I'm sorry. What was that, Pauline?
Oh, I'm sorry. We're live now. I just went to 3-2-1. We're good.
Thank you.
I think attendees are starting to come in.
Okay. We'll give you a few minutes, Yvette, and then you'll let us know when you're ready.
reminder only promote those who are presenting open up audio for people who just need to speak
okay okay good morning tanya how are you good to hear your voice good morning fearless leader
oh god you must be talking to carol not me
we're ready to go chair thank you very much good morning again everyone my name is frank
de chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with our vice chair miss carol denari board secretary confessor plaza and board
members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Yvonne Benton and
Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated
in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second
we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you
acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and when this recording will be available to the
public on the web or otherwise third for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself
I'll repeat for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by
hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself finally to enter an appearance statement
call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
I will repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
And I would also like to remind everyone that please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to our board administrator, Ms. Yvonne Benton.
uh with that i will read off a list of cases that have been uh requested to either be withdrawn or
continued uh after i get done reading we'll ask if anyone has any concern with the request for
continuance and then we will ask if there are any further requests sorry no
all right you you do that drink yeah mi 2020-002610
1254 sydney street is withdrawn number five on our list mi 2020-002439
2401 North 33rd Street is continued. Number seven on our list MI 2020-002-420
2549 North 32nd Street is continued. MI 2020-002-421-3110 West York Street is continued.
Number 11 on our list, MI 2020-000299-4363 Main Street is continued.
Number 15 on our list, MI 2020-000108-5000 North 12th Street is continued.
and I believe that is those are all the cases that we have asked that have been asked to be
continued or withdrawn. If anyone disagrees with any of those cases please raise your hand at this
time no hands at this time chair thank you we'll now entertain any other requests for continuance
Other requests for continuance or withdrawals, please raise your hand at this time.
or with continuances or withdrawals please
If you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal and has not been already read into the record,
please raise your hand at this time.
No hands at this time, Chair.
okay i believe with that we can begin carol okay two on our list
uh do what about the uh oh the add-ons i'm sorry the add-ons okay the add-on calendar number
0296 810 north 12th street i didn't participate in the original hearing i will not be voting
on this consideration for a reconsideration issue.
Xin Jin is the applicant.
We are not, this is simply a vote on the request
to reconsider and rehear the case.
They won't be presenting argument.
Okay, my vote is yes to reconsider and rehear.
Yes, reconsideration and rehearing.
Yes, to reconsideration and rehearing.
Yes, to reconsideration and rehearing.
Okay, now with that, we can go to number two
on our regular list, Carol.
Okay, calendar number 0340, 1530 West Champlist.
Madam Vice Chair, does it say who the attorney is on that?
no it does not it looks like it might be a pro se
it is the property owner's names are
Andrew and Andrea Walker yes okay and we've also received a letter from or an email from Charles
Richardson on this which I will in a moment send to the board Andrew Walker you've been promoted
to panelists you may uh put your case forward now sure mr walker yes can you put your name
and address on the record please and spell your last name where you put that instead
mr walker can you hear me yes on the answer yes can you put your name and address on the record
please and spell your last name andrew walker andrew walker a-n-d-r-e my last name is w-a-l-k-e-r
first name she's just the last name okay excuse me before you begin um can i remind the board that
you did this morning receive i forwarded by email um the rco's letter on this matter with attachments
yes we did
sir do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
you may proceed
good morning mr chairman members of the board
My name is Andrea Walker.
Andrea needs to be sworn in as well.
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Mrs. Walker?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you. You may proceed.
My name is Andrea Walker. This is my husband, Andrew Walker.
Sorry, I'm a little nervous, but please bear with me as I present our project.
In this project, we will show the following.
uh a refusal we're not seeing your screen ma'am you need okay share your screen with us please
share screen okay
it's in the uh i'm sorry ma'am do you see the share screen button along the bottom
yes ma'am okay great you click that it's in here um this one
it's a refusal letter are you seeing that
yes oh no i'm sorry we see no i think you need to open it
Thank you.
It is open. I opened it.
Just a minute.
Do you have more than one screen?
No, I only have one screen. I'm only on one laptop. No, I don't have more than one screen.
We see your Explorer window where you have a list of your files.
Oh, I need to take that off. Okay. All right. Give me one second. All right.
Share screen.
This one. Are you seeing it now?
Okay. Thank you. So that's our refusal letter.
We also have a project information form.
am i going too fast no okay we have a deed for the property
this is the certificate of um tax clearance
and this is the uh plans for the property
i'm sorry madam chair um sharon did you look at the tax clearance
oh good it appears as though it's not the zoning board's tax clear
um i will look the property up now on the revenue site
thank you
should i continue
i'm sorry um i'm also this is the side picture
uh i'm gonna can you rotate yeah okay thank you
that's the side picture
this is also
uh these are the side pictures this is the side
These are the posted zone in picture.
These are the impacted neighbors.
These are the petitions.
It's going to be two copies.
This first copy wasn't showing too good.
so I redo it and put another and that's why we ended up with two copies in there.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. I checked and the property is tax compliant.
Thank you, Sharon.
You're welcome.
these are the list of contents and these are the um the other clearer copy of the um petitions
and the rc the rco did not have a regular meeting um they proposed some questions and answers
some questions and these are the answers that we provided could you rotate that yes sir
You can see a little bit.
You can see a little more.
More today.
And this proof of distribution.
and i'm early this morning received a letter from the rco stating that they did not
um approve of the project however there was no vote for that letter
and we do have member um impacted members i promise to come on here to
speak on our behalf and could you go back to the
did you go back to the uh beginning and uh i'd like to see the drawings the floor plans the plans
oh right here okay yeah should you rotate that yes sir
to the left uh is that first floor ground floor what is the you have to scroll up a little bit
I can't see, no the other way. Oh the other way, okay. Chain link fence, that's
third story not used, existing steel.
Ground floor, going through this.
what was this what was the what was this property used as in the past was it a restaurant
um sir i know it was a church sir but we bought it as is so i think there was trying
they have different um settings in there i know it was a church once and before the church it
was something else i know and the dining room and all the kitchen equipment was pre-existing
when you bought it as is yeah we bought it as equipment um some of them is hers but some was
there yeah the furniture is we we um just put our front the furniture is in there a quick question
do you propose entertainment no no sir thank you
any other questions from the board no no all right anyone else like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand
we have charles richardson chair good morning mr richardson you can speak now
good morning mr chair members of the board
charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall
Do Richardson, you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Councilwoman has opposition to this proposal.
RCO did send a letter this morning stating their opposition to the proposal.
They're citing the immediate neighbors, the residential nature of the block, the apartment facility right next door with special needs,
that there's not sufficient parking for the number of patrons that they probably would incur,
uh no accommodations for dumpster no access for trash pickup uh steps are hazardous and then they
also feel that the uh steps might end up being a place where people loiter
uh there's already a high crime in the area uh producing a threat to safe walkable access
And they also cite that there's more appropriate commercial corridor access about a block away.
So the Councilwoman is opposed based on the opposition of the RCO.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have a Dennis Lee.
Mr. Lee, you've been unmuted.
You can speak now.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
I also noted that Sandra brought us from the RCO is present.
Mr. Lee, please identify yourself for the record, name and address.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I raised my hand.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I raised my hand inadvertently. I'm not testifying.
No problem.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have a Juanita Gatewood. Ms. Gatewood, you are muted. You can speak now.
Morning, Ms. Gatewood. Please identify yourself with a record name and address.
Spell your last name.
Good morning. Can I be heard? Can you hear me?
Yes. Good morning. My name is Juanita Gatewood. I'm the community representative for the 17th Ward 13th Division. My address is 1516 Roseland Street.
Ms. Gatewood, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Okay, as I stated, I'm the community representative for the 17th Ward 13th Division, which covers the zone in which this area is being held, this in question.
I am speaking on behalf of the numerous concerned neighbors who have contacted me, along with fellow neighbors for the 1500 block of Champlst and 1500 block of Roseland, where I reside.
We are opposed to this idea, a facility being open in such a congested area, residential area, which has already been noted for growing high crime area.
It's congested in reference to parking and it's a bus route as well.
and due to the pandemic curbside services would be hazardous for pickups you know what I'm saying
this adds to concern issues of laudering and as I previously stated we've had an uproar and
crime around it that's just something that we you know are trying to work on there are numerous
eateries already around the facility and the trash and the smell in the area in reference to trash
pickup collection or whatever it would be it would just be too congested and with all due respect to
Mr. and Mrs. Walker I haven't seen anything noted for questions concerning um the community I never
received anything you know pertaining to that once again I'm just speaking for my community
and um we all are opposed to this and again we wish them luck if they found another location
but that particular area right there is just basically too congested and again it was a part
of the church a while ago when I've seen uh remodeling being done nothing was said and I
thought it was part of the church so again um we're opposed thank you anyone else like to
testify in this case please raise your hand and if you do testify something new and different please
chair we have a phone caller with the last digit last four digits seven six two five
caller you may speak now
caller please identify yourself with the record name and address
hello good morning my name is Karina Bowen my address is 6224 North Smedley Street
1-9-1-4-1
I actually live in
Ma'am excuse me hold on
Please spell your last name for the
Court reporter and I'll swear you in
B-O-W-E-N
You swear and affirm
To tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Please proceed
I live on
The 6200 block of
North Smedley Street
And I do understand that this young man and his wife are trying to open a restaurant. I understand the obstacles that the persons that presented prior are saying that it is a congested area, but, and also the staircase, which I think, you know, are things that the stairs is something that could be fixed.
and you know be made more accessible um to my understanding from what was told to me
um this is going to be a restaurant there's not going to be any nightclub or bars i am opposed to
the multiple poppy stores that are in my neighborhood but i never received any information
about anybody fighting not to open one of these poppy stores that's selling you know cigarettes and
you know tobacco products you address your concerns as it relates to this application please
Okay. So I do not oppose the opening of this restaurant in the neighborhood. I think it would provide jobs, and it's also helping a member of the Philadelphia community to further their self in the city.
okay so i i i do not oppose the opening
Thank you very much. Anyone else would like to testify?
Chair, we have someone by the name of Lincoln Kerr. Mr. Kerr, you may unmute yourself and speak now.
Mr. Kerr, please identify yourself for the record, name and address, spell your last
name, and then I'll swear you in.
Mr. Kerr, you may speak now.
Can y'all hear me?
Yes, please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, my name is Lincoln Kerr.
I'm over there at 1500 West Champ Plus, just down the street.
and uh you swear to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes yes i do and your address again 1500 west champ laws just down the street
right okay thank you please proceed all right yeah um i don't i don't i i'm okay with this
um restaurant being down the street um i i don't see the problem with it um i i hear what i hear
the concerns with coming from the uh the uh the other people that are opposing i i understand that
but where was all this opposition with with everything else and i just think this will
help this family i don't see i don't see why what the uproar is and and it's it'll be a good thing
for our block,
it'll just be
another good business
in our neighborhood, and I think we need
more than that. We need more of that.
For them to keep
saying
it's going to bring crime,
and I mean, all that's a matter
of opinion.
I don't see why they should
be rejected from
someone's negative opinion.
I mean, this family, I know them personally.
They're good people, and I think they would do good.
Andy himself is a good guy.
His food is delicious, and I know this whole neighborhood will like it if they just try it.
So that's my opinion on that.
I'm a little confused.
You said the food is delicious.
Where are they serving food from?
No, I know him personally, and I think...
Oh, you said the food is delicious.
is, I thought, I was just curious where you're getting the food.
No, you know, I had his food before.
He sees, him and his family does block parties, and then all, the whole neighborhood comes
out and tries his food, and I don't see, I don't see what the problem is.
I think the opposition just needs to just allow this to happen, and it's going to be
a good thing.
I mean, there's crime everywhere, but you don't, you don't, but there's, you said don't speak on other businesses, but there's crime everywhere, all up and down Oyelk Road or whatever, but that's, that's, that shouldn't deter this family from doing what's best for them and their family.
Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else?
Chair, we have Sandra Broadus.
Ms. Broadus, you may unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning, ma'am. Please identify yourself with a record name and address by your last name.
Ms. Brodus?
We can move on.
Okay, Chair, we have someone by the name of Robert Hope.
Mr. Hope, you can unmute yourself.
yes good afternoon can you guys hear me yes please identify yourself name and address
yes good morning my name is officer robert hoppy i'm uh part of the 35th police district over at
5960 north broad street please spell your last name it's h-o-p-p-e badge number one five two
eight you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Please proceed. Yes, I was just speaking in reference to the crime in that particular area.
The place in reference at 1530 Champloss Street is roughly about a quarter of a mile from the
35th Police District, which is technically right up the street from Old York and Champloss.
uh this knowing been a police officer for 14 years in the 35th district that i can actually
This knowing been a police officer for 14 years in the 35th District.
say that the crime in that particular area is not bad uh we do have some issues around
surrounding areas but within that radius of their establishment it is not anywhere near as bad as
other areas of the 35th police district so in my opinion that that restaurant being in that location
for safety-wise is going to be perfectly fine, and there would be no issues.
Thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Anyone else?
Chair, we have someone by the name of Malenza Gordon.
Ms. Gordon, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Hello, good morning. My name is Malena Gordon.
can you hear me yes we can hear you can you swear her in please
yes do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
i do and put your name and address on the record and spell your last name please
my name is melina gordon g-o-r-d-o-n
thank you you may proceed i reside at
we lost you we just hello miss gordon yes i'm here
can you hear me yes can you please proceed yes i reside at 1519 west champ plus
avenue so i'm on the actual block that the restaurant would be on and i am therefore
calling just because i i don't see why there is an opposition to this restaurant be there
i see where they have the opposing have voiced several reasons and i concur with the police
officer who spoke before me that I have been here for 18 years and I have not had the impact
of the crime infestation that the opposition is voicing. I, residing on this block, have
not had that i see this as a very quiet block there have been items around but on the actual
block for those who say high infestation of crime that is incorrect i also see about the stairs
and i have i also concur with someone who stated that if the stairs leading to the restaurant to
the property can be amended, can be fixed, then I think the opportunity should be given to the
restaurant owners for them to amend. If they oppose amending, then one can say that they are not
appreciating what needs to make them a better place. I see also about loitering. And I will
say that until one has that, and somebody might say, why wait to have it? But I don't see how
the restaurant would, in effect, take loitering. There are other places, I mean, beside it,
And I don't see loitering. So I just don't see why someone, in effect, is preempting that there will be loitering on steps.
I also hear one speaking about food in terms of smell.
I'm not sure what that means, because anyone who has a house and you're cooking and you have not, it's eating.
There is a difference, ma'am.
Excuse the interruption.
This would be a commercial kitchen.
I think the issue had to do with the exhaust system.
Is that a roof-mounted exhaust?
Could the applicant speak to that?
Would that be a roof-mounted exhaust?
Andrew?
Are you hearing me?
Yes, yes.
Is that a yes to...
There would be an exhaust.
Say that again?
Say that again?
There will be an exhaust.
There will be an exhaust.
And the roof.
And the roof.
Is it roof mounted?
Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify?
Something new and different, please.
We have someone by the name, looks like Jody Edwards.
You may unmute yourself and speak now.
Hello, how are you doing?
My name's Jody Edwards.
Your name and address, sir?
My name is Jody Edwards.
Address, I live on the 1400 block of Grange.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
Okay, so I live not too far from where the 35th District is and where this restaurant is supposed to be going up.
And honestly, I don't see what the big problem is.
It will bring a new look to our community.
Yes, there's other restaurants in the area, but they're farther away from the community.
They're on a main street.
This new restaurant in the community will bring a new look and bring a better view to
our community because I'm pretty sure, I think the officer name was Officer Happy.
And if they're minutes away, not even a mile up down the block to say, okay, this neighborhood
crime rate is not as high as the opposition is making it seem, I live in that neighborhood.
that neighborhood is not that bad um it's it's a beautiful neighborhood yeah and this restaurant
will bring out more more in the neighborhood i think you know this this would be a great step
towards a better future for us in the neighborhood especially as a young african-american male it
will be great for us something new to look to a new job to look to look forward to hey you know
you hiring a dishwasher i'll take a dishwashing job there anytime so that that's my my view and
And I think this would be a great opportunity for our neighborhood and a great opportunity for the people in our neighborhood that's trying to make something of their lives.
Why fight another family down?
They're trying to make a future for themselves and a future for their kids if they have kids.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you very much.
We need to move on.
I'm going to add to the Planning Commission.
Morning, Chair.
Chico, Ian Haggerty.
on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Megan, are you swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing about the truth?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
So, Chair and Chico, members of the board, with all due respect to the family,
we don't find any evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions peculiar to the
property, nor do we believe that there is no possibility that the property can be used
in strict conformance with the zoning code.
um furthermore the proposed use conflicts with the comprehensive plan which encourages
consolidation of commercial uses in this area to the more active corridors and so we would
recommend that the zoning board deny the variance
frank you're muted
i'm sorry i got ahead of myself i forgot to ask are the questions from the board
no yes no yes will there be a commercial pickup of trash
yes yes good thank you all right uh anyone else on the board no no now their number
MI 2020-000340-1530 West Champaulce Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
And good luck to you.
Calendar number 0298-1924-South 19th Street.
The attorney is Vern Anastasio.
Vern, you may speak. You've been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Anastasio, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
uh yes verne anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o 1315 walnut street suite 1006 philadelphia
19107 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do do you also
agree to wave the reading the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos and or
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you
Five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
have a letter?
I have all of that.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share my screen, if that's okay.
That's great.
1924 South 19th Street.
As you see here.
here. It's, we are legalizing a garage that was built out on the rear of this particular
property. Here's the garage right here. And it's in.
how long has it been there
uh he thought he could build it as a matter of right um it's been there um a little over a year
he found out that it wasn't when he found out that it was not compliant he uh reached out to
us and we've been going through the process to legalize it thank you there it is right there
there, and we met with the community group, the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
They voted, it was a tie with respect to the RCO leadership.
and there were some folks in the there were only about four folks in the in the audience
and they voted in opposition but we do have a petition from all immediate neighbors everyone
on 19th street who all support the legalization there were some provisions that were required
and um they were the owner would add mirrors on the sides of the garage at the top and the owner
would add lighting system to indicate when exiting the garage he has agreed to those two provisos
we have the tax certification the proof of mailing 205 and like i said we do have a couple dozen
actually three pages worth of all the immediate neighbors in support of legalization with those
provisions intact. Here's the flyer that was distributed and mailed. And with that,
I'm going to close my case in chief. My client, Elad Bella, should be on the line. Elad,
I go can you please raise your hand and be acknowledged Mr. Biko told me he was
on I don't know I will stipulate you being an officer of court that your
client would adopt your testimony I have a question though that the photograph
yes sir that's showing a side view uh right there yep that looking down 19th street or
is that looking down was that mifflin or mckean i'm not sure um you mean this photo right here
yes that's 19th looking south down 19th and this is a corner property i assume correct that's correct
frontage is on the uh the name street which is uh dean or mifflin yeah mckean
okay uh any questions from the board we have everybody's signature on here
is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
we have someone with the last four digits of their phone number 4781 you may unmute yourself
and speak uh yes ma'am yeah this is uh boykey uh the owner 1924 south 19th street
is that your client
Vern maybe you can spell his last name for us
Mr. Boyke could you please spell your last name
BSN Boy
BSN David
M like Mike
i'm like mike a and like nancy you swear and affirm to tell the truth
N like Nancy
you swear in a firm
i do somebody has a mic on please mute it
okay um i have a question sir what was there before you built the garage
was that it was an extension of the building or was it a rare yard because i'm looking at this
what looks like the beginning of the second level goes up to the party wall on the property at
on 19th street what was there before you created a garage
sir you are muted if you unmute yourself we can hear you
frank the noise was coming from this gentleman okay can you hear me i'm sorry
okay so when i bought it the building is that's the way it was uh the only different is it just
the the uh the front uh i mean the the garage door before it's just on the regular door
and and we open it and change with the garage door that's it so that's nothing it was like a storage
room with a door leading into it? Yes, it looks like that way. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any
questions on the board? Mr. Boyki, do you adopt my presentation as your own testimony, sir?
Yeah, yes. Thank you. Any questions on the board? No. Nope. Anyone else like to testify in this
case please raise your hand there are no hands up chair planning commission thank you planning
commission thank you chair to chico ian haggerty for the philadelphia city planning commission
we believe the variance is minimal we have no objection to the granting of the variance
thank you mi 2020 that's 0002981924 north 19th street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is
yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you. Calendar number 2452, 2005 East Cliveden Street.
I see no hands at this time, Madam Vice Chair.
So the attorney is Harry Cook, who has already been continued.
And Mr. Cook is in Mr. Anastasio's office, perhaps Mr. Anastasio could, if he's still
here, could be called.
no he left the meeting has this case already been continued it it's not and they did submit
exhibits if we could move this to the end i will try to contact mr cook i'm here do you want me to
Mute him.
I'm here.
I'm here.
Hi, folks.
So this is case
2452, 2005
East Cliveden Street, and Harry Cook
is the attorney.
Well, I'm going to be presenting.
Okay. Put your name and address on the record,
please, and spell your last name.
He's coming back in as a panelist.
yes i just promoted him to panelist
sorry folks i don't know what happened there okay name and address sure vernon anastasio 1315
walnut street suite 1006 philadelphia 19107 and we're doing do you swear to tell the whole truth
oh you're still under oath do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. And has the exhibit packet with all the required documents been submitted?
It has. Okay, you may proceed. We're doing Cliveden, right? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to share my
screen. Okay. This is an application for a construction of a two-family dwelling
with two accessory surface parking spaces. This particular property was part
of a larger parcel that was in fact subdivided. And then my client purchased the empty lot.
The other portion of the parcel are two single family homes. My client would like to build
My client would like to build these two homes on this one lot.
these two homes on this one lot.
There'll be a driveway here with two accessory parking spaces in the rear.
Here's...
There'll be two homes, one here, one here.
There's the layout.
There's a side view.
uh there are the two homes uh adjacent to the the lot in question uh this is the lot in question
on on the right there are the two homes that this property was part uh part of before the
uh subdivision
well we'll bring in
this is the lot here
This particular lot is pretty large, so let's take a look.
And the surrounding properties are all nearly single-family homes.
The lot areas, according to Atlas, are as follows.
2001 is a 2600 square foot lot. 2003 is a 2800 square foot lot. Our project is almost double
that, 4100 square feet. 7600 Fayette is 5800. 7608 Fayette is 1600. 7609, which is the backyard
to butts the side of our property, 2,800, and 7611 Williams is 3,800. Again, all these are single
family homes. Ours is nearly double in size of the ones on Cliveden, and that's why we're asking
for the two single family homes on the one lot. In terms of the use on this block, there are
multifamily buildings at the following addresses, 7617 Williams, 7644 Fayette, and 7650 Fayette,
all abutting this property. And with that, we met with the community organization. And let's see if
I have, yep, there it is.
This is the flyer that was mailed out.
And it's my understanding that they are in opposition to this.
67 pieces of mail went out.
This is, again, this is a double-sized lot.
It's over 4,000 square feet.
Most of the single-family homes are on lots that are half the size.
As a result, we can give our potential purchasers 16-foot-wide homes with the parking in the rear.
It does absolutely zero negative impact to the community.
This is a vacant lot as it sits, and it'll be an asset to the neighborhood.
But with that, I think we probably have some folks who want to speak.
But I'd like to have my client raise his hand if Mr. Ilad Bela is online or on the phone.
Mr. Bela, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning.
Please identify yourself with a record name.
Please spell your name.
My name is Ilad Bela.
The B-E-L-A.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Bella, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony if need be?
Pardon?
Would you adopt it as your own testimony if need be?
Thank you.
With that, I rest, Mr. Chairman.
excuse me mr anastasio we don't have a letter from the rco or for the council person do you
have either of those i do not thank you but we don't have it either sharon no yeah there was
nothing forthcoming all right this is hillary from councilman parker's office um i'm here to
speak on behalf of the councilwoman and i can also forward you the rco's letter okay we'll get you
We'll get to you in a minute, thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Okay, now, if anyone would like to testify,
please raise your hand.
Hillary?
hillary yes please identify yourself i'll swear you in yes i'm hillary emerson e-m-e-r-s-o-n on
behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker confirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do please please yes um councilwoman parker um is is opposed to the proposed uh duplex
at this location. She doesn't feel that there's a hardship in this case, as counsel noted.
This is largely a single-family home area. The properties adjacent are single-family
homes, the other two homes on Clifton Street. This, there's one of the refusals in this case
is for an eight-foot side yard requirement, and the size of the proposed duplex would result in
only two and a half feet between the side of the building and the common driveway that's between
the Cliven Street properties and the Fayette Street properties, and there's no hardship
showing why there couldn't be two eight-foot side yards in a smaller single-family home to be in
compliance with the dimensional requirements in the zoning code. As I mentioned, Councilman feels
that this is out of character with the neighborhood, given that it's largely single-family homes on the
lots attached and detached. We feel it's an overuse of the property and the community was
opposed at the RCO meeting. And I can forward that letter to Sharon. And Vern, if you didn't
get it, I thought you had. So I'll follow it up to you as well. That's okay. And for
the record, I mean, as you can see, these look like two single family homes on what
is a double-sized lot so just for the record anyone else like to testify in this case please
raise your hand no hands at this time chair thank you questions i asked questions from the board
any uh planning commission thank you chair to chico ian hegarty city planning commission chair
It would be all right if I ask Mr. Anastasio a question.
Anastasio?
Mr. Anastasio, out of curiosity, why didn't the client opt to try to split the lot into two parcels and then build two single-family homes?
Seems like it may have been done as a matter of right.
That was something he entertained.
he decided to go this route because you know this is this is what he'd like to do and as
you know again and your question proves my point uh that this is not unusual what we're proposing
is is within the scope of the neighborhood uh if he decided to subdivide he could have built
two single family homes uh he just would like to be able to uh to have the two homes on the one lot
um thank you which is you know which is it's not unusual
thank you mr anastasio um jerry chico and members of the board the proposed
variance allows for construction of a building that we feel is um similar in use and form and
function to a pair of uh single family attached twins in this rsa3 zoning district and so we
have no objection to the granting of the variance. MI 2020-002452-2005 East Clibden Street.
My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. My vote is no. Thank you.
calendar number 2447 2612 loney street
we have someone by the name of live them eliza
seems to be muted and you can speak
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
My name is Lavdim Elezi, E-L-E-Z-I.
And your address?
500 North 18th Street, 19130 Philadelphia.
500 North 18th Street, 1913-
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Did you submit your exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax information, refusal or referral,
photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
yes i have a letter and you've you have emailed all those other
requirements in this is sharon's letter we did receive the documents
you did okay okay you may proceed thanks sharon
Okay, I just want to introduce shortly myself for this process.
My family and me moved to the United States six years ago for the better future.
we came from a country at East Europe and we came here for a better future
especially for our children and the most important thing for my family is to have
a house for my family and two years ago I bought this lot and seeking to build
the house for my family a single house for my family there and the seller who
sold the lot to me was the the first owner of the lot after it was subdivided and he gave to me
a survey and the plan approved by the city planning commission for the setbacks and
i gave this survey to i hired an architect to draw my project and after that i applied to the
lni for the permits and i get refusal for the reason i will explain to the
to the plans below i can proceed with the presentation this is the content and
followed by the deed
This is the deed and this is the certificate of tax clearance of mine and this is the refusal
form. The refusal was made for the side setbacks, for the rear setbacks and for the concrete
parking on the front of the house I will explain a little bit below about that
and this is the application for appeal and this is the project information form
and this is the list of the nearby neighbors needed to notify for the
meetings and those are the confirmation for the notification of the neighbors and this is the
confirmation from post office for notification and this is the a copy of emails we get from
gba to adjust the meeting with the neighborhood and this is the notification of to the
all the neighbors and the refusal form was attached with the notification to
give more information to each of the neighbors and this is the copy of email from Mayfair
Civic Association to arrange the meeting with them and here is a picture how the
the lat looks is on the left side is an existing driveway and this is a zoning
notice posted in front of the property and at this page we at the moment I
submitted the to a zoning board of the presentation we didn't receive the
letter from the Mayfair Civic Association yet we just received it yesterday and I will show you
the letter separately
let me let me
yes this is the
This is the letter from the May Pacific Association we just received yesterday and they support
our project and the next door neighbors also support the project and there is just a provision
to restore the existing driveway as a pavement and curb after the relocation and it makes sense
and let me go back to the presentation.
So the next here is the zoning map that show in the purple is my lot. The zoning code is RSD3
on the right side of my property on the orange and in the front on the orange color are all the
built apartment buildings with RM1 zoning code and the rest of the houses are all the single
family houses as I am looking to build mine for my family and this is the picture of the same
position that shows the apartments on one side and in the front and single
houses on the other side and here is an explanation and explanation with
nearby houses and especially the next door houses they both share to each
other six feet side setbacks and most of the houses in this area share the
same things from six to eight feet setbacks like my proposals is and i will show you later now
and this is the survey i spoken earlier i get from the seller and the city planning commission
have approved the sitbacks for my lot eight feet on the side setbacks and 15 in rear
And you can see that the side setbacks for my next door property are 6.1 and 5.1 feet.
They share the same distance with each other.
And I am asking for 8 feet on the side setbacks.
and this is the stamp on on the survey and the plan from the Philadelphia city
planning when the lot was subdivided first and this is a picture that stays
that on the right side there are apartments and this is how all the the
people there parking cars in the concrete parking in the front of their
building like what i am requesting to do to my case this is in the in the front of the my lot
is the same situation all the park concrete parking in the front of the building and
And this is my propose and my lot is non-conforming and we have to use eight feet and the side
setbacks and here is the existing driveway which we want to relocate to this in the
center of the house and to use this concrete parking as a park and at the
rear at the rear setbacks if we measure from the facade of the house it would be
25 feet at this point and 23 feet at this point because the lot is not in
square and if we measure from this deck is a small deck here done by the
architect the dimension will go 18 feet with 16 feet and this is the front elevation of
my house and this is the picture how it will looks after it after the builds i think we keep
We kept the, to match the forms with the apartment in one side and at the side of my house are you siding to, let's say, to be a bridge between apartments in the right and the single houses, like me, would be in the left side.
left side and here is another picture to show the benefits from the public and
And here is another.
the neighbors. Since the lot is unoccupied I often found the shopping
cars and other staff dumped in the front of the lot and I have to take
care to for them and to to resend them to to the market and to take care and i believe that
if the house would be there nobody will do the same thing again and this part of neighborhood
is going to improve at all and this is the end of my presentation thank you thank you
questions from the board no no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your
hand i see no hands chair thank you planning commission thank you chair chico members of
the board this dimensional variances here wouldn't conflict with the characteristics of the
surrounding neighborhood and so uh planning commission has no objection to the granting of
variance. Thank you. MI 2020-002447 2612 Loney Street. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote
is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Calendar number 2345 3862 Manayunk Avenue.
thank you so much for everyone i appreciate you good luck to you
we have a ryan mclaughlin here he's been promoted to panelists
ryan can you put your name and address on the record please
if you can hear me
Hello. Yes, this is Ryan McLaughlin. My address is 3862 Maniunk Ave, Philadelphia, PA, 19128.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
and have you emailed the required packet with proof of ownership tax info refusal or referral
plans and photos of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the rco and do you have a letter yes you may proceed
okay thank you oh sorry my video just came up thanks for having me everyone um is my screen
share working? All right, I can do that right now. Now. And there's also a letter of support
from the Wissahick and Neighbors Civic Association. Correct. So I will start at the top of my
presentation with my deed. Scrolling down. Let's see what's next. This is my tax certification.
or I'm sorry, no, that's still my deed. Let's see. Title policy is still on my deed.
Okay, this is my tax clearance certification for the zoning board. Here's a sitemap. Basically,
what we've done here is my wife and I got renovated this house in 2019. We live upstairs
and we created a mother-in-law suite in the basement with the intention of one day going
for a variance to make it a legal apartment um so we've requested a zoning variance to make this
a legal two-family home um this is the site map for the for the um the bottom level floor which
we've converted um in the basement or this is the floor plan the site map is here um the entrance
comes from manor street at the bottom here sidewalk here through this alley and this is
the entrance to the apartment um which will be more visible um in the photos which you can see
here um as you can see the egress meets meets code standards we built it you know to meet um
to meet code uh bathroom this is the rear of the building which would be the entrance for this
apartment seen here from another angle this is my application for appeal
scrolling through project information form this is my notice of refusal job
This is my notice of refusal, which I've included, notification to the neighbors here of the public meeting, which was held a couple weeks back, fulfilled everything here.
included
i also included my ledger of all the notified neighbors our oh here's another something else
i added to to show that the zoning um that we're requesting isn't completely uncommon for right
within the immediate proximity of our house um with the exception of the two triplexes most of
these are single families that i believe received a variance at some time in the past they're very
very similar row homes like ours, all very close.
We presented this at our neighborhood meeting.
We did very well.
Seven members of support, I'm sorry,
seven to zero and zero in support by RCO board members,
13 neighbors in attendance.
We have a really strong presence in our community.
We have a lot of, we're very active.
We do a lot of cleanups and whatnot.
We work with a lot of the neighbors
in maintaining the nearby parks, sidewalks,
everything like that.
so we had a great show of support 13 in attendance we also had i think three or four letters of
support which weren't included in this um but i do have a letter from joseph bergen who is the um
rco for our wissahickon neighbors um here's his letter of support i don't know if you need a
chance to read that or not i think you already have would you like me to pause on this or should
keep going you can keep going thank you i believe that's the end of my presentation i'm sorry if i
went too fast thank you yep any questions from the board no no no anyone else like to testify
in this case please raise your hand no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
Thank you Chair Chico, member of the board, Ian Hegarty on behalf of the City Planning
Commission. This property is in a single family residential district and no change has been
proposed to the zoning. We just really don't feel that the proposed variance is necessary
to enable viable economic use of the property. Excuse me. And so we would recommend that
the board deny the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-002345. 3862 Maniunk Avenue. My vote
is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Calendar number
4 0 9 6 7 4 0 1 1 richmond street did we get exhibits
i have no record of having received exhibits and this is the third listing
4 0 1 1 richmond street
no hands at this time chair thank you mi 2020-000967
4-0-1-1 Richmond Street. My vote is to dismiss.
My vote is to dismiss. Dismiss. Dismiss.
Dismiss. Calendar number
2446, 428-30 West Thompson
Street.
I think that's the Leo
Mulvihill case.
This is Sharon Saleta.
Mr. Malvahal had technical difficulties with submitting his exhibits.
He is sending them today.
We can either hear it now and vote it in the afternoon after receiving the required documents
or put this off until 2 o'clock.
Yes, good morning, Chairman and members of the Board.
We're going to have a lot of stuff at 2 o'clock, so I'd rather hear it and then take the vote.
Your Honor, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
Chair, if we can just put this on hold, I'm not sure how many more cases there are,
but I'll have this over to Ms. Sulek in a few minutes.
If you forgive me, I'm still recovering from surgery,
and I had a heck of a week that I will discuss with the board on the record
once I actually present this case.
Okay, we'll move you back a little bit.
All right, thank you.
How many members of the board, how many more cases are there right now,
just so I know how much time I have to get this in?
one two three five oh that should be plenty of time then um to the people who are going to be
called next just uh take real long and uh speak very slowly please thanks okay i'll see everybody
in a few minutes welcome to welcome to the board
Calendar number 2412-503-05, South 6th Street.
calendar number 2412 503
The attorney is Isaac Slepner.
Mr. Slepner, you've been promoted to pay it on this.
And is that the next one, 14?
Calendar number 1961-503-05, South 6th Street as well.
Yes, good morning.
Good morning.
Name and address, please.
Yes, Isaac Slepner with Mattione Limited, 100 North Independence Mall, West Suite 5A, Northwest, Philadelphia, PA, 19106.
And I would just like to say I am here and I am not a cat.
Okay, and I would like to ask you if you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Absolutely.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, having met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, we do.
And do you have all the feline vaccinations with you?
Strike that from the record.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
I mean, what the heck was that?
it was very conveniently timed last night all over the internet was someone in some attorneys
in some state not pennsylvania i think were in a hearing and the judge was there and the opposing
counsel was there and then one of the other counsel was there and his daughter had set a
filter to be a cat so he was on there as a little cat and uh he said i'm here and i'm not a cat
i just thought it was very conveniently timed so i figured i would i would let the board know
i'm here and i'm not a cat um this this is sharon saletta mr isaac he posted this on facebook and
one of the responses was that if he came in as a cat i would adopt him oh my gosh and that's so true
you may proceed all right thank you um so these are actually two set first of all i'd like to
start with these are two separate properties they have a single opa number um but we've done some
deed research going back to 1974, and we've never found the deed of consolidation of these.
They've been conveyed to each successive owner by a single deed, but they are two separate
properties with two separate legal descriptions. So there's 503 and 505, but for the purposes of
expediency, we had asked that these both be heard together. In any event, I'm going to share my
screen and we can go through our exhibits. So without taking more time, exhibit one is the
tax clearance for the Equitable Owner Northeast Renovations, LLC. I guess I would also start with
my client, Mayor Badouche, is here on this call. I will have him adopt testimony and I have some
other individuals that I may call to testify. Our architect, Shimmy Zakin, is here and I have
um an expert witness if his testimony is needed and i'll qualify him and everything but in any
event uh this exhibit one is our tax clearance northeast renovations llc they are uh compliant
as of 2-21 um exhibit two is our notice of refusal and we had already stipulated to the
refusals so i'm not going to spend too much time on that exhibit three begins our photographs
actually our plans. So Exhibit 3A is a site plan of the area, and 503 is House A, 505 is House B.
503 is a little bit of a shallower lot. You can see the 505 goes a little bit deeper.
At the rear of both 503 and 505 is like a stone wall that comprises the rear sidewall of this property over here on Lombard and this property over here, well, of both of these properties over here on Lombard, respectively.
The proposals are for two single-family townhomes with garage, roof deck, and basement.
it. And we'll go through the entire layout of the block and everything, but I wanted to start off
with that. So these are my client's two proposed properties. I would also add my client owns 507
and 509 South 6th, which are a couple of other residential buildings. I believe either 507 or
509 is the current site of Dottie's Donuts. And I'm pretty sure this spot used to be the site of
Levis' Hot Dogs, but that was a while ago. Moving on, this is site plan with regard to the
Moving on, this is site plan with regard to the parking situation, and you'll notice these photos here on the side.
The top photo is a view down 6th Street.
Across 6th, at 6th and Lombard, is a large playground and park and rec center, and there's metered parking along the west side of South 6th.
On the east side of South 6th, which is where our properties are, the current conditions, there's a curb cut, and it doesn't even actually look like that.
it's fenced off currently. There's no parking, no street parking or anything and in fact on the
block are several other properties with garage fronts and we'll get to those momentarily. Exhibit
3B this is just a google map to show in the context of the neighborhood where our sites are.
They're right there 503 and 505 south 6th corner 6th and Lombard. Mother Bethel Church is here.
um i i'm embarrassed that i'm blanking on the name of the show right now but it's right there
i've been there many benay abraham benay abraham is right there so you have a two large um houses
of worship here you have a single family over here on lombard you have some multi-family going
down six and then of course you got the corner of six and south federal donuts is there i've made
many a site visit to my client's site and may have stopped at federal donuts a couple times
And across the whole block from 6th to 7th on Lombard is the park, playground, and rec between 6th, 7th, Lombard, and Rodman.
So that's just for some context of where this all is.
The properties are zoned RM1.
So the single-family use is by right.
The refusals were for rear yard and deck encroachment and the parking situations.
So this is just an analysis of the code requirements and the variances that we're seeking from the code.
So Exhibit 4 is the floor plans of the houses.
So House A, again, is 503.
House B is 505.
And you can see there will be a basement with a powder room, wet bar, egress at the rears of both, stairs up to the ground level.
Ground level would be a garage with an office or additional bedroom at the rear, full bath.
That's on both of the houses.
uh the second floor if you can see over here to the right again would be your open open floor plan
main living space of the house and kitchen uh and then you go up to you've got your third floor
uh plan over here two uh bedrooms full bath laundry storage space and it's uh house b is
It goes back a little deeper, so it would be two full baths on floor three,
floor four would be the – Realtors used to call it the master bedroom.
I'm going to defer to them to what they want to call it now,
but primary bedroom, you could say, with all the attendant bathroom accoutrements,
And then your roof deck on both houses, which would be there for both houses, set back from the street at the proper depth.
Exhibit 5 is our cross sections, just so everybody can see what those look like.
Here's House A is the shorter one, 503, and then 505 is the deeper lot.
Those are our cross sections.
exhibit six is this is an open space diagram because one of our refusals was for um minimum
open space at 503 the the properties are are completely landlocked there's no um there's
they end up at a brick wall at their neighbors um and there's a bit of yard space and a rear deck
that's planned which is one of the refusals to overhang some of the rear yard space uh 505
has the 25 open space because the lot has the space 503 it just physically does not have
enough space to have a nine yard deep uh rear yard or to have a um to have 25 be open space
uh exhibit seven is again as prepared by our architect um this is kind of a context so
So this is a good aerial shot.
You can see right here these red cubes is where the proposed houses will be built.
As you can see, they're parallel with the height of the neighboring properties going down 6th Street.
They would fit in with the size and shape of the neighborhood.
Here's a little bit more context.
Here's an aerial map of South 6th.
Aerial map of South 6, these are our properties. That's the park and the playground, Rodman Street.
These are our properties.
That's the park and the playground, Rodman Street.
Down this way is the firehouse. I'll show you some photos of that.
And then here you've got a view down Lombard Street from the corner of 6th and Lombard.
Those are our two proposed. These are our two proposed here.
A little closer to the site on 6th, and this is from closer to 6th and South, looking north up 6th Street.
Exhibit 8 is some renderings of the property.
This is what we anticipate, what the architect anticipates that it will look like when it's finished.
As you can see, it's not too much taller than the neighbors in line with the character of the rest of the block.
Over here, you have some elevations.
These are just really to show you the outside of the property's front and rear.
Here you have another rendering in the context of an overhead view.
And another rendering down here.
Here's another rendering, rendering looking north.
Exhibit 9 is our letter from Queen Village.
10 is our photographs.
So this is a photograph of the site as it looks more recently.
As you can see, it's fenced over here.
This is a mixed-use Lombard Cafe coffee shop and some multifamily.
507 is also owned by my client, Northeast Renovations.
This is our site in between the two neighboring properties.
I got more of the coffee shop in the corner there than I did of our site,
but our site is right there to the right.
This is our site.
I might have done a wide angle on that one.
That looks like it could be the next hot rap album cover.
Exhibit 10B.
10B, we're going to look around the neighborhood.
I'm going to share the board.
what else is there so this is the corner of six and lombard uh looking north and west these are
some single families and single families continue down the north side of of lombard as you head
west um this is the other corner of six and lombard which is the playground and rec center
it seems to have been brightly painted which is is nice it's very festive uh this is the other
corner of six and lombard that's mother bethel church over there is uh ben abraham whose name
you might now remember. And this is the other corner of 6th and Lombard, which is the Lombard
Cafe, the coffee shop. Now here's a view looking down southward, down 6th Street. On the west side
is the playground and the curb with metered parking. And over here, if you can see, no parking
anytime, all along the curbside going all the way down to South Street, the whole block. Here's a
wider view of it just for, you know, for more context. This is 517 and 519 South 6th. Each of
these, as you can see, have garage fronts. These are multifamily. This is Philly Fire Department
Engine 11, which is based at the corner of 6th and South, and their garages for their fire
vehicles are on the side of 6th Street. They're on the west side of 6th Street, just north of South.
This property is, let me, 50, sorry, I'm just consulting my research here.
This is, oh boy, I'm sorry, if you can bear with me for just a moment.
That is 528 Lombard Street, and that's literally around the corner from our property.
This house is the neighbor, 528 Lombard, and then next to it, just out of the frame, is Lombard Cafe.
This is, I believe, 409 South 6th, which is just south of 6th and Pine.
This appears to be either a historic or historically renovated property, again, with a garage front, single family.
This is 609 Lombard. This is not a garage technically, but it is a curb cut driveway space and has the requisite Lublum towing sign in front of it.
This is 518C Lombard, which is an active garage curb cut, and that is, the address is Lombard Street, but that's actually on Randolph Court is where that backs onto.
This is 502, 04, 06, and 08 Lombard, which are just there, just west of the corner of 5th and Lombard.
Each of these is a single-family home with a garage front.
This is the 500 block of Randolph Court, which has, as I...
This is the 500 block of Randolph Court, which has, as the front doors, you would say, are on a private walkway.
And then these are street-fronting garages with curb cuts.
Those are directly across from 518C Lombard.
These are, I didn't even get all of them in the picture, 702 through 718 Lombard, just west of 7th Street on Lombard, on the south side of Lombard.
These are all single families with garages.
Exhibit 10C are the photos of our orange zoning posters posted at the site.
I've got, and these were taken at least 21 days ago.
Got two close up here, a little bit of a mid-range shot, a little bit of a mid-range shot, and there they are from across the street.
Exhibit 11 is research on several of those properties I just mentioned with garage fronts, and all of them had applied and were approved for permits, including single-family with garages.
It was 404 South 6th, which is just north of our property on 6th Street, obtained a zoning permit in October of 18 for a three-story house with a garage.
This is the application for 404 South 6th for use as a single family with a garage.
This is 500 South 7th, which ended up being the development at 704 through 718 Lombard, all single families with garages.
And again, that's the same stretch of properties there, 704 through 18 Lombard, and as well as 702 Lombard for a single family with a garage.
And even back then, they had appealed the board's decision.
They had appealed the L&I's decision to the board.
And I assume they prevailed because there's a house with a garage there now.
This is our application for appeal as we had filed it on October 13th of 2020.
Exhibit 13 is our project information form, which we filled out for both 503 and 05,
because that's the way it is listed in the OPA's records that's our project
information. Exhibit 14 our affidavit of service of notice to all the neighbors
we sent those out on November 16th. Exhibit A is our letter to the neighbors
dated November 16th describing the project the refusals and the variances
is sought. We did, as I said, we did hold a meeting with the RCO, Queen Village Neighbors.
This is, these are exhibits that were included with the letter to the neighbors was our notices
of refusal. Our certificate of service included all of these addresses. There were many addresses.
I'm not going to fathom a guess at how many, and I'm not going to sit here and count them for the
board but we noticed all the neighbors exhibit 15 is a deed in favor of northeast renovations llc
it has not yet been recorded but it is in the hands of my client and i'm not sure why
and i believe that um that is for my client's title company to address but uh there is a deed
in favor of northeast renovations in his hand and uh in front of the board for your review
and these are the legal descriptions just so we're clear premises a describes 503
and I'll go back up to the deed because just so that it's not 503 to 505 it's just it's stated
as one parcel ID number but it is two lots if you go down to the legal descriptions
Premises A describes 503, and then Premises B describes 505.
So they are two separate parcels.
And that's all the attendant documents with the deed.
I would open to questions at this point.
That concludes my presentation in chief.
I may ask questions for witnesses.
Is client available?
Let's have your client adopt your testimony, and then we'll open it up for questions.
Mayor, are you here?
Sorry, let me line him up.
Mayor.
Mayor Boudouche, you've been unmuted.
You may speak now.
hi yes hi i'm here good morning sir please identify yourself uh for the record your full
Hi, yes.
Hi, I'm here.
Good morning, sir.
Please identify yourself for the record.
name spell your name for the record sure my full name is mayor badush m-e-i-r-b-a-d-u-s-h
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i affirm thank you mr slepner yes uh mayor did you hear all the testimony that i offered to
the board this morning yes i did and uh was it all true and correct to the best of your knowledge
Yes, it is.
And would you have adopted that testimony as though you gave it yourself?
And I guess my other question for you is,
if you could just clarify for the board what the ownership situation is.
You're a partner of Northeast Renovations, correct?
Correct.
And you have this deed in hand.
It just hasn't been recorded yet, correct?
Correct.
We just closed on the property on December 31st, I think it was,
the last day of the year
so I'm assuming
it's not showing yet
I wasn't even aware
that it's not showing
on the city records
but yeah
we'll be closing it
about five weeks ago
and it's in the hands
of your title company
and your title company
has sent it out
for recording
and it's making its way
through the Philadelphia
Recorder's Office
I'm assuming so
I'm not
I'm assuming so
So I could find out exactly, you know, what's the holdup.
I know usually they're doing it today, everything electronically.
So, but I wasn't aware of it until now,
until just a few minutes ago that there is some issue.
I don't know whether there's an issue.
So, but if there is an issue, we'll take care of it.
Yeah, we can handle it with your title company after today's hearing.
But, okay, I just wanted to get that out there for the board.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
no no no like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
chair we have a michelle margolis miss margolis you can unmute yourself and speak
good morning miss margolis please identify yourself with the records by your full name
and address michelle margolis m-a-r-g-o-l-i-s and i live at 538 lombard street
we're going to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do so i actually live at the house that was that the attorney incorrectly labeled as 528 it's
actually 538 but it's it's at the core it's it's it's one of the houses that are basically
landlocked with the unit uh with the proposed unit i'm most concerned about 503 uh i the i feel like
there wasn't much time spent on this but there was just sort of this mention that the lot is not
very deep. And so instead of a 25% open space, we want it to be a 14% open space, which only
seems like a 9% difference, but that's actually a 44% decrease, like as a relative change.
And so to me, as someone who is going to lose a great deal of light and privacy, having that 25%
is a huge burden on both me as well as my neighbor, who I don't know if he's on this call,
but that would be 540. The neighbor, there's actually a unit to the west of me before Lombard
Cafe, and both of us would be hugely affected by this, by the 503 unit. And I think that when we
live in the city, we have these zoning regulations to allow space and privacy. And what they're
asking for, even though it seems like it's only a couple feet, when we only have, you know,
eight or nine feet in between these houses when we don't have back alleyways, this 44% decrease
would represent a big burden. And I do think that the owner, at least from the Queen Village
meeting that I was at, the owner was aware of, you know, that when he bought these parcels,
we knew that he knew that this piece was shallow. It just changes what can be made there. Maybe it
means it doesn't get to have a garage, whatever it is. But I don't think that this is, I don't
think that the burden should be on the neighbors so that the so that the the developer can develop
as large and big of a house as the as the person wants when the person was the people were very
well aware of the type of parcel that was being bought when it was first purchased thank you
thank you anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand
there are no other hands at this time chair
uh question i'm sorry planning commission thank you chair chico members of the board
we have no objection to the proposed use and building dimension variances however the proposed
parking garage conflicts with the comprehensive plan and the center city overlay the photos
shown by the applicant demonstrate i think the reason that the prohibition on front garages was
added to the zoning code. Curb cuts for private garages detract from walkability and safety.
Curb cuts for private garages detract from walkability and safety and create an unwelcoming environment, and so we would recommend that the board deny the variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-002-412-503-05-South6 and MI 2020-001961-503-05-South66 Street. My vote is no.
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
thank you calendar number
2346-5329 wayne avenue again it's verne
before we go on to that case i just want to double check
uh number 15 5000 north 20 we did continue that correct earlier this morning yes i just want to
Add a caveat to that, MI 2020-000108, 5000 North 12th Street.
If I fail to do it this morning, that case is continued, must be heard.
We can go to Wayne Avenue, right?
Waiting for Vern.
verne you've been promoted to panelists
hi verne name and address on the record please
verne anastasio 1315 walnut suite 1006 philadelphia 1910
thank you do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed the exhibit packet with all the required documents
I have. You may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. Thank you.
Okay. 5329 Wayne Avenue. The application is for a general home office in the front of the building.
This property has long been a single family home with a front office. For the last
35 years it was a doctor's office back in 1981 the zoning board granted that variance
it was continuously a doctor's office until the purchase of the property by my client
here's the property in question and um here's these some interiors and she would just like to
have an office there for her personal care business. It'll just be one person. It'll be
open nine to five, Monday through Friday. We met with the community group. We have plans,
by the way, that are here. Hold on. That's the general layout of the office. And then there's
one family dwelling attached. We met with the community group, and there was, here's the flyer.
Here's the proof of mailing, 77 households, and the RCO came back with non-opposition.
Overwhelmingly, only one person opposed. They did ask that we agree to a three-year temporary
We said we would, but that's obviously entirely up to the board.
My client, Nakia Peterson, is at the hearing today.
Nakia, can you please raise your hand to be recognized?
Morning, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with the record.
Spell your first and last name.
Nakia Peterson, N-I-K-I-A Peterson, P-E-T-R-S-O-N.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Nakia, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it was.
And do you agree to adopt my presentation as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
And you'll be operating the office, is that correct?
Correct.
And you own the building, is that correct?
Correct.
All right, and you'll be the only employee, is that correct?
Yes, correct.
Thank you very much.
and this has been upon purchase this has been a doctor's office since 1981 is that correct
yes thank you you have questions from the board no no planning commission i'm sorry anyone else
like to testify in this case i'm sorry here we have charles richardson mr richardson you've
Here, we have Charles Richardson. Mr. Richardson, you've been unmuted. You can speak.
been unmuted. You can speak.
Morning, Mr. Richardson. Identify yourself with a record. You're still under oath from earlier this morning.
Mr. Richardson?
Can you hear me?
I can hear you now.
okay uh again charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall
uh councilwoman does support the granting of the variance with the three-year proviso
thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have allison weiss miss weiss you can unmute yourself and speak
good morning miss weiss please identify yourself with the record spell your last name
yes good morning allison weiss w-e-i-s-s solo germantown civic association and i just wanted
to make one you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i just wanted to to make one correction um that when that property was purchased the doctor's
office was not operating as was discussed at the community meeting it had been vacated for 15 years
at least according to the neighbors what else but we did agree to the three-year temporary temporary
thank you anyone else there are no other hands at this time here thank you cleaning commission
thank you chair chico members of the board um this property does have a documented prior use
as a doctor's office on the first floor in the zoning file we believe that the proposed use
would represent a substantially similar condition to the previous use and accordingly we have no
objection to the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-002346-5329 Wayne Avenue.
My vote is yes with the proviso. Temporary variance to expire March 1st, 2024.
my vote is yes proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you
calendar number 2418 924 west lehigh avenue the attorney is engine
Mr. Zhenzhen, you've been a promoter to panelists. You may speak.
Good morning. Good morning. Name and address, please, on the record and spell your last name.
Yes, thank you. Zhenzhen, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103,
here on behalf of the applicant.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do stipulate to most of the refusal.
There is a small calculation mistake on there.
I will address it in my presentation.
Thank you.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing?
and have you met with your RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. Good morning.
I'm here on behalf of Mr. Eric Huang,
who's the owner of the Fort Contiguous Lots
on Lehigh Avenue.
I'm going to go ahead and share with the board
the information relating to this matter.
My apologies.
So what we submitted to the board included copy of the refusal, the community letter from 37th
World RCO, photos, plans, tax clearance deed, application, project information, and hearing
notice. The refusal in this matter, this is a consolidation of lots application. There are four
individual lots all owned by my client running from basically 924 all the way through 930
Wesley High Avenue, they're all zoned CMX2. What the proposal is and what led to the various
refusals really is the idea here is to build one single building encompassing all four lots rather
than doing four individual CMX2 units by right. Now the refusal indicates here that 10 units is
permitted by right under the zoning code,
zoning code, but based on the actual lot size and the north central overlay at 425 per unit,
but based on the actual lot size and the
we should actually be able to get 12 units by right. Whether we subdivide or not subdivide
and build four individual buildings, 12 units would be by right rather than 10. So the 15 unit
is proposed and it is indicated that only 10 units are allowed. I believe that is incorrect.
That being said, we met with the RCO and they were in opposition despite a few concessions we
offered. And I want to explain to the board their opposition versus what we have agreed to try to
do for them. If you read their letter, it seems the primary concern is the size of the commercial
space and parking. What I want to point out to the board, though, is that the only reason we have
parking variance is because under the North Central Part C, if you have more than three
residential units in one building, you trigger the parking requirements. Whereas if we were
building these four separately, we would not be required to put any off-street parking.
The total residential units will be 12 residential units and four commercial on the four lots,
no off-street parking. What we did is we have a single unit, single building,
putting all the residential units together in one building. That's what triggered the parking.
so the parking isn't something that would normally be triggered if we didn't put the
buildings to put the lots together now that being said they said they don't like the idea of one new
commercial one new first floor commercial space because it'll be too large and would necessitate
a larger chain store and they would prefer four separate commercial spaces there that is
understandable, and it's actually addressed on our presentation and in our plans now.
The thing here is we're asking for what is a vacant commercial space.
Even if we were to build a building, and I'm going to zoom in here for the board because
I know it's hard to see what the plans look like.
Let's go talk about the commercial space first.
So the commercial space that the community had issue with is because they feel that this one large commercial space, which is 3,300 square foot, would not be beneficial to local residents who would possibly want to rent the commercial space.
but part of the advantage of combining this into one structure design is that we can actually
provide a few things that if four individual buildings are built we cannot provide one of
which is internal trash storage on every floor we have a trash room on every floor elevator
bike parking none of this will be available if you are building by right because you're working
with narrow individual lots instead of one bigger space. What we did in the design is to allow
essentially trash storage bike to compensate for the lack of off-street parking. And the commercial
space in this case can be subdivided in various ways. Right now it's vacant. So it depends on
what the tenant wants to do. If a tenant comes in and says, I only need 800 or 1,000 square foot,
it can be divided into this now in all fairness we did not have this design piece when we presented
to the RCO so we verbally explained that it can be done but the community members I'm not sure if
they necessarily understood how this can be done but a dividing of the commercial space can happen
very easily whether it's one big building or four separate buildings by right each with its own
limited small commercial spaces the other disadvantage of subdividing and I mean not
subdividing and having four units is that the spaces will be forced into a particular footprint
and there's nothing we can do to change that versus the flexibility right now of having
dividable space that can be arranged in various ways depending on tenant needs so while I
understand the community's opposition to the idea of a large commercial space I think they're kind
losing sight of the fact that this is essentially going to end up being kind of the same availability,
whether it's four buildings or one building. Now with regard to the residential space,
knowing that, and I explained this again at the community meeting, knowing that we could
build 12 by right, we actually reduce the total unit count
build 12 by right, we actually reduce the total unit count both offered verbally as well as
by the plans before the board now to 12 units from 15. The only difference is that the original
design had these units separated into two units and they're all one bedroom units. So you have
two two bedrooms, three one bedrooms on every floor, three floors. So what you end up with is
that's four plus three so you have seven seven times four it's you know you have about 28
bedrooms total in 12 units if we do 12 units with basically three bedrooms or
something along those lines because there'll be longer buildings they would necessitate
the layout to be different it would end up being about 36 bedrooms anyway so from a density
standpoint, the one building layout really is better. Now, by combining the two, we ended up
with three bedrooms rather than two. Again, even with this layout, it still comes out overall to be
a little bit less than three row homes, each with three three-bedroom apartments. Another point to
note is at one point, one of the property was actually granted for six-family dwelling, another
one for three-family dwelling. And we have four of these properties here. The other two, each can
have three by right as well. So really having four separate buildings isn't necessarily less
density. Again, all this was explained. I understand the community's point is that they
feel that something like this would not be low-income housing. It would be more expensive
and that the commercial space may be too large for local business to afford to rent. But again,
we can easily divide up the space. And that is something that we did discuss at the presentation
at the RCO, but it was not overall accepted. I think one of the main things that was a hangup
for the community was the idea of off-the-street parking. We cannot provide it. I don't think
anybody wants a curb cut on Lehigh Avenue and then have no commercial space just to put a few
parking spaces in. That was not something the community actually wanted either. And they do
understand that if we build four buildings individually, as the lots are divided now,
there will be no off-street parking required, nor would there be possibility of any off-street
parking anyway, with possibly more bedrooms and more density. But again, their opposition,
for the most part, came from members who felt that it's not low-income enough, it's something
that would have too big a commercial space and the unit counts are too high. Again, we dropped
the unit count of what would otherwise be the same as the buy right. We are showing the capability
to divide the commercial space as needed. And again, you're losing some benefits here when you
take the one large building concept away in that trash would no longer be able to be stored
indoors it would be in the backyard area you can see that we don't actually have the corner lot
it's owned by a church so we're landlocked in the middle four lots so it's not possible for us to
put off street parking in any case because the corner lot really can't be leveraged for for our
use there is an existing garage right here that is owned by the church they have plans for that lot
lot, so they don't want anybody touching anything there. You also have lots back here, so again,
the rear here is almost 100% built with existing buildings. We are going to actually provide
some open space, although it will be less than code required percentage. This is what
it looks like currently. Two of the buildings exist, two of the lots are vacant. If we were
to build, what would happen is that's the church across the street that owns the corner
lot. And this is what's across the street from us presently, which is a daycare commercial
mixed use. This building here has an office. I believe it's a doctor's office of some sort
with residents above. And again, the block, Lehigh Avenue has pretty extensive commercial
uses up and down the block and it is zoned for commercial use. So once again, what would happen
is if we design it this way, we can provide elevator trash rooms. I just want to point out
the trash and mechanical rooms are on every floor. This is floor two to four design.
They're duplicated on every floor. There's a trash room right here and the mechanical rooms
and the mechanical rooms here with so all units accessible double exits for both sides for the
here with so all units accessible double exits
stairs and an elevator available to all residents so again we understand the opposition from the
community we are willing to take a proviso that any commercial use would have to come back to the
board as a way to kind of make sure that we don't sneak something in with the community that is too
large for them to accept. But at this point, that is the proposal that we would like the board to
entertain, which is a single building with bike storage, internal trash storage, and double
entryways. If my client cannot obtain a variance in this form, he would be forced to build four
individual buildings, and each of them would have their own commercial space and residential above.
So it will be set up a little differently than what is being proposed here.
And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions from the Board.
Thank you. Questions from the Board? No. No. Would I like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand. Here we have Mary Jones. Ms. Jones, you have to unmute yourself and you can
Good morning, Ms. Jones. Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Good morning. Mary Jones representing Council President Darrell Clark, City Hall, room 494.
Are you swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed.
Today the Council President has submitted a letter to oppose the granting of this variance.
The community meeting was, excuse me, well attended and the members understood the project and what was being proposed and they felt that the added density and not including parking would be undesirable and out of contact with their neighborhood.
And further, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship as to why they cannot build these buildings by right.
Thus, we ask that you deny this variance.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Mr. Jen, I may have missed this in your presentation, so I apologize in advance.
A buy right, that doesn't require parking, is that correct?
It does not.
The NCP overlay Part C says that there are one building with more than three residential
units, then the parking kicks in. It's three per 10 rule. So because if we did these as four
individual buildings with three units each, there'll be no parking refusal at all. Because
we're combining them into, say, 12 units, we now are required to have under the NCP overlay
four parking spaces, five for 15, but we actually reduced the count to 12, which is the same as
what would be residential units if we did it for individual buildings all right um miss Jones are
you still there yes I am uh in your experience uh I believe you attended the meeting I did attend
do you think there's any uh makes any sense to continue this for further conversation
um because I'm looking at the buy right versus what is proposed and
I don't know. I mean, there may be some advantages to the proposal as it relates to what the buy
right is. There may be. Like I said, the community heard this out, heard the presentation at the
time. And they, I mean, I think they're one of their main concerns. I don't know if I just
mentioned it in my um statement but you know also this large um commercial space that at this point
you know they don't know what's going to be put there and there are there were some you know
big promises about maybe uh you know subdividing it but you know he won't the applicant won't be
held to that uh at this at this point i don't i think that the community well from my understanding
of what happened the community didn't was just unclear as to why this didn't couldn't be just
built by right okay all right anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
we have someone with the last name looks like
Tanner we have someone with the last name looks like Wang. Wang you be unmuted and
you're allowed to speak. Okay you're going to ask him to adopt your testimony correct?
Yes. Please identify yourself with the record first name and first and last name spell your
name. Yao Huang. Last name Huang. H-U-A-N-G. I'm an architect for this project.
you're not the owner i know the eric wong is the owner this is uh mr i haven't said last name yeah
i'm sorry is that is the owner on mr jin the owner should be here as well well yeah we want
to hear from the owner the owner will adopt your testimony unless the board has questions for the
You want to get your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes. Eric, if you can raise your hand virtually so you can be promoted.
I'm looking, Chair. I don't see any hands at the side.
Okay, Mr. Jinn, as an officer of the court, we'll stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony.
Anyone else would like to testify?
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair DiTico, members of the board, Ian Hegarty, on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
This property is within a CMX2 zoning district and no changes proposed in the comprehensive plan.
We find no evidence of unique physical circumstances
or characteristics that would support
a hardship claim in this case.
And we believe the applicant has not demonstrated
that the variance is necessary
to enable viable economic use of the property.
We would further note that if the applicant
had endeavored to provide bonuses,
such as the green roof bonus
or the mixed income housing bonus,
they could have achieved the approximate height
and density being sought in this case.
And so we would therefore characterize this application as an increase in the scale of the development without a basis in hardship.
And so we would recommend that the board deny the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-002418, 924 West Lehigh Avenue.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
I think we got ready for Mr. Mulvihill is he ready
number 12 on our list calendar number 2446 428-30 West Thompson Street
chairman members of the board um and I are you able to hear me at this point I don't know whether
I'm still a panelist is this you Leo yes you're still a panelist Leo okay great oh there you are
Yeah, thank you, everybody. Good morning, still, everybody. For whatever reason, there's a confluence of events today that is making my life extremely difficult. My computer is very slow today. My architect, who is going to testify as to the plans which we have revised, his wife has unexpectedly called into the office, and he is not able to get me what I need to do this presentation.
So my request would be, if possible, is it possible we could bump this into two so I can get everybody what they need rather than scrambling to piecemeal this and wasting everybody's time?
We have an extensive list, not a long list, but we have a case that's going to take up a lot of time.
Well, then, members of the board, if you would so indulge me to have my presentation be not as smooth and precise as they normally are just so I can get this done for my client.
Let's do that. Normally, I'd say yes, but there's one case in particular at 2 o'clock that's going to take a lot of time.
Okay, so just allow me to try to open my files up.
As I said, my computer is being extremely slow today, and I have been trying without avail to make this work.
Name and address, please.
Yes, certainly. Members of the board, my name is Leo, L-E-O.
Last name is Mulvihill, M-U-L.
V as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L.
And do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do, but I need to give my address first. Ladies and gentlemen, for the last time, my address is 2424 East York Street, Suite 11, Philadelphia, 19125. I am vacating my office this week, and I'll be probably just working from home for the rest of this. So you'll get a new address next time.
also members of the board there's a matter i must address on the record as this is essentially an
administrative board that potentially could go to the court of common pleas should there be an appeal
Uh, last week when we had snowstorm, I don't remember which day that was, um, on Sunday,
last week when we had the snowstorm i don't know which day that was
I was arrested by the 26th district officer, David Chisel, who was the supervisor there.
He charged me with, uh, he said he was going to charge me with assaulting an officer.
Uh, I can tell you as a member of the court, I did not assault an officer.
However, I was placed in custody, eventually charged with various criminal charges.
There was an open case, my PP number, which is photo ID, uh, when somebody does get arrested
in Philadelphia. And I'm not making this up. It sounds like a fake bad password that someone's
grandfather would put together. My PP number is 1223344. My understanding is my case has been
assigned to District Attorney Leandra Rataco. That is L-Y-R-A-N-D-R-I-A, last name Rataco,
R-E-T-A-C-C-O. It's currently open, but I have to put this on the record now with every case that
I have in front of everybody in the city so that my clients are aware on the record of what's going
on. I have already advised my client, by the way, and the record is protected in case of an issue
in the future. That's all members of the board. So this is ag assault on a police officer. Oh,
I was not charged with that. No, I was not charged with that, despite the fact I had the entire
thing on video, not just my dash cam, but on BWCs from the officers in the 26th district and
on my phone, which officers took to prevent me from leaving because they would not let me
make a complaint. It would not identify themselves on the record, pardon me, to me with their name
and badge number. And this particular sergeant, Sergeant Chisholm, who has a history of allegedly
assaulting attorneys in the courthouse, including one of my friends and colleagues at the defender's
office, repeatedly refused to give me his name or badge number. And I did not find it out until
he threw a complaint form in my face when I was seated in the back of a police cruiser on Gerard
avenue after he had assaulted me he threw it in my face and said here's your complaint for him and
then he wrote his name on the bottom and that is when i determined his identity so i spent from
11 15 a.m on sunday until 2 a.m monday morning in custody by the way the roundhouse don't ever go
there don't ever get arrested it is terrible mr moverhill excuse me this is sharon i understand
that you had to put this on the record but i think you've probably satisfied
i will give you my apologies i'm just a little you as an attorney probably realize that the less
you say maybe the better it is for you uh not in this instance uh well no no yes in this instance
take it from me i understand i will continue then so members of the board i'm trying to share my
screen right now um again leo mobile hill i'm here on behalf of my clients uh ms marnie dreams and
Chris DeFino. They're a couple. I've had the pleasure of representing them for years.
They finally found a location for their dream home, which is at 428-30 West Thompson Street.
What I'm going to do first is show, try to share my screen to show the photos,
and then I'll get to the refusal and everything else too.
Are we able to see that, ladies and gentlemen of the board?
So what we have here is the actual lot itself.
I'm going to make this a little bit bigger so we can all see it, maybe.
There we go.
So this is the lot.
It's located in the corner of Thompson Street, I believe Cadwallader.
It is a trapezoidal-shaped lot.
Here's my zoning sign.
It's not orange because it ran out of orange paper.
Usually I would like to print it in orange so the neighbors can see.
And I'll get to the plans in a second.
This is looking northbound.
This is all on Thompson Street.
This is new construction. It's approximately 38 to 40 feet high. When we include the parapet wall,
these are 42 feet tall. As the members of the board know, new construction goes up to 38 in
your ladder parapet wall on top of that. So that's what we're looking at directly across the street
from our lot. More photos of that. And I will ensure that I get this all timestamps as a packet
to Ms. Suleta once I have everything from the architect later today. These are the photos I
took in the snow. I was walking with a cane because I had hernia surgery earlier this month.
I did miss you guys. This is a flat iron style building to the south of our lot. It's approximately
55 feet tall, if I recall correctly. Our architect may be on the line later. And if that's incorrect,
I will supplement the record with something in writing to indicate that. So this is a shot from
across the street. That new construction I showed you in the previous photos is behind us.
um here directly adjacent are new our older three-story homes directly to the left right
along thompson street is a three-story home that has 100 lot coverage um there's an alleyway that
runs about 20 feet back southwardly perpendicular to thompson street so it butts up upon this
little shed okay and then this house directly to uh right on the corner and then the house
directly next, which I believe the residents of this home are present and represented by
uh the residents of this home are present and represented by council mr mckelhatton who may
counsel, Mr. McElhatton, who may make a statement.
make a statement later regarding their position so these two homes here touch on this three foot
wide alley my clients are not building in that alley because they're not allowed to
see another page this is a current all street parking space we're proposing to maintain that
and i'll pull up the refusal in a moment as well members of the board this is looking on thompson
street westwardly this is taco riendo i stopped there for lunch when i took these photos it's
really good uh the chile llenos tacos are fantastic and this is just across the street
so we have a mix of newer construction and older homes so these homes are around 34 38 feet tall
not quite all the way to the height they can go under the zoning code again these are the photos
across the street older homes you can see the newer construction with the home that's lifted
out so they did not have to do underpinning uh for purpose of the record i believe that is number
443 west thompson street so i can identify that later should this be appealed since i don't have
my page numbers um where are we okay more photos just showing the surrounding context
so my client's deed for the property they purchased it from the estate of joseph c
brennan or brendman rather that's b as in bravo r e n as in nancy m as in mary a n
as in Nancy. And they purchased that back in 11-22-2019. That deed was recorded.
I'm going to pull up a different thing. I'm going to stop my share for a second just because I have
client files on here. I'm going to pull up the plans. So members of the board, all we're asking
for in this case is a single family dwelling and a single family lot. That's it. It's all we want.
The lot's weird because it's shaped like a trapezoid.
We want to go 40 feet tall, and here's why.
Because the lot's shaped weird.
It's not a regular lot in any sense of the imagination.
And we're asking for that slight height bump
because the interior dimensions of the lot are strange.
It's not rectangularly shaped.
It's shaped like a trapezoid.
Here we go.
So I think this is what I have.
My architect also has to get me revised plans that are stamped by him, but I'll go and I'll show you everything that we showed to the community group with respect to our original presentation.
And going back to sharing my screen, members of the board.
So we should all now be seeing my plan by Ambit Architecture.
This is the Z2 page.
This is the Fino and Drains residence, 428 West Thompson.
So it's actually two lots. Members of the board were asking to combine them into one because you can't build a house that crosses two lots, right?
Okay, so here's our plan.
There's a shadow study on our plan.
If you look to the neighbor's letter of opposition, they asked for a shadow study.
Here it is.
We show where the shadows will lie, and basically because the sun is where it is, we're not going to be casting the neighbor's homes in shadows.
with the exception very late in the day of the two homes that are here right to the west of the
property. The home with the 100% lot coverage is right here where I am indicating with my cursor
right by where the Ambit Architecture logo is. The other home is slightly south of that right by
where it says Ambit Architecture and they have a significant rear yard of approximately 14 feet
I believe. Don't quote me on that. I had to do the measurements on the fly using Philadelphia Atlas
and that's not always accurate. So the other thing that's interesting about this lot is
this right here. Okay. This is our three foot alley that I was talking about.
Neighbor, neighboring house here has absolute rights to this lot. This house is currently
vacant and the property owners are trying to do something with it. I've been in contact with the
attorney for the person that owns this home. So that's how I know that I spoke with him last week
about it this is where the protestants live um i just say protestants for purposes of being clear
at this hearing i don't think there's a lot of there's not a lot of animosity between us and
the neighbors we're just trying to talk it out and figure it so let me see if i can draw on here
real quick so the board sees this alleyway a little bit better i can't i don't know where my
tools are so let's try it this way i'll indicate with my cursor so originally this was the alley
Boom. One, two, three, four corners. It's three feet wide, approximately 21 feet deep.
The adjacent neighbor who's represented by Mr. McElhatton indicated that in the past they had
to get this corrected because originally they had no rights to this alley on their deed. They got a
new deed. They got that corrected. No problem. I have not pulled the deed for the property on the
corner, but I imagine they also have rights to it since there's 100% lot coverage and they must
have a second way of egress. This is currently covered by a wooden gate, where I posted my
It's where I posted my zoning sign facing Thompson Street.
zoning sign facing Thompson Street. Originally, the plan was to have
Originally, the plan was to have our entrance, have this gate be replaced,
have all the fence here for the neighbors be replaced,
and to have my client's entrance for their home here,
which I'll show you when we go to the floor plans.
We got a refusal for this setback right here.
Why did we get that?
Well, we can't build into this alley, which is indicated by this dotted line.
We therefore decided, well, instead of dog-legging the property
and making the house come out all the way up to the property line,
all the way up to the fence that currently exists,
why don't we just give the neighbors more open air and space
and continue the alley straight back?
So this is why we have a refusal for a three-foot side yard setback.
Other refusals we received, rear yard, we're at six feet.
Why are we at only six feet?
Well, the lot's weird, ladies and gentlemen.
It is very strangely chic.
So what we did instead was keep a nice, wide backyard
instead of like going up to five feet or whatever else.
We just try to keep it nice and big.
You also see when I go through the floor plans
that they have a lot of open area here.
What they're proposing is a roof deck.
We are proposing, because we're going 40 feet tall
and because we're not building a parapet wall,
what we're doing is instead having this railing be see-through
instead of a parapet wall.
So ultimately, this, the amassing of the structure itself,
the actual physical building will be less in height
then the structure is directly across the street then the house I think does 443 directly across
the street that is new construction and significantly shorter than the flat iron building
that is directly behind us on the corner and that's just up to Cadwallader Street from
the Indian restaurant Mood. We also received a refusal because we can't set back the deck
far enough on the property line here and I think about three feet instead of what we're required
to is five. This is only for the access stairs to get to the real roof deck, which as everybody can
see, is set back from the street by five feet. We just can't physically fit it. You can maybe throw
a spiral stair on here, but as you know, if you've ever been on those, they are treacherous.
We don't really want to do that. They're also kind of ugly.
This is a second story, or pardon me, fourth story deck area. It's basically used for access
to get on the stairs to get to the roof deck. I guess there could be a redesign made where
these stairs are all tucked inside in a pilot house. But again, that's a 10-foot pilot house
that's a structure on top of the building, which is going to be taller than what we're proposing
here, which is 40 feet with this railing. I'm going to also show you members of the board.
Here's our curb cut. We're rebuilding the existing curb cut to match what we need to do
under the code. 22-foot wide curb cut. We're not taking away any parking at all. It takes
a car off the street um which is nice because if we park in here it's a net it's a net negative
net positive here there's no change ultimately to be on street parking um moving now to the
elevation members of the board to the left of z2 the drawing indicated earlier we're still on that
first page here uh there we go this is our elevation we're going to 40 feet to the top of
this structure and we'll see what this is in a minute here's a three foot six parapet wall which
is just a railing so light and air can pass through so we're not obscuring the neighbor's
view. This is less height than any of the existing new structures directly across the street or
the existing large flat iron brick building just to our south. They get to about I guess about 43
feet 6 inches maybe 42 feet 6 inches I'm not quite sure because I didn't measure them but they would
be taller with the massing and the roof deck and the parapet wall than what we are proposing here.
That's all for that page, members of the board.
I'm going to move to the next one.
So here's our ground floor plan.
We are not excavating.
We don't want to excavate.
We don't want to disturb the older houses.
We're not doing a basement in this property whatsoever.
Here's where our cars fit.
I'm sorry.
I said it was one car.
It's actually two car parking.
So it's a net gain for parking in the neighborhood.
This is the alleyway that I was discussing, going back 22 feet of the 29-foot – excuse
me, that's incorrect.
of the 35 foot two inch property line. This was originally where the door was located. My clients
have since moved that to here. I just don't have the new drawings from the architect with the stamp
and their proviso plan at this point because he had this personal emergency where his spouse had
to go to work and he got stuck at home I guess with his kids and I just talked with him before
I popped onto this call. This is an elevator. It's a four-story house. They want to have a nice
elevator. Heck, I can't blame them. I wish I had an elevator but my house is only two stories and
it's tiny, so I don't need one. Go to the next page, members of the board, maybe.
Okay, so this is the second floor.
okay so this is the second floor and then maybe tweaked a little bit when when we fought when we
pushed the final plan out because we did have to move the front door um because neighbors did bring
up at our first community meeting where they did not hold a vote and i'll get into that later
uh concerns about us using the alley as an access way for the front door they prefer to have eyes on
the street they were worried about the door being directly behind someone else's backyard even though
is 20 or 30 feet away from the rear of their house. Cool. We hear you. Give that a shot.
That's the third floor. So I already showed you the first floor members of the board. That was
the unexcavated area where they're parking. The new plan is going to show door here.
The stairs are going to be moved around and things like that, if I recall correctly as well. But
let's just pretend for now that the door is here. This doesn't really affect the refusals at all.
We have two bedrooms, bath, bath, elevator, nice little den area on the second story.
Third story, we have the owner's suite, another bedroom.
And these bedrooms, I mean, Chris works from home as an interior designer, as I recall.
And these are all called bedrooms, but we could use them as an office or a playroom or a study or a bookroom or anything like that.
Big closets.
We have the shelves, washer, dryer, large bathroom.
Going up the stairs now to the fourth floor.
Okay, here we go. And this is actually a wonderful, wonderful fourth floor. And I really hope I get to have brunch at this house sometime because it's going to be gorgeous when it's finished.
Going up to the fourth floor. If you remember on the renderings, members of the board, you saw how, like, the top floor doesn't quite fit the entire trapezoidal shape of the underlying structure.
We have a little bit of a cantilever here. It's just like any other bump out. Instead of just being a box on a box, though, it looks neat.
in the rich villa the architect who i believe may be on the line or may not be due to his personal
issues this morning with his family um really did a nice job working with this strange lot
so here's dining room living room area kitchen all of the appliances along this wall a nice
little powder room of the dining area these are all windows to let in light it's going to be really
neat um you would come out the sliding door here and remember when i showed you before the roof
deck pattern on Z2H1. The stairs leading up onto the roof deck, that's how you get out. So you come
out the sliding door here, you come out into this deck, and guess what? We got a refusal for this
deck too. You can see now why members of the board, if we tried to put these stairs in here,
it really messes with the interior layout. If we put them here, we'd go over height, and we'd have
a pilot house here, which would cast a greater shadow as the sun moves in its arc. In the evening,
we'd be down some would be over here we'd be casting a shadow almost uh 50 feet tall on all
the houses across the street and on the rear yards over here and we don't want to do that
we put a lot of thought into this design um so yeah deck come out this is a nice little deck
it's not even really big enough to sit out on it's really meant for access to these stairs
i guess you could put a patio chair out here and like sit and enjoy the sunset
maybe, but it's not huge by any stretch of the imagination. So here we go. Here's our roof deck
now. So again, you saw it in that Z1 plan. This just has some measurements on it. Come up the
stairs. Here's the roof deck. It's set back five feet from the street as required by code.
It's only 13 feet by 17 feet, so it's not even huge. You don't even take up the entirety
of the structure with this roof deck. It's just a nice little area to sit and relax and enjoy some
outdoor space that isn't in this backyard or in this three-foot alley. That is essentially it.
Oh, it got renderings. I forgot about that too. My apologies, members of the board. Here you go.
This house looks really cool. It looks really cool. It looks from these renderings that perhaps
these stairs are jutting out into the street. It's just because of the angle. They're not.
Final materials, brick. We don't know what color. We showed white here. Maybe we'll keep that. Maybe
a little bit more uh in character with the traditional red brick fronts of the homes in
the neighborhood i know ms moss uh from old kensington usually prefers that as does the
constituency but there's a lot of new construction in the area as you saw across the street's gray
brick the protestants on the line i believe their house is stuccoed in the front
houses across the street have red brick and stucco and a mixed mix of different materials
so this is just for your edification it's not really important for the purposes of the zoning
hearing itself. I'm going to stop my screen share and get to the refusal just so we can identify
those issues because the objections that were brought up by the RCO namely have nothing to do
with the refusals here. Maybe I will find the refusal. Let's try this.
So the refusals as far as I recall along pulling this up have to do with the side yard. I've
explained that it's because we extended the three foot alley back if the neighbors prefer
we'll redesign the building and get a new and come back i guess for a second hearing
we'll redesign the building and get a new and come back i guess for a second hearing and dog
leg the property out and go all the way to the property line so they have less light and air
and less privacy i don't know why they'd want to do that but we can and then we would eliminate
that refusal we don't want to it seems silly we're trying to be considerate to the neighbors behind
us to the west long thompson street here we go i found my refusal members of the board
Here we go. So, here we go. Here are our refusals. We were issued the refusal 10-22 of 2020.
Leo, can you enlarge that?
Yes, absolutely.
Okay. So, we're RSA 5 district. We're building a single family home. Cool. We're asking for a lot
adjustment to create one lot from two. Cool. Size and location is shown in plan, which I've
indicated to you and we will be sending you revised plans but that does not increase the
refusal whatsoever single family fast single family household living two accessory all street
interior parking spaces i'm minimizing my video because it was in the way of me seeing four
refusals guys parking isn't one of them because the parking spot already exists so roof debt set
back um i showed you what our issues with that is it has to do with the roof deck that's above
that the third floor that you access from the fourth floor kitchen area so you can take the
stairs to get out to the roof deck um let me one moment you're on uh members of the board i just
need to send my client a text so they can pop on in case they popped off excuse me this is sharon
mr mulvihill can i ask one question yes um in the there's something i'm not understanding in
refusal underneath the different code sections the examiner wrote one use refusal three zoning
do you know which is the use refusal uh no i i don't i think that's probably a copy and paste
error and frankly i didn't even notice that until just now when you brought that up um one moment
members of the board i'm sorry but the link that my client had to pop onto the meeting is not working
so i'm going to resend it to them right now um let's go what we got here uh i guess while i'm
doing that i'm happy to take questions and i can go through the remaining refusals in a second or
if mr macklehatten is on the line wishes to say his piece while i'm pulling this up and my client
can pop on i'm happy to do that reserving the right to address the refusals in a few seconds
i just don't want to take any more time over the roof deck setback it says roof decks must be set
back at least five feet from the extreme front of the building did did i not see that well we have
two street frontages members of the board and the one that's set back is the one above the fourth
story where the kitchen area is and that's set back five feet from thompson street
so the refusal that we got is for that little access area that maybe you can fit a patio chair
on um which allows access to the roof deck what is the is that necessary that yes it's necessary
to have because otherwise what happens is we have to completely refigure the fourth story we'd have
to move the stairs inside the property um and then that would completely change the layout of the
fourth floor and excuse me excuse me leo this is new construction yes so you can make all the
arrangements to make everything fit i mean one could do that but it significantly reduces just
one moment i'm sorry members of the board i do want to address that i'm just trying to get this
link to my client very quickly um yes theoretically one could do that the the issue becomes if we look
to the letter of objection that was sent in by the RCO, I will have to detail that meeting process
myself in a few seconds. But their objections were to height, right? They didn't want it to be
as tall as it is. And we specifically designed the building to be shorter in overall massing
than the other new existing single-family dwellings on that block and the new building
that's direct or the older building that's right behind um if we put the stairs elsewhere in the
fourth store and there's going from the third to the fourth story and we move them inside
what would happen from my perspective is this we would have to have a pilot house the pilot house
would then be another additional 10 feet on top of the roof right and the neighbor directly next
to us who is represented by mr mckelheadon uh was very concerned about their access to light
and air and everything else like that could you go back could you show us that uh exhibit
yeah look as you're speaking for what i'd like to see i'm just getting that i'm getting my text to
my client okay he's running all right slow so i'm doing my best i'm sorry members of the board no
problem all right so deed to pheno and dreams uh chairman which page did you want me to pull up
uh chairman which page did you want me to pull up well the one that shows that small roof deck
well the one that shows that small
and the staircase okay so let's one moment let me just stop and reshare because i have to do that
all right uh the property is tax clear members of the board i i don't have the tax clearance
with me right now of course however if ms zuletta were to check the record um for brt it's it's paid
out. All right. My apologies. These files are very large, and that's why it takes so long for this
one particularly to load. Are there any other questions in the meantime while this is loading
that we can address while I'm waiting for this so we don't take up more time?
Anybody else on the board? Anyone else on the board has any questions?
no no all right right right here on the left on the left you're showing a staircase
right and then that small deck as you refer to maybe being able to put a lounge chair there
yeah chairman where's the five foot that overhang we're talking about well that's the issue because
these stairs are three feet wide i guess to address what mr holliman said earlier
Our kitchen itself isn't terribly deep as we look at it, right?
If we were to move these stairs anywhere in the interior, we lose a significant amount of space.
We lose windows.
We have an elevator here that really can't be put anywhere else in the house.
And I guess you can ask them to remove the elevator, but they want it, and it's not a zoning issue.
So I just want to address the stairs.
Where is the five-foot in question that kicks in right here?
It's all of this, members of the board.
This is Orkney Street.
I think I said Cadwallader before.
That was incorrect.
This is Orkney Street.
This is Thompson. We can't physically set back this. This is the roof deck in question, your refusal. We cannot physically set this back five feet because then we can't put the stairs out here.
We don't put the stairs out here. These are about three feet wide, you know, rise over run, whatever the tread height is. I don't recall. We have 10 foot ceilings in the building.
it could we can theoretically uh mr holliman put these stairs anywhere well somewhere in here
probably not here because that interferes with the elevator uh if you put it here interferes
with the layout of the room leo i'm missing i'm missing why can't the stairs stay where they are
and eliminate or reduce the size of the deck well chair let me see if i i'm sorry mr holliman i know
you're talking. Yeah, Tom, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm confused. Okay.
Mr. Holliman, did you have a question that I can address for you while,
before I address the chair? The existing stairs that's inside the building,
why can't you extend them? So we thought about that too, but if we extend, let me get my drawing
tool out. If we extend these, draw, I don't want text. If we extend these stairs indicating in red
for purposes of the record, the stairwell on page, I believe, four, showing the fourth floor
interior layout, we could. We could just pop these stairs, pop a roof deck, a pilot house right up
here, and get another nine or ten feet of height on top of the building, which puts the building
significantly taller than anything else on the block other than the flat iron building that's
behind us. And it's really out of character for the block. So theoretically, we could do that.
We could get it by right, but then also we're going to get a – well, we couldn't get it by right because what would happen is we'd get a refusal because we can't have the pilot house up against the property line.
So we'd have to find a whole new place to put the staircase in the entire structure, right?
And it also adds to the height, which would – during the latter part of the day as the sun is here in the sky, this is the arc of the sun.
We have the sun's rays.
Sorry, it's all red.
I could probably change the color, but it's not that important.
that's going to cast a huge shadow to every house here as the sun gets to here
as this is to the west it's going to cast a huge shadow on the properties here and this neighbor
who mr mackleheadon represents is concerned about their light and air and we're trying to do our
best to facilitate this design to eliminate too much massing of the overall structure and that's
why we have the the see-through railing on the roof deck which is like here give or take set
back five feet from the street and that's why we have the staircase over here to the side of the
massing of the fourth story so we don't have that additional height and we're not casting shadows
on anybody where is that that staircase going the one you just this is yeah that's the staircase
for the entire house uh chairman so this goes it's all interior it's all interior yeah this is
like a switchback staircase from the ground floor up to the fourth story that's it all right i and
where it says up that's coming up from the third no no no on the other side go to your left again
here yep up where that's from that little deck yeah so let me where's that going where's
where that's from that little deck yeah so let me where's that going where's that going sure i'll
get my pen out to show you chairman so here's this is the sliding glass door you would come out
here right you go up the stairs and this is going up right up on top of this structure here because
let's get to the roof i have to clear my drawings very quickly so i can touch this they're all
drawings all right so just remember that and then let's go mouse when i get up where am i where do
i land one moment i'll answer your question i just have to get to my other drawing real quick
draw for you all right yeah draw all right let's draw so under this is the the top of the fourth
story right so this area right here this is the fourth story where you saw the kitchen so we're
standing right on the roof of the kitchen here okay and i'm going to draw the same drawing that
i did but on the next story up so you understand what we're talking about here so we're coming out
that sliding glass door and this this is elevated these are the stairs that are elevated at the same
height as the top of the fourth story so you walk under this no problem then you come around and you
go up the stairs and this is how you get to the roof deck above the fourth story and you just
there you go boom okay so where's the five foot refusal the five foot refusal is here
indicating for the record with my red pen this access deck to leave from that glass door I
discussed onto the tiny area where you can put maybe a patio chair or some patio furniture
this this is considered a roof deck under the zoning code even though it's not be reduced
couldn't that be set back no because chair what we do if we cut five feet off of this
looks like that and and and then you can't you can't get onto the roof and that's what I didn't
i understand it now and to go back to what mr holliman said earlier so the staircase
the switchback staircase for the home is located approximately here
let me ask you a question another question this the staircase that you're showing on the left
yes says up and then the staircase takes you all the way to the roof deck
you come out the sliding door right here couldn't you put a spiral staircase in close by
Well, let's say we did that. Let's say we put a spiral here. We still have the problem with the five-foot roof deck setback because we can't – the only place we could theoretically put a staircase or a spiral is here.
Because if we do the five-foot setback on that roof deck, we chop off a ton of available space for access.
And then we have to rearrange the entire interior, which is possible, right? We prefer not to.
And spiral staircases, as I've said before, I don't like being on them and they're difficult to get up and down.
I have one on my roof deck. I understand that. My point, I'm just, I'm trying to, I still can't figure out why you couldn't put a spiral staircase somewhere in close proximity to the glass sliding doors.
Because it's impossible to fit it and still comply with a five foot setback chair. That's why.
So if we do a five-foot setback for this, just this portion, which I'm indicating in pink, I'm going to change my colors up, because this is the only portion where we got our refusal, right?
Just this.
The other one, this roof deck up here, we're set back and we're good to go.
This is the area we have to deal with.
So if we're cutting five feet off of that, because we front two streets, because our house is really strangely shaped, it's trapezoidal, we have to cut off five feet this way, which is that much, okay?
And let's do approximately that much.
I have to kind of measure with my fingers here.
You have to cut off five feet.
So this is Thompson.
I'm going to indicate that with a T.
Orkney, I'm going to indicate with an O.
Orkney is one way this way.
That's heading north westwardly approximately.
Thompson is one direction this way, heading eastwardly approximately.
Parking is on the north side of the street here only, I believe.
There's no parking allowed here.
The street's very narrow.
But people tend to park all over the place, and it's very dangerous, unfortunately, with the way people park here.
So getting back to your point, Chair.
So here's our five-foot setback here, indicating for the record the number five, indicating the five-foot setback, measuring the same setback as here because it's all five feet.
So I'm just kind of copying that.
We then set also five feet here.
It's approximately this, right?
In fact, let me do a line, and I'll just move the line so we can show actually exactly why this is impossible for us to do with this if we're looking to keep the massing down and to keep our neighbors – oops, I messed that up a little bit, but okay.
That's approximately 5 feet 10, members of the board.
I'll make it even a little bit smaller just so nobody is going to accuse me of trying to exaggerate the issue here because it raises a real problem.
So this is about five feet set back, okay? So we have the five foot here. I'm going to change my
color to something different, new and different. How about light green? That allows us, oh no,
That allows us, oh, no, I don't want that, draw, line, format, light green, cool.
I don't want that. Draw.
So that allows us from here, oh, come on, line, do your thing.
Here is where we could put our, that reduces our available five-foot setback roof area.
and i'll uh draw mine
i can't color it in but i wish i could um this is all we are left with as a by right area to put a
spiral staircase members of the board i'm going to draw a square above on the landing where we're
seeing up okay so in fact let's just do this i don't know what the circumference of a spiral
staircase is but i think it's greater than three feet so this is they come in various sizes you can
do three foot you can do four foot they're various sizes so let's say it's three feet um so for
purposes of the record i have now drawn a circle a green circle with a circumference of approximately
three feet because this staircase is three feet wide so this is all we get for that spiral
staircase all right i'm gonna move this oh that's the line forget about that i'm gonna move this
circle. I'm going to try to move the circle. Come on, buddy. There we go. Okay. So where do we put
that spiral staircase that is going to work? And frankly, Chair, I think it has to be bigger than
three for something like this, because three feet is so tiny. I'm sitting at a three-foot.
Excuse me, Leo. Excuse me, Leo. Relocate your sliding door that is in the living room.
Okay. Mr. Holloman, I'm happy to take suggestions, but where would you recommend that we do that?
with respect to this design only because i'm not an architect so from my understanding of this
and if mr um villa's on the line he'll be happy to explain why that is very difficult to do from
his design perspective um let's say we even if we put the three foot spiral staircase here assuming
we can get a three foot which i think is impossible to do only because i'm sitting at a three foot
square table right now and i've never seen a spiral staircase this small i think i think they're
generally at least five or six feet so you can come to my house i have a three foot oh is that
are you inviting me over for dinner that's wonderful i'll bring a bottle of wine so let's
say we put this this spiral staircase here which we don't want to do because spirals are as a chair
knows spirals are interesting and finicky to deal with and then mr leo mr leo in the living room
you have a sliding door yes relocated right well that's what i'm saying to be passed to be passed
of spiral stairs well that's that's what i'm saying mr holliman so here what our spiral staircase
is indicated draw i'm going to do this in a different color now let's try red i believe
and do not you know don't hold me on this we'll do it for reference in a second i think this is
the location of the of the thing of the door i think that's it or thereabouts nevertheless so
you'd open the door you come out this way what we'd have to do for purpose of design is then we'd
have the world's tiniest little landing. So say we go here. How does a person, considering this is
three feet, so this is, I don't know, 16 inches maybe? Take the door, take the slide door further
up. Okay, so let's say we move it here, right? Past the spiral stairs. Okay, but that's assuming
that we can even get a three-foot spiral, and I don't know that we can, but this is all
speculative at this point. So maybe you could open the door and then walk directly up the
maybe three-foot spiral stair, which is not ideal. And then we go real tight here, right?
But the point that I'm trying to understand, members of the board, and the reason is this
seems like a whole lot of hullabaloo over something that's almost academic when it comes to the reason
for the zoning refusal because theoretically we could do all of this right but this really
changes the design it makes this outdoor space really difficult to navigate um for anybody with
i don't know a disability like walking with a cane or crutches or things like that which was
something i've learned uh had to do the last few weeks recovering from hernia surgery and it was
This is the hardship here because it becomes so tight for us to design this in accordance with the strict confines of the zoning code in a way that's actually feasible.
I mean, we can do it on paper.
With all due respect, Mr. Mulvivell, I think that might be a better question to be answered by the architect.
yes possibly it is and i'm not sure if mr if rich is on i can try to send him yeah because
Yes, possibly it is.
And I'm not sure if Rich is on.
I can try to send him a tackle.
we're going to get move on with this case we may have to resume it but let's i'm trying to get it
done rich if you're on the line will you please raise your hands i'll text you if you aren't
mr villa you have to unmute yourself and you can speak all right rich all right say your name
spell your last name and give your address for the record mr villa richard villa v-i-l-l-a
Thank you.
Mr. Bill, you swear and affirm to tell you the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I assume you've been listening to our questions?
I have.
Could you help us out?
Is there a way in which we can get, I guess, a spiral staircase in there that's adequate by relocating, as Mr. Holloman asked, relocating it further up?
The sliding glass door is rather further up.
uh there is not a way to have a legal width spiral staircase which i'm guessing your house
probably doesn't have to share oh be careful about that it was done third it was done 25 years ago
yeah so let me if you don't mind rich i'm just going to control the questioning for a little
bit to keep the record clear uh rich i've never seen a legal three-foot spiral staircase used in
new construction what is the legal size of a spiral staircase these days if you're doing the
by building code to clear with at and below the handrails at spiral stairs shall not be less than
26 inches okay so what does that mean for purposes of the circumference that means you would have
26 40 it's uh uh 42 or sorry 52 inches plus you need the column in the middle so the column in
the middle is probably about six inches so we're talking like 58 58 inches give or take in terms
same five foot around you could say five feet right so if you imagine a five foot diameter
circle uh in that space it just sort of doesn't work it doesn't fit within the five foot it
doesn't doesn't fit outside of the five foot uh setback so the idea with this was that
the putting this putting the stair axis where it is um you know as the as you go up the stairs it's
very not visible from thompson street and then it's visible from orkney but it you know the
entire roof deck itself is set back um from the from the street and there is no pilot house so
that was really the the play here that this roof deck does not affect the later air of the neighbors
uh it really affects the latent air of the fourth floor deck i get that i think we're just trying
to figure if there's a way and removing one of the refusals by incorporating a different type
staircase that's that was my only purpose so i guess rich can we can we unless we put the
staircase in the house and put a big pilot house on top that's going to affect the air and lay of
the immediate neighbor which is as i recall their primary concern i'm pulling up the letter we'd
received from old kemsington is there a way to do that legally under the zoning code i don't think
there is but you not in this configuration and i really and i i you know i don't like to i'd like
to have as few uh refusals as possible so this one i knew was going to happen but i tried to make it
as the minimus as i could right and is there so there's no way that you can legally as you think
of it under the zoning code to design the roof deck that that fronts on orkney and fronts on
um i'm sorry i was gonna say master but i knew that was wrong uh there's no way you can do that
under the code right it's impossible you it would something would stick out into the five feet
into the five feet uh setback right would you call that a hardship i mean you're not a lawyer
but would you call that a hardship in terms of you designing that?
In its current configuration, yes.
But yes.
I submit to the board, and I shouldn't say that.
I hate when lawyers say that.
I suggest members of the board that that's a design hardship due to the size and shape and configuration of the lot.
And anything that we try to do, based on my testimony and the testimony of Mr. Villa,
who has spent many months on this project, and we've talked about it a lot,
We did our best to design this so it wouldn't affect the neighbors in any appreciable way,
and any design that we would change will affect them more. And there's no way under the zoning
code to do it without making a big pilot house that's tall and is going to bother the neighbors,
which is what we did not want to do. I have an opposition letter from Ms. Jones. I guess they're
they're echoing the concerns by Old Kensington Neighbors Association. I'm not sure whether
Ms. Moss is on, but this is what I have to say about that meeting. We had an original meeting
with Ms. Moss and her organization over Zoom several months ago, I believe. I don't remember
the date. Don't remember the date. Irrespective, we talked with the neighbors and talked with Ms.
Moss. Most of the concerns that were brought up had nothing to do with zoning. They did bring up
concerns about the height of the property. We tried to explain the height of new construction
and the fact that our building had less mass
and less overall ability to block the sunlight
and less overall ability to block the sunlight than any of the new construction in the area.
than any of the new construction in the area.
What else? They were concerned about the side alley. And I guess, Mr. Villa, if you want,
we can change that design to eliminate that refusal and then kind of have a weird dog
leg where we can put the elevator. But we didn't want to do that either because we wanted to have
the ability from that alleyway to access the rear yard for purposes of egress. It's like an emergency
egress situation there. So it makes the property less safe if we were to build out in that dogleg
area right past the 21-foot alleyway, which the neighbors share have rights to. It also makes the
house closer to the neighbors, which we're trying to avoid because we do not wish to interfere with
their light and air, which is the theme here. The other concerns had to do with the deck on
orkney street but there are no neighbors on that corner who would have to worry about that and the
deck itself as i stated are uh is really too small to use for entertainment that's why we have the
stairs there to go to the top um i now have in front of me members of the board my um letter from
old kensington neighbors association which i will share at this moment as soon as i can get rid of
all these scribbles. One moment, please. All right, let's make this the big one. Let's make
sure I don't have any dumb tabs open. Nope, I don't. Okay, so there's no client stuff up. There's
just this. Let's go over this letter. So this is a letter dated January 6th. I don't know why it's
dated January 6th, since our first meeting was on December 8th. That's the meeting we attended
and agreed not to have a vote that night and come back. The next meeting was January 26th at 6 p.m.
That is not correct. I signed on to the meeting before 6 p.m. via Zoom. At 6.07 approximately,
I sent an email to Ms. Moss indicating that if the meeting did not start by 6.10, I was leaving
because it was a waste of my time. And we came back to the RCO as a courtesy because we are not
required to enter the zoning code if we have one meeting and the RCO chooses not to vote,
which is what happened. At 6.17, I'd sent another email, if I recall, where I said,
I am leaving. This is disrespectful to my time, to my client's time. If I recall correctly,
Ms. Suleta was copied on each of these exchanges. When Ms. Moss responded, my recollection is that
she did not copy Ms. Suleta on the exchange, but I made sure that Ms. Suleta was aware of what was
going on. At 6.27, approximately, I think I received a text or an email from the adjacent
neighbor. I believe her name is Jessica. I keep wanting to call her Rachel, but I don't think
that's correct. Saying, we're ready. We're waiting for you. And then Ms. Moss said, we're waiting for
you. And I said, I'm not coming back. You wasted half an hour of my time. You wasted half an hour
of my client's time. I was sitting there waiting for the meeting to start. And we were doing a
courtesy to the community because we're trying to plan this in a way that would help them out.
We reached out independently to Jessica to try to talk with her. My clients reached out by
themselves without me involved, because usually I don't like to get attorneys involved, especially
in neighbor issues where my clients will be living directly next to these people, and we don't want
to have bad blood. And when you get attorneys involved, sometimes things get complicated and
silly very quickly. They'd refuse to meet with my clients. They later hired Mr. McElhatton. Again,
I do not know if he's on the line. I asked Mr. McElhatton repeatedly what their client's
objections were. Their position was, we echo the concerns of the RCO, which is super not helpful
when I'm trying to work with the neighbor to design something that's amenable to them.
So ultimately, it seems as though there is just objection to this altogether, and an objection
to new construction, especially one that does not excavate, that has taken into great consideration
the neighbors, air, light, open space. And even though it's asking for a little bit more height,
with the design is actually shorter than what would be allowed if my client went 38 feet by
right with a roof deck and a pilot house. It was very frustrating to do that. So let's talk about
what this meeting said. I don't know when this vote took place. I actually, while I was having,
After I had surgery, I was only cleared to return to work today.
I was hobbling around with a cane.
I dropped off 25 or so copies, hard copy plans of our proposal.
We even initially thought about showing a 38-foot-tossed one just to talk with the neighbors and feel them out and see what the deal was.
I dropped those off, not at Ms. Moss's office, which is literally four doors down from this property, but with Jessica, the neighbor.
if Jessica is on the line.
She can attest that I was doubled over in pain
and hobbling with a cane,
and I dropped them all off at her house
and asked her to please distribute those
to Ms. Moss when her office is open.
Mr. Mulvihill, pardon the interruption.
We are obligated to have a certain amount of break.
Understood. I'm happy to. I'm going to suggest that this case be resumed because we haven't
Understood.
I'm happy to...
I'm going to suggest that this case...
heard from the other side. If Mr. Hammack is an attorney, I suspect it's going to be some
lengthy testimony. I imagine that's the case. Now, Chairman, my clients, they've already had
this case continued because Old Kensington couldn't meet with us from the requisite time.
We chose to proceed anyway because they are incurring significant holding costs on this
property and this is supposed to be their house um so every day that we are delayed is actual
hardship financially for them as human beings because they're not developers they're people
i understand but we are required oh chair i understand i'm just asking whether i can resume
this at two today um 330 430 whatever works for the board i don't know i'm happy to do it i really
i wish i can tell you 330 but i don't know how we're going to have a case that's going to take
considerable amount of time even with our best efforts at two o'clock to limit that case i
suspect will have to be continued at some point as well certainly chair i mean i've been on calls
i've been on cases that you as you very well know where two o'clock goes into 4 30 so i understand
yeah so again i'm not we're not trying to be difficult we're trying to get everybody the
opportunity to be heard absolutely and i think the best way for us to do that is to have a
resumption hearing yes and i'll ask to get one as soon as we can chair yes if i may i'm almost
on my case in chief if you're at time right now for me for us to stop just wrap up and then we'll
take it from there so i'm showing on the on the board um this letter dated january 6th for a
meeting that happened january 26th there was a vote um apparently um 17 attendees zoom participants
zero support 10 opposed i don't know who these people are i don't know what was going on during
approximately 20 minutes i was waiting for this meeting to start uh but apparently a vote was
taken with me not present with my clients having no ability to present their new case. I don't know
who these people were. And I don't know what the regulations were or how this meeting was conducted
because I am not going to sit around for 20 minutes where an RCO doesn't start their own
meeting on time and disrespects my client like that. So there's a vote. I ask that the board
not consider this letter. And let's talk about the feedback very quickly because they have that too.
I think when old Kensington disregarded my client's time and disrespected my clients like that, they, when we were nice and came back again, didn't have to, they gave up the right to voice their objections.
Fine. Okay, here we are.
Near neighbors did not support the proposed three-foot side yard width, building height of 40 feet, and West Thompson and Orkney Street roof deck not set back.
Okay, so they want us to build all the way to the property line in the rear.
We explained why we didn't want to do that.
Building height of 40 feet, we explained why we're doing that the way we are.
So it's actually shorter than every other new construction building in the area that goes through 38 feet tall and has a parapet wall.
West Thompson, Orkney Street setback, okay.
Mr. Villa explained why that's physically impossible for us to comply with under the zoning code.
And we'd have to move the stairs inside and we'd have to make the building taller, which, you know, goes against the problems the neighbors have with the overall height.
I don't remember anything about this construction agreement that's mentioned in bold.
I have no recollection of that whatsoever.
So I don't know what the claim there is.
And I don't recall receiving an email, but maybe I did.
We request the applicant provide a SUN study.
I have no recollection of that.
And members of the board there and everybody who is here listening, there's a website where what you can do, if you just Google it, and I don't remember the name of it, is type in the height of a building, draw the dimensions of the building, put in the date and time,
and it will show you exactly what happens with the sun.
I just don't ever remember getting a sun study request.
They were asking, there was an objection to the height,
interfering with the amount of sunlight and air quality in homes and backyards.
Well, the adjacent properties, number one, one of them has no backyard.
It's 100% lot coverage, and it's currently vacant.
I understand.
We need to summarize, please.
Well, Chair, you're going to have more time at the resumption here.
Chair, here's what we'll do for purposes of giving everyone the necessary break.
I've been talking very quickly.
The court reporter probably hates me right now.
She hates me for not asking for a break sooner.
I am sorry, Ms. Court Reporter.
I can't see you or your name, but please accept my apologies.
I get yelled at all the time in court for talking too quickly.
So I will stop here.
for the purpose of the record, this is the last paragraph of the letter dated January 6th from
Old Kensington Neighbors Association. And I just talked about the SUN study, so I guess we'll talk
about page three next time. And I will conclude my presentation at this point and request that we get
the soonest possible date to resume this. And if we can squeeze me in anytime.
soonest possible date to resume this. And if we can squeeze me in any time in the next couple
weeks, that would be wonderful because my poor clients have been waiting for months to get this
done. That's all. Excuse me. This is Sharon Soletta. I just want to put on the record that
the property is tax compliant. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Soletta. All right. Without any objection,
MI 2020-0024189. I'm sorry, wrong one. Sorry about that. MI 2020-002446-428-30 West Thompson Street.
This hearing will be resumed. Do we have a date as early as possible, Ms. Benton?
chair actually i would have to uh deferred to miss sunkett or miss dandy i'm not sure about
the dates that's fine i'll be in touch with either miss sunken hold on hold on we may have
it now i'm not sure even better hi this is tanya chair march 24th at 9 30. well okay this hearing
will be resumed on march the 24th at 9 30 a.m at which time the board will i'm sorry chair
here i'm so sorry february 24th oh that's much better thank you thank you okay all right okay
let's start again 2020-002-446-428-30 west thompson street this hearing will be resumed
on february 24th at 9 30 a.m at which time we will consider any further feedback related to
the RCO and the council person's position. Yes chair one final request on the record please
any of the protesters who wish to introduce exhibits I will object to their admission
unless I have them in my hand five days before the hearing please. So noted. Thank you. Thank you
we apologize for anyone who's been waiting on the line but we do have some standards that we have
to adhere to. We'll look forward to hearing from you on the 24th. Thank you everyone and be back
at two o'clock. Thank you members of the board. Good afternoon. Good seeing everybody. I miss you.
You too. Thank you.
Ms. Tenere, we officially broke for lunch, correct? Yes. Okay, I'm going to pause the recording.
Thank you. Yes, I am now leaving. Thank you. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco. We're going to wait a few minutes to see if staff has to get any of
their technical issues resolved. When you're ready, Yvette, you'll let us know.
We're ready now, Chair. Everybody is present. Okay. Thank you very much. Again,
good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of
adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair miss carol
tenere our board secretary confessor plaza and board members mr thomas holloman and mr james
snell board administrator yvette benton and our board attorney miss sharon saletta are also in
attendance for those of you who haven't yet participated for those of you who haven't yet
participate in our virtual hearings i'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect
first we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony second we'd
like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you
acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and this recording will be available to the public
on the web or otherwise. Third, if for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star
nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement call Google 267
270 5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue. I will repeat
to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5488 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue i would also like to advise everyone that please do not
attempt to testify in the chat any comments should be directed to our board administrator
Ms. Yvette Benton. With that, I will read off the two o'clock.
Benton. With that I will read off the 2 o'clock list those cases that there's been a request
to be continued. Number one on our regular list for the 2 o'clock MI 2020-001309 109 Pleasant
Street is continued. Number six on our list MI 2020-003159 2535 West Lehigh Avenue. Number
MI 2020-000792, 397 East Upsall Street, number 12 on our list, MI 2020-002-036-539 North 22nd Street.
If anyone disagrees with the request for those continue any of those continuances,
please raise your hand at this time.
no hands at this time chair thank you and i will now ask if anyone is requesting would like to
request a continuance for withdrawal please raise your hand at this time
chair we have a drew miller with his hand up mr miller you can unmute yourself and speak
good afternoon mr miller please identify yourself for the record name and address and i'll swear
are you in? Yes, my name is Drew Miller, D-R-E-W-M-I-L-L-E-R. My address is 1405 East Columbia
Avenue, 19125. You swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. What case are you speaking to? I'm speaking as a member of the Fishtown Neighborhood
association zoning committee and i'm speaking to case mi 2020-003089 of the address is 1324
frankfort avenue uh i believe we sent you a letter requesting a continuance on on that matter
uh and so i just wanted to voice that excuse me this is sharon scoletta yes we did receive the
letter um mr sean whalen is for the property owner and if he could be promoted to panelist
status he is objecting to the continuance he has
thank you good good afternoon chairman sean whalen
s-e-a-n w-h-a-l-e-n on behalf of the applicant for 1324 frankfurt avenue and we oppose
any continuance we've not been provided with a copy of the letter which would obviously set
forth the basis for the continuance so i'm not sure what that request would you swear and affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do including your comment just now
and what case is that one for? That is MI 2020 003089. It's number two on the regular list Frank
two o'clock. Okay I'm looking at the other Frankford I'm sorry. So you're opposed to the
continuance? Yes we don't believe that there's any basis for a continuance today. We have not
and advised previous to now by FNA that there would be a continuance request. So I'd be
interested to hear what the basis would be. All right, we'll take that up when we call your case.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
We have Ori Feinbush. Mr. Feinbush, you've been unmuted. You can speak.
Yeah, I did that in error. Forgive me, but good to see all of you. Forgive me.
anyone else? Chair, we have a Leonard Reuter here. Yeah, I know Leonard's going to speak on a
piece of legislation. Is there anyone else who would like to ask, request a continuance or
withdrawal? There are no other hands at this time, Chair. With that, we will take up the
the adoption of an extension, Mr. Reuter.
Lynn, you've been-
Lynn, you've been promoted to panelists. You can go forward with the regulations.
leonard are you there
leonard may be having technical difficulties let's go to number two
on the add-on list, MI 2020-002410, 650 Fairmount Avenue.
Mr. Griegos or Stephanie Boggs?
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
Mr. Reuter did just send me a text message saying that he was,
just got booted and is rejoining.
He didn't get booted.
He was put into as a panelist.
Thank you.
I don't know is Herc or Stephanie available? Who will be presenting? Mr. Griegos.
Well he has an open mic and I hear a lot of young kids in the background if you can mute
that would be helpful. Herc just hold on a second Carol. Herc just hang in there a minute if we got
Leonard will do that and then get back to you. Just hang in. Thank you. Mr. Reuter, are you on?
He's a little bit muted. Yeah.
Oh, well. All right. Let's go with that case Fairmount Avenue. Mr. Mr. Grigos.
Okay, Mr. Grigos, put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name.
Great, thank you. Hercules Grigos, G-R-I-G-O-S, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA,
representing PRDC Properties and its affiliate, Fairmount Manor Associates, LP,
equitable owner of the property located at 650 Fairmount Avenue.
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and plans, five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
This is a resumption hearing, correct?
Correct. We're here today with a return visit for construction of a mixed-use multifamily ground floor retail building.
i have with me david perlman and tony maris from prdc properties owner and developer
i believe representatives of the community diane monroe from the 14th border also here but if you
recall we were here in december we presented the case for the project had support from near neighbor
RCO planning commission CDR we were praised at CDR and at the hearing we had some concern from
council president's office since that time we had a number of meetings with council president's
office the RCO and the result of those meetings were a substantial increase in affordability I
I think we had presented 40 affordable units at the time.
We are now at 60 affordable rental units, which is over 20% of the rental.
And we also increased a portion of the for sale that were set aside with subsidies for 10 of those to be reserved for affordable as well for sale products.
We made some other improvements to the community benefits agreement.
and that has been signed and executed by the RCO, so we are seeking a vote, and I think we,
well, I'll let Mary from Councilman Clark's office speak for herself, but I think we,
I believe they're taking no position today. I think we've responded to their concerns,
And I will just say, we also, I provided some additional information to Sharon Saleta in terms of just detailing that history and the history of the property in an affidavit form from David Perlman, the equitable owner, and I'd like to see that incorporated into the record as well.
incorporated into the record as well well noted uh question uh is there a revised plan
Well noted.
Question.
we do have revised plans they have not changed since the last hearing but they were submitted
to sharon five pages um uh revised plans in the form and also i think we raised this the last
meeting um there was um one issue on the refusal where the um the uses for the ground floor
commercial should be uses as approved in cmx2 and i had spoken to sharon about this back in december
so we'd asked for the revised plans just a proviso it was on the application but i don't
think it made it into the refusal that the ground floor commercial uh uses would be uses as permitted
in cmx2 um this way we don't have to come back for every tenant excuse me mr grigos this is
sharon saletta the plans you submitted the actual plans are four pages is that correct and the
fifth page is the form. I will tell you right now. My apologies.
I believe there are five pages, including the Elevation 1. I have five pages here, Sharon.
That's fine.
I just had in my notes that it was four pages, but five is fine.
So the provisos would be revised plans, five pages, and commercial uses as permitted in
That's correct.
Thank you.
Okay. Do we need your client, Mr. Grigos, or no?
I think everything was included in our affidavit that was submitted.
So I don't believe we need him.
But he can affirm the changes.
We'll stipulate you being an officer to court, your client would have adopted your testimony and any revisions thereof.
Any questions from the board?
no no no no uh is i believe miss jones might be here from council president to clark's office
and or anyone else who would like to testify please raise your hand
miss jones you have to unmute yourself and you can speak good afternoon miss jones remember
you're still on the oath from earlier today please identify yourself for the record good
Good afternoon. My name is Mary Jones. On behalf of Council President Daryl Clark, City Hall,
room 494, just want to confirm Mr. Griot's testimony. We did have further conversation
and our office is no longer taking a position. Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify
in this case please raise your hand chair we have diane monroe miss monroe you can unmute yourself
and speak okay um good afternoon miss monroe please identify yourself for the record and i'll
swear you okay diane monroe 14th wood rco do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
hold on do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i did thank you please proceed okay um we the the community um totally supports this project
100 we didn't receive any complaints about this proposed project they are looking forward
to having it um redone and um they are happy about this proposed project the 14th ward
committee is happy about the proposed project and we hopefully and that that the commissioners will
support it also thank you thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand there are no hands at this time chair thank you mi 2020-002410 650 fairmount avenue
my vote is yes with the following proviso revised plan five pages approved today and the proviso
commercial space to be used as permitted in the cmx2 district is that correct correct yes
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
so thank you thank you very much thank you i think we go to number two on the regular
list now yes carol calendar number 3089 1324 frankfurt avenue mr whalen
1324 Frankfurt Avenue, Mr. Whelan and this is the case that you just had Mr. Whelan before you.
Mr. Whelan you've been promoted to a panelist you can speak now.
Hello again board members. Mr. Whelan before you begin with your testimony just give us a
brief summation as to why you are objecting to a continuance.
uh well it would be easier to let you know if i knew what the basis for the continuance was
we'll go to the uh we'll go to the uh rco web representative thank you
to the gentleman who's here on the 1324 frankfurt avenue please
mr miller you can unmute yourself and begin to speak
yes i'm here all right mr miller i think i think you're still under oath i i think i put you on
the oath correct yep all right so uh mr whalen is uh waiting to hear what the reason for the
continuance yes i'm i'm sorry he wasn't aware i i assumed the letter was sent to them as well
um the the reason we're asking for a continuance is because we've received an updated refusal for
the project uh just last friday on february 5th uh and and with the adjustment from the prior
refusal we're also expecting a refusal on parcel a uh the discussion today is primarily about parcel
b uh and and for those reasons we haven't had time to fully uh discuss uh the the new refusals
and thus would like a continuance uh so that we can be a lot of the proper time to evaluate the
situation. Excuse me, this is Sharon Sletta. We also have an email from Mary Jones of Councilman
Clark's office saying that they support the request for a continuance.
Mr. Whalen. Yes, thank you, Chairman. In short, this is much ado about nothing.
The project began some time ago. The neighborhood requested that instead of building
by right, we proceed with a second apartment building on the rear of an existing project.
We've done so. We have always known that there was what we believed to be an incorrect refusal.
This dates back to, I think, early last summer. We spent more than six months working with L&I
trying to get a revised refusal.
L&I told us that the refusal was correct.
And that's, you know, obviously they're the arbiter
of what is or is not a refusal.
We have presented at all times, numerous times
to both FNA and all stakeholders,
exactly the project that's before the board today.
There's been no change, no surprises,
no setback removed, nothing like that.
But the, so the FNA has always known exactly what the project was.
We even, through correspondence and orally, presented exactly what we believed the refusals would have been or should have been.
Again, we're not the arbiter of what refusals get issued or not.
We made our position clear with L&I and the examiner, and they took the position they did.
So we've moved forward and sent out the required notices. We've worked with all the stakeholders here. And my understanding is that the neighborhood is generally in favor of this project, but that the RCO is really pressing for what they believe to be a correct refusal.
That said, they went and had L&I reissue a new refusal.
I think Mr. Miller is correct.
It was last week or the week before.
I would suggest to the board that that refusal is far less correct than the original refusal.
In short, there are only two refusals here.
So, you know, this, again, is much ado about nothing.
It's, you know, there are a certain number of dwelling units allowed.
We're asking for additional density.
and there's a certain height allowed and we're asking for greater height. The only additional
refusal that was added by the examiner most recently was for lot coverage and we can walk
through that happily but without getting into the weeds his calculations are incorrect and that is
not a refusal that should have been issued. So the revised refusal is less correct and less accurate
than the original refusal but in short everybody has always known what the project is the project
hasn't changed there have been no revisions to it in fact the the proviso plans that are in front of
In fact, the proviso plans that are in front of Ms. Saleta, all they did was reconfigure the pilot house a little bit and the roof deck.
miss saletta
We had, frankly, just missed an area where it entered into the roof deck setback area, so it constituted another story.
So the height refusal will get reduced, and the project hasn't changed at all.
So FNA and everyone has known at all times exactly what the project is and what we're moving forward with.
Excuse me, Mr. Whelan, this is Sharon Saleta. Can you tell me the process by which a revised refusal was issued? Did you submit an amended application?
um uh to to be fair i'm not sure because i was not involved or advised of it in any way shape
or form as the attorney for the project or the applicant um we simply refuse received a revised
refusal last week that added again maybe it was the week before um that added one additional
refusal and that refusal is frankly uh incorrect so i'm not sure how or or through what channels
FNA and or the councilman's office, council president's office works.
It sounds to me like we're in a position to go forward with the case, and we'll talk
about that a little bit.
Carol, I need to excuse myself for a couple of minutes.
Would you go back to Leonard on the add-on and then follow up on this case?
I should be back by the time you start this case.
Oh, Lord, the dog.
All right.
I'll mute myself now.
The two o'clock, is this the two o'clock add-on number one?
Or is it-
Mr. Reuter is going to read the extension of the emergency regulations into the record
and the board will then vote on them.
Sharon, what is the case number?
There is no case number.
No case.
oh he's just okay so i guess i just introduced leonard reuter yes he will read it these this is
just an extension of the previously adopted regulations and then the board members will
each indicate if they are voting to adopt them okay um hello this is leonard reuter can you all
hear me first yes we can great um i apologize i was planning on having my video on uh
But I'm actually at the city offices, and if you're aware, the city offices have really kind of a ridiculously slow network.
So I think if I keep the camera off, I'm not going to get knocked off again, but we'll see.
For right now, I'm just going to read in the proposed regulation that will extend the prior regulations that had allowed for the board to start reoperating after the COVID pandemic.
And I'm gonna try to share my screen.
This might be a mistake, but we'll see.
And can you see that?
Yes, we can.
Ooh, okay.
So zoning, I'm just gonna read this into the record.
Zoning Board of Adjustment emergency regulations
regarding public hearing notice requirements
for zoning hearings and other related matters.
whereas on march 22nd 2020 as part of a series of emergency declarations and orders the mayor
and health commissioner issued an emergency order temporarily prohibiting operation of
non-essential businesses to prevent the spread of covet 19 uh quote-unquote emergency order which
was approved as a regulation of the board of health on march 26 2020 effective march 27 2020
2020, and has since been followed by subsequent declarations, orders, and regulations, and
whereas on March 18, 2020, the Zoning Board of Adjustment promulgated a regulation suspending
board hearings and deadlines and related matters in response to the COVID-19 emergency, and
whereas as part of a series of emergency declarations and orders, the Mayor and Health Commissioner
determined on May 29, 2020, that Philadelphia could move to the Commonwealth's yellow phase
with additional specific restrict philadelphia specific restrictions that would apply in addition
to restrictions established by the governor including limitations on outdoor dining
and to implement that decision executed an order entitled emergency order allowing limited
reopening of businesses advising philadelphians they are safer at home and establishing safety
measures to prevent the spread of 2019 novel coronavirus that is covet 19 yellow phase of
reopening, known as the yellow phase order.
known as the yellow phase order. To implement that decision effective on the date determined
To implement that decision effective on the day
by the governor and the city of Philadelphia should move into the yellow phase on June
5, 2020 and whereas on June 22, 2020, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the board, adopted
an emergency regulation regarding public meeting notice requirements for zoning hearings and
other related matters which temporarily altered the process for filing appeals providing for
notices of public meetings and hearings and related matters as were deemed necessary in order to allow
hearings by the board to resume and whereas the aforementioned regulations of june 22nd 2020
were subsequently amended on october 28th 2020 by establishing a deadline for certain appeals
that were affected by the shutdown of city offices and board proceedings and extending the previous
regulations. Now, therefore, pursuant to its powers as set forth in section 8-407 of the
Philadelphia Home Rule Charter and subsection 14-103 sub 4 sub B of the Philadelphia Zoning
Code, the Zoning Board of Adjustment hereby amends its June 22, 2020 emergency regulations
regarding public meeting notice requirements for zoning hearings and other related matters
as amended as follows. Affected period means the period beginning on March 13, 2020 through
June 1, 2021 unless further extended by the board. Two, this board's emergency regulation of March
18, 2020 is hereby repealed and replaced as follows. I should note, as an aside, that is
not a change. We're just simply quoting part of the next section that is affected. We're adding a
new section, subsection D, during the affected period, the board shall issue its decision
letter via United States Postal Service or via electronic mail or email.
E, in those cases where the board sends its decision letter via email, the date that the
email is sent shall be deemed the date of decision.
All other matters in the prior regulations are not being changed.
Pursuant to the mayor's March 11, 2020 Declaration of Extraordinary Circumstance that allows regulations related to addressing the pandemic to become effective immediately upon transmission to the Department of Records, this emergency regulation shall be effective immediately.
so in the hard copy you'll see that the words and brackets are those that are being deleted
and italics are ones that are added if there's any like minor typos that can be corrected
before it is sent to the department of records and that's it so sharon do we vote on this as a board
yes we each vote to adopt the regulation okay i vote to adopt the regulations
board i vote to adopt the regulation
i vote to adopt the regulation
mr holliman yes do you vote to adopt the regulations that mr reuter just read in
I do vote to adopt the reservations.
Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Reuter.
Thank you.
Actually, while I have the floor,
we do have an agreement in one of the cases on the list.
I don't know if you want to go to that first
before you go back to the other cases.
That's up to you.
I'm not sure of the order of the agenda, how you do agreements.
It is an appeal against L&I.
Sharon, I think no.
I think we should get to number two first, because I think Frank should be part of that case.
It doesn't really matter what order you use.
It doesn't.
It's not disputed.
They are just reading the agreement into the record.
Okay, so next, we are calling two related appeals.
No, this is number 11, 516 South 4th Street, appeal against O&I.
Calendar number 2279, 516 South 4th Street.
Thank you, member.
I'm sorry.
Number A.
Thank you, members of the board.
This is Leonard F. Reuter, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
I would also note that Attorney Dawn Tancredi is also here on this matter for the appellant.
If she could be unmuted and added to the panel.
If she could be unmuted and added to the panel.
He's been promoted.
She's been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Ms. Tancredi, can you put your name and address on the record?
Good afternoon.
Dawn Tancredi, 2005 Market Street, Philadelphia 19103.
I'm here today on behalf of the property owner, Wood Capital Investments.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
um so go ahead sure thank you um i'm just going to state to the board uh what the agreement is
this is an appeal against ellen i um appealing the revocation of a zoning permit for the subject
property and uh we're certainly i think prepared to get into details if you like but the the bottom
line is that the city has, I and L&I had a discussion, we reviewed the matter, and a
determination has been made that while we do believe the permit was originally issued
in error, I know there's some due dispute about that, but we believe the permit was
issued in error.
However, because of certain commitments that were made by the current owner, that we do
believe that uh this is a case where the per they now have vested rights to the permit and we will
agree to a stipulated decision by the board granting the appeal and excuse me mr reuter
shouldn't simply if you have reached an agreement is ms tancredi then willing to withdraw the appeal
no the permit the underlying permit had been revoked
so the permit would need to be reinstated yes we we would um actually prefer that this just
go down as a as a stipulated decision uh of the board and then that that actually will probably
um help streamline the process of reissuing the permit um i'm not sure that the board has that
option we either grant or deny correct yes i think you can just grant the appeal that's basically
what i'm saying it may be complicated too much okay that's great thank you
uh any other testimony from either dawn or leonard mr chairman just for the record
we do believe that the underlying permit was properly issued however the city has agreed
not to challenge our appeal so we have no objection to the appeal being granted
Leonard, done? Yes, that's all. Okay. Anybody have any questions?
I don't think so, right? Okay. MI 2020-002279-516 South 4th Street. My vote is to grant the appeal.
My vote is to grant the appeal. Appeal granted. Appeal granted.
Okay, now we'll go back to number two, calendar number 3089 1324 Frankfurt Avenue, Sean Whalen.
Hello again. It says my video has been stopped by the host. So I can't go back on. There we go.
All right, you're on. Hello again, everybody.
you've you've been sworn in already all right i i just wanted to make sure we didn't have to
talk over each other when that happened again um thank you very much again sean whalen here for
1324 frankfurt um i'm going to share my screen
and see
why this isn't working
one of those days
always is
I apologize
my old computer crashed
and I got a new one
and it's not letting Zoom share my screen
interesting
interesting okay uh well i will talk through it and while i finish the while i get this uh
worked out i will uh just tell you about it so uh 1324 frankfurt is a large trapezoidal parcel
zone CMX2, in between the streets of Thompson and Master, and it goes all the way from Frankfurt to
And it goes all the way from Frankfurt back to Lee Street.
This is a developed commercial corridor, obviously, along Frankfurt Avenue.
The trapezoid, you know what, I am not having luck doing this.
So let me, I'm going to have Ori share his screen for me real quick.
Um, if you just give me two seconds, I'll, I'll send him an email with the, um, again,
my apologies.
sorry it's all easier to do when people aren't waiting on you to do it right
Sorry about this.
I will have him do it piecemeal then.
All right, we'll start with this, all right, if Ori Fibush could be raised to a, to share
his screen. Mr. Fybush has been promoted to panelists.
Fybush when you get on would you please identify yourself for the record first and last name,
spell your name. Good afternoon, Ori Fybush with OCF Realty, address 1936 Washington Avenue.
Can you spell your last name, Mr. Fybush? Epheson Frank, E-I-B-U-S-H. Do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do, yes. Ellen or Mr. Fybush,
someone please proceed all right uh or you yeah would you please share uh the first um document
i provided you was a copy of the original refusal uh this is so this is the updated refusal can you
show the original refusal absolutely um so just to show the board enlarge that a little bit
Slightly enlarge that, please.
Absolutely.
Nope, that went the other way.
Thank you.
So the original application for this matter was submitted back in June of 2020.
And as you can see on the date of this refusal, it was dated 11-16-2020.
We basically tried for five months with L&I to get a revised refusal.
that was sort of the background that I already testified to. And I will walk you through or if
you could just bring up the aerial photos, the aerial maps I sent you. So this
Can you rotate it?
Yeah, so as I was describing before, you have Frankfurt Avenue, and it goes all the way back
to Lee Street. This is a large trapezoidal parcel. What we are essentially doing is drawing a north-south
line to make a large rectangular parcel along Frankfurt Avenue, and there would be then
and there would be then a trapezoidal parcel down along North Lee Street.
a trapezoidal parcel down along north.
And, Ori, I sent you just now a second email with the zoning plan.
If you could bring that up, that might help them understand.
and Sean I have the presentation available as well here if that helps oh okay uh that might
be easier to just walk through then um yeah so what you see is this is uh CMX2 um we have CMX3
across the across the street and uh CMX2 on the other side of us so what we're going to do
is Parcel A, which fronts along Frankfurt Avenue, has been approved and is actually
a large apartment building, almost entirely built out. Can you bring up the zoning plan, Ori?
Oh, perfect. Here we go. So if you see the white section, basically, that white rectangle
toward Frankfurt Avenue, that is Parcel A. That is fully approved and is, like I said,
almost entirely constructed. And we originally were going to put seven townhomes on the rear of
this parcel, which would have been by right fronting on Lee Street. Through a number of
conversations that I'll have Mr. Fibush testify to because I was not party to them, the neighborhood
essentially requested that we seek variance relief to provide an apartment building in this parcel
instead of townhomes in order to limit any vehicular traffic down and along lee street
which the neighborhood is is looking to make much more pedestrian friendly and right now
is full of kind of relatively dilapidated warehouses but looking at redevelopment
so the the proposed apartment building is 20 units with vacant first floor commercial space
which we will be filled um again i'm we have not we've met with the uh rco and had multiple
meetings with the rco and their zoning committee and and um i'm not sure what position they're
going to take today because they have not provided us with a letter uh to my understanding but they
are on here and i will allow them to obviously discuss for themselves the um fishtown business
district has supported us and so again without without getting too much in the weeds uh this
project has not changed any from its original iteration last june um we received you saw the
original the refusal we received the original one um that refusal cites that only 13 units are
allowed and we were requesting 21. That was actually an error because 16 units are allowed
when you apply the necessary green roof bonuses and we were only seeking 20 units. It also said
that we're seeking 55 feet in height. This is incorrect. We're actually going to be lower than
the building behind us. We're seeking 45 feet in height. The issue was the way that the building
curves the roof deck and roof deck access structure kind of caught one of the setbacks
and so therefore we have provided you and I sent previously to Ms. Saleta a proviso plans form and
proviso plans that will show you know we meet the necessary setbacks so the refusal should be for 45
feet not 55 feet and again this was this this has not changed the only thing that changed was a
slight uh setback increase there so again um the neighborhood and all of the stakeholders here
have always known exactly what this project would be we're not changing it as we go forward
the revised refusal uh which miss saletta asked me about um we have no idea how what process that
was issued through we did not request leave of this board to have a revised refusal issued
um to my knowledge no one did we just received a revised refusal on february 3rd from the examiner
which included a new refusal for parcel b that um we were uh now in violation of the allowed open
area and we were at 77 instead of 75 um again nothing has changed on the project uh the the
math there is just incorrect. So that is that is an incorrect refusal. At all times, we expected to
get Lee Street should have been by right and should have issued no.
Lee Street should have been by right and should have issued no refusals. And we have at all times
stated that we thought we should have been given two refusals on Parcel A. Again, Parcel A is
entirely built out. This application includes a subdivision. And so we thought that we had
14 units too many on Parcel A, if granted the subdivision, and that that open space
were a little over the allowed amount. Again, we proceeded here. This is sort of much to do about
nothing yet again, because when we originally applied for parcel A, we made a payment of
approximately $370,000 into the affordable housing trust fund. And that payment was made based on the
total square footage of the entire lot. And in a decision of the first instance, when we told the
Planning Commission under our new application that we wanted to build out this portion of the
property as well, the Planning Commission told us that the payment we made, even though it was
paid for the entire square footage, could not be applied toward that square footage and said that
um you know we would have to completely restart the process um accordingly what you're seeing is
a uh an odd request where if we had done this as a pud it would have been approved and and of not
no issue but because we're subdividing the property it's uh it's now raising raising issues
um you know this this parcel has been going on this project has been going on for a very long
time. And again, this building that you're seeing right there, right across from a number of
dilapidated warehouses, my understanding, and again, I will allow Mr. Miller to speak on behalf
of FNA, is largely in favor and generally in favor, but they want to see a correct refusal.
And I believe that it's not possible in this matter to get what all parties may consider a
correct refusal simply we've been at this for you know nine or ten months now and it hasn't
happened and obviously FNA or the councilman's office or someone else has gotten involved and
we still didn't get one so you know we believe that we meet the hardship criteria here even
though this is all done based on the request of the neighbors instead of having townhomes back
there by right uh you know we have a large trapezoidal parcel um this is a a difficult
place to build and a unique situation for this property um and you know we believe that it's
contextually appropriate for the changing nature and development of this uh this area which the
again you know all parties wanted so with that i would conclude my portion and simply ask um
Mr. Fybush, I believe you're already under oath, correct?
I believe I am, yes.
Mr. Fybush, did you hear all the testimony I just presented?
I did.
And do you believe it true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
All right.
And Mr. Fybush, how would you expound upon what I just explained to the board and some
of the discussions you've had with the neighbors, which obviously is the focal point of today's
hearing, I think.
So I'll keep it brief here.
When we originally purchased this property two years ago, our plan had been to develop a 50-unit apartment building on top of retail on the Frankfurt Avenue frontage and seven homes, as you alluded to, on this rear Lee Street frontage.
Those homes would have been served by a curb cut in a drive aisle to provide parking for the respective homeowners.
Feedback that I received from immediate neighbors and stakeholders was that they wanted Lee Street to have two aspirational items that my project did include.
One, no parking, and two, commercial.
They believed that the Lee Street facade and Lee Street frontage could actually support a viable active commercial space.
And I actually needed a lot of arm twisting to get my brain around the idea that Lee Street could support a real and capable retail tenant.
And I've certainly come to that conclusion as well here.
There's a lot of retail occurring on Lee Street now, and there's a lot of proposed retail.
And there's some aspirational goals to make Lee Street pedestrian only, where our previous proposed curb cuts and townhomes would really thwart that larger effort here because our homeowners would forever need access to their garages.
So this development here is certainly less ambitious for us financially, less attractive for us financially, but consistent with the feedback that we received from the community and matching the two goals for the community, which was to eliminate a dry vial.
And matching the two goals for the community, which was to eliminate a dry vial and a curb cut on Lee Street and also to include commercial on this frontage here.
I can get into the weeds on the refusals, but I don't want to take up any more time here.
But certainly happy to speak to anything of important for the board.
Now, Mr. Feibish, I just have one question for you for follow up.
But have you been forthright and upfront about what you believe the refusals were and should have been with F&A and all of the stakeholders here?
I have been, yes.
And the project hasn't changed from day one until now under this application, correct?
That's correct.
Okay. Thank you.
Excuse me, Mr. Whalen, this is Sharon Saleta.
Yes, Ms. Saleta.
I'm a bit confused.
Just are you requesting the variances that L&I indicated are needed, or are you challenging this?
Is it an appeal against L&I?
Because if it's the latter, we're going to have to have someone from the law department here to respond to that.
No, so I am fine proceeding with seeking a variance on the grounds that the zoning examiner provided us.
Again, we set forth what we anticipated to see here. We worked diligently with the zoning examiner and the law department, frankly, from June to November of last year. And we were advised that the refusals that we received were the refusals that were appropriate.
um so you know it's uh it's my position that those are the refusals we need a variance from
and if we get variance relief that that would fully approve this project okay one more question
just technicalities um if the board votes on this do the two refusals the more recent one and the
original do they have the same zp number listed on them because if not we're going the board will
to indicate that when it votes um i can tell you zp7460 and yes they both have the same zp number
ZP2020-007460.
Did I answer all of your questions?
Oh, yes, you did.
I'm sorry.
That's all I needed to know.
Thank you very much.
I just wanted to make sure you weren't waiting on me.
So I would offer Mr. Feibusch
for any questions that the board may have.
Thank you.
are these apartments or for sale units these are all apartments thank you uh questions from the
board uh yes mr chairman i'm not clear on what we're voting on
can he explain it better what we're voting on
mr whaling uh certainly so um uh mr holliman um we have uh submitted an application we refuse
we received a refusal and we then received a revised refusal uh just last week from the
examiner and we are seeking a grant of a variance uh to approve the project as presented to you
today in a two-page proviso plan form previously submitted to Ms. Saleta to approve this matter
in the face of the issued refusals by examiner Roland Ngaba. And are there any community
opposition? That we will hear. My understanding is no, but Mr. Miller is here to speak to that.
Mr. Miller had asked for a continuance, but we went forward with the hearing. So we'll hear
from Mr. Melaton. If there are no further questions for Mr. Fibush, I'll just introduce
my architect and engineer and have them adopt my testimony and present them for questions.
Please proceed. Thank you. Jose Hernandez should be on the call. Mr. Hernandez, please identify
yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Hernandez, you've been unmuted.
You can speak now.
Mr. Hernandez, please
spell your first and last name.
Jose Hernandez
J-O-S-E
H-E-R-N-A-N
Quare and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the truth? I do. And your involvement with this application? I am the architect of record of the
I am the architect of record of the project, Mr. Whelan.
project. Mr. Whelan? Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Hernandez, you heard all of the testimony that I presented today?
I have.
And is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
It is.
And would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
And very briefly, do you have anything else to add in addition to what I've already testified to?
It was covered pretty well.
Thank you very much.
I would offer Mr. Hernandez to the board for any questions you might have.
Questions?
Please proceed.
All right.
Then I would like to call Maximilianos Bustos.
He's the project engineer.
Bustos, please identify yourself for the record.
Spell your first and last name.
Mr. Bustos, you've been unmuted, you may speak now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Bustos, please identify yourself, spell your first and last name,
I'll swear you in.
oh hi my name is maximiliano bustos m-a-x-i-m-i-l-i-m-n-o bustos b-u-s-t-o-s
swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do you represent in this case yeah uh civil engineer thank you mr whalen mr bustos you're
the project engineer for this matter, correct? Correct. Okay. And you heard all of the testimony
that I presented? I did. And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. And would you adopt that testimony as your own? I would. All right. Now, very, very briefly,
do you have anything further that you would add? No, everything was pretty well covered.
thank you very much uh board i would offer mr bustos uh for your questioning and with that i
would rest my case thank you any questions from the board no no no no okay i believe mr miller
standing by would you please uh mr miller uh yes chairman did you go uh you were sworn in earlier
And no disrespect, based on what I heard from Mr. Malin, I believe it was in everyone's best interest to begin this hearing.
No disrespect taken.
I just would like to state again and add a little bit to the timeline, I guess.
We did, as the zoning committee, we met with the applicants on January 12th.
and immediately recognized the confusion with the refusal
and reached out to the examiner for clarification.
And on February 5th, when we received the new refusal,
it solidified that there was confusion that needed to get resolved.
And that confusion also dominated the community discussion in a certain way
and obscured the discussion from, you know, what was allowed by code
and what the community was actually voting on
in the same way that Mr. Holloman's question earlier.
So I would just ask that the community would be given time
to properly digest this
so that we can come to a decision as we normally would.
Excuse me, what are some of your issues, Mr. Miller?
Yeah, that's what I was going to ask you.
I mean, I'm speaking for the zoning committee.
i'm not here to to talk about issues we just got the refusal on february 5th which was last friday
uh so we have not had time to fully discuss this as a committee uh which is why we were requesting
a continuance uh and my issue is that we haven't been given the time to discuss it that's that's
only issue that i have well excuse me what what were some of the past issues the the there was
The original refusal that I think they showed on the screen earlier from November, and both members of our committee, as well as the team they're speaking to, acknowledged that the refusals seemed to be wrong.
And so there was a lot of discussion about how they were wrong, which is why we reached out after our January 12th meeting with them.
We reached out to the examiner to clarify the refusals and see if there was, you know, if the examiner was standing.
to clarify the refusals and see if there was you know if the examiner was standing by the
the old refusals or if they had some other position to take and that was when they provided
the revised refusal on February 5th and so that's where we are today excuse me what was wrong Mr.
Miller let me ask it a different way aside from the refusal issue is there anything about the
project that has been presented to the community and brought to our uh presented to us today
that would cause that are you aware that uh any of a body in the community would be objecting to
this project uh the refusal issue aside because that seems to be more of a technical issue
than an issue as as it relates to uh the design and the other issues that go into this project
certainly certainly and I think I think some of the confusion about that issue
prevented the the full conversation on those other matters um which is why which is why the
zoning committee is not currently taking a position and and why that we are requesting a
continuance excuse me this is Sharon Saleta I've spoken with the board administrator and she is
concerned that the um normal procedures for issuing a revised refusal weren't followed here
she's um if possible could this be resumed could there be a follow-up hearing um and that would be
on february 24th at two o'clock simply for us to be sure that everything was entered properly
and um we could get feedback from the community at that time i think that's a good suggestion i
think that works for both the applicant and the community we can maybe have everything resolved
between now and the 24th, at which time the board will take a vote. Mr. Whalen?
I believe that that's okay. I have no objections to it, and Mr. Fybush is on here, so he should be
able to confirm that. Sure. We have no objection to the 24th. I just want to, I guess, manage
expectations uh we have no expectation of getting a getting the refusal issue resolved uh so if more
time is needed to digest we have here we certainly support more time uh but i just don't have any
expectation of refusal piece uh being resolved in the next uh two weeks or two months or two
years at this point excuse me this is sharon again if if um just to clarify this would be
it the record would not be closed um we would look into the process by which the refusal was issued
and the um rco if they want to can come back and testify but limited to the change in their refusal
okay yes i have no objections as this is sean whalen i have no objections as long as we limit
the the second hearing to you know the changes in the refusal as they stand um and you know again
And whether we get a variance from the revised refusal
or the original refusal, I don't think matters to us
based on the board's determination
of whether the revised refusal was issued properly.
So this hearing will be resumed on February 24th.
Is that correct?
Yes, February 24th at two o'clock.
2 p.m.?
Which time the board will consider.
Any of the feedback as related to the comments
that have just been put on the record between Mr. Whalen, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Saleta. Okay?
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next.
Correct Sharon? Yep. Can we confirm that Mr. Reuter is here?
actually on this case okay you see his name but hi i'm here okay thank you okay next we are calling
two related appeals regarding the property at 1526 packer avenue case number mi-2020-001532
is an application for a special exception filed on September 11th, 2020. Case number MI-2021-000688
is an appeal against L&I on February 4th, 2021. Because this matter is procedurally complicated,
I'm going to go through a brief chronology. On August 13th, 2020, L&I issued a notice of referral
indicating that the proposed edition of a sports book and pari-mutual betting use at the price
proposed edition of a sports book and pari-mutual betting use at the property, which the examiner
classified as assembly and entertainment, required a special exception. On September 11, 2020,
the applicant filed an application for special exception with the zoning board.
On December 1, 2020, the board held a hearing on the special exception request.
At that hearing, Paul Bonney, representing the RCO, raised the challenge to the notice of referral, arguing that it should instead have been a refusal.
At the conclusion of the 12-1 hearing, the board announced the hearing would be resumed on February 10, 2020, at 2 o'clock.
The board asked Mr. Bonney to submit something in writing stating the grounds for challenge to the 8-13 referral.
on february 3rd 2021 city attorney leonard reuter advised the parties that the law department had
reviewed the 813 referral and determined it should have been a refusal a revised decision was
therefore issued on february 4th 2021 applicants attorney michael matione filed an appeal against
L&I challenging the revised L&I notice. Mr. Mattione maintains that the initial decision
indicating the proposed use required a special exception was correct. For the purposes of today's
hearing, the two pending appeals will be consolidated and the board will first hear
arguments related to the appeal against L&I. If we could have Mr. Mattione, Mr. Bonney, and Mr.
Reuter promoted to panelists we would then first like to hear from Mr. Mattione regarding the basis
for his challenge to the recently issued revised decision do they all have to go under oath again
Mr. Chair yes Mr. Mattione do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do Mr. Reuter do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do. Mr. Bonney, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. I just want to mention, we just want to make for the, at least for the record,
an objection about this proceeding happening today. Okay, thank you.
An objection for the record? Okay, Mr. Let me ask a question. Do all the parties agree
to the statement that has been read into the record by Ms. Tenere?
as being accurate yes any objection to the statement that was read into the record
no objection from the city
i have a question mr demarco is on is he part of the case yeah he only lives 50 yards away we let
him in. Paul is the attorney for the protestants. I'm here as a resident. I am an attorney, but I'm
here on behalf of Veterans Stadium Neighbors Civic Association. Paul is the lead attorney for the
protestants. Okay, so you need to be sworn in as well. Do you swear for him to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Do you have any crab fries? I enjoy crab fries at
chickies all the time. We don't want them to change. Sorry, Chair. I'm hungry. So I guess
we proceed and now you take over. May I make my objection at least for the record?
Okay, thank you. It seems to me that the original appeal that we started
it somewhat has sort of evaporated
because that referral has been rescinded
and that a new appeal has been filed
which now even for the first time today
I'm learning has a new appeal number
but the property has not been posted
with the refusal.
Excuse me, Mr. Bonney,
we're not going forward with the refusal.
The board is going to hear the sequential
First, they will hear the appeal against L&I. If they determine that the special exception
really should have been a special exception, if they grant the appeal against L&I,
then they can resume the pending special exception case. If they do not,
then we will determine procedurally how they'll handle it from that point on.
Okay, well, I appreciate that and thank you. I just wanted, I still think I feel
sort of professionally bound to just finish making my objection. I can understand that it
may just be for the record, but I'm sorry for interrupting you. No, of course not at all.
I mean, I don't think the applicant amended their original appeal to add a challenge against
I mean, I don't think the applicant amended their original appeal to add
LNI. I think they filed a new appeal of the refusal. And so I see those two appeals as
distinct. I don't think there's anything for the second appeal to be consolidated with. And I don't
think the second appeal has been posted on the property or neighborhood net letters be sent out.
so excuse me if i can just clarify further in case we weren't clear um they're being consolidated
only for the purposes of these hearings because they are related they are not the same appeal
and there is no need to post an appeal against lni right
correct i agree with the miss felletta that the appeal against lni does not need to be
Mr. Mattione, Mr. Mattione, I'm sorry. Were you sworn in yet?
Yes, I was, Mr. Chair.
All right. I'm sorry. Just identify yourself because we know.
Again, Michael Mattione, Federal Reserve Bank Building.
That's M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
And again, this is an appeal. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
No, please proceed. Thank you.
This is an appeal against L&I, and appeals against L&I do not get posted the same way that a referral or refusal gets posted.
So I think that that's the first issue.
So I would disagree with Mr. Bonney and his objection to this proceeding.
We noticed, and we're here, and there is no posting of an appeal against L&I.
So with that, I would like to proceed, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just do my last point is that the appeal that was recently filed was styled and identified, you know, in the appeal as a third party appeal.
I don't believe that this is a third party appeal.
This is the applicant appealing the refusal.
So I don't think it's a quote-unquote appeal against LNI or a third-party appeal.
I think it's a regular appeal.
But I have made the record, and I want to thank everyone for their indulgence, and I'll be quiet now.
Thank you.
I will proceed, Mr. Chairman.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Again, Michael Mattione, and I am counsel for City Turf Club, the operator of the South Philadelphia OTB Race and Sportsbook.
We filed an appeal of the rescission of the referral that was originally issued on August 13, 2020,
for the application to relocate the OTB Race and Sportsbook to Inside Chickies and Pete's Restaurant and Sports Bar at 1526 Packer Avenue.
We believe the decision to revoke the referral and replace it with a refusal is an error of law and abuse of discretion by the City of Philadelphia.
We submitted an extensive memorandum of law on February 5th that fully explains our position
as to why this appeal should be sustained and the referral reinstated. I'm going to now review
our position for the board in greater detail as was set forth in our memorandum of law that was
filed with L&I and the zoning board, I'm sorry, filed with the zoning board on February 5th and
served on all parties. Again, I represent the City Turf Club and they are the owner and operator
of the race and sports book, which is presently located at 700 Parker Avenue.
On July 31st, City Turf Club filed an application to downsize and relocate their OTB race and sports book
from a 34,000 square foot location at 700 Packer Avenue to a 2,600 square foot location
inside Chickie's and Beats Restaurant and Sports Bar at 1526 Packer Avenue.
After filing, Council for City Turf Club engaged in a few email discussions
with the plans examiner assigned to review the application, Chelle Dahl. After a few emails,
Ms. Dahl was satisfied that the application was for a generic assembly and entertainment use
as defined in section 14-6017C. That's 14-6017C of the zoning code. Section 14-6017C was carefully
reviewed to determine whether the use fell under any of the assembly and entertainment specific
use stores. Particular attention was paid to the definition of casino in section 146017C2.
It was determined that the proposed use in OTB, race and sports book, is a non-primary location
defined by the Horse Industry Reform Act 3PACS section 9301. The plans examiner issued the
referral because the use is not a casino as is defined in Section 146017C2 because the zoning
code specifically defines casino as a licensed gaming facility authorized pursuant to 4 PACS Part 2.
authorized pursuant to 4 PACS Part 2. The OTB Race and Sportsbook is not licensed pursuant to 4 PACS
Part 2, so it falls outside of the definition of casino in the zoning code. Use also falls outside
of any other specific use types defined in the zoning code, such as the OTB Race and Sportsbook
is not an amusement arcade, nightclub, or private club, pool, or billiards room, or movie theater.
For these reasons, the Plans Examiner correctly determined that the proposed use was a generic assembly and entertainment use as set forth in the code under Section 146017C.
1526 Packer Avenue is located in the CA1 zoning class.
The generic assembly and entertainment uses are permitted as special exceptions in the CA1 zoning district.
The Plans Examiner correctly issued a referral on August 13, 2020.
As Ms. Tenere said, a first day of hearings was held on December 1, 2020, on the application
for special exception.
Only on January 26, 2021, more than five months after the referral was issued, the counsel
for the RCO sent a letter to the ZVA stating that the RCO believed that a variance, not
a special exception, was required.
It should be noted that the RCO never filed a formal appeal application challenging the
issuance of the referral.
Upon receipt of this letter, the City determined that a refusal should have been issued and
revoked the referral and issued a refusal dated January 28, 2021, but which was not sent to
my office until February 4, 2021. Immediately upon receipt of the refusal, we filed the appeal
that we marked as Exhibit 11, our exhibits that were provided to the Zoning Board on February 5.
Also included Exhibit 13 as a memorandum of law and supported this appeal,
which was also filed with the Zoning Board on February 5th.
As I will explain, the Memorandum of Law explains why this appeal should be granted,
the refusal rescinded, and the referral reinstated.
The refusal claimed that the use was a casino, ignoring the definition of casino contained in the zoning code.
This use is not a casino.
City Turf Club is relocating an OTB race and sports book to 1526 Packer Avenue.
City Turf Club filed a relocation petition with the State Horse Racing Commission to relocate the OTB Racing Sportsbook.
A copy of the relocation petition is attached to Exhibit 17 of the material submitted to the ZBA on February 5th.
The present and future location of the OTB Racing Sportsbook is a non-primary location
and is not a licensed casino or a licensed facility, as is defined in the Gaming Act and the Zoning Code.
The RCO has repeatedly stated that City Turf Club intends to operate a casino at the new location,
even though City Turf Club has been operating an OTB facility at 700 Packer Avenue for nearly 30 years.
It is not a casino and never will be.
The facility is a licensed OTB under the Racing Act, not under the Gaming Act.
It will remain a non-primary location after the relocation.
The Racing Act defines a non-primary OTB location as a facility in which pari-mutual wagering is conducted
other than a racetrack where live racing is conducted.
Pari-mutual wagering is defined in the Racing Act as wagering on the outcome of a horse racing event
organized for the distribution of the total amount wagered, less deductions permitted by law.
The State Horse Racing Commission has traditionally exclusively licensed OTB facilities.
In 2018, sports wagering was permitted at non-primary locations such as the turf club.
The Gaming Act permitted slot machine licensees to conduct sports wagering at the licensed
primary facility and also at non-primary locations such as the turf club.
The zoning code refers to licensed gaming facilities as defined in PA-4-PA-CS Part 2
and describes a licensed facility as an operation authorized to play slot machines and table games.
The Race and Sportsbook is not a licensed facility under the Gaming Act,
and CityTurf Club, its operator, is not a licensed gaming entity.
There is a clear distinction between racing and gaming facilities.
Licensed gaming facilities allowing slot machines, but racing facilities are prohibited from allowing slot machines.
The OTV Race and Sportsbook is a retail establishment where patrons can place race and sports wagers in person.
A licensed facility under the Gaming Act is a physical location at which a licensed gaming entity is authorized to operate slot machines, table games, and interactive gaming.
Either pari-mutual or sports wagering qualifies as any of these types of activities.
Neither pari-mutual or sports wagering qualifies as any of these types of activities, and neither is referred to in the Gaming Act definition of licensed facility or the zoning code definition of licensed facility.
For this reason, a facility where pari-mutual and sports wagering is conducted is not and cannot be a licensed facility.
Since the OTB, Race, and Sportsbook cannot be a licensed facility, it cannot be a casino as defined in the zoning code in Philadelphia, and CityTurf Club is not a licensed gaming facility, licensed gaming entity as defined in the Gaming Act, so it cannot operate slot machines, table games, and is not a licensed facility or casino.
In an abundance of caution, and to try to make things clear, non-primary locations, such
as the OTV, Race, and Sportsbook, are not among the enumerated facilities to constitute
a licensed facility under the Gaming Act.
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board does not regulate non-primary facilities.
These facilities are regulated by the State Horse Racing Commission.
In order to be a casino, a facility would have to be licensed by the Gaming Control
Finally, the Gaming Act prohibits casino gaming at non-primary locations such as the
OTB race and sports ball.
The plain language in the zoning code is clear and unambiguous.
When the language of an ordinance is unambiguous, the letter may not be disregarded to pursue
the spirit of the ordinance.
The zoning code relies upon the Gaming Act to define a casino.
The Gaming Act's definition of casino is controlling because that is what the zoning code relies upon to define casino.
Since the OTB race and sports book falls outside of a licensed facility as is defined in the zoning code,
the OTB race and sports book cannot be a casino as the term was defined in the zoning code.
The only definition in the zoning code that applies to define the OTB race and sports book is the generic assembly and entertainment definition in section 146017C.
The use is, as discussed, not a casino.
Thus, the issuance of the referral on August 13 was correct, and the recent rescinding of the referral and replacing it with a refusal is an abuse of discretion and an error of law by the City.
For these reasons, we request that this appeal be granted and that the refusal be rescinded and the referral that was originally issued on August 13 be reinstated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maglioni, would you have any knowledge as to the current OTB at 7th and Packard? What zoning
classification was issued for that? It went back to the early 90s when it was opened. It was a G2
industrial use and it required a variance to open. Only that was because it was G2, correct?
Me too. Now I believe it's I-1.
I think, you know, because with the new zoning code, they changed the zoning classifications.
I believe it's I-1.
Other than the size of the current facility at 7th and Packard,
is there any other change in the way, in the operation that is being proposed at Chickie and Pete's?
I mean, it's going to be a brand new modern facility, a brand new upscale.
But the operation itself is going to be the same operation.
Same operation.
regional sports facility. No other games of chance or anything will be added to that
proposed facility, correct? They will not be and they're not allowed to legally either.
They would need a special zoning commercial entertainment district in order to open up a
casino. And that would have to be issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Gaming Commission.
Correct. And there are no further casino licenses available and it cannot happen under this
regulatory scheme it's impossible thank you mr chairman thank you i don't know who's next mr
bonnie or mr reuter um i guess i'll go next um if you can all hear me i have to keep asking that
yeah leonard i believe you're still under oath so just identify yourself for the record and proceed
Sure. Leonard F. Reuter for the city of Philadelphia, senior attorney. I want to just clarify something that may have gotten a bit mixed up or missed in terms of Mr. Mattione's presentation.
If we were just talking about off-track horse race betting or parimutuel betting, we wouldn't be here.
That is not the issue.
The issue here is they specifically said that they would do sports wagering at the location.
And on that point, I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Mattione's assessment of what the state law requires.
I think we can all, I assume that we can all stipulate that the city's definition, first of all, I think we can all stipulate that the city's definition.
I assume that we can all stipulate that the city's definition, first of all, I think we can all stipulate that for this zoning classification, CA1, whereas certain amusements are allowed by special exception, casino is explicitly not permitted in CA1.
So if this were a casino, there would be no dispute, if there was no dispute this was a casino, there would be no dispute that it is not permitted in this district and a refusal should have been issued.
I agree that with respect to the application, to the extent that it sought parimutual betting and off-track betting for horse races, which is a very different thing, and I agree with Mr. Mattione, it's a completely different thing.
to people to a lay person I guess they might think gambling is gambling what's the difference
but state law makes a huge distinction between the two because horse racing has been allowed
in the state for many decades gambling obviously is relatively recent and off-track betting is its
own thing so off-track betting on horse races and I think that's where we have to keep the focus
The application sought off-track betting, paramutual betting, and sports wagering,
and it is a sports wagering that is the issue here.
I'm going to try to share my screen here just to highlight just what the state law says.
I'm not going to present any exhibits here or anything along those lines, so let me just do this.
so again we have in order to be authorized under the state this is a title for pennsylvania
consolidated statutes uh section 13c11 so 13c is the chapter that deals with us when the state
in 2018 authorized sports wagering throughout pennsylvania essentially on a temporary basis
is, you know, subject to, you know, depending on what the feds wind up doing with sports betting.
So I think, but that being the case, so it's 13C. 13C11 dictates who is authorized to conduct
sports wagering. So this is the state law. This is the General Assembly. So subsection A sub 1
sub I, the board may authorize a slot machine licensee to conduct sports wagering and to
operate a system of wagering associated with the conduct of sports wagering at the slot machine
licensee's licensed facility, a temporary facility authorized under 13C21B, an area authorized under
section 13C21C, or through an internet-based system. So I also want to point out, if you look
um at subsection three there nothing in this is very key nothing in this part shall be construed
to create a separate license governing the conduct of sports wagering by slot machine
licensees within this commonwealth so it's our interpretation that what this means is that is
a couple things first of all if you're going to offer sports wagering and again we're not talking
horse racing, we're talking about everything but horse racing, basketball games, football games,
baseball games, tennis, table tennis. I mean, sports betting covers basically any athletic
activities other than horse racing. If you're going to offer wagering on sports other than
horse racing, you must be a licensee under the state's gaming code. You cannot offer sports
wagering if you are not licensed for slot machines. You don't have to ever have a single slot machine
in your location. You don't have to have a poker table. You don't have to have a craps table. You
don't have to have blackjack. You don't have to have anything having to do with what we would
consider normal casino operations, but in order to get the certificate that authorizes you to be
sportsmate, to offer sports wagering, you must have a slot machine license, whether you ever
put a slot machine in at all. It's irrelevant. You must be a slot machine licensee in the state
of Pennsylvania to offer sports wagering. So now because we, I'm going to stop sharing here.
so because the city of philadelphia in its code defines casino as a licensed facility as defined
by the gaming act okay so we we piggyback on what the state to us a casino is whatever the state
says a licensed facility is in fact it's interesting because the word casino doesn't
even appear in the state's gaming code. Well, it might somewhere, but it doesn't appear anywhere
in the definition section. It is a gaming facility. It is a licensed facility. If you,
in order to offer sports wagering in the state of, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
In order to offer sports wagering in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you must be a licensed facility.
Therefore, if you offer sports wagering, you are a casino under the Philadelphia Code.
Because our code says if you're a licensed facility, you're a casino.
In order to offer sports wagering, you must be a licensed facility.
Ergo, you must be a casino by definition.
Now, what Mr. Matione was referring to having to do with, again, off-track betting and things like that, we're not talking about the off-track betting part of this.
If they had never used the phrase sports wagering or sports betting in their application, we still probably would have reviewed it because Mr. Bonney had originally challenged the referral, but I think we would have sided with the initial referral.
The problem here is the sports wagering side of this.
Now, if Mr. Mattione and his client are going to say here and come here and testify under oath that they will never, ever offer anything other than horse race betting, then this might be a different outcome.
But they use the phrase sports wagering.
And Mr. Mattione, in his own summation, also used the phrase sports wagering.
So if they're not talking about horse races, they're a casino.
You answered a couple of my questions.
Thank you.
so but for the terminology of sports wagering we might not be having this conversation is that
correct well i would say i would be i think they're being protestants about even straight out
i understand that sure sure no from the city standpoint from lni standpoint we might not be
having this conversation if there was no apparent now maybe the use of sports wagering and sports
betting was mistaken on their part when the application was submitted and when the application
for the special exception to the review by the board was submitted. But the phrase sports
wagering and sports betting is used throughout the paperwork by the applicants. So if they just
meant horse track betting, off track horse racing betting, that would be different. But sports
wagering and i can't imagine that they don't understand this because as you know parks is
involved in this parks runs an undisputed casino uh you have a casino that just opened four blocks
away from here off track the people who do off track betting the turf club they know what off
track betting is and they know the difference between off track betting and sports betting
so when they say they're going to offer sports betting they're telling us this is going to be
casino by definition whether they have table games slot machines or not and that's the problem and
so let me let me ask if they were to amend the application and i'm not saying they'd be willing
to do that if they were to amend the application to take out the word sports betting and strictly
talk about otb off-track horse betting then this would be a special exception case okay thank you
Mr. Mattione?
I agree with that last point.
Okay. Mr. Mattione, do you have any comment about that?
Absolutely. I think that the city's position is completely incorrect.
When you look at the zoning code, section 146017C2, casino, it's called a licensed gaming facility,
as is authorized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 4PACS Part 2,
Pennsylvania Horse Race Development and Gaming Act. A casino may be referred to as a licensed
gaming facility. Then if you go to the definition in 4 PACS that defines licensed facility,
it's very specific. It says a licensed facility is as follows. The physical land-based location
at which the licensed gaming entity is authorized to place and operate slot machines and if
authorized by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board under Chapter 13A to conduct table games
and authorized under Chapter 13B to conduct interactive gaming.
It does not include, which is defined elsewhere, non-primary locations, which is what this is.
This is a non-primary location.
Non-primary location is any facility in which pari-mutual wagering is conducted by a licensed racing entity
other than the racetrack where live racing is conducted.
It's interesting because licensed facilities specifically does not include non-primary
locations.
This is a non-primary location.
Non-primary locations are permitted to do two things, have off-track betting and have
sports wagering, but they were not included, specifically not included, in the definition
of licensed facility, which is what the zoning code defines as a casino.
We cannot be a casino under the State Act because we are not a licensed facility under the State Act as is defined specifically.
are not a licensed facility under the State Act as is defined specifically because it's only where
the casino is authorized to place and operate slot machines. That is not this site. This is
a non-primary site. The zoning code specifically refers, as Mr. Werder correctly said, to the State
Act to define casino and that is what we are. We're not a casino at this operation. Yes, it has sports
betting and it has horse track
betting. But because of
the way licensed facility is
defined and they rely on it in the city
ordinance, we are not a
casino. And we cannot be
called a casino. We are an entertainment
assembly. I understand that
but this board has been being
tasked with the question of
whether or not originally
we would approve a special
exception for the purpose
the Cherokee family
leasing space within Chickie and Pete's for the sole purpose of horse racing bets,
betting on horses, correct?
Not for a slot machine, table games, or anything like that, correct?
Is that accurate?
Mr. Chairman, the application was to have off-track betting and sports wagering.
It was not to have slot machines, not to have table games, any of those other things.
The issue that has been raised is whether us having sports wagering makes us a casino.
And it is our position, and I think it's abundantly clear under the city code and the state statutes,
that we are not a casino just because we have sports wagering.
We will not and cannot and are prohibited by the state act from having slot machines and table games.
We cannot be a casino.
And correct me if I'm wrong, in order to be able to do the things that you just said you're not going to be able to do, you would need state authorization.
It would be a separate license, correct?
Correct, Mr. Chairman.
If I might respond to this, and I think that's kind of the key point that you just raised, Mr. Chairman. Again, we strongly disagree that merely by being a non-primary location for parimutuel bedding, they cannot be a licensed facility and therefore they can't be a casino.
I mean, on that, we definitely do agree.
However, if you look at the state code's definition of a non-primary location, it does not allow sports wagering at all.
And in fact, you know, I think the problem here is, in fact, actually, I could pull it up.
Let me just pull it up.
No, I'm just thinking out loud.
that for me sports wagering if i'm betting on a horse it's sports to me it's sports wagering i
mean the terminology i mean it's it's all over the place i i understand that but but uh but for
again because betting on horses has been permitted going back probably to harness racing in the 1910s
yeah i'm not i'm not i'm not arguing with you i'm just saying it's it's betting betting is betting
right i mean i guess people could quibble whether horse racing is a sport uh um but that's that's a
different thing um the bottom line though is that again non-primary location as defined by the state
is a facility in which paramutual wagering is conducted by a licensed racing entity other than
the racetrack where the live racing is conducted i.e that's basically off-track betting there's
nothing in the definition of non-primary location that would allow sports wagering. And I would
point out, as a matter of fact, that if you were to offer sports wagering at a location that was
not a licensed facility under state law, you would be committing a criminal act. The state law
provides for criminal penalties for offering sports betting if you are not following the
specific rules regarding licensed locations. What I might offer here, again, and I am not at all
suggesting that Mr. Mattione and his clients do not have a frivolous argument or anything here.
I understand their argument, and we strongly disagree with it. But since so much of this is
going to depend upon what the state believes the law is, perhaps there might be some, and it's
totally up to Mr. Matione if he were to do this, but I would ask, A, have they approached the
state about this application? And whether they have or they haven't, would they be willing to
get an opinion from either the attorney, from I suppose the Attorney General or the Gaming
Commission with respect to this particular proposal to offer sports wagering at this location?
with respect to this particular proposal to offer sports wagering at this location.
We don't have a problem with the parimutuel betting.
Mr. Chair, can I speak for a couple minutes?
Let's see if Matt Mattione has any response to Leonard's statement, then we'll get to you.
We will absolutely not seek some opinion of the Attorney General or some other body.
In 2018, the state legislature permitted sports wagering to be conducted at non-primary locations, specifically permitted it for following the state law and for following the definitions of non-primary locations, licensed facilities, and the zoning code definition, which tracks the state.
This is not a casino. You can't make it a casino. Even if you think it looks like one,
it doesn't meet the definition. And doing anything other than calling this a special exception is an
error of law. Mr. Chair, thank you. I have some things to put on the screen, the state statute
basically. And depending upon how long we go, I may have other exhibits to show. But
there's a couple things I'd like to try and clarify right up front. There's a few red herrings
going on, I think, as Mr. Reuter mentioned. The horse racing and the OTB, for the purposes of the
legal question before you today, those are not relevant. We're not talking about the OTB and the
horse racing. We're talking about the sports wagering. The sports wagering, in this case,
of course, is betting on all the major leagues, football, basketball, blah, blah, blah. And of
course, it's betting in-game, the rapid in-game betting that who is going to, is the next pitch
going to be a strike or a ball is the kick going to go through the field goal or not those are the
those that's what sports betting is today it's a it's not your you know that phrase it's not
your father's Oldsmobile where it's not your father's sports betting it's it's a it's a brand
new type of operation the second red herring is whether there's going to be slot machines in here
or not. I'm here today to tell you that we don't dispute that. They're not planning that. If they
have to do, if they want to do slots, they'll have to get other approvals, which they're not going to
get. That shouldn't be part of this discussion. The question is whether under state law, the
operation that they're going to put here, that they want to put here, meets the definition under
the zoning code of what a casino is. Not the definition in your head, or not the definition
of what you think of, what you imagine is on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, but the definition of
the, that's in the Philadelphia zoning code. And I'm going to put up here
the definition that we're dealing with. Right here. I'll make it a little bit bigger.
This is, if it was just assembly and entertainment, which is the generic assembly and entertainment at the top of the page, then it would need just a special exception.
But if it meets this definition in yellow, then it needs a refusal and it needs a variance.
So the question is this one sentence, is what is being proposed here a licensed gaming facility as authorized by Pennsylvania pursuant to the Gaming Act?
Now, Mr. Mattione was very careful in what he said in his presentation, and I believe that he's trying to imply something to you that he didn't actually say.
he's trying to make you make a leap of faith that is not appropriate these three words
licensed gaming facility okay that's those are three words that he talked about that phrase
licensed gaming facility well and then he jumped to the state law and told you what he thinks that
means but when he talked about that he only talked about licensed facility not this three-word phrase
he talked about a two-word phrase. And the reality is, and Mr. Mattione in his 17-page memorandum
drops a footnote where he acknowledges this, so I appreciate the footnote at least, where he says
that the phrase that we're looking at here, licensed gaming facility, is not a defined phrase
anywhere. It's not defined in the city zoning code, it's not defined in the state.
It's not defined in the city zoning code.
It's not defined in the state law.
So therefore, it's incumbent upon us to look to state law and say, is this something that is licensed or not?
Now, Mr. Mattione then goes off on a tangent by saying, well, the sports book is licensed under the racing commission.
Well, we don't care about the sports book.
If he was only doing that, it would be a different story. What we care about is the sports wagering. And then as I'm flipping over here to the state law, we see that in order to get an authorization to do sports wagering, this is the sports wagering chapter of the Gaming Act that was added in 2017.
In order to do sports wagering, you have to get what's called a sports wagering certificate.
Well, a sports wagering certificate can only be issued to a slot machine licensee.
Even the next definition about a sports wagering certificate holder can only go to a slot machine licensee.
Again and again and again, in this Gaming Act that authorizes and regulates sports wagering, it is clear as day that the authority can only be granted to a licensee, a slot machine licensee.
So is this facility licensed if they would open? We assume they would open for purposes of this discussion here. That's the proposal at least. Would this operation at 1526 have a license under the Gaming Act, authorized and regulated entirely by the Gaming Control Board under the Gaming Act?
Absolutely. Absolutely. And I don't, there can't be any dispute about that because if there is, they'd be, they'd be breaking state law. Now let's, I've got a phone call, but let me go back here.
Sharing is paused. Bring your shared window to the front. Okay, thanks. Let's continue.
to the operative section.
Oh, and I would also add that once the certificate is awarded,
once the certificate to do sports wagering is awarded,
as we see at the top of the page here,
their main license, their slot machine license is amended
upon awarding the sports wagering operation certificate, the board shall amend the slot
machine licensee's statement of conditions. The statement of conditions is part of the license.
So this entire operation, the mother of all approvals for this operation is the state
gaming license, is the slot machine license. And by the way, this is not a unique format or not a
unique regulatory structure. Indeed, if you recall, when the Gaming Act was first passed,
it was for slot machines only. There was no table games. But about a year later,
before the facilities were built the legislature amended the gaming act to add table games
well they didn't add table games by virtue of having to get a new license no they added table
games you have to get a certificate so when they added a new type of gaming they said you have to
get a certificate and then in 2017 when they added sports way sports gambling or sports betting
That, too, was by certificate. But it's always, at all times, any of these types of gamblings are always by only a company that has a license, a gaming license, in this case, a Category 1 slot machine license.
And I'm going to keep going just to finish through with this statute.
Here in fact is where the board, by petition, the Game and Control Board, under this section
which is 13C21, says the board may determine the suitability of a Category 1 licensed Game
may determine the suitability of a category one licensed gaming entity that is also a racing
entity under the racing act to conduct sports wagering at a non-primary location. So again
the question to the gaming control board when the when parks goes to it in the next weeks or months
is, is it suitable for the Category 1 licensed gaming entity to do sports wagering at Chickie
and Pete's? That's the question. Can the license it? So, of course, this is a licensed facility
because the entity involved has the license. Indeed, Mr. Chair, a piece of real estate does
not have a license the person occupying the real estate has the license even in the even in the
case of the let's say sugar house or what's now called rivers casino the license is held by hsp
gaming and the license is not held by the real estate the license for parks in ben salem is
held by green uh greenwood and entertainment uh incorporated greenwood gaming and entertainment
Inc. It is associated with a piece of property, but the property is not licensed. There's a
licensor, which is the state, and there's a licensee, which is the company. So yes, it's
affiliated with a property, but the license is with the company. And of course, Parks Casino,
I mean, they talked about a lot about Parks Casino during the first hearing. Now they're
only using the name of their subsidiary because they don't like the words Parks Casino. But
parks casino will be here at this location and they will be here with their gaming license
and that gaming license will be amended by that time to reflect their ability to do sports wagering
if it hasn't been done already um so i so i don't think there's really any dispute about it now i
have other materials, but let me mention that you have the board's job here, and I'll stop
sharing for a moment. The board's job here is to determine the use. What is the use that is
going on here? I think that it's abundantly clear from the definition that I showed you
in the zoning code, that the question is, is this a facility, a bricks-and-mortar building,
that when you step inside of it, you're essentially leaving the city of Philadelphia
and going into something that's entirely regulated by the Gaming Control Board under state law.
um everything that goes on inside that glass box that they want to put inside of Chicky and Pete's
is something that is approved and regulated and enforced by the gaming control board and we know
this Mr. Chair you know this from your days working with the commercial entertainment district
the CED you know that a casino is it's essentially like a you know an American embassy in another
country that once you walk in there you're not on your soil anymore and that is and of course
there's an addictive product being offered I don't want to get into that right now but of course
there's an and there's all sorts of controls that the state puts on it surveillance
uniformed guards to make sure that every cent and penny is accounted for that there's no skimming
off the top, that everything is videotaped, everything. And I have exhibits that I will
show you if we need to get that far, that this is treated exactly like what you imagine in your head
is a casino. That is, it's treated exactly like what's on in Fishtown at the Rivers Casino. And
that the applicant talks about it that way, and that the Gaming Control Board talks about
it that way, that yes, it's a different form of gambling, but it is the exact same form
of gambling that is in the Parks at Ben Salem. Parks at Ben Salem has a sportsbook. That
sports book is this is being replicated for 1526 park for 1526 packer in all material respects it
is the same operation that is on the casino floor in ben salem and they are taking that component
of what is on their casino floor this is not my language this is their own language that i can
show you that i will show you in documents if we get that far that is being replicated here so i'm
that is being replicated here. So I'm not asking you to conclude that this is the type of casino
not asking you to
that you would imagine in the movies or in your head or in Atlantic City or on Delaware Avenue.
I'm not asking you to do that. There's no roulette table here. There's no slot machines here. That
is what your imagination conjures up. All I'm asking you to do is ask yourself is, is there a
license a gaming license associated with this facility and it's abundantly clear by the state
law that of course it is now mr chairman there are places in the city where this can go by right
i believe um and if some neighborhood wants to fight it we'll have to see what happens but
this is not it this is the the close this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood
And I don't think, and this is something very different than a typical, quote unquote, generic assembly and entertainment use. We know that. You don't hear these proposals ever before when you consider assembly and entertainment.
And to call this merely a generic assembly and entertainment use, it does not fit. It does not fit for that. This is a licensed facility for gambling that's controlled soup to nuts by the State Gaming Control Board pursuant to the Gaming Act.
forget about the horses forget about the unlikelihood that slots will ever come
that's not the question and i'll i have a considerable amount more including some
exhibits if we get if we want to get that far but sorry chair i'll pause for now i'm sorry chair
i would like to respectfully remind the board that we have a full docket for two o'clock to
continue and then 3 30 just a reminder chair and i have given a continuance date for this case
thank you very much appreciate it excuse me this is sharon seleta if i can make a recommendation
that the hearing be resumed on march 10th for a special hearing at 10 a.m that in the meantime
the parties submit briefs going to the legal issues supporting or opposing the appeal against
LNI. The board will vote the appeal against LNI at the March 10th hearing and then depending on
how that vote goes either resume the appeal that the special exception request or determine how
to handle it if um if the appeal is okay we can do that i just have a question mr bonnie
sharon you sharon you broke up would you say that again please
yes i'm sorry i think that i confused to the um how the outcome of the appeal against
l and i would go if the appeal against l and i is granted and the board determines that it should
have been a special exception that l and i erred in revising the refusal then on at the march 10th
hearing you can go forward with the um special exception hearing you can resume that if you
deny the appeal against l and i you can then the parties can then discuss procedurally how
things should go from there just a recommendation of course
Mr. Bonney thank you for your testimony
we're not going to resolve this today but I'd like for everyone to think is there a tool
a legal way if this board were I'm fast forwarding if we get to the decision of whether or not
we approve the application for off-track betting is there a way a mechanism uh a proviso
whatever that the board would be able to entertain that would limit limit uh the the area within
chicky peach strictly for the purpose of off-track betting horse betting i know under the act that i
heard what you said about the licensee is there a way and if you don't have the answer today that's
fine i'd like for everyone because that is what i thought originally until this uh appeal against
lni or lni's uh reversal on the special acceptance acceptance versus the variance
i believe myself and my other board members were all looking at this as horse horse horse racing
betting at Chickie and Pete's not slot machines not table games not any of the other things
Not slot machines, not table games, not any of the other things that we would typically associate with a casino.
that we would typically
If I might, Mr. Chairman, again, sort of maybe modifying previously what I said before.
And again, I'm not in any way. And as you know, the city, we don't represent neighborhoods, RCOs or anything like that.
I'm just speaking for myself and for the law department.
um if the applicant were to seek approval just for parimutuel betting um that is horse race
uh well technically other things could be parimutuel but we'll say horse
uh racing bets uh taken off track at this location uh
then you know again they can just simply amend that that could be a proviso
And that we may, again, I would be willing on behalf of the city to reconsider the issue of whether or not the state would consider this a licensed facility for purpose.
In other words, I think the bottom line here is that if the state allows the sports wagering to take place at this location, the question is, is the state going to consider this location a licensed facility for purposes of how they view it?
In other words, is the state going to say, if we allow sports wagering here, are they going to allow the sports racing here at the same location where you have off-track betting?
And again, I agree, and I think Mr. Bonney pointed out the section of the law that says you could have an off-track betting location offering sports wagering, but again, because that is integrally tied to the actual applicant itself being a holder of a license to have a licensed facility, the question is, what does the state consider this?
state might not have an opinion on it the state might not have an opinion on this but again i i
think we but we we aren't talking about the question of uh whether the state is going to
the question here is like would the state allow um with this i mean the bottom line is that is
the state going to allow sports betting to take place at this location four or five blocks away
from uh philly live which just uh which just opened that's that's ultimately the question
Because, again, as Mr. Mattione points out, there are no more licenses available for gaming facilities in the city of Philadelphia.
So, you know, we would be willing to allow them to go.
I mean, again, this is all assuming that they even got the approval for a special exception.
Understood. But again, simplify it.
If they were moving the operation that currently exists at 7th and Packard, as I said earlier in my statement,
aside from the size
of that facility, if they were to
take that operation, relocate
it to Chickie and Peach
without any other type of gambling
That would be a special
exception case. That would be a special
exception, correct?
Mr. Chairman
We are a race and sports book, Mr. Chairman
at 7th and Packer. I'm sorry, what?
We are a race and sports
book at 7th and Packer and we have applied
petition to the
Sports Racing Commission
who regulates
I get that, I get that, but there's this concern
about that language about sports betting
Mr. Chairman
I think that you're dead wrong, Mr. Chairman
and we will explain again in our next hearing
as to why they're dead wrong
Mr. Chairman
I'm happy to hear that
maybe you haven't been at 700 Packer
lately, but just to clarify
700 Packer does two things
It has OTB horse racing, number one, and it also has a sports book where you can bet on the Eagles and the Flyers and the Rangers and everything.
I stand corrected. You're right. It's been years since I've been there.
That's right. And I would even add, Mr. Chairman, that in the months leading up to the pandemic, $2 million per month was gambled at 700 Packer on sports gambling alone.
i'd like to know i'd like to know how much was gambled through a bookie as opposed to a licensed
facility i don't want to go down that road but you can gamble anywhere you can gamble anywhere
all right i have a question for mr my parents were the organizers of the lottery system before
it became the lottery system so there's only we can talk all day but uh miss suletta i just want
to make sure I understand that if we submit, I'm happy to submit a legal memo in the next
couple, the next few weeks, but I assume we will also have a hearing on this issue.
But I assume we will also have a hearing on this issue.
It will.
A special hearing will be scheduled for March 10th, starting at 10 a.m.
Because I may have witnesses and exhibits that's not a legal memo that I may have evidence to present.
But would the witnesses, would that pertain to the appeal against L&I or to either the special exception or the variance?
And they will testify strictly to the legal issue presented here.
Well, it probably is mostly documents, but I may have a witness, but it's mostly documents, but yes, that's right. And I think that that needs, I think that needs to be presented in the hearing.
Okay, well, I, of course, up to the chair and the board. If you could begin the March 10th hearing by concluding the appeal against L&I.
Okay. Limited to that. The board will vote on the appeal against L&I before it proceeds with either the variance or the special exception case.
Thank you. I agree.
Leonard, I apologize if I cut you off. I'm sorry.
No, no. Again, like I said, we are certainly open to an opinion from either the Attorney General or the Gaming Commission regarding the matter.
And again, they could very well say, we're not getting involved. This is a local zoning question. That's fine.
But again, I think just in terms of how the state views the location in question and whether or not they would consider it a licensed facility, again, conceding that they may never be even allowed to offer any kind of table games or slot machines at the location.
But again, it's not clear to me that they would even allow the sportsbook here. But, you know, again, we'll see what everybody writes. I don't know if, Mr. Mike, are you going to write another memo or you just want us to respond to yours?
I made an additional memo, Leonard, to clarify the issues, and I may bring in a witness to testify as to exactly what licenses, permits, et cetera, are at the turf club that now exists and would be at 1526 Packer Avenue to make it abundantly clear that this is not a casino.
And I think that I may have to have a witness come in and testify to that effect, because that's what the issue is. And somebody from my client is probably better suited, because that is a fact question, and better suited to come in and testify as to those issues and make it clear what they are and that they are not a casino as defined in the zoning code.
this is a special exception can i ask we do can i if uh chairman if if i might i'd like to ask
mr matty any just one brief question um with respect to uh this this particular like location
i mean has an application uh to for the sports wagering certificate been applied for at this
at this proposed location of 1526 Packer? There is a petition to relocate the South
Philadelphia Race and Sportsbook from 700 Packer Avenue to 1526 Packer Avenue pending before the
State Horse Racing Commission. And does the state require you to have, say, a local zoning permit
before they will grant that license is this one of the chicken is one of these chicken or the egg
things uh where one one depends upon the other they have separate gaming council handyman leonard
i do not know the uh what what goes first okay all right thank you okay uh and again i just want
to apologize early on i did ask a question could someone tell me if there's a difference in the
operation that exists along 700 and gets moved to 1500 block of packer avenue i didn't get
an answer to that so i just assume it was straight out horse uh horse betting so with that uh
mi 2020 does zero zero one five three two one five two six pecker avenue this is a resumption case
it'll be heard on march the 10th at 2 p.m and i believe sharon we had some other excuse me chair
it's it's a special hearing so it will begin at 10 a.m oh i thought you said two i apologize so
it'll be 10 a.m. on March the 10th. And did you say something earlier that the first part of that
would be as it relates to the appeal against L&I? Yes, she'll continue hearing the appeal
against L&I and move on to the second, the special exception or variance case only after
voting on the appeal against L&I. Sorry, Chair. I apologize. This is Tanya. It should be
Sorry, Chair. I apologize. This is Tanya. It should be March 9th, a Tuesday at 10 a.m.
10th is a regular session day. Okay.
Thank you, Kylie.
So let's go through that again. MI 2020-001532, 1526 Packard Avenue.
Special hearing on March the 9th at 10 a.m.?
Correct.
Can I just make one request that you don't need to answer the question, but I would ask the members of the board or the staff of the board to consider whether in light of this month, the postponement that the applicant should post the property with the notice of this indicating that it's a refusal and send out additional notice letters to the community.
i if i would i'll say here on the record that if that is done and if and assuming i have assuming
i on behalf of the rco have this authority that we would waive the um requirement of the rco meeting
um i don't think that we can do i don't think that we can do that mr bonnie not until if the board
it's just misleading. It suggests that it's going to be, that the appeal against ONI is going to be
denied. If I could just ask with respect to that, I guess that depends on whether Mr. Mattione's
client will be, in addition to challenging the refusal, whether they will still attempt to seek
a hardship in the alternative. I think I would agree, although I'm going to defer to the board
and Ms. Zaletta, I think I agree if they are only challenging the refusal and are not concurrently
seeking a variance in the alternative that I don't think they would have to post. But again,
I'm going to defer to the board on that. And we are not seeking a variance. We are seeking
the reversal of this decision. And if our appeal is denied by the board, then we will reevaluate
what we're going to do and how we're going to move forward. I don't think it would be proper
for us to move ahead seeking a variance on a case that we believe we should seek a special exception
and put on a day of testimony under the offices of the special exception. We would need to come
back again later. I think we're all on the same page. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you.
And again, one last thing, if you could get briefs in by, say, one week in advance of the next hearing, that would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Everyone stay safe.
I would ask that I remain a panelist since I'm here on another matter.
For the next case.
Oh, yay.
I'm sorry.
Can I take a quick break, real quick?
Yeah, take your time.
Oh, sure.
Okay, thank you.
Ten minutes.
Okay, thank you.
I should be removed from the panel.
Thank you, everybody.
Have a good day.
Thank you.
Bye, Paul.
Bye, Michael.
Bye, Rich.
Okay, calendar number 3131, 1913-2568th Avenue.
is there an attorney other than leonard
there's someone here with the last name i know
you've been on the baby
are you for this case miss
ma'am are you here for 68th avenue no no all right you'll have to wait
is there any anyone here regarding it should be leonard leonard are you there
Yeah, Leonard's probably just getting his last drag in.
1913-2568th Avenue.
I'm here.
All right, Leonard, is there anyone else here for 1913-2568th Avenue?
There should be.
I have someone with the last name Little Page.
Their hand is up.
Leonard, were you going to say something?
Yes, actually, there should be several people here for our team, for the city's team.
Let me see if they're here or in the lobby, perhaps.
Yes, I have Althea Udo-Inyang, who says that she is in the waiting room.
Although that was quite a while ago.
although that was quite a while ago um so leonard we don't have a waiting room
So Leonard...
if she's here they can just raise their hands okay we also have a christopher anderson is he
here yes he's here okay so christopher anderson uh i don't know if althea is here she may have
had a conflict that came up also a nicole brown and a michael elisco
okay mr anderson you can unmute yourself and talk and i also see do you want me to unmute
um althea i also see her now yes uh michael alisco also
i also see his name would you like him unmuted yes and uh last but not least uh nicole brown
her i don't see as of yet i see her in the attendee list
she's required to raise her hand to be notified nicole if you could raise your hand
okay well i'll let her know um chances are nicole uh might not need to speak uh anyway
so i think we could begin if chris chris is uh um going to be the master of ceremonies once we
started. So I just wanted to, I guess if we can get started, I can just go ahead and just give a
quick rundown of why we're here. And not just identify yourself, you know, you're still on the
roof, just identify yourself. Sure, thank you. Leonard F. Reuter, Senior Attorney for the City
of Philadelphia, here representing the Philadelphia Water Department. And this is Christopher
anderson watersheds program manager for the philadelphia water department christopher do
you swear in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do leonard yes thank
you so uh what we're doing here is this is a pumping station that has been in existence since
probably around 1958 when the city purchased the property i wanted to state for the record that we
we're not able to get a copy of the deed yet we're still looking for it but as is often the
case with city properties in my experience locating deeds can sometimes be difficult
especially if the property had been taken through exercise of eminent domain or something so we're
still looking at that I did provide a tax certificate that was valid as of this morning
I provided that to Ms. Saleta and Ms. Sunkit and asked that it be made part of the record.
Again also I have the application materials and I think then if I can just share my screen,
I'm just going to flip through that super quick just so that you all know that we have
everything.
So if you can see that, this is the application materials.
It's actually a set of the plans.
Did you enlarge that?
Yes, I'm going to.
Let me see.
I was hoping to get to a full screen.
These, obviously, they're plans.
These are full size, so I'm going to have to reduce it a little bit.
So this is the property here.
This is a triangular property bounded by Wincoat Avenue and 68th Street.
I'm sorry, 68th Avenue.
And the facility that's marked out here that I'm kind of flipping my cursor around on,
that's where the facility is located.
um so again what we're seeking to do here is just uh we are attaching a couple new electrical
facilities to this in order to be basically backup for the existing generators at the facility this
is a pumping station i don't want to get in too much detail about what this is and chris will
do that but basically we made an application we're putting in the new generators
and also as a requirement from the Department of Homeland Security, because it is a public utility
facility that is critical operations, we are required to provide additional protection. So
there is an existing fence, but we are increasing the size of the fence to, I believe, around eight
feet. And because of that height of the fence, that generated the refusal. So
it is really just the fence that we're here for but you know because the fence is necessitated
by the generators at least immediately that's they're required by the generators you know we
can talk about what the facility is doing and why we're putting that in I do want to point out and
I think Chris can address this again when he he discusses it it is very likely that the city at
again when he he discusses it uh it is very likely that the city at some point in the near future
would be required to put a new higher fence up regardless of whether we're putting the generators
in uh because i believe all public utility facilities are now required by homeland security
to have um higher uh higher fences as well as other additional security if necessary
so again just going to flip through some of the plans it's the this is actually this is a pretty
complete set of plans. Actually these are probably going to also be sufficient for the
building permits at the location. So let me just go on and just show you the other
normal application materials. There of course is the copy of the refusal
that was issued and again it's just for the height of the perimeter fence.
These are just some notices we received of the hearing. This is a copy of, as you know,
under the emergency regulations, we're sort of making our own posters. This is the poster,
a copy of the content of the poster that was placed at the location.
This is our project information form. This is the letter that we sent to the RCO and the neighbors.
This is actually before the, I'm sorry, this was once we learned of the date of the RCO meeting.
We sent out a prior notice before the RCO meeting got sent up.
And again, according to both the code and the rules and regulations, we had to update that once we did get the information.
And that was a meeting that was held via Zoom on February 4th at 6.30.
by the 10th Democratic Ward RCO, and also present was Hilary Emerson on behalf of Councilmember
Cheryl Parker. That's the earlier notice. This is the additional notice that we're required
to place at the site. This shows the specific information that we had to place regarding
the RCO meeting again is required by code and again the posters were placed around the property
and again we did have the meeting we got my understanding we did we did get the support of
the RCO I don't know as of this moment whether they were able to send in their letter of support
but I believe they did and I believe also that Ms. Emerson should also be here when it when the time
appropriate for her to indicate what the position of the council member is so basically let me
interrupt if i could apologize uh so let's assume that there's no opposition from the rco i'll
assume that for the moment and then miss emerson's going to be in support is there anything we can
do to summarize and move this along more quickly yeah i think uh chris has a uh i think a very
short powerpoint presentation that will just give you some pictures once he does that we're done
Thank you. Appreciate it.
So I'll hand it over to Chris, who I believe will then be sharing his screen to do the PowerPoint.
And it's very brief. So thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. And if possible, if I could be promoted to panelists just to be able to share my screen.
He's going to come back in. He's been promoted to panelists.
Thank you. Thank you. Please proceed.
thank you is everyone able to hear me yes hi chris sorry i'll uh start the presentation
um thank you again to the chair and members of the zoning board of adjustment for allowing us
to present to you today.
We have a brief presentation that was provided to the RCO
in question for the property we're discussing today
that just provides a brief overview of the project
as well as some renderings to help illustrate
exactly what PPD's intent is with the fencing
we're required to install.
As Lender mentioned, the facility was constructed in 1959.
It is a part of the city's drinking water infrastructure.
that helps ensure proper inadequate supply to customers across the city.
What makes this site particularly important for the Water Department
is that it serves as an emergency backup in case of a loss of pressure
or an incident at our Upper Roxborough Reservoir.
This station is designed to kick in and provide that additional pumping power
to make sure that customers have adequate service
in case of an issue up at that larger facility.
And PWD began the process to renovate the facility in 2020.
The PWD began the process to renovate the facility in 2020.
Most of the work on site was able to be initiated through standard building processes and permitting,
and it's really the fencing for the exterior of the facility that required an additional
zoning review and the refusal of why we're here with you today.
Just to provide brief context, the project will be installing a new roof on site for
new modern efficient water pumps, upgrading the electrical system to be able to power
those new pumps.
In addition, in speaking to the site's role as an emergency backup for the system, PWD
is also installing an exterior generator to the building that will be having fencing as
well that will provide a soundproof enclosure to help minimize any disruptions in the neighborhood.
And the fencing for that generator is also included in that refusal for the larger exterior
fencing that we're discussing today. And of course, the new 8th Street exterior fencing.
This is a picture of the site currently. It has a standard wrought iron fence,
very common for the late 1950s, early 60s. And this is the picture of the fencing that
PWD is proposing to install in addition with the fencing for the enclosure for that new
emergency generator on the exterior of the building. To the best extent possible,
the Water Department is continuing to use that whole same style of wrought iron fencing to
minimize any changes for the community. However, as Leonard said, as a part of PWD's planning efforts,
we are required to meet federal mandates for post 9-11 security enhancements and one of the areas
in particular we've been continuing to upgrade is as we're making improvements to facilities,
we're increasing the fence height to meet those new federal standards as they've been applied to
PWD and the city. And the variance today is the site in particular is zoned residentially to match
the surrounding dwellings around it and that residential zoning only permits a fence height
of four feet which would be insufficient to meet the federal mandate that PWD is under
required to follow. As Leonard mentioned you know we have been moving forward with required
community notification um two letters were sent to the community and a meeting was held last week
where we discussed the project in detail with the community members and based on feedback we received
from council member parker's office we were told that the community was in support and then voted
unanimously to not oppose the projects and that the councilwoman or sorry the council member staff
and herself were also not opposed to the project um and just as a quick summary we're here
presenting to the ZBA today. The increased fence height with the project is designed to look very
similar to the current fencing, but just meeting the new height requirements. The new generator
includes soundproofing, and as discussed with the community, the attempt was made by PDWD to
minimize any disruption. The new generator, when it is operating, would sound no louder than a
wand mower if you were standing rather close to it at about 75 decibels.
PDB plans to only run that generator once a month for about an hour just for routine
maintenance and then obviously in case of emergency. The project will not impact any
existing use of the sidewalk or the parking in that particular block and we anticipate that once
the variance is granted or if the variance is granted the project should be complete within
in three to six months.
Clues my presentation.
Thank you, Chris.
And you also heard my introduction at the beginning.
Would you adopt my statements as your own?
I would.
Thank you.
So with that, members of the board,
we're happy to answer any questions.
I do see that Hillary Emerson has her hand raised.
So obviously she can speak for council member Parker.
and we also have Michael Aliska who's the project engineer and Nicole Brown who's the project
manager if you have any additional questions. Thank you. Questions from the board? No.
Anyone else like to testify? No. Please raise your hand.
Ms. Emerson you can unmute yourself and speak.
Lori good afternoon just identify yourself with the record you're still under oath from earlier.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Hillary Emerson, on behalf of Councilwoman
Sherelle Parker. As Mr. Reuter stated, the Councilman is not opposed to the granting
of a variance for the fence or fences. Actually, in this case, we appreciate that they will
aesthetically match with the neighborhood, and we understand that they are important to protect the
upgrades that is being made to this essential facility. The community also voted in
is being made to this essential facility the community also voted in support i just forwarded
the letter to to sharon and to mr reuter i didn't realize that mr reuter had not received it it was
sent i think just to the zoning board as well as our office but the the community was unanimously
in support of the requested variances thank you thank you anyone else would like to testify
I just want to thank the members of the RCO and obviously council member Parker's office and
Hillary for working with us on this and obviously and the members of the team who did a lot of work
on this and we are hoping to get moving on it pretty quickly so if there's not anything else
that's it for us mr reuter do you need to hear from mr olisco or miss brown no not unless anybody
has any specific questions uh based on what we presented but i think you have everything you need
i think it's covered yes uh planning commission good afternoon david effecto f e c t e a u with
the city planning commission do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth yes sir i do thank you mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends residential single-family use for this property this is an existing philadelphia
water department pumping station we support granting the variance thank you mi 2020-003-131
1913-2568th avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
calendar number 1333-2027 Ellsworth street
Anyone here for 2027 Ellsworth Street?
Chair, we have someone by the last name Kane, first name Derek.
Mr. Kane, you can unmute yourself if you're allowed to speak.
Are you in regards to this case?
Yes, you can promote him to panelists.
He's the attorney.
Excuse me, Mrs. Sharon.
I believe he's actually the property owner.
He's been promoted to panelists.
good afternoon board can you hear me yes are you an attorney i am i am an attorney but i am the
owner applicant for this project would you please spell your first and last name yes i can my first
name is d-e-r-e-k and my last name is k-a-n-e do you swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you thank you carol please good afternoon board members
and thank you for your time um as i said before my name is dara kane the owner we have some we
have some questions carol has to read them off to you oh i apologize okay have you emailed the
exhibit paculate to require documents including proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or
referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter uh yes to all okay you may proceed thank you so much carol
Sure. Again, good afternoon, board. My name is Derek Hane. I'm here as the owner and applicant for this project. This project is to put solar panels on top of the home that I own with my partner.
And we want to put those panels on in the form of a solar canopy. And we are here to request a variance to allow that solar canopy to be two foot closer than is required.
and we want that so we can have a house that is a fully solar powered and a project that is
economically feasible. Representatives from Solar States, our contractor, are here today who'd be
able to answer very technical questions if posed. But for now, I'll begin by sharing my screen and
showing the L&I refusal letter.
Here's the LNI refusal letter and just to summarize it says that associated solar collectors shall be set back at
And just to summarize, it says that associated solar collectors shall be set back at least seven feet from the extreme front building line, whereas the structure proposed is to be set back five feet from the extreme front building line.
So to make that as simple as possible, what our variance is about is two feet.
We want to put the solar collectors five feet from the front of our house as opposed to the required seven feet.
Let me show you some images so you better understand what we're asking for, and I can better explain it.
What I'm showing to everyone now is the solar collector, solar canopy that we are proposing.
You can see that it sits on four legs that split to allow for maximum surface area on the ceiling, on the roof that is of our house.
You can see that it doesn't go any higher than our already existing pilot house, which is that red structure to the left.
And you can see that it supports 12 panels.
It's a little bit hard to see, but if you were to count, you would see that there's three rows of four panels.
And finally, you would see that the solar collector lines up with our already existing five-foot setback.
So again, this is what we are looking to do.
What we could do by right is seen here.
As you can see, it looks almost exactly the same.
still has the same sort of look appearance still has the same height but now it is set five feet
back seven feet back from the front of the house it's a little bit hard to see but those first
panels would be two feet back from our existing five foot setback and it only now supports eight
solar panels and that really is our issue the reason why we want a five foot setback as opposed
The seven is because with eight solar panels, we would only be able to generate 70% at best of the energy that we use at 2027, and we want it to be 100.
And just to be clear, we are already a low-energy household.
We're the kind of family that turns lights off as soon as we leave a room.
So that 70% really isn't a lot of energy.
pilot house currently exists
um can you repeat that question chairman you have a the orange is a pilot house yes that is
just the pilot house that already there were also concerns uh initially we did propose commercial
space on the ground floor uh and the community was concerned about um had mentioned some concerns
about traffic in and out of there given the school nearby. So the original proposal was
slightly modified and then we actually ended up switching architects given the pushback that we
got in order to sort of try again over the last year and a half to provide a different product,
smaller in scale, more community input was incorporated in the project. I'm going to have
Scott specifically go through the changes that were made for the most recent project that we
have. But just kind of want to talk about the hardship of this lot before he goes into that.
Obviously, not only is it obviously ICMX, it's only 6,812 square feet. Well, most lots that are
zoned ICMX, you know, are in this area are in the range of 40,000 square feet to 100,000 square
feet. And again, it is across the street from RSA 5, which is a single family zoning district.
We did look at the option to provide single family. The ability to do that on a corner here
didn't make any sense. In addition to the fact that the odd shape of the lot would make for sort
of very weird, irregular looking homes with no parking and would not really be something that
matched the industrial side of the street, which was what we were trying to really mirror.
In addition to the odd shape of the lot and sort of the fact that the industrial zoning and commercial zoning is not feasible from a market perspective or even for what requirements those types of businesses would have,
um the comprehensive plan for the city specifically addresses um that this property
should be rezoned or should have been rezoned or previously was zoned as rm1 uh specifically
page 80 of the plan which i'll bring up um one second
this is the environmental stuff which i'll get into in a minute but the comprehensive plan um
And I've spoken with the community planner here, David Fecto, who I know is on this call as well.
The community planner here, David Fecto, who I know is on this call as well, you know, the community, this plan for it specifically calls out a residential multifamily use.
It doesn't really call for commercial or industrial, although that's what it's currently mapped as.
It also doesn't seemingly seem to make sense or be called out for single family.
It's also not something that the school at this point is able to afford to turn into a parking lot for the school.
I don't think that they have the funds and I don't think the city was willing to purchase
it either to donate it to the school either.
It's also worth mentioning that this comprehensive plan specifically discusses that the city
should be considering variance relief or zoning relief for properties that are off of the
North American street corridor that are vacant industrial sites as it understands and contemplates
that a location like this is not typically appropriate for industrial commercial use.
Additionally, this property sits across 29th Street from a Commonwealth-designated Keystone
Opportunity Zone. These zones are in specific areas of the city that have been identified as
in need of infrastructure and development investment due to high poverty rates, large
amounts of vacancy, and significant population or job loss. This specific KOZ has a high amount
vacancy and its surroundings have been significant population loss in recent deckways as well as
median incomes significantly lower than the city-wide average so this project that we're
proposing which Scott will go through which was reduced from 23 units to 20 units to 16 units
and removed the parking as there were concerns about putting a curb cut uh which where people
could walk and where there is a bus station um was also removed and a sort of a pocket park was
created in order to separate the school from this building, in addition to adding a community benefit
feature for people who may be waiting for the bus and things of that nature. This specific
proposal helps support the revitalization of this corner, which hopefully will then drive
maybe additional investment, which would actually help within the limits of the KOZ itself.
So, again, the other change we did make was to the height, and I would like to see if
Scott could share his screen so that we can go through the most recent proposal, and as
I think the board will see, we've made significant changes from what I also agree was a little
bit too ambitious of an original proposal, and once this other developer got involved,
we sort of made a lot of adjustments over the last year and a half.
So, Scott, if you could present your screen and just briefly go through the plans and
the changes that we made, specifically addressing the size and scale of the project and sort of the
open space that we now have in order to sort of address the concerns that the community had about
the location with the school. And then I wanted, would like to have Phil Sharrow be on to just as
a real estate expert who specializes in commercial and industrial brokerage and sales to kind of
opine as to sort of the ability to do commercial
or industrial on a site like this.
So Scott, you could share your screen,
that would be great.
Could I be promoted to screen-check?
You've been promoted to panelists, Mr. Woodruff.
Woodruff, please identify yourself,
spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
Chair, I think Vice Chair Tenere swore them both in.
I think we're both sworn in.
Oh, yes.
Thank you.
I apologize.
You're right.
Scott, you can go ahead.
While we're waiting, are there revised plans and how many pages?
Yeah, they're not revised plans. We actually went back and resubmitted
through the administrative leave of the board to amend the application.
Sorry about that. As Rachel stated, we kind of took this project, completely wiped everything
that was previously done and re-looked at this in a new light based on the community feedback
that was provided. So what you see in front of you is a three-story building and aesthetically
takes a lot of cues from the surrounding neighborhood being the row homes as well as
the school and really tries to be very cognizant of that school and kind of the relationship of
the project to that. The height was dramatically reduced from where it was
uh with the main cornice line being at 35 feet um and
with the main cornice line being at 35 feet and actually slopes back up on this 29th Street side to be even less.
We'll zoom in a little bit, Scott.
So here you can see the proposed site plan.
As Rachel stated, there's a pocket park that we're proposing in a large amount of green space that is adjacent to the nearby school.
again important for us to pull away the building from the school as much as
possible to kind of separate those uses as well as direct any views kind of away
from the school necessarily as well as Rachel stated we're at 16 dwelling units
there's a bike room as well as indoor trash that's completely enclosed and not
exterior um and then there's a lobby that's located towards the corner um to give more eyes
on the street and also kind of a the best entry point for the building as this is the you know
most traveled corner per se um and close to the bus stop at that point it's also important to
point out as well um that we one of the concerns was having any windows facing the school and so
we specifically adjust you know adjusted the plans to make sure that there are no windows
on the school side of the of the building as well i want to point that out
okay um so this is the the glenwood elevation um again you can see the the cornice line here is
about 35 feet there is uh access to the roof via stair tower and elevators um which you see
you know top of the penthouse itself is around 49 pilot house around 45 but again just a small
portion of the building that is not very visible from that Glenwood elevation here on the 29th
street elevation again similarly you can see the building does step up so at this elevation
we're roughly 27 28 feet to the top of the cornice line again reducing the height
produce a similar feel in the neighborhood that isn't overpowering uh and we have an axon just
showing basic massing of kind of what that school is at which is around 35 feet um again based on
the the community comments uh it was important for us to try and match that by all costs and
again kind of create a feel uh that made the building fit in um with the surrounding context
and wasn't overpowering for the neighborhood um just to note too kind of our thoughts on
the pocket park was to provide uh some vegetation buffer along the school um and some nice landscaping
benches so that the community could use this space as a benefit um as well as the the apartment
building to provide some value add uh for the the overall community as well
um happy to go over any any other specifics rachel that uh you want me to or if there's
any other questions let me ask are there any questions from the board for this witness
no no we can move on rachel thank you chairman um phil if phil could raise his hand um i just
to bring him on i know he has somewhere to run to and just want to have him on the record mr
sharrow you should be unmuted you can speak now hi everybody hi good evening mr sharrow please
identify yourself spell your last name for the record yeah phil sharrow s-h-a-r-r-o-w
where to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do rachel thank you mr chair uh
Phil, can you just give the board a little bit of information on your professional background,
where you work, how long you've been doing what you're doing, and to sort of establish
your expertise in the real estate space?
Yeah, so my career began in commercial real estate roughly seven to eight years ago.
I ran a leading team at a national publicly traded investment sales firm.
prior to starting Scope Commercial Real Estate Services about two to three years ago.
Our main scope of work is representing sellers in the sale of either multifamily commercial
or development properties. Majority of our business is done right here in Philadelphia.
Thank you. And Phil, are you familiar with this area and have you had a chance to review the
plans that we proposed? I have and I have. Could you explain to the board from your expertise and experience why commercial or
Could you explain to the board from your expertise and experience why commercial or an industrial use, it might be difficult on this site from a sales perspective or a buy perspective, given your experience?
Sure. So I'll just back up for a second and give you guys a little bit of clarity into how I or we in the business approach a site like this or any site for that matter, being it being land or a site that is suitable for some sort of development.
So for us, the first thing we want to understand is, okay, well, what is the highest and best use?
And what does that look like in terms of a number for the seller to achieve in a sale?
So trying to optimize, you know, the price, but not just getting the seller the best price, but
what can be done here? Who is the buyer and what's possible? What's feasible?
and the reason why you see so much multifamily in in the city is just because in order for anything
any other use to be justified in justifying the construction costs the rents need to to make
sense so right now in the city really the multifamily rents are driving the ability to
cover the construction costs. And that's kind of, right now, we're in a unique circumstance
with COVID. That's before, during, and after COVID. So when we look at this in the feasibility,
viability to be commercial or industrial, you know, outside of the obstacle of just being an
irregular lot and a pizza-shaped lot, but commercial rents or industrial rents are not
going to justify construction costs especially now with them on the rise. And the other thing
that really plays a big factor that I would mention is the lending environment. No investor
that's going to invest in any sort of piece of land anywhere is typically going to do so all cash.
There always has to be the ability for a lender to make sense of the project as well. And I would
say right now, during COVID, the lending environment is very, very difficult, if not impossible
to lend on commercial new construction based on COVID.
Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the law?
No, I just have a question. You mentioned earlier, how long has this lot been vacant?
I believe the lot's been vacant. I was being kind in saying at least a decade. There's
no zoning archives at all that show anything um i can pull up atlas to show you that so i'm not
exactly sure but i know that it's at least 10 years right at least 10 years chairman and uh
it's across the street from the cars or it's in the cars it's across the street okay yep all right
do you have anyone else yep chairman i just want to bring thank you phil i just want to bring the
owner on david ross um i just want him to talk about the environmental um because i think that
that's important that the board understands how that plays into this um mr ross you should be
unmuted and you can speak yes hello thank you um ross please identify yourself with the record and
i'll swear you in uh david ross and you did about half an hour ago swear to firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes thank you rachel please proceed david i i pull up in
front of me, the agreements you sent me for the phase one and phase two. And I wanted you to just
explain to the board sort of what the environmental reports came back as and the environmental
remediation that needs to go on this site in addition to the cost of that. And in addition to,
you know, the construction costs involved with with developing is just so that the board
understands that not only, you know, with this project involves significant environment remediation,
which is a benefit to the neighborhood and and the city in general but um you know that cost is
something that you are willingly taking on as well and would be included in this yeah that was um
our our intent going into this was to remediate it properly uh we've been through about a half
dozen sites where we've we've done this we have a proposal for a um an extraction of the tanks that
in the site that came up in the phase two and that's an $80,000 proposal and as we know as
sometimes that happens you still get into this proposal is outdated but you get into additional
issues as you test as you pull stuff out so this could creep higher
And the challenges with these sites are it's often hard to get them completely clean to do residential development for sale.
and the challenges with these sites are it's often hard to get them completely
So if you were to do townhomes, you may have an environmental covenant that would restrict homebuyers from purchasing homes on gas station sites.
So that's a challenge why we did look at doing townhomes here, but we would have extremely high barriers to entry for the land remediation and the lenders to be on board with that.
So, you know, we were kind of stuck looking at a multifamily that could absorb these costs,
but still be as scaled down as possible to address the concerns that came up in the community conversations.
Thanks. Thanks, David.
The last thing, David, I just want you to share with the board is just the, you know,
the multiple conversations just to reiterate my testimony um that you heard me state about the
community process and the reiteration of the length that we we went to to have multiple
meetings and tried to um sort of tailor this project as much as possible and so much so as
revising plans multiple times hiring additional architects and I think we had at least five or
six meetings um so I just wanted you heard my testimony on that if you could just share your
experience briefly as well uh yes that that is true um i think a lot of times the development is
um it's challenging this has been a vacant site for a long time that people have seen as an open
space to park on uh but we're trying to do something that's that's reasonable here and
um we were investing in the properties adjacent to this and across the street
so we felt the ownership that if somebody's going to develop here we want it to be us
so that it's tasteful and we could do a nice job.
So we have tailored the project
to incorporate all of the feedback
from our previous meetings,
except the feedback that was to do nothing.
So here's where we're at
and we're pretty proud of where it's at now.
Thank you, David.
Rachel?
Yes, Chairman.
One question.
The pocket park,
is that part of your, on your footprint?
who will be maintaining it yes that's part of our footprint and david uh you'll be maintaining that
as part of your ownership in the building correct yeah and we don't have any direct doors from our
building out to it okay i just was curious about maintenance okay thank you all right questions
from the board no no anyone else anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Chair we have looks like Gideon Redditch Mr. Redditch you can unmute yourself you're allowed
to speak good evening sir please identify yourself with the record spell your first
and last name and provide us with your address
Mr. Redditch
While we're waiting for him, is there anyone else?
Chair, we have Mary Jones here
Ms. Jones, you can unmute yourself and you can speak
Good evening, Mary Jones
Good evening, Mary. You're still under oath from earlier today. Please identify yourself.
Yes. Mary Jones from Council President Darrell Clark's office, City Hall, room 494.
Today, the Council President would like to support the community who is in opposition to this project.
they just feel that this type of uh development is uh bringing unneeded density and could impact
the safety of the children and the school next door and it's also of course out of contact with
the single family uh neighborhood um so he supports that position um and also i just want
to say um there was a mention of having um the city buy the property and um uh me and my office
we did look into that and uh essentially according to atlas the uh owner overpaid for the lot so it's
just too expensive for the city to buy to um to entertain something like that so um just to
clarify that and yes it's just the long-term neighbors are very concerned about this kind of
out of context development coming into their neighborhood um and um yes so they wanted to
express that um can you hear me hello yeah okay um uh rachel pritzker had brought something up
Okay. Rachel Pritzker had brought something up.
Who's speaking?
Who's speaking? Hello?
Who is this?
That's Mr. Redditch. He finally came on.
Sir, please identify yourself, spell your first and last name, and provide us with your address.
Yeah, it's Gideon, G-I-D-E-O-N. Last name is R-E-T-T-I-C-H.
And I'm at 1733 North 29th Street, 19121.
we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes please proceed okay um rachel pritzker had brought up uh something about the opportunity
zone and the income levels of people in the neighborhood projects like this do pretty much
absolutely nothing for people in the neighborhood with lower income levels it just brings people
into the neighborhood with higher income uh so i mean i'd like to object to he's what yeah what
What expertise do you have to qualify that?
Having lived in three different cities and seen this firsthand, so I haven't gone to school to study this.
I would ask that anything.
Okay, then you're not an expert.
Okay, so I'll keep my comments just to reiterate what has been said in the meeting.
We have development pushing in from Cecil B. Moore, from west of us.
Chairman, can I ask that his testimony be just related to this project, not development in the neighborhood as a whole?
I'm just about to ask the same question.
Sir, we're not trying to be difficult, but please speak to this project.
We feel I'm reiterating on behalf of my neighbors and me.
You can't do that either.
All right, Rachel.
You have to speak on behalf of yourself.
I will speak on behalf of myself.
Thank you.
This adds unneeded density to the neighborhood, and it goes very deeply against the wishes of, it goes against my wishes, and what Rachel had described in the meetings as well.
um you know we feel i feel sorry that our part of the neighborhood is very much about single
family row houses and backgrounds not about uh packing as many people into a lot as as one can
get and even though i understand and i respect the concessions that the developer has made i just
wanted to be heard uh by you uh directly to understand the nature of my uh disagreement
how long have you lived at your current address i bought my property in 2012 i moved in 2014 and
i've been in the neighborhood since 2008 you you're familiar with that lot being being a vacant
little piece of land for all those years correct yeah for all the years that i've lived there i am
I'm very familiar with that law, what it looks like.
You know, I pass it every day.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify?
Chairman, can I just address Mary's comments about the price of it?
I just want that stricken as that's speculative as to any comments of overpayment or payment in general.
I don't believe Mary is a real estate partner.
I agree.
I don't understand the relevance of that, but okay.
So noted.
Thank you.
Anyone else can testify?
Can we have Louise Branch here?
Branch, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Ms. Branch, before you begin, I would like anything new and different.
Please identify yourself in the record, name, and address.
Louise Branch, do you need me to spell my name?
No, it just said you're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing about the truth.
Please proceed.
Okay, I am the block captain of the 1700 block of North 29th Street,
And I'm currently the committee person for the 32nd Division, 32nd Ward, 30th Division.
Can you put your address on the record, Louise?
You said the 1700 block?
Of North 29th Street, but I live at 1729 North 29th Street.
Okay, this is just, I just wanted that for the record.
Okay, it's up 2800.
my address is 1729 north 29th street okay please proceed okay i've been in the neighborhood all of
my 62 years this is my home where i was born at grew up i know the neighborhood all the years
edward gideon is my alma mater speaking as a concerned neighbor for the neighborhood i'm
worried about the toxicity underneath the ground and I would hope that Mr. Ross would meet with
us again maybe having a continuance on this hearing as to some other things that we could
as to some other things that we could do to help him out and help us out as well.
do to help him out and help us out as well.
He has built on Gerrard Avenue, all up and down Gerrard Avenue.
It's beautiful, but it does not address the community here where we are.
And his building would not address the community where we are.
It would be good for him.
It just would not be good for the school or the community.
And I would hope that he is still willing to speak with us in order for us to come to some kind of agreement that's better than what we've come up with.
It is a great building what you've done, and I appreciate all the considerations that you took into account.
But there's still other things to take into account. Yes?
Louise, it's Rachel Pritzker. I do believe that David has mentioned that he is willing to meet
with you all to discuss the environmental concerns and to make sure that that's being
handled and addressed appropriately. As I think you know, we've probably had six or seven meetings
about this over a year and a half. And we've reduced the proposal significantly. And I believe
you actually were on the call, I guess, earlier last week. So I do believe that David would be
willing to meet, to be able to discuss and handle the environmental concerns, you know, with the
community. That's something that he's, has consistently said. But as far as the continuance,
we cannot reduce this project or adjust it any further. We've hired multiple architects. We've
had six or seven meetings, as you can understand. I mean, the environmental portion of this will be
absolutely addressed separate and aside
from zoning, if that's something that you're
open to.
Ms. Branch,
before you answer that, just let me ask you a question,
and I'm not trying to put words into your mouth.
Are you suggesting that
if you had another
meeting to deal with the environmental
issues, and that if the
community, if the
response was positive and the community
agreed, would you then be
supportive of this project?
oh right we are we are totally opposed to a residential building going up on that line okay
all right that makes it thank you all right thank you very much thank you
all right anyone else new and different there are no more hands at this time chair
planning commission good evening david fecto philadelphia city planning commission
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends residential multifamily use
for this property. The city rezoned the property from residential multifamily to industrial
commercial mixed use in 2017 to enable the Gideon School to become one of the mayor's
community schools. And community schools were areas where the private sector would be able
to provide services to the community. We erroneously believe that this property was part of the
adjacent school therefore we do not object to granting this variance a little confused on that
what was that again about the mayor sure so the so we had rezoned this property because
private sector services cannot be provided in a public school we had been asked to rezone
this property to industrial commercial mixed use when we did we unfortunately thought that this lot
actually was part of the Gideon School, which it turns out it's not. And so we probably should
have left it zoned RM1. That's why we're saying we don't object to granting this variance for
multifamily. Okay, all right, more confusion. Excuse me, can I say something? Briefly.
This is Louise Branch. It was industrial and you thought that it was residential for the school,
so you switched it to industrial no it was is residentially zoned before to be able to get
private services into the school as part of the mayor's community schools initiative we rezoned
the block to industrial commercial mixed use that was the classification that would allow
private services to be provided in the school so that's that's why the property switched to
an industrial use classification but it was a residential multi-family classification before
2017 so so david just to clarify had you realized that this lot was not connected with the school
you would have not remapped this lot to icmx is that that is that is correct okay that's that was
my understanding thank you um is miss jones still on hello is mary jones still on miss branch i
muted you for a reason is miss jones still on yes chairman i believe she is
yeah miss jones uh i i i did you just hear the most recent uh uh testimony on behalf of the uh
Yeah, Mr.
zoning board i'm sorry the planning commission um i did hear that i wasn't aware but i
but the information i'm getting now is that that it's an accurate that they that they included
that lot on purpose but unfortunately i don't have direct knowledge of the of what happened
when they re-zoned it prior previously because um again their recommendation is is residential
and i'm wondering if that might change some of the mindset if it was zoned residential
i think what the yeah i think what the chairman is asking mary is that had
and i and i spoke to mary about this and had asked if she thought it would be valuable to have
the planning commission david facto in particular because david and i have talked about this project
for quite some time to to speak at the community meeting to explain this to the community because
sometimes that tends to land better than if it comes from me or the property owner um she had
said that she didn't want that unless the community um had uh requested that and i think you heard
from miss branch that if even if that was shared that it's not going to change the community's
desire to have nothing be here so i i is the question mr chair that would the council office
did the council office know that or would they think of it differently or yeah that's right yeah
oh okay um okay so i'm sorry yeah if you can't answer it now i'm not trying to box you in here
just a little taken back by the testimony on behalf of the planning commission right um so again um
i just am getting information about that well that the zoning was purposeful the icmx um but
that is the perspective of someone from our office and so it could just be you know two different
memories of what happened, but that's from our perspective. The zoning of the ICMX was purposeful
or they were fine with keeping it that way. And, you know, maybe the planning commission did,
you know, has this recommendation that it should be residential, but at any rate,
um it is what it is we are still you know supportive of the community um and
uh and and just you know in their if you can understand their position in terms of
the context and the density okay thank you thank you anyone else uh think i already asked the
planning commission uh any further questions from the board no no okay mi 2020-001 i'm sorry mi
2020-0001612839 west glenwood my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
my vote is no
calendar number uh 3133 4200 monument road
meredith ferlinger is the attorney
meredith you've been promoted to panelists
Hi, Meredith. Hi, Meredith. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Hi, it bounced me out, so I rejoined.
Okay, name and address, please.
Hi, Meredith Froeliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i certainly do do you agree
to wave and stip i sure do have you emailed an exhibit packet with uh ownership tax compliance
refusal referral photos and or plans five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the rco and do you have a letter yes to all of the above thank you you may proceed okay my word
Myrna, before you begin, do you have a letter from the RCO you said, is it opposition or?
It is. It's non-opposition. Can you see it up on the screen? My Zoom image.
it's non-opposition can you see it up on the screen um my zoom image it might be just me i
don't have anything on my screen i something just happened to my screen good in any event you is so
the community yeah it's in non-opposition so um let me finish let me finish i'm gonna try to make
this easy for all of us uh a letter from the district council person um we don't have a letter
but they were in attendance at the meeting, and I believe that they are in non-opposition as well.
Okay, so with that, if you could summarize, get everything on the record that you necessarily need, we can proceed.
I will be very quick because it's telling me my Zoom meetings is not responding,
and if I hit close, I'm going to get bounced.
So hopefully it will at least let me get through the explanation here.
This is simply for signage concerning the recently re-envisioned Belmont Behavioral Hospital.
The photographs that I was hoping to show you, you would see the almost completed new hospital
building that is for new six-story inpatient facility. Property itself is zoned CMX3 and
And based on the zoning code would only permit two freestanding signs based on the number of buildings on the lot.
They are proposing four freestanding signs.
So, of course, one at each entrance, as well as a sign at the corner of Monument and Ford Road.
The one other refusal that we have is related to Belmont's logo sign on the six-story building.
that sign would be prohibited above the second floor windowsill. So it's one of those somewhat
odd signage variance cases that if this sign were a few stories lower, you wouldn't see it,
but it would be permitted. So of course, that is the basis for why we are here. I have a full
presentation. So if you need it, I'd be happy to jump out and jump back in.
just hold on uh i'm going to ask the board did we need any does the board have any questions
no i have no questions is there anyone else who would like to speak on this uh on this case
there are no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good evening david facto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive
plan recommends this property for institutional use we have no objection to granting these
variances. Thank you. MI 2020-0031334200 Monument Road. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote
is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Calendar number 3117-4925.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Meredith, your screen is kind of locked. Can you try to remove it on your end?
it looks like meredith is locked if we take her back to be an attendee it'll automatically go off
i changed her back to an attendee
um pauline can you do anything when you're in here we go thank you here we go okay calendar
number 3117 4925 north 5th street burn anastasios the attorney
on the oath from earlier thanks frank
verne has been promoted to panelists verne can you hear me
i can hear you okay name and address please
verne anastasio 1315 walnut suite 1006 philadelphia pa 19107
you're already under oath have you emailed the exhibit packet with all the required documents
you know what they are i have you may proceed thanks and i wave and stip and you do wave and
step mr anastasio i'll ask you the same question do you have a letter from the rco
yeah we're going to do real quick mr chairman uh is the letter in is the letter in how is the
letter is it not in non-opposition it's in non-opposition it's for this is an application
for a pharmacy here's all right here's yet here's the
uh here's all right here's the uh here's the uh sales area the checkout the prep area of the
office uh it's basically a uh commercial corridor to begin with so it's uh we're not asking for
anything crazy and as you can see here that that's where the property is and i'm going to go right
down to the letter from the new 42nd Ward Executive Committee, RCO, a letter of support.
They believe the business will be a great personal touch to customers, would be a positive
for the community, and they support our growth.
And as a result, I'm asking that you vote yes, and I'm going to keep it at that.
My client is here, Mike Patel.
Mike, can you raise your hand so we can get you on the record?
Mr. Patel, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good evening, sir.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Spell your last name.
Mike Patel.
Thanks, Mike.
Can you spell your last name?
P-A-T-E-L.
We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Anastasio.
Thank you, Mr. DiCicco, Chairman DiCicco.
Mr. Patel, did you hear my presentation to the board?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your testimony?
Yes, I do.
That's it. I rest.
Questions from the board?
Planning, I'm sorry, anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Chair, Mr. Richardson is here.
Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Mr. Richardson, they're still under oath.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 312 City Hall.
Councilwoman has no opposition to granting this variance.
And good night, everybody.
Good night.
Stay safe.
MI 2020-003117, 4925 North 5th Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
my vote is yes thank you i think we go to number 13 carol yes yes we do thank you all for a very
long evening calendar number 3135 615 south third street the attorney is david orphanetes
we have support from the rco and councilman squilla is not opposed with a proviso
Thank you.
Mr. Orphanides, you've been promoted to panelists.
David, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
David, can you put your name and address on the record?
Yes. Can you hear me now?
Okay, great.
David Orphanides, Orphanides & Toner, 2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
suite 800 philadelphia pennsylvania 19102 on behalf thank you i'll see the owner of the
subject property do you swear if i'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do do you agree to wave and stip i agree to wave and i cannot stipulate there was a minor
okay and you'll explain that have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents
yes you may proceed mr orphanetes i know that there's a letter of non-opposition
both from the rco and councilman squilla's office uh with a proviso uh as you know we take all these
cases seriously but in the interest of time if you could summarize whatever it is you need on
the record then we can get this voted out quickly sure may i just share my screen quickly please
can you see my screen now yes okay great um and and just to clarify this is sharon
hello i'm sorry mr orfinis can you confirm that all the requested provisos are included in the
revised plan no i can't um so the coordinating rco which has which letters letter is included
with our package at tab two, do not have any provisors.
The other, there's one other RCO with jurisdiction
over this property, which is not the coordinating RCO,
which is Queen Village Neighbors Association.
They provided their letter after Friday,
which was the deadline to submit,
which on the 8th, I believe.
And in their letter, their one proviso
as a basis for the support, again,
a basis for the support. Again, the coordinating RCO supports, and you can see that
the coordinating RCO supports and you can see that
right here at tab, excuse me one second, tab two,
February 5th, and you can see the summary. We made a number of revisions to the design,
eliminated rear yard depth refusal, lowered the height of the pilot houses,
uh redesigned the whole ground floor front facade based upon the email that we had received from
uh the coordinating rco which copied the um the other rco queenville's neighbors association
if you can see there's no reference to a proviso in the letter from the coordinating rco south
street head house district um the the letter that came in afterwards um from
from uh queen village had the proviso that i'm showing on the screen right now regarding the
front ground floor front the side has nothing to do with zoning and they wanted there's there's
ground floor commercial non-residential and then there's residential units above we don't have any
use refusal here um ground floor is vacant non-residential commercial right now because
don't have a tenant they when they submit we met with them comply with 1403 14303 and when we met
with them they sent this email that included a photo so this is the email we received from
south street head houses with the comments and we addressed most of the almost all those comments
and you can see right here that the email and unfortunately i didn't include this because i
didn't have the benefit of Queen Village's letter to submit at the time. And I can submit this as
a supplemental exhibit if necessary. But the attachment that South Street Headhouse District
provided in redesigning the ground floor front facade had this image, because originally we
only had one door, one entrance door, which accessed both the commercial space and the
residential space. So the email we received from South Street Headhouse had this image
of residential door, commercial door, and then storefront.
But it also included this sketch, which was provided by, I think, Queen Village,
which showed, if I can make this a little larger, if you see it on my screen,
where they wanted us to split the doors apart with the storefront in between.
mean the one problem we have with that we would we comply with everything else in this email
everything else the one issue we have is that this location by moving the door over to this
right hand side splitting because right now we have an alley and two doors next to each other
which i'll show you real quickly in our rendering is that there's a bill code door right in front
of that right-hand side right now. So if you look at the pictures that we have here, you can see
the subject property, how it exists right now. There's an alley, there's one door, actually
access to those residential unit above right now is access through this alley to stairs that lead
up to a deck in the rear, and I can show you this. But here you can see just a little bit that I'm
circling the bilko that's on the right so in order to do what queen village wants us to do
we would have to remove this whole bilko door and relocate it dig up the whole sidewalk and
relocate it into the middle of the building underneath the storefront that they want us
to put in and the problem with that again is you know it's an extreme cost we we did what
South Street Head House wanted this to do, which they both wanted us to do, which was adding the
second door. And again, none of this has anything to do with zoning. And I'm going to show you real
quickly what our, you know, our rendering and what it looks like. And what we, just give me one second.
um and the problem with complying with queen village's request again is we would do it in a
heartbeat and move the second door that we've added at the request of both groups except where
they want to put it is in front of the bilko which you're not allowed to do streets won't allow us to
do that building code won't allow us to do that and the cost to do that is is very high and again
so you're basically changing the location of a door from both being on the left side to both
being to being split at an extreme cost to my client and we've done everything else that they
everything else that they wanted us to do in terms of modifications for the building
wanted us to do in terms of modifications to the building and
and reworking the whole front to side.
David, that is the proviso that they're asking for?
That was the one Queen Village.
It's not the coordinating RCO is asking.
Right, right.
But the Queen Village asked for that.
Yeah, and again, I can show you here.
No other provisos from either group?
No, the only here you can see.
And again, this is the letter dated 2A.
I just want to make sure.
I just want to make sure I'm not leaving anything out.
so here's what about south street head house district again in my they're not asking for that
they're not asking for that in fact they actually showed us a picture like i showed you originally
and again this was not in my exhibit book but in the email they actually sent south street head
house who's a coordinating rco sent us an image with the door side by side which which works
because we can do that and not have an issue with the bill code and still keep our built code which
is an essential part of the commercial space on the ground floor in terms of loading inventory
if it's a restaurant if it's if it's retail whatever it might be um here is and again here's
the what we originally submitted to the group which was one entrance door then you would go
either into the right into the commercial unit or go upstairs to the residential units and then what
we'd submitted then what we had is we had we revised our elevations and what we provided was
something that looked much different than that and actually I'd have to go back to the beginning
to show you this is how we revised it if you look at the two so this is how we change it from what
we originally showed beautiful detailing we've maintained the cornice right now there's an
awning that covers this we're removing the awning and remaining but we're maintaining both cornices
that exist but right now we're showing both doors right here because this over here which is where
queen village and i understand the symmetry of what they're requesting but the cost to do it
and again we've complied with the picture that south street head house sent us and it looks
beautiful okay i mean it's not a zoning what they've requested is not a zoning related issue
and it creates a lot of cost
and a lot of building code issues
if we're to comply with it.
We would otherwise.
We'd have no issue whatsoever.
Understood.
Thank you.
Do you have any...
I'm sorry.
What was that?
Do you have anyone?
Do you have your client on?
Yes, I do.
I have both the architect, Warren Thompson,
that I'd ask her to be unmuted
and I have Dr. Andrew Raven
who is the owner
who represents the...
Let's get the owner on
to adopt your testimony
and we'll move on from there and i'd actually ask you can you hear me can you hear me yes please
identify yourself for the record yeah and andrew uh raven r-a-b-s-m-y-n i'm at uh 964 west pen drive
westchester pennsylvania 19380 and i concur with everything that uh you sorry sorry slow down
dr raven let me let me ask let me ask you to do it my way david everyone hold on he has to be sworn
in everybody slow down please i know i'm trying to move this fast but i'm sorry no problem sir
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i most certainly do okay mr orphanetes
david you're muted
mr orphanetes you're muted oh i don't know you're asking your case yes no no here i go
I didn't touch anything, but anyway, Dr. Rabin, did you hear the statements that I made to
the board? I did. And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes, they are.
And would you adopt them as your own? Absolutely. And then real quickly, in terms of the
architectural elements, if Lauren Thompson could be unmuted, I can have her quickly adopt my
statements as well. Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself with the record.
hi good evening my name is lauren thompson we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do david please proceed lauren did you hear my statements that
i made to the board i did and are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
yes they are and do you adopt them as your own yes i do particularly those that relate to
relocating the door that right now we're showing here in the middle to the south side of the
building in front of the bilko door yes i totally agree okay thank you and again if you look i'm not
going to go through all my exhibits we have shadow studies that show the difference between what
we're proposing um is no different and then a by right uh in all respects in terms of shadowing
the buildings to the north of us is not conforming the buildings to the east of us are not
the buildings to the north of us is not conforming the buildings to the east of us are not conforming
in fact the buildings to the east of us occupy 100 of the lot we're maintaining the existing
ridge at the front of the building we're just kind of expanding the headroom to the front
but otherwise the existing ridge here is the existing ridge for the existing gable roof
and we're not changing that we're maintaining that okay thank you questions from the board
no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
there are no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good evening david
effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends commercial mixed use for this property we do not believe granting these variances would
negatively impact the block we do not oppose granting these variances thank you mi 2020
mr chairman real quickly there are revised drawings at exhibit three that were provided to
the zoning board and the zoning board's attorney on friday along with the revised proviso plan form
and those these revisions were made pursuant to the requests of both rcos
how many uh two pages two pages thank you mi 2020-003135615 south third street my vote is yes
with the proviso revised plan two pages approved today my vote is yes proviso yes with proviso
yes with proviso thank you calendar number 2035-6047 west oxford street the attorney is
alan knockamson and we have a letter of support from the overbrook west neighbor's cdc
alan you've been promoted
Allen, name and address, please.
Allen Ockamson, A-L-A-N, Ockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, address 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive and stip?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with all the required documents that you're familiar with?
I have.
THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD. I'M GOING TO MAKE IT REALLY QUICK. I BELIEVE I HEARD WHEN I WAS GETTING TRANSITIONED
OVER THAT IT WAS INDICATED THAT WE DO HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT. I'M GOING TO SHARE MY
screen really quickly if you don't mind so we have a letter excuse me this is Sharon Saleta we have a
letter of support but the proviso is maximum two units no living space in basements and I believe
there are four units proposed that's right so I was going to explain that so we have a letter of
support. It was for two units. It did say in the letter of support that there was a debate between
two or three. People voted majority in favor of that. I did talk to Gregory Allen, the head of
Overbrook West Neighbors CDC today, and we came to an agreement with a proviso for a maximum of
three units. In terms of the basement living, just to quickly go through, just to show you
the pictures, it's really not a basement. It's above grade. So you can see here we're
corner property. Even the lower level is above grade, but we agreed that we would make the
first uh the proper the unit on the first floor into a bi-level and it would not have direct
entrance or exit out of the side and then i sent an email to the zoning board and i apologize
mr letter i did not i forgot to copy you on it confirming our understanding including mr mr allen
on that email this afternoon so the proviso would be maximum three units
uh any questions from the board no anyone else would like to test no hands
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good evening mr chairman members of
the board david effecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends this property
for single family zoning we believe that four units would be an overuse of the property however
however we believe that a 2500 square foot lot with an existing home could accommodate two
However, we believe that a 2,500-square-foot lot with an existing home could accommodate
two residents.
residential units without having a negative impact on the block we recommend approval limited to two
units thank you and allen again you have a letter you said from the rco supporting three units i
talked to mr allen earlier today and then i confirmed that our agreement by way of sending
an email to the board as we copied mr allen on it for a maximum of three units okay thank you
MI 2020-002-035, 6047 West Oxford Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso, maximum three units.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Yes, with proviso.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much.
That concludes the two o'clock hearing list.
Is there anything left?
Did we leave anything out of the 2 o'clock list, rather?
No, you didn't.
Nope, everything seems good, Chair.
I'm sorry, what was that?
Everything seems good.
Okay, I know it's running late.
Does anyone...
Everyone ready on RN?
Ready to go, Chair.
Thank you.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing with Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary
Confessor Plaza and Board Members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell, Board Administrator
Yvonne Benton, I'm sorry Yvette Benton, and our Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also
in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and with this proceeding will be available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
finally to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue i'll repeat to enter an appearance statement call
google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
I would also like to advise everyone to please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed to our Board Administrator, Ms. Yvette Benton.
With that, I will read off the cases or case that has been requested to be continued, number
10 on our list. MI 2020-002-480-934 East Porter, H-O-R-T-T-E-R Street. It's a request for continuance.
Anyone object to that? Please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to request a continuance
or withdrawal at this time, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair.
Can't catch a break.
Number one, Carol.
Calendar number 2455-1237 East Palmer Street.
The attorney is Jeffrey Young.
And we have a letter from Fishtown Neighbors Advisory Council.
A letter of support.
and also one from, I think, Council President Clark.
Mr. Young, you've been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Young, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
He still has him on mute.
Mr. Young?
Mr. Young?
Yes, I'm here.
Yes, I'm here.
Okay, name and address, please.
Okay, name and address, please.
Jeffrey Young.
Jeffrey Young, 3900 Ford Road, Suite B, Philadelphia PA, 19131.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wave and stip?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos and plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met
with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we've emailed the exhibit packet.
We have a letter from the RCO, as you mentioned.
And we also have all the required documents, yes.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
I'm going to proceed to share my screen.
Members of the board, in the interest of time, again, Jeffrey Young.
Thank you.
here representing the applicant uh interstate uh partners llc um here's a copy of the deed
uh with the property um tax clearance um the property is on rsa5 is a zoning map
um here is a copy of the refusal um we are refused for this application is for outdoor seating
um adjacent to uh an existing uh restaurant um we are refused uh because rsa5 lots do not allow
outdoor seating by right. And we are also refused for a nine feet privacy fence that we propose
to erect on the property. Here is a map of the property. As you can see, it is in between
Girard Avenue and East Thompson Street in the Fishtown neighborhood with multiple
restaurant uses in the area. Here is a copy of our proposed plans.
um we are asking uh to add approximately uh six uh tables um and um to the outdoor seating space
um on the lot um also to erect a structure uh which will hold um ada compliant uh restrooms
and storage and also a removal bar removal bar area
Again, here is just a zoning map for the property and also plans.
Here you see some elevations for the proposal.
Here's a projected rendering of the site. Again, to the left here will be the structure,
housing, the storage, and the restaurant facility with the fence.
Again, this is a different view of the lot.
Again, some elevations.
Some pictures of the property.
We are actually adjacent to the Fishtown Rec Center, who supports our request.
Again, pictures of the property.
Pictures of the street to get a sense of what the neighborhood looks like.
This is looking north on Palmer Street.
This is Moyer Street directly in front of the property.
um again looking uh west i'm shooting east on moyer street uh toward the property
again this is from gerard avenue view of the property uh looking north
uh these are our uh certificates of mailing
uh our uh letters and letter from the council president clark um and with that you know i'll
take any questions from the board. Mr. Dion, do you have your client? Yes, my client, Mr. Robert
Ritchie, is on the line. Get him on, swear him in, and ask him to adopt your testimony. Yes.
Mr. Ritchie, you've been unmuted. You can speak. Good evening, sir. Please identify yourself with
record my name is robert ritchie r-i-t-c-h-i-e um 2644 cedar street 19125 to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you mr young uh mr ritchie uh have you
heard my testimony i have is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge it is and do you
adopt my testimony as your own i do thank you thank you questions from the board no
Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, we have a Venise Whitaker. Ms. Whitaker, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good evening, Ms. Whitaker. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, and provide us with your address.
Good evening. Venise Whitaker, spelled like Denise with a V, V-E-N-I-S-E.
Whitaker, W-H-I-T-A-K-E-R, 1468 East Wilk Street. I live down the street from
1468 East Wilts Street. I live down the street from this proposal.
Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
So I am a local resident of Fishtown and a citizen planner.
This is the second time that Interstate has come before the ZVA asking for this variance.
It is a wonderful local establishment. Parents, families enjoy to go there after the wreck, playing there after ZBA, after a local zoning meeting. That's the place that everyone goes there to decrease from.
um it's they have a small setback outdoor dining area that's always packed
so this variance will definitely help them to expand outdoor and then let's be honest with
this pandemic it is impacting our small businesses interstate closed october 2020
they have not been able to open their indoor dining at all they were doing just takeout so
they have suffered. Their staff has suffered as we're seeing citywide. This outdoor variance will
give them the opportunity to reopen and stay in Fishtown. We really need this and we need the ZBA
to support this vote. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. I thought this was familiar.
Was this rejected in the past? Yes, Mr. Chair. Really? Yes. There was a former neighbor who
oppose this project um that neighbor has since sold his property um and moved to florida thank
god okay i hope he's enjoying the sun all right planning commission
i'm sorry yeah i'm sorry please forgive me for interrupting but we do have um at least seven
hands up who wish to testify regarding this it's your call chair i would ask if anyone whose hand
is up is in opposition we'll listen to uh your your testimony if you're in support uh we'll have
your names and we will uh we appreciate your waiting uh all this time to be heard but in
the interest of time we have several more cases to get through so again if you're in opposition
keep your hand raised if you're not please uh put your hand down
that drastically decreased it yes we have one hand left uh it's a john scott mr scott
you can unmute yourself and speak good evening mr scott identify yourself for the record name and
address he might have been in support because it looks like he lowered his hand okay very good
But again, for everyone out there in the listening world, we thank you for your patience.
We're going to move on with this case.
Planning Commission.
Ariel DiLiberto here.
A-R-I-E-L.
D as in dog.
I-L-I-B-E-R-T-O.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
This property is recommended for single-family use in the Comprehensive Plan.
The adjacent parcel for which this is an accessory use has a history of commercial use.
Therefore, we do not oppose the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
And if I voted against this in the past, I sincerely apologize.
But in any event, MI 2020-002455, 1237 East Palmer Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Good luck.
Thank you, Member of the Board.
You have good luck to you.
Calendar number 1260, 2152 North 21st Street.
Alicia Clark is the property owner.
She's going to handle this per se.
Clark, you've been promoted to panelists.
You can speak now.
And Sheryl, there's also a letter of non-opposition.
um miss clark uh can you put your name and address on the record please alicia clark last name is
spelled c-l-a-r-k okay and your address 2152 north 21st street philadelphia pennsylvania 19121
thank you do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do do you no strike that um have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance a refusal or referral photos and plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes i sent all that information
in okay great you may proceed okay um basically what i'm trying to do is turn a single family
Okay. Basically, what I'm trying to do is turn a single family dwelling into a multifamily dwelling. I'm going to put three two-bedroom apartments in 2152 North 21st Street.
Do you have any exhibits you can share with us?
I do. Let me just pull them up really quickly. Should I go through the list of the exhibits of everything I said?
the pictures would be great or plans and pictures would be helpful okay no problem um let's see
this property currently zone rsa 5 what what is the classification on this
um i'm not sure it's it's zoned single family i'm not sure what technically
Okay. Okay. Let me share my screen. Hold on one second.
Okay. Now here are the floor plans. Are you able to see those and make them a little bigger?
yes we are okay um so it's basically three apartments both of them are two-bedroom
apartments with one bathroom
i have a photograph uh a photograph of the property is the first is that a first floor
apartment or is that a basement apartment um it's first floor apartment there's no basement
apartment so it's a three-story um photograph of the property by any chance i have a photograph
of the front. I don't have a photograph of the inside. So I can show you that.
Here's a picture of the front of the property. I don't know if you can see that.
How deep that property is. Does the second floor, second and third floor go back
to the full length of the first floor? Yes. The property next door didn't go all the way back,
but these extend all the way back. I wish I could get a side view picture, but I couldn't find one
and I didn't have one in my phone when I sent the documents over to you guys.
questions questions questions questions from the board no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
Good evening. Ariel DiLiberto here with the Planning Commission.
This property is in a single-family residential district and no change is proposed to the zoning.
The proposed variance is not necessary to enable the viable economic use of the property.
And there's no evidence of unique physical circumstances that would support a claim of
hardship. We recommend that the Board deny the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001.
uh let me ask we have a letter of non-opposition is that correct from the 32nd ward that's correct
i'm going to ask again is there anyone who wishes to testify in this case
chair tina marie russell just raised her hand i had a feeling somebody would okay please
miss russell please identify yourself with the record hi tina marie russell north central
philadelphia cdc and rco for this area you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth. I do. Please proceed. Okay, so we're opposed to this one. I don't remember
getting notified for this, but more importantly, this particular applicant has several applications
in for the same type of usage. The area is, first of all, let me go back. Our mission as a CDC is to
try to restore and maintain the homeownership of North Philadelphia, especially the area
that we're in.
So with that being said, this is a hardship against our mission, and it's also a hardship
against the community who's already saturated with multi-unit families, units.
The applicant has, neither one of her properties are being taken care of correctly as of now.
both of them have sided with at least five different L&I violations.
We appreciate that, but you just speak to this property only.
Right. So this particular property has five different L&I open cases as well.
Right, so in this, so this particular property has five different L&I open.
So we are more concerned about the usage of how it's going to impact the current over seven different family owners.
The departments that are here now, the units that are here now, they're used illegally.
I went through the city licensed rental applications to see if anyone was correct, but they're not.
And so the question we have for the applicant, because we did not have a chance to meet with her, is whether or not these properties are currently being used, because I'm really confused as they're being used or not, because it's one of the applications said that she's trying to make a two unit, it's already existing two units that she wants to make it to add on a third unit.
so again we don't we're not really clear so what we're asking to do is for her to come back and
meet with the community um so we can get clarity on as what's happening here with this particular
unit or we just feel like you're actually a denial of it because we actually have enough
over you're gonna it's over hardship to our seniors who are already in these property on
these panels already living here who pay their bills and harmonies exactly okay thank you thank
you miss russell anyone else who wishes to testify there are no other hands at this time chair
get the planning commission uh mi 2020-001260 2152 north 21st street my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
thank you next case calendar number 0 4 4 5 25 38 south 15th street
the attorney is sarah alderfer
miss alderfer you've been promoted to panelists
sarah can you put your name and address on the record please
when you can hear me
Ms. Adlerfer?
She has the next case too.
Do you want to move on to number five?
he's here he's there i see you okay oh there she is um okay 2538 south 15 street sarah
please put your name and address on the record door s-a-r-a-h-a-l-d-e-r-f-e-r 1500 jfk
boulevard suite 800 philadelphia do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth? I do. Do you agree to waive and stip? I do. And have you emailed the exhibit packet with all
the required documents? I have. To us, you may proceed. And you have met with the RCO? Yes,
we have met with the RCO and we have a letter of opposition. I understand that it's late in the
evening, so I'll try to be as brief as possible, but there is opposition in this case, so I will
have to go through a typical presentation um at this point in time i um my client um is in florida
and he's older might be having some technical issues so i request that he raise his hand um at
this point in time um so that we can have him on participate as well and then while he's doing that
i'll get started um so let me just share my screen okay so i'm here today um for 2538 south 15th
street um the owner of this property is uh joseph lucino um it's an existing two-family property
located on 15th street in south philadelphia between chunk and porter um the property has
been in Joe's family since 1934. It was converted to a two-family in 1958. At that time, his father
worked for L&I, and then his grandparents lived in the bottom unit, and his aunt and uncle lived
in the upper unit. And the property has stayed in the Messino family and has been passed down,
and joe took title to the property in 2009 um so we're here to legalize this existing
two-family use because despite the fact that this two-family use has been occurring on the property
since 1958 um there are no there's not a zoning archive or zoning permit to support this use
so we're here to legalize the use in the building um
so we're here to legalize the use in the building um there's been some complex history with this
property um there there were some issues with the prior uh property manager and and we've hired a
new property manager to help address community concerns and bring the property into compliance
and deal with any residential issues of the property moving so this is what the property
looks like from the outside it is it's an rsa5 property which generates a use refusal
as to family use is not permitted in rsa5 looking the looking at the city records for
the property although there's not records for um with l and i of this being a two-family there
there are other city agencies that are aware that this is a two-family use
mr massino has been paying for two-family trash pickup for several years in addition
the opa has it listed as a two-family and those records are exhibit eight on page 41 of the pdf
um summarizing moving forward really quickly i can show you the zoning map for the area this
is a single family area um but it's it's our belief that the fact that the two family use
has been existing since 1958 um it's indication that it wouldn't be a harm to the area um
Here are photos of the inside of the property. It's set up with separate water heaters, as well as separate forced air heaters, and there's also separate electrical accounts as well with PICO, and here you can see the separate metering.
So we're simply here to, again, legalize this two-family use. We met with the RCO, Broad Street West, who was in opposition. The substance of the opposition was based on the history of the property and the issues that the neighbors had with the management.
we're working diligently to correct that issue but as i'm sure the board is aware without a zoning
permit we're not able to obtain a rental license for the property and so that limits our abilities
and remedies in terms of dealing with tenants so with that said if joe is on i would like him to
speak. Mr. Messino are you on? Mr. Messino you can unmute yourself and speak now. Can you hear me?
yes yes uh we can hear you um by yourself for the record joseph massino jr
431 fernshire drive palm harbor florida you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth do mr massino have you heard my statements yes i have are they true
and correct yes they are do you adopt them as your own yes is there anything else you would
like to add at this time oh that's my grandparents made it 58 in the apartment upstairs for my uncle
and it's been like that ever since
that's about as far as i can tell you when they did it i was in eighth grade
Okay. Sarah, Ms. Albafer, you mentioned something about the paying for the refuge
fees. How long has they been paying? They implemented it.
I believe Mr. Messino said that ever since Department of Sanitation implemented separate
fees for separate units Mr. Messino has been paying. Mr. Messino, do you have a year for
approximation of how many years you've been paying separate garbage for two units at that property?
Yes. How many years?
Separate trash from the day the city put it in about three, four, maybe three, four,
five years ago whenever it was implemented. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions?
thank you any uh questions from the board no anyone else would like to testify in this case
from the board no anyone
please raise your hand no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
uh ariel de liberto here sorry i can't turn my video on um no worries we can hear you
thanks i'm here with the planning commission this property is in a single family residential
district and no change is proposed to the zoning the proposed variance is not necessary to enable
viable economic use of property we don't uh we recommend that the board deny the variance
thank you mi 2020-000-445-2538 south 15th street my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
My vote is no.
Calendar number 2459, 3445 Division Street.
Sarah, don't move.
Name and address for the record, please.
Sarah Aldefer, S-A-R-A-H-A-L-D-E-R-F-E-R, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia.
Thank you.
Do you agree to waive the reading and strike that?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
And do you also agree to waive and step?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with all the required documents?
I have.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
I'm here today on behalf of the owner-applicant, Nubo Group,
who owns the property at 3445 Division Street, which is in East Falls on Division Street.
I'm going to, I think I'm sharing my screen so you can see my exhibit packet. I'm going to take
you to um an aerial of the property okay so here this here is the property located on division
street this is the aerial image of the property which is exhibit eight on page 26 um so division
Street is a narrow street with properties on the north side that most of the properties run
street to street from sunny Psy Avenue to Division. And then on the south side, there's a row of homes
and then a commercial industrial building. And then the street dead ends down here.
um could you enlarge could you make that a little bit larger sure
is is that better yes thank you let's okay so the subject property is an existing one-story
garage which is being used for non-accessory parking that the lot is presently 30 49 feet
8.5 inches wide by 35 and 6 inches deep it is the only lot on this side of division street
that faces Division Street and isn't a lot that goes through to Sunnydale Avenue.
The lot is presently zoned RSA 5, and our original proposal was to subdivide into three
and then erect single-family homes thereon.
So, I'm going to go to our original zoning site plan, which is Exhibit 3, page 12.
I'm going to zoom out for you guys.
So, this was our original proposal.
that we came in with, and this proposal generated four refusals.
There was a refusal for the rear yard of zero, proposed zero feet, where seven feet is required,
um the location of the pilot house not being set back from the rear building line
the location of the pilot house not being set back from the rear building.
for accessory parking access from the front as it's not a rear street
and then for the overall lot size on the original lot size of this property was 1811 square feet
and divided into three lots would have proposed lot size of 604 square feet we met with east
falls community council multiple times on this project um they and in was and in response to
their comments we made several changes to the plan so i'm going to show the revised plan here
um the revised plan is to is a is a reduction on a number of fronts we reduce the proposed number
of homes from three homes to two homes and we also made a variety of other changes which i
think are best described looking at um beginning with the elevations so east falls community
council stated that they wanted to have some increased eyes on the street on the first floor
so we included a habitable space on the first floor to provide eyes on the street we brought
down the overall height of the structure from what was already a by right 38 feet down to
33 feet 6 inches um we also relocated the pilot houses so that they would be within the required
setback and instead of doing a full pilot house we've we've done like a half pilot house so that
the pilot house would not extend beyond the parapet wall um so with the with the um changes
in the plan we have reduced the number of refusals from the original four refusals down to two
refusals the only two refusals remaining on this remaining on this application would be for the
front access accessory parking um and and for the lot size but again that refusal the second refusal
that's remaining would be reduced our original proposed lot size was 604 square feet and our new
proposed lot size is 905.25 square feet where um 1440 square feet would be required um
with regard to the refusals that are remaining um there is um let's i'll begin with the parking
there is no legal parking on division street i'll show um photographs of the property and
division street um you can which begin at exhibit 10 uh page 32 and you can see the existing garage
here and then exhibit 11 which are the surrounding properties you can see that
um division street is quite narrow and on the portion of division street across from us
there's not legal parking so many of the neighbors actually uh park on the sidewalk there
um so we wanted this app to include parking in this application in order to provide
um a benefit to the area and help alleviate the number of cars in the street in addition
to the parking on issues in the area um all the other lots on the same side of division street
as our property are through lots to sunnyside avenue um most of the rear yards of those
properties are currently being used as accessory parking that cars will come in on division street
and then turn left into um the rear yard the rear of sunnyside and park there um so we want to
continue the parking on that side of the street um in terms of the other refusal for the lot size
um we're only proposing one additional um unit or lot than would be by right
um and this is to deal with the overall odd shape of the lot um
go i can go up to the zoning plan to give you a better idea which is it which is exhibit
for page 18, which is the revised site plan. So you can see here that the lot is much shallower
than it is deep. Hold on.
Hold on, I'm having some technical issues though, you know, at least I'm not a cat.
All right, I think what we could do, let me ask this question, as a result of the changes
that have been made the number of units the height the pilot house is the community the
community was still opposed to this pro this developed this project yeah that's correct
east falls community council is still in opposition to despite all of these changes um the
um at the latest meeting which on january 20th um there was kind of divergent views from the
neighbors. There was a group of neighbors that said that they wanted it to remain as its current
garage use, which is an existing non-conforming one-story garage. And then there was another
group of neighbors that really wanted to see a two-story development here. And then in East
falls community council's letter um which is exhibit two um they they actually proposed um
this a set reproposed this issue of like if we could set the third floor back um to provide
more um light and air to the street below and we looked into that but because of the
shallowness of the lot where it's only 35 feet deep and with a seven foot rear co-compliant rear
yard our building is only 28 feet deep and so there's really no way that we could have a usable
third floor while doing this um proposed um second floor setback that they wanted um we looked into
it we examined it with our architect in fact um the original three unit project was completely
redesigned from the beginning in order to get to the two-unit project. And so we did consider a
number of options, but we weren't able to accommodate what they wanted. They provided
what I'm showing on the screen now as an example. And this is the example they provided. These are
located at three blocks away from the property at 3465 Penn Street. But these lots are 75 feet deep,
which is over twice the depth of our lot and so we can't really accommodate this design
on our lot in addition these um these this proposal would create a roof deck on the second
floor which would in which would add another variance to our application so then it would
create a new variance beyond what we were already asking for what we were trying to do was reduce
our overall bearings is um they also expressed its concerns regarding shadowing um and for that
i just like to note that the entire mass of the building is below by right our we are our rear
yard at the at the present time in the revised plan is co-compliant we're coming in a below by
right height and with and any by right building built here would have more mass than what we're
proposing and um it by extension more shadowing and additionally on our side of the street we're
on like a northwest side and so the shadowing created would largely not fall on um on on homes
but on the parking that surrounds um so if you so going to the so going to the aerials which on page
26. i think you've explained it pretty well uh maybe what we can do do you have your client
i i i do uh mr bauman can you raise your hand
and be unmuted and unmute yourself
is he on the phone
i don't see anyone with that last name okay why don't we do this uh we'll step as an officer
of the court, Sarah, will stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony.
Yeah, I also have the developer of the project here in the room with me. He has been participating
in the meetings, and he'd be willing to adopt my testimony as well, but he's not the official
owner of the property, even though he's been involved with development.
Any questions from the board? No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so,
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
please raise your hand.
here i have someone named hillary langer miss langer you can unmute yourself and speak
thank you ma'am please identify yourself with the record spell your full name
and provide us with your address can you hear me okay yes good who's speaking i'm hillary langer
Oh, please identify yourself. Spell your full name, please.
Hilary Langer, H-I-L-A-R-Y, L-A-N-G-E-R.
I'm the chair of the East Falls Zoning Committee, and I live at 3567 Indian Queen Lane, around the corner.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Is there a way I can share my secondary screen, please?
he's been promoted to panelists when he comes back in he should be able to share his screen
Mr. Langer
can I ask what are you sharing
you can unmute yourself and speak
can you hear me yes what are you presenting can you see a google shot of the site are you just
showing pictures i'm showing a picture and a diagram okay so we didn't get it yet can you
click the share screen button at the bottom sure here we go you see it because yeah i did get the
blue ring around it you can see it yes now we see it thank you all right so uh here's the context
uh this is sunny side coming down here conrad this is the street in question and the property
division street um these uh most of the neighbors and if any of them here are still at the
meeting, it's a lot later than they're expecting, live in all these two-story homes, these three-story
homes on Conrad, and the owner of these three units here is also present. People who have been
living in these houses for generations, many of them, have been used to this being front to back
100 feet deep. These are 1500 square foot lots. At some point these three homes, their backyards
are subdivided and a low-level garage was developed here and it became a separate lot.
I can tell you that if the neighbors knew or had any control at the time of this lot being zoned
residential it would not have happened and they didn't even know about it until this proposal
came through so everyone was like shocked because they're just used to this pretty much an open
space east falls most backyards they go back 30 40 feet they have trees here you can see trees
trees trees trees uh people here park in division street it's one way in one way out which is why
you see cars on the sidewalk the first proposal uh that came in from the new boat group was larger
than what you see presented on my screen it was built out to the full lot it was three 600 square
Excuse me, could we limit your testimony to what is now currently being proposed?
Right. So this is the impact on the surrounding homes.
I'm going to object to this. This is speculative. And while I understand that Mr. Langer is conveying
his opinion, these drawings don't have dimensions. So I can't tell whether or not they're in fact
to scale and our accurate representations of the size and the impact.
And they look considerably larger than what is being proposed.
And I understand you may be doing that for effect, but let me ask the question.
The properties across the street from the proposed development, those two-story units,
what is the height of those? Does anyone know?
Yeah, they're about 22 feet.
22 feet high. And then further down the street, there are some three-story on that block?
down here yep they're about 30 feet okay 32 feet they're all lower than well their proposal is for
Well, the proposal is for 33 feet, 6 inches.
33 33 feet 6 inches
No, the proposed project, the height, and correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah, is 33 feet, 6 inches?
Mr. Chairman, you're correct.
Okay, can I explain that, please?
I don't know what's to explain.
It's 33, 6 inches to the roof.
okay there's a parapet that's required to be 42 inches tall by code which takes the apparent
height from the street up to 40 37 feet so the height has been reduced from 42 to 37
i'm the chair of this committee and i'm representing neighbors here
i understand that we're letting you testify right so chair i'm sorry to interrupt very kindly i
I would like to mention that we do have quite a couple other people wish to testify, as well as other cases listed, but it's still your call.
I hear you. Could you get to the crux of what the opposition is, sir?
The crux of the opposition is that the proposed development is still too high, considering the narrowness of the street and the fact that the adjacent properties are two-story.
this is an extreme hardship
for the neighbors
and we would like them to come back
and continue negotiation
until we can get a scheme
that the neighbors will accept
okay but you will admit that on the
I don't know what street that is again
there are three story homes
not the vision street
on the side
sunny side is that
Conrad here there's three-story homes but they do not go up to 37 feet.
How many stories is this project? We're proposing three stories. Three stories.
I'm talking, could someone bring up that map again? The aerial photograph?
I'd like to say that I'm in this business so usually my eyeballing is pretty accurate.
That's great. Thank you for bringing up the burial. I would not want to be exaggerating it.
the street that runs perpendicular to division
conrad's what is that that would be conrad's this street here would be conrad street
and division is is right there so there's a number of three-story homes on conrad correct
Yes, that's correct.
Leading into the vision.
In the rear, there's one house that goes back,
actually two or three houses that go back pretty far on Conrad.
All right.
All right.
We are really pressed for time here,
and I'm not suggesting this is not important to the RCO and people living there.
so is there anyone who has else could testify who hasn't something new and different if not
we're going to have to continue this case okay chair we have someone named sean kilroy with
their hand up kilroy please identify yourself with a record and i'll swear you in hello can
you hear me yes sir hello my name is sean kilroy uh 3421 conrad street and are you one of the houses
on conrad between uh division and what's the other one again sunny side that is correct
and looking at the aerial shot your house is on the right hand side
uh looking at the aerial shot uh you can see my address 3421 on the roof uh of the dark roof on
Conrad. Okay. That's a single-family home? No, that is three two-bedroom apartments.
What is the height of that building? Do you know? I don't know, sir.
But it's three stories? Yep.
Is it recent? Has it been built recently? Oh, no, no. It's over 100 years old. Okay. All right.
Your testimony? Yes. My name is Sean Kilroy. I'm at 3421 Conrad Street with my rear driveway
Yes, my name is Sean Kilroy. I'm at 3421 Conrad Street with my rear driveway directly adjacent to this proposed project. I oppose the building of two three-story houses at this location. In fact, I oppose the building of any new housing here.
direct
There's no other housing on the northwest side of Division Street, and there never has been.
Division Street is a very small street with no exit.
One enters Division from Conrad Street, then has to exit the same way by reversing out.
This block cannot accommodate any more houses.
In fact, the structure that currently sits on this plot is a one-story cinder block building with three garage doors.
However, no car can park inside this building because the street is so small it's impossible for a vehicle to turn and enter here.
Please do not allow any houses to be built here.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
How do the cars that are on the alcohol pads on the rear of these houses, how do they get in and out?
Well, they get in and out by they drive in and then they back out and come out.
But because of how close this structure is to the street, you can't make the turn there.
Like you can't turn into the garage doors of the existing structure.
And no car will be able to park in there, you're saying?
It's my belief, sir.
I think that'd be a question for the streets department.
All right.
I think we're going to have to continue this case.
And Sarah, from what Mr. Hillary said,
I'm not sure if your client is willing to continue to engage in conversation with the RCO.
You know, with regard to engaging in conversation with the RCO,
we've had multiple meetings on this project and we've made considerable compromise um we're happy
to continue to discuss with them um as always remain committed to compromise however i just
wanted to be known for the record that there's a difference between compromise and capitulation
and i think here what the rco has been asking for is for them to design our project for us
which is not
I hear you
just because no houses were ever on that side
of the street doesn't mean there can't be houses
on that side of the street
I think
I don't understand that but
in any event
do we still have
more people on this case Tanya
or Yvette
yes there are three more people here with their hands
the three people is there anybody who is
in support of this
If they are, please keep your hand up.
If not.
And do you have one person with a hand up, Chair?
Okay, please identify yourself with a record.
Name and address.
You can unmute yourself and speak.
Name and address and I'll swear you in.
Ms. Morris?
yes my name is oh i'm sorry my name is linda nariz i'm a resident of 3422 division street
i lived here for 50 years swearing a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
so help me god okay please proceed yes looking talking about this garage i remember when that
garage was built if you can look in the back of the garage there's three apartments they were
built for those three apartments for the tenants to to park in there but it end up the owner that
owned the houses put it into a metal shop making aluminum awnings which the neighbors didn't want
early in the morning so that stopped so then they i don't know when it got self-divided we were
shocked about this but one important thing you must know this is a dead-end street and it's going
be a very big inconvenience with all this development and things going up and uh if people
won't be able to come in and out do their daily routines and trash and deliveries and another
thing it's important to know is with this garage and the proposed plan is them apartments they'll
be looking right that's in their backyard so you're looking at maybe 12 feet maybe i don't
know the exact measurements but it's good it's not fair to the residents who live
to them three apartments where the garages are it's typical of any row house neighborhood
no this is memory in the backyard i understand what you're saying all right i hear you but i'm
just saying there is a letter of opposition from the councilman too with this yeah and many
neighbors since we stayed on all day i'm sure there was many neighbors on who opposed this also
with good reason. I wish they would have stayed on and speak. So if we can continue this, I'd
appreciate it because it's not a good fit for this community. It's overdeveloped as it is.
because it's not a good fit for this
community. It's overdeveloped
as it is.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Have a good evening.
I don't know. I mean, I'd like to
continue it, but it sounds to me like they don't want
anything developed there. That's what it
sounds like. That's what it sounds like.
Any suggestions from the board?
I'm worn out.
we should I think we should I think we should vote it I think you should I think we should vote it
we can vote it we can vote it all right uh planning commission
Ariel DiLiberto from the planning commission um Sarah you mentioned that there's no longer
a variance needed for the rear yard could you just show that in your materials of course thank you
So, just to show, this is the newly proposed structure, which shows a seven-foot deep rear
yard as required. And I would also note that the revised plans were delivered to
council for the VBA, Ms. Sharon Saleta, and the seven-foot rail yard is also noted as a
change on the revised plan. Thank you for showing that. Our recommendation,
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single-family use.
the proposed variances are not necessary to enable viable economic use of the property
we do not believe that a hardship exists that would require the subdivision of this property
to two lots keeping the parcel one lot fulfills the required lot size for rsa5 zoning
the front access parking variance conflicts with the adopted comprehensive plan and related zoning
code updates we recommend that the board deny the variance i have one question for sarah
uh has the street department approved the curb cut have you gotten that far yet uh
yes um i do not the streets department approved the curb cut um in the initial plan when there
where there were three where there were that's normally the way it is i just was curious
all right uh here yes this is tanya again and i um just want to mention um that there are three
other individuals requesting to testify but of course it is your call but i just want to let
you know that they are mentioning in the chat that they wish to testify so it's your call
what is it what what what would if we do a resumption hearing when would that be
um we can march 3rd at three uh two two o'clock no no that would be 3 30 3 30 i meant to say i'm
I'm sorry, okay, am I-
We can come back on March 3rd
if that would please the board.
Say that again.
Mr. Chairman, we'd be happy to come back on March 3rd
if that would please the board
to allow all the neighbors to testify.
We'll do that, thank you.
MI 2020-002459, 3445 Division Street.
the hearing will be resumed on march the 3rd at 3 30 p.m at which time we will consider any
follow-up with the rco and the council person's position thank you all for attending
calendar number 2456 3731 jasper street the attorney is rich demarco
mr demarco you've been promoted to panelists
mr demarco name and address please uh good uh good uh evening everybody richard demarco
uh still under oath from i'm a little punchy i'll punch you myself i'm still under oath i
was sworn 2005 market street 16th floor philadelphia pa uh 19103 almost forgot my zip code
do you agree to wave and step yes and have you emailed the exhibit packet with all the required
documents i did okay you may proceed proceed and we have a this can be short we have an rco uh full
and we have a this can be short we have an rco uh full actually unanimous support the client is
actually unanimous
Thank you.
welterweight champion danny garcia right um i hope he's still on he did text me a little while ago
anyway this is one of his um developments to get back to the community the rco i love the project
let me uh i'll briefly share screen uh so we can show you uh do you see my drawing
rich you could you're fading you're in and out sorry and you also have a letter of support
a non-opposition from councilman school can you see my screen hardly can't see it's very light
really yep sorry about that i don't know why that is
try something maybe you're more than 50 yards away
uh you do see the screen the screen sharing is working though yes but it's um it's washed out
it's hard to see it's it's different let's put it that way oh i'm so sorry i don't know what
the problem is all right um why don't you walk us through it i can do it really quick the only
housekeeping item though is uh if you can see maybe i'll ask my architect to show it
But if you can see, can you see my courser over, this is going to be a subdivided lot.
See my courser over the lot, the current structure.
Anyway, I'm requesting a proviso because you heard the other portion of this property.
We're subdividing lots, lots.
You heard the earlier case, which was the DSG compound, which is a barbershop, a carwash, a clothing store, and Danny's a private gym.
We voted a couple years ago to legalize it.
So I'm going to ask for, and what happened was due to some sort of mailing snafu, we never got the notice of decision.
We were unable to pull a permit, and there was a violation issue.
At the RCO meeting, the RCO did say, they asked why we got a violation.
They approved it two years ago.
They're in full support of both this multifamily, this new multifamily project, and they want
us to be able to get the permit for the other case.
So, and I've been talking with Sharon about this.
The proviso that I'm going to ask for is to ask you to vote yes on the use variance for
the new 15-unit residential project and also with proviso to legalize uses on parcel B pursuant to
ZBA calendar number 35013. I think would work and obviously I'll defer to Sharon. Let me just show
you the I hope you can see the rendering. That's what Sharon suggested earlier. Okay. I wouldn't
this is sharon i wouldn't use the word legalized perhaps just say with uses as previously approved
by board at calendar number 35013 uses as approved is perfect maybe this picture you can see better
this is the new multi-family apartment use mr demarco we can't see we can't see anything we
still have it on the atlas screen oh richard richard unless you really think it's necessary
for your record. I don't. I don't. I don't. Okay. It's coming up now. All right. But let me go
back. We got letters from Harrogate Civic in support. Councilman Squill in non-opposition,
as long as above measures mentioned by the RCO are agreed upon, whatever that is.
uh so if we vote to approve this sharon do i call that a proviso with all the all uses as
approved or is that separate statement it's a proviso proviso with uses as previously approved
by board by zba at calendar 35013 okay so that mr demarco do you need uh your uh client on
what's that do i do you have anyone do you need to put on your client let me just have let me just
let if danny garcia can be uh uh promoted so he could say hello and and uh verify my testimony
this lot was by the way uh it was at a machine shop it's industrial use is not going to come
back uh the neighbors love the development proposal uh so clearly there's a hardship
the use is undevelopable as zoned. I'm going to ask Danny Garcia to just adopt my testimony.
Mr. Garcia you can unmute yourself and speak. Wow what a building. Good evening Mr. Garcia identify
yourself with the records by your last name and I'll swear you in. Danny Garcia D-A-N-N-Y G-A-R-C-I-A
G-A-R-C-I-A, 550 Highland Road, Passtown, PA,
550 Highland Road, Passtown, PA, one nine.
1-9-4-6-4.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. Please proceed, Richard.
Danny, I know it's late and I did a very short presentation,
but you adopt all my testimony as true and accurate?
And the DSG compound, did I accurately describe how we went through the process
two years ago when you had full support for those uses as well as your new 15-unit multi-family
dwelling? Yes. Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No. No. Anyone else like to testify? Please raise your hand. Can I also ask, do you see my screen
now? Yes. Yes. Thank you. It's a beautiful building. Are they rental or for sale? I'm going
And there's trash storage in the rear, bike parking, all sorts of...
All right. Richard, anyone else who would like to testify, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Ariel DiLiberto with the City Planning Commission.
We do not find evidence of any unique physical circumstances or conditions peculiar to this property,
nor do we believe that there's no possibility that the property can be used in strict conformity
with the provisions of the zoning code. The proposed use conflicts with the comprehensive
plan, which recommends this block and several adjacent blocks remain industrial due to the
existing industrial here and to prevent residential encroachment. We recommend that the zoning board
deny this variance. Deny? I would only just add, and I know it's late, but you can see a lot in
picture i have up it's actually a great transition from the residential that you see here the rest of
this block is industrial it's it's not a uh this will put uh eyes on the ground it's an open lot
it's unused it's dark it's dangerous that's why the neighborhood has embraced this so so much
there's no industrial that can happen there it's an open and empty and dark lot thank you thank you
MI 2020-002456. 3731 Jasper Street. My vote is yes, and correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon,
with the proviso, with all uses as previously approved by the ZBA, as it relates to
number, counter number 35013. That's correct. My vote is yes with provisos.
yes with provisos yes with provisos thank you calendar number thank you have a good night
you too rich calendar number 1197 3961 north fairhill street
it's a letter of non-opposition from councilwoman sanchez
anyone here for 3961 north fair hill we have an alberto perez i just promoted to panelists
you mr perez please identify yourself with the records by your full name
sir you're still on mute you need to unmute please
hello perez yes mr perez are you the owner
the owner is here with me who are you in relationship to this application i uh i did
the paperwork for him and i did the drawings the owner is here he needs to testify okay
i n jack was j a q e z and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but
the truth yes please proceed i'm sorry carol i'm sorry yes do you swear for did you just
yes i did okay have you mail emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents
proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal photos and plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes okay you may proceed
hi um it's alberto perez again uh i i will be speaking in behalf of him only because i'm more
familiar with what is being done here no you cannot the applicant sorry okay you can you can
advise him or but he has to test the testimony has to come from the applicant okay unless you're an
attorney but you're not an attorney so do you have any exhibits you can share with us yes uh uh and
do you have any exhibits you can share with us yes uh uh and it's mostly because the translation
There's nothing because.
his english is not as well right we understand can you share your exhibits please yes thank you
so um chair i would like to interject a thought if the problem is translation we could continue
the case and have a translator provided. This case has already been rescheduled. Can you see
the screen no no now we can okay so clevin mr clevin could you describe what it is you're asking
uh the board to approve um yeah we want to make um a commercial um place in the first floor
so what what is on the second floor residential uh yes one how many units one yes but one unit
a residential unit on the second floor first floor will be a commercial use yes we think
we're gonna do a hair salon okay uh i have the picture um how is now and that's yeah yeah that's
you can do that quickly we'd appreciate it thank you yeah that's how how was that building
and that that's it now it's now okay okay all right um i think we got that um questions from
the board no anyone would anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good evening ariel de liberto from
the city planning commission this property is recommended for residential single family use
in the comprehensive plan this property is at the corner of luzerne and fair hill streets a
commercial use is consistent with the use and zoning of corner properties along luzerne street
in this area. We have no opposition to the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2020-00-1197-3961
North Fairhill. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Calendar number 2454-441 East
mentor street um do we ever get exhibits i received something an email i'm not sure if it's
from the property owner um with attachments at 541 tonight oh gosh um i because of receiving
them so late i haven't had an opportunity to go through them and again i don't know who they were
from. I don't know if this is the property owner. Is there anyone representing 441 East Mentor
Street? 441 East Mentor. No hands at this time, Chair. Okay. MI 2020-002-454. 441 East. I'm sorry,
Chair. Please forgive me for interrupting again. Oh, no. Anytime. But I do believe Luz,
Luz, are you here for this case?
Luz, you can open your mic and speak.
Are you here for Mentor Street?
Yes, I believe so, Chair.
She has been texting all night.
Okay, sorry about that.
Thank you.
But we just got the information an hour or so ago.
If you don't mind, can I ask the question of her?
um lose did you send your documents to the zoning board as well as the zoning board attorney
chairman saletta five days ago yes when did you send your email what day
five days ago i have no record of having received that i received something at 5 41 this afternoon
Is your email address xxcookiegirlxx? Yes, I'm saying five days ago and I'm
saying today because the community sent me the letter yesterday. Okay, well I'll say again
everything document today. Okay, well call the chair. I maybe there was some kind of technical
problem. If I could mention to Sharon I did look this up and it does appear that they neglected
it to send it to you but it did come to the zoning board's email okay that's fine then sure
Okay, that's fine then, I'm sure.
all right good thank you both we'll we'll go forward
All right, good.
Thank you both.
We'll go forward with the hearing.
Luz, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Luz Murray, I know I.
L-U-Z?
M-A-R-Y?
I-N-O-A, my last name.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay, Carol, I think we got an answer to most of your questions, about five days, but maybe we need to ask about a letter.
Okay, have you emailed the exhibit packet with all the required documents, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, photos and plans, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Okay, thank you.
letter from the rco is it indicating what what does the letter from the rco indicate
what does the letter from the rco say when you ask him to ask i'm sorry about the language
you've got a letter from the rco yes i do what was their position no no position
No opposition.
Who was the RCO?
When you said the RCO, the community meeting, right?
The RCO would be the community organization you met with.
We got the letter and there's no opposition.
No opposition?
No opposition.
And what is the name of the RCO?
The new 42nd Ward Community, okay, organization, all right.
What are you proposing to do?
I don't have any exhibits here.
do you have any exhibits you can share? Yes. Please proceed.
I can be interpreted for both ladies right here so we can maybe he's got me
Can you share the exhibit, please?
Thank you.
You can look in the computer.
Did you hit share the screen at the bottom?
And then your exhibit should be able to come up once you click on it.
And, Chair, if I can, I would like to confirm that I do have a letter in our record for non-opposition from the community.
Thank you.
And it's totally your call.
if there's a hardship with this applicant we could always do a short continuance but again
it's the chair's call. I'll ask again thank you Tanya. Are you able to share the exhibit? Yes.
Well, can you share it?
Yeah, I'm waiting.
Can I share it?
No, I think it's compacted on the screen.
Share screen.
Is there?
When you hover your mouse along the way, do you see the green button that says share screen?
Yep, okay, green, share screen.
and if you click that
we haven't difficult to
okay we're going to have to
continue this to another date we have a date
Tanya or Yvette March 3rd
3.30. March 3rd. Okay. MI 2020-002-454. 441 East Mentor Street is continued to March the 3rd at 3.30 p.m.
Ms. Iona, you need to have someone with you who could work your computer so we can see the exhibits, okay?
Ms. Iona, you need to have someone with you who could work your...
And, Chair, if I could mention something as well?
Be my guest.
Luz, please be mindful that you shouldn't, before March 3rd, submit your exhibit package with everything to the ZBA box as well as to the attorney, Sharon Saleta.
you will get new posters to put up you have to put them up please be mindful you must adhere
to the information in the posters okay if you have any questions you can send an email to the
rco box and we'll help you excuse me this is sharon i have one more question can you confirm
that you are the property owner no your property owner is next to me
I have a property owners next to him. Jacqueline Torres is the
Jacqueline Torres is the property owner is that correct? Yes. Yeah. So she hasn't spoken at all
yet. Who who is Luz? What does Luz have to do with the property? I'm making the application.
you know what no no no okay all right so when we come back on the third the property owner
will make the presentation unless she decides to uh retain an attorney if she doesn't have a lawyer
the property owner is the one person who will need to testify okay all right okay thank you
Thank you. Calendar number 0718-6066 Vine Street. There are no exhibits, and this was previously listed twice.
Is there anyone here for 6066 Vine Street?
I don't see any hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. MI2020-000718-6066 Vine Street. My vote is to dismiss.
My vote is to dismiss.
Dismiss.
Dismiss.
Calendar number 0086-6606 Woodland Avenue.
Property owner is Karen Gleason.
She does not have a copy of the refusal.
Ms. Gleason, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good evening, everyone.
I know everyone's tired.
Hi, please put your name and address on the record, please.
Karen Gleason, 806 Longhaker Boulevard, Yaden, PA, 19050.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I did.
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal,
plans and photos of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes. You may proceed. I'm sorry to
interject again. Yvette, can you promote her as a panelist? She will be presenting.
Okay. I apologize for that. She's been promoted to panelist.
Okay, Karen, you may proceed.
Ms. Gleason?
Now she's muted.
It was going.
It was clocking and clocking and clocking.
I don't know what happened.
I'm sorry.
Okay, you may proceed.
Rejoining me.
I do have a copy of the refusal.
okay can you share your screen sure um now i don't know how to work this i i do apologize
it's okay i'm not i'm not familiar with any of this but i don't worry karen we'll work it through
for you so if you're looking at your computer or on the zoom do you see a green button that
says share screen yes i did click on it it didn't show up oh no so when you click that right then
you go to the actual file you want us to look at and click that. And it should share it. Okay.
There we go. It's coming up for us. Okay. Okay. I'm so, I'm trying to get through this really
quickly. Everyone, I know you're tired and I appreciate your time. So this is the refusal.
Can you see it? Yes. Yes. Okay. Do you want me to proceed or? Yes. Okay.
Yes. Okay. Um, I am, um, the owner of 6606 with an avenue. I purchased a property property back in 2000, February, 2003. I would like to, it's a three story building. Um, I would like to convert it from, it was used to be two apartments and four rooms.
I am the owner of 6606 Willanair.
I want to do three individual apartments for multifamily.
But I was told it's zone RSA 3, and I would like to get a zone RSA 5 for multifamily dwelling.
I'm not doing anything else to the structure, only the redoing the floor plan inside.
That's it.
Nothing else will be done to the building.
Do you have any photographs or exhibits?
i do have some photographs now how do i get to them because i had them all up to make sure
this is the floor plan that i have um for the three apartments the first floor second floor
and third floor each one will be a two-bedroom apartment with um with a laundry room with
laundry facility. And I can give you some pictures. I did have all this. I had all this
ready and waiting as I sat there, waited. I'm sorry guys. I'm just waiting for the photo to
come up. This is the corner of across the street, the 66th street. This is just a photo to show you
that it is a commercial corridor it has commercial property is in the middle of a commercial
corridor here and I do have
okay I'm fumbling
here we go this is a picture of the property
The property right here where I'm showing you is the actual property.
On the side of it is a twin, attached twin.
And each one of these are multifamily use.
And on the side of the house, on the side, it's like a breezeway.
And then it's other, it's another structures like this.
It's six other structures going down in the same format.
And they're all multi-use.
This is the picture of the block where to show that is the commercial is commercial
at the bottom and apartments at the top.
And it's right here on the one with an avenue where it has the 11 trolley runs right past
the property and again as you can see it's all um commercial use with apartments or things like that
at the top any questions or should i tell you anything else or well currently it's a vacant
building yes it is and how long ago did you purchase this 2003 when i purchased a property
um i purchased it where i had the first floor was a room with a bathroom and a one-bedroom
apartment the second floor was three rooms in a bathroom and the third floor was a two-bedroom
apartment and it has been vacant now for approximately eight years
questions from the board no
no would anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Hello, Mr. Chair, we have Mr. Craig Melodosian here.
Yeah, I was waiting for that. Okay. Mr. Melodosian, please identify yourself with a record and
I'll swear you in.
Good evening, board.
Good evening, Board. Craig Melodosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Craig Melodosian, M-E-L-I-D.
Ward 40, Republican RCO, Coordinating RCO, P.O. Box 33355, Philadelphia, 9142.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
I'm going to refer to my notes.
I'm tired at this point.
I don't know how you guys are doing it.
We do it for the money.
We do it for the money.
It's a big paying job.
Oh, I do it for the life.
It's a big thing.
All right.
To summarize the letter of support that the Consortium of Southwest RCO sent in,
the application is for a three-family dwelling.
We support that.
We also support without the minimum accessory parking of three spaces.
The subject property is a semi-detached twin. As indicated before, it's RSA 3, sits on the 6700 block of Woodland, which is part of the Woodland Avenue Commercial Corridor.
The south block face, which it's situated upon, is 60% CMX2, 40% RSA3. Across the street, the north face is approximately 70% CMX2, 30% RM1, all with street-level retail commercial uses.
We believe the conversion of the vacant single-family dwelling is in the best interest of the vibrancy of the commercial corridor.
It will produce three new two-bedroom apartments, which are immediately accessible to the Scepter Route 11 trolley.
Additionally, the rehabilitation of the building should stabilize the usability of the eastern-attached twin.
Our experience during the year of 2020 on the same block with the demolition of 6614 Woodland Avenue is one that adversely has impacted the integrity of 6612 Woodland Avenue's western and northern elevations.
The implementation of the repurposing of the subject property would preclude a repeat of the problems at 6612 through 14 Woodland Avenue.
Further, the applicant is a graduate of the Jumpstart Southwest program conducted by the Southwest CDC to educate and encourage community members to develop real estate for their and our local community's betterment.
Thus, our support of the applicant is a further step towards realizing Jumpstart Southwest community beneficial goals.
A publicized community Zoom meeting was conducted on Monday of this week.
Three RCOs in attendance were supportive of it.
We had two people in opposition, individuals, simple as that.
We had two other individuals with no opposition.
We had one individual with support.
As indicated, the three participating RCOs are in support.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
No, the answer this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Jason. Planning Commission.
Good evening. Ariel DiLiberto here from the City Planning Commission.
This property is in a residential single-family district. The property is on a commercial corridor
and along the trolley line. We have no opposition to the granting experience. MI 2020-000086
660 Woodland Avenue. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
thank you i believe you're right concludes the 3 30 list
and this is the latest i've ever been here in four years oh you should have been here six years ago