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no the permit the underlying permit had been revoked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.