You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel, please proceed.
Yes, Mr. Spencer, I am showing you a document that you prepared this document, correct?
Correct.
Okay, can you explain to the board what is the purpose of this document?
Yeah, we took a look at, there was a request to take a look at the feasibility of underground
parking on the site. So we really investigated what it would take to get a ramp down below the
first floor. So this is a ramp for vehicles to enter the basement. You can see that there's a
10 foot transition zone at both the top and the bottom, which is required for cars to make sure
they don't bottom out. But this is essentially the max slope of 16% in the middle that a vehicle
can travel down for the garage. So we were looking to see what is the shortest distance that we can
go just to get the minimum of eight foot four ceiling heights in the basement, which is required
by code. So you can see here that the ramp length itself is just under 69 and a half feet. And then
And once you have the drive aisle width for the turn to be made, once you get down to
the basement, the overall length that you need for the building is about 88 feet.
So as compared to our site, our entire site depth is, I believe, 61 feet or something
close to that.
So we very quickly found that the ramp for underground parking scenarios is completely
infeasible.
Gotcha.
And can you just give a summary of the changes or confirm the summary of the changes that we made as part of the community input process?
Yeah, I was listening during your presentation of the proviso form and all of that is accurate.
Could he give us what you haven't told us?
I mean, I think I think I think I think that one we do that.
I think that's it. Right. OK.
So I and then I would also introduce into the record.
um let me share my screen again
uh into the record uh the document that's labeled at the top deluxe it's a three-page document it
was submitted previously to the board um we found that on www.luxfishtown.com backslash units
um and again the the record would show that and i can have mr scampico confirm this as a principal
of this company uh that none of these properties none of these units fulfill at least affordable
but at least affordable housing obligations we have at 40% AMI.
housing obligations we have at 40% AMI.
I would also introduce the slides show that I provided you,
as well as the videos, as well as the presentation materials.
I reserve the right to, for any rebuttal. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from, we'll take questions from the board first, right?
How do you want to send this?
Yeah, no, I think if the board has questions about Mr.
Knockham's additional information provided this time, they can do that.
And then if Mr. Rand has some remarks, you'd like to make them have this client.
We can do that.
Questions from the board.
Yes. Is there an elevator in this building?
Yes, there is.
And is it ADA accessible?
I would defer to Mr. Spencer to answer that question.
I think I know the answer, but I want to make sure I'm correct.
Mr. Spencer?
Yes, all of the units are ADA type B accessible.
Okay. Thank you.
Other questions?
Do we want to now move on to, and then we'll take it to the public after?
One point, and my understanding is that Ms. Emerson was going to point out two matters in the refusal that she believed that the examiner did miss.
Right. No, that is correct. I was going to bring that in the end. But yes, even though this is a corrected refusal, there still appear to be a couple errors on it.
one being that there was not because it was evaluated under RSA 5 there was not a refusal
issued for the CMX 2.5 use even though it's listed right there in the scope and the other
one is that because it's mixed residential and commercial proposed there's not a multiple
principal uses refusal on there that should be there so as as I've said before if the board
decides to grant those refusals are automatically incorporated into the decision but I did want to
And I would object to the second refusal being a refusal, just because in the North American overlay, we're required to provide commercial use on the ground floor. So I think the only refusal that would be appropriate is the residential unit use above.
I understand. Thank you, counsel.
Would you state your name again?
Yes, sir. My name is Jordan Rand.
And I think I already swore you in, am I correct?
Yes, you did.
Okay, why don't you proceed?
So I'd like to address a few of the legal issues first, and then I have my client, the
objector here, who has prepared an affidavit, which has been electronically submitted and
accepted into the record.
I have copies here for everybody.
So a lot has been made about prior variances granted to projects in which my client was
involved.
And I think it's important to point out two things. The first thing is when my client sought variances, they sought variances to, with regard to properties that were zoned, ICMX, ICMX, and they wanted relief to treat it as an IRMX property.
So, while that is a change, it's not nearly as severe as the change being requested here, which is to go from an RSA 5 property to a CMX 2.5 property.
And important as that point is, it is my understanding that the Planning Commission, who is vested with the ability to make the determination as to how this entire lot should be treated, given its mixed zoning, has elected to designate it RSA 5.
So, we have here a single-family lot. It is my understanding that, and I can admit this into the record, but at approximately 1 o'clock today, Ms. Amy Boyd confirmed to my partner that they were going, the Planning Commission had elected to treat the property as RSA 5.
So, that's a big distinction between prior variances and the one being sought today.
it the Philadelphia code provision which supports the Planning Commission's decision is 14-107 2d
now it also makes logical sense here for a couple of reasons to treat this property as
an RSA 5 property first the RSA 5 component of the property is 70 of the parcel five more percent
and there would be no determination necessary from the Planning Commission.
It would be automatically designated RSA 5.
However, the Planning Commission, when it is less than 75%, has the ability to look to the comprehensive plan and pick the designation that it believes is most consistent with the plan, which it did in this case.
However, the Planning Commission, when it is less than 75%,
has the ability to...
And again, that's RSA 5.
Now, the second legal point I want to address is this zoning by estoppel argument.
It is well settled that every project has to be assessed on its own merits.
The granting of a variance to a different property with a different zoning designation at a different time does not mean that the applicant in this case has carried its burden to prove a hardship substantial enough to warrant variance relief.
And I was actually personally involved in a case very much like this about five years ago before this board.
It was Solo R.I. Inc. versus ZBA.
And in that case, my client was an owner on Island Avenue near the airport.
They wanted to open up a Hilton extended stay hotel.
The objector was the next door Marriott owner who owned a extended stay hotel.
And we argued successfully at this level that the fact that the Marriott had gotten identical relief just two years prior should forestall their ability to make the arguments that they made in opposition to the Hilton.
The trial court affirmed the ZBA's grant of a variance.
The Commonwealth Court, however, reversed.
And the reason it reversed, among others, is it is not enough to say others have gotten relief, even if it's similar relief, even if it's near in time, even if the properties at issue all started with the same zoning designation.
That does not obviate the need to carry the burden necessary to obtain variance relief.
That case number was 333 CD 2019.
Having addressed those legal issues, I do, as I said, have my client here who is here in two capacities.
Mr. Scanapico is here as a resident of the adjacent property of 1705 North American and as a representative of 1705-63 North American Alpha LLC, the owner of the adjacent building.
I don't know if anyone wants to look at it now.
With the board's permission, I'd like to call up my client to have him adopt the affidavit.
good afternoon sir could you please state your name and spell for the snocker if possible get
close to the mic when you do it yeah sure uh michael scanapico m-i-c-h-a-e-l uh s-c-a-n-n-a-p-i-e-c-o
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed
counsel thank you mr scanapico have you reviewed this affidavit dated march 26 2025
is the contents of this affidavit true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and
belief yes do you adopt the statements set forth in this affidavit in full yeah thank you no further
questions okay thank you uh council do you have any questions yeah mr scanpico um you have the
affidavit in front of you correct correct all right and in paragraph three of the affidavit
you state that the property is presently mixed zone to icmx industrial commercial mixed use
and rsa5 residential single family attached five correct correct
i have no further questions thank you
The only additional item I have is that I would request to either submit the email from the planning commission now or leave the record open so that I can do whatever I need to do electronically submit it afterwards.
Why don't we electronically? Well, I think it's already on the record because the refusal now only it's clearly evaluated under RSA five. So while the refusal doesn't note that that was what was selected by the planning commission, that is how it was evaluated under RSA.
how it was so evaluated under rsa well no i'm gonna object because from a legal standpoint
Well, no, I'm going to object because from a legal state.
the reason why it was evaluated under rsa 5 because is that's the most restrictive zoning
applicable to the property but the fact that the planning commission had ex parte communications
with an objector i do object to i think so i just i just want to know for the record i just
want to know for the record under the you know the zoning code there's certain circumstances
with split zoning where then the planning commission makes the call they tell lni what
zoning district to evaluate the application under and so that was the case in this in this situation
is that it was it was the determination of the planning commission how to evaluate it that that's
that's all i'm i'm saying but i said i think that is part implicitly part of the record because
the refusal says it's evaluated under rsa5 normally they notate that the planning commission
has selected that so that you know that it went through that process, but this time they did not?
Well, I would object to if there was any determination by the Planning Commission
that respect from a legal standpoint, the zoning examiner has to apply the most restrictive
zoning applicable to the property, which is RSA 5. It does not mean it's an RSA 5 property
because we would still be here if, well, I'm not going to say that, but that's not correct
from a legal standpoint and i would also object if there's any email correspondence between the
planning commission and any objector directly where we're not involved was there an email to
that in that respect i mean it's in the record so i don't have a copy of it but i think i'm entitled
to it happy to share it right now and uh it's on my phone but you're welcome to take a look
yeah so it seems like there was some expert communications between the planning commission
and an objector with i was not involved with i had no knowledge we understand your objection
we understand your point of view there there was an email asking whether they had made a decision
and an email back saying yes rc so i'm going to object to to the introduction of that document
into the record well i'll let it go i guess that will go on appeal of whether that was appropriate
it hasn't it hasn't been submitted i don't i don't as counsel for the board i don't think it's
necessary because the information contained in that is already part of the record i actually
i would like that to be part of the record so for record keeping purposes for any appeal
um we take note of what you just said okay yeah all right um thank you
don't worry do you have anything else you want to say no if the if um if alan do you have any
rebuttal um testimony but now we'll move on to um the the public yeah the only argument i would say
is in terms of of this case um again mr scampico with full knowledge i guess the fact that he
believes that this should be an RSA 5 zoning, then built a tower of 77 feet high. Originally,
he proposed to build it 91 feet high. He had no qualms about building something that high to tower
over with the shadow that it would create. Ultimately, this is what it's about. Mr. Scampico
wants his view on his side windows and we're blocking his view and that's upsetting him
but that's what he built and that's what he has he created by way of that project
and other projects on that block what we're doing contextually under the law should be approved
by this board thank you thank you uh questions or comments from the virtual or the the current
audience here there are no hands in a virtual audience thank you planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission amyboid
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
please machine the comprehensive plan recommends no change the rsa 5 residential single family
zoning and the icmx industrial commercial mixed use zoning at this location two lots were
consolidated and pcpc selected rsa 5 zoning the city rezoned this portion of south kensington in
2016 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive plan at the time these parcels
were zoned i2 medium industrial the new zoning was a compromised solution with former council
member to maintain commercial or light industrial presence on the commercial corridor the proposed
ground floor commercial use matches the goal and is in keeping with the icmx zoning of the western
matches the goal and is in keeping with the ICMX zoning of the western part of the parcel.
This block face of Cecil B. Moore across the street are shorter row homes. The planning
commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for multifamily and if applicable
CMX 2 uses, sorry, CMX 2.5 uses and multiple principal uses. We recommend that the board
either requested variance for height. Thank you. May I just respond in kind, Mr. Chair? In terms of
the height, again, contextual that we're asking for what, you know, the property owner till left
has. So for that reason, we, you know, object to that recommendation. Thank you. All right. Thank
you. We're going to, I appreciate both your comments today. We're going to take this under
consideration to executive session. Next week, we will vote on this at 2 a.m.
Thank you. Thank you very much. All right.
Number six, MI 2024-007-329-1102-04 East Columbia Avenue.
Ronald Patterson is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Fishtown Neighbors, 25 in support.
Patterson, could you please state your name and spell for this themographer?
Good afternoon.
Ronald Patterson, R-O-N-A-L-D-P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N.
Claire Harrison Law Firm, 1835 Market Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
My client is 1104 East Columbia, LLC, which is the owner and developer.
The principal is Roland Cassis.
I call him the king of Frankfurt Avenue.
And with me is Jay Hereda, who's with the development group.
Do you swear? Do you waive the reading of the refusal? Do you agree with its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Share your screen and start your conversation.