
We have been respectful of that.
of that. When we heard from Mr. Scannapico through council that there was an issue potentially about
when we heard from Mr. Scampico through counsel that
the trash being stored in that side yard, respectfully, we said we would move that
trash indoors. But you can't do as I say, but not as I do. You can't ask the zoning board for relief
five years ago to build something and then come back here and say that same party really shouldn't
get the same relief. And it's not the first time that Mr. Scannapico asked for relief on this block
from this zoning board. Again, the Americana is another project that he is affiliated with
where he availed himself of this process. And again, it's, I think, intellectually dishonest
for someone to come to this board, ask for that relief, and then ask for someone not to have the
same thing that they have. So I have, you know, now Mr. Spencer, who, even though there's no
parking variance on this notice of refusal, I will show that, you know, assuming argumento,
there's some argument to be made, we should provide parking, that it would be impossible
to provide underground parking for this lot. So I would ask that Mr. Spencer virtually raise his hand.
He's your architect. Yes, he is. Alan, do you have the site plan? Yes, I do. Yeah, I can talk about it while you talk.
Hello, can everyone hear me? Yes, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for this stenographer?
Yes, it's Derek Spencer, D-E-R-E-K, Spencer, S-P-E-N-C-E-R.