Okay, we're ready to begin our hearings.
we should be good to go chair we have 58 attendees in the room very much good morning everyone my
name is frank d chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in
today's hearing along with our board secretary mr confessor plaza and board member mr thomas
holliman mr james snell will be joining us will be i'm sorry tom president sorry about that uh our
other board member mr james snell will be joining us sometime after 10 10 30 this morning
also in attendance is our board administrator ms yvonne benton and board attorney ms rebecca cole
as is our zoning board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkit.
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 that the recording will be made available to the public by contacting Ms. Tanya Sunkit at tanya.sunkit at phila.gov.
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 make 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 leave your
email address and the address of the property at issue and also like to remind everyone please do
not attempt to testify in the chat any comments questions or concerns should be directed to our
board administrator ms yvette benton with that i will go to the first case on our add-on list
mi 2021 that's zero zero one six eight five one two four one south 50th street
uh my vote is yes uh with the proviso as amended
or z as in zebra peas and paul two zero two one dash zero zero one five three four dated
september 15th 2020 uh mr chairman uh was that 52nd street yeah i didn't read it i'm sorry
1241 South 52nd Street.
Thank you.
Confessor Plaza, yes, with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, yes, with proviso.
Professor for that.
Number two, MI 2020-001120, 348 Green Lane.
Because we don't have a full contingent of board members,
We're going to hold this until next Wednesday, November the 3rd at 9.30 a.m.
And we're also going to hold MI 2021-000336, 4401 Ridge Avenue.
That will be held for a final vote on Wednesday, November the 3rd at 9.30 a.m.
And again, that is because we don't have a full number of board members.
We have a quorum, but we don't have all five, which we should have.
With that, I'll read off requests for continuances and withdrawals on the 930 list.
Number seven, MI 2021-003421, 46 East Johnson Street, Parcel G.
4-6 East Johnson Street, Parcel G, like in George, is continued.
Number 8, MI 2020-000282.
4625 Wayne Avenue is withdrawn.
Number 11 on our list, MI 2020, excuse me, MI 2021-003392.
6113 Callow Hill Street is withdrawn. If anyone objects to the continuance or withdrawals that
I read into the record just now, please raise your hand. Only if you object to the continuances
and the withdrawal I just read into the record.
i see no hands at this time i will now ask if anyone would like to request a continuance
or withdrawal for the 9 30 list to raise your hand at this time if you're requesting a continuance
or withdrawal for the 930 list, please raise your hand at this time.
Chair, we have Stephen Lorick. Mr. Lorick, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Lorick, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Okay, that's S-T-E-P-H-E-N.
Last name, L-O-R-E-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Take the business, please.
I am a music teacher.
And I live on East 46 Johnson Street.
I would just, I'm here this morning to contest, I think, the zoning for the parking lot that will be.
All right.
You'll need to wait for that case to be called.
I thought, sorry, I thought that I may have heard that already.
I'm asking if anyone would like to have a case continued or withdrawn to raise your hand.
Okay, I understand. Sorry, this is my first time here.
No worries, no worries. We'll get back to you.
Chair, if I may, he's talking about a case that's been continued.
Which one was that?
That was East 46 Johnson Street. I did hear it. Yeah, so I was just wondering what was, yeah.
East 46.
Number seven.
number seven it's sir it's continued meaning that that uh we're not having any hearing today
on that matter it will be continued to uh for a date further out okay and the way that i find
out about that is i just uh i could same way you'll get notification they'll have to post
thank you so much okay well i appreciate you today and have a great uh wednesday you do
Likewise. Thank you. Anyone requesting a continuance or withdrawal at this time, please raise your hand.
I see no more. Just a moment. Someone just put their hand up, Jared. Joshua Likin. Mr. Likin, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
hi thank you i can please spell your full name joshua j-o-s-h-u-a l-i-k-e-n
you swear or from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you purpose of your medic um i'm i'm here for the wayne avenue property
and i need clarification on um like when you say withdrawn does that mean the the project
is not continuing they withdrew the application oh okay great okay thank you anyone else
requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you okay we'll go to case number one
mi 2021 that's zero zero three zero six one one one three zero north 41st street
Mr. Mattione is the attorney of record. The Viola Street Residents Association sent a letter of support.
Mr. Mattione will be rejoining as a panelist here.
Good morning, Mr. Mattione. Please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr.
Excuse me.
Michael Mattione, that's M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest.
Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
You swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
All right, thank you.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Yes, Mr. Marioni, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate its accuracy?
and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof of
tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this error
yes and have you met with the rco and have a letter yes we have and we go thank you mr plaza
okay good morning mr chairman and members of the board
i represent eugene knight of it she is on the call and available as well
he is the owner of this property at 1130 north 41st street and we have submitted as you can see
on the screen our tax clearance certificate refusal and two rco support letters one from
centennial parkside they are actually the coordinating rco and one from the viola street
Residence Association. We got the Centennial Parkside letter on Monday. We
didn't have it in time to send in when we initially sent everything in. And
renderings, the tax clearance, floor plans, and the zoning site plan, photographs,
etc. is required. I want to go to the support letter from Centennial. They are
a six unit project, the client had originally proposed seven units, met with the RCO, they
said proposed six, so he proposed six and he filed it as six, because we met with them
prior to filing the application to get their feel for what they wanted to see in the project.
Mr. Nidovich is seeking a variance.
This is a multifamily zone.
He's seeking a multifamily structure.
He's seeking to permit six units where four are permitted.
the six units are requested by the rco as stated in their letter they support it and it was a
unanimous supportive i scroll down and show the vote sheet from the the rco meeting
where it was a nine nine to nothing with six units
this proposal is uh for the property that's next door to the property at 1132 north 41st street
This board granted a variance for 1132 North 41st Street on July 21st, 2021, to be a six-unit structure.
We're basically seeking to build the same exact structure next door to the 1130, next door to 1132.
And as you can see from the rendering, 1132 is here.
It's already approved, and this is 1130.
And we would match it.
we would have the front porch tie in with it Mr. Nidovich also owns 1132 these would be developed
at the same time as you can see they're very similar to 1124 and 1126 with the front porch
with the red brick front facade and that's what the community would like to see here
after we met with them they'd like to see this built the same it's a mirror image technically
It's basically the same project as 1132 that was approved back in July.
The uses again are permitted, it's multifamily, we're seeking a minor adjustment to have six
units as requested by the RCO.
So the RCO requested this so that we can have, at the lower level and at the first floor,
front and rear, we have bi-level units.
They're both two bedrooms and two bath units.
And then on the second floor and the third floor, you have one bedroom unit in the front,
one bedroom unit in the back. The lower level units are about 1,000 square feet. The upper
four units are about 500 square feet. That gives a variety of units, and that's what
the RCO asked us to provide. As I already showed the renderings, it will blend in with
the other neighboring properties. As you can see, there's multifamily properties everywhere
in this community and we're basically building essentially what's already now
these buildings are abandoned hopefully they'll be redeveloped but we wanted to
follow the RCO like the the porch and the way it mimics the porch on those
reports on those properties as well again we're doing this infill and that will basically fill
properties as well
in that block hopefully these the properties 11 24 11 26 will get rehab soon just want to show
some site photos this is the study vacant it looks like there's some work going on 11 26.
In the site photos, just showing the vacant lot.
And then that's the neighboring property.
They were in property looking towards the property in question.
Some additional neighboring properties.
Again, that's 11.4 and then that's looking to the south down 41st Street.
across the street you have a multi-family structure there i believe that's six units as well
again multi-family looking towards uh gerard avenue again looking to the north
and just additional vacant properties surrounding the the property
There's not a lot of development going on in this area. There are a significant number
of vacant properties. The use is permitted. Again, it's in conformity with the property
next door at 1132, which has six units. This is six units. It's a mirror image of what
was approved in July. It's fully supported by the RCO. In fact, they requested that we
have six units and it match 1132 the modest rents will be charged we'll have the four one bedroom
and two two bedroom units community benefits this will you know fill in this vacant lot with
something that matches what was already approved at 1132 we meet all the dimensional requirements
height open area rear yard requirements again we'll have the front porch so the architecture
will mimic pretty much what's already there at 1124 and 1126.
Mr. Nidovich has a long track record of responsible development in the area.
The RCO knows him. He's well-respected.
Variants will not endanger public health, but will benefit by developing a vacant property.
Again, we won't have a negative impact on the transportation network for using the property,
no matter consistent with surrounding properties.
will not have any adverse impact on the area it's a multi-family zoning district and it will reduce
the likelihood of environmental damage by having this and the vacant lot at 1132 both built upon
making it less likely to be illegal dumping adding eyes and ears to the street mr chairman i would
like to call on eugene knightovich my client who's who should be please uh please when you
get on spell your full name and I swear you in Mr. Nidovich just speak now yep
name is Eugene Nidovich E-U-E-N-E last name is N-A-Y-D-O-V-I-C-H
I'm going to tell you the truth, the whole truth, not the truth.
Thank you.
Mattione.
Eugene, did you hear my statements today?
I did.
Are they true and correct?
They are.
Do you have any further comments to add to the board?
We've been working with the community for a while.
We meet with some of these projects before applying for anything.
And we always have a large portion of our units be very affordable.
especially in some of these areas also in the back we want to have private trash pickup that's
accessible through the building for everybody as well as an alley in the back so that there's
never going to be any trash in the front um and in addition to everything that michael said yes
and do you adopt my statements as your testimony i do yes i have nothing further mr chairman
questions from the board no mr chairman no else would anyone else like to testify in this case
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Morning, Chair DeChico.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia State Planning Commission.
That's H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you.
thank you please proceed thank you sir uh members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Members of the board, the conference.
no change to the existing rm1 multi-family zoning at this location the applicants not
demonstrated any physical conditions in his testimony that would justify a hardship claim
just want to note we don't have any objection to the massing of the building especially given its
consistency with the adjacent structures however i really must emphasize that six units could be
constructed by right, that's as a matter of right here at this location, if the applicant were to
participate in the mixed income housing bonus program, instead of providing the affordable
unit, the applicant is instead sidestepping this vitally important program and asking for the
board to allow this level of unit density without any contribution to the actual supply of actual
affordable housing that is deed restricted rent capped housing that has an agreement between the
department of planning and development and the developer we strongly recommend that the board
deny this variance and ask the applicant to reapply for a buy right permit with participation
in the mixed income housing bonus i'm sorry to get on a bit of a soapbox about this but we see
this a lot and it really is a detriment to the contribution of affordable housing in our
communities. Thank you. Thank you. You care to address that? Is there any reason why that was
not the fair housing was not applied? It was not applied for because the applicant met with the
community. The community said, you know, we don't see a need for this. In this case, you've been
a longstanding developer in this community. We understand that, you know, you do a good product,
you recharge reasonable rents as it is, and we don't see any need for you to actually go through
the time, cost, and expense of applying for this program when we know how you are and we understand
and we fully support you without going through the project. It was because of the meeting with
the RCO and at their request that we didn't seek the mixed income bonus as set forth in the zoning
code as permitted in the zoning code. And this board did approve 1132, which is the exact mirror
image of this project without uh the mixed income bonus there either and the same circumstances
apply to that so they the community said we fully support you and this is what we would like you to
do so we were basically following the lead and the request of the rco in this application
mr hagerty do you happen to know whether uh what happened with 1132 was the did we meet the
requirements then or was it uh just a straight out request that we're having today uh with the
adjacent property sir yes the board granted the variance and it was a similar application
and similar building um and the board granted those units without any contribution to the fund
or uh production of affordable housing and with all due respect do you know what would you happen
though if the planning position the planning commission's position was the same as you're
stating today yes it was sir okay uh i'd like to say uh mi 2021-003061 1130 north 41st street
uh the record's closed the board will discuss this and and make a recommendation at next
Wednesday's executive session. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Number two on our
list, MI 2021-003066, 1131 South 19th Street. Vern Anastasio is the attorney of record.
My notes indicate there was no letter yet from the Point Breeze Community Development
Corporation. I'm sure Mr. Anastasio will be able to clear that up. So, Mr. Anastasio, when you get
on, identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in. He's coming back in as a panelist
now, Chair. Thank you. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Please identify yourself, and I'll swear
Verne Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, 19107.
Do you want to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Plaza. I have some questions for you.
Mr. Anastasio, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate your attackers?
I do. The new refusal dated 10-26-2021.
Okay. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I have met with the RCO. We met on Monday. They are preparing a letter, and they anticipate sending it sometime this week.
I have met with the RCO. We met on Monday.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share my screen, if that's okay.
Please do.
1131 south 19th street this is a revised refusal dated 10 26 2021 this has been sent to the board
prior to today's hearing the application is for prepared food shop on the first floor
and a portion of the second floor with the two family dwelling units on the second and third
floor in the existing structure. That application triggered a referral for the prepared food shop
and a refusal for the two family dwelling. So with that, we did meet with the RCO.
We have petitions of support from immediate neighbors.
This is, pull in a little bit here.
The basement is for prep.
First floor is for the food prep and some seating.
Second floor, half of it will be some seating.
This is going to be an apartment, but it's not going to be for rent.
it's going to be for when the owner is in town for them to actually have a place to stay or the
manager and then the top floor will be a one-family dwelling so although we're asking for a two-family
dwelling only one will ultimately be leased out on a regular basis this is the side
There are some photos, application, the PIF, the letter that went out to the neighbors, the deed.
And this is Love Vegan Bistro.
This is primarily a breakfast and lunch place that will serve, focus on vegan, healthy eating, sustainable products.
My client is Silvia Lucci, who is here today. They already have a restaurant in Hatboro. They'd like to open one here on South 19th Street. They've pledged for a commercial trash pickup. They offer delicious, affordable vegan food. That's their approach.
They have been winners of the Greater Philadelphia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award.
All their ingredients are locally and organically sourced.
All packaging, 100% of it is 100% compostable.
As I showed you, signatures of support.
We had a really good RCO meeting on Monday.
They just needed some extra time in order to get the letter to you.
So I'm respectfully requesting that this matter be reviewed and then a resumption in two weeks to read the letter into the record if the board so chooses so a decision can be made.
And with that, I'm going to ask my client, Sylvia Lucci, to raise her hand and be recognized.
miss lucci you can unmute yourself and speak now thank you i did good morning ma'am please spell
your first and last name and i'll swear you in silvia lucci s-i-l-v-i-a-l-u-c-c-i
and do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Anastasia.
Thank you, Mr. DiCicco.
Ms. Lucci, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
Yes, I did.
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Do you have anything to add about your vision at your operation
and what you'd like to bring to this neighborhood, briefly?
No, you have really encompassed what we're trying to do,
which is, we're a family business
that is coming into the community.
We're not developers, we're just going,
this is going to be very personal to us.
Very good.
And you've agreed to the commercial trash pickup,
the exterior lighting,
and all the other items that were mentioned
at the RCO meeting, is that correct?
Yes, and security,
that's what they were very interested to camera to have.
And I committed myself to have that added to the,
could be related to the security, yes.
be related to the security, yes.
Understood.
Understood.
And your hours are fairly limited.
It's not a late night sort of food place.
Is that correct?
And how late is your other operation?
It's eight o'clock.
And I do want to mention that we have another location.
We are the owners of the first and only vegan deli
at the Reading Terminal for the five years.
And they really abide by us.
if that is important yes it is thank you very much i have nothing else mr chairman thank you
any questions from the board no mr chairman no anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand i see no other hands at this time chair you planning commission
thank you chairman chico and hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx1 zoning at this location
where this property has a prior documented use as a three-family dwelling with a commercial
unit on the ground floor with regard to the prepared food use the proposed use will not
cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected for this
use and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variance and special
exception. Thank you very much. MI 2021-003066, 1131 South 19th Street. There will be a resumption
hearing on. I need a date and time, ladies, at which time we will consider any feedback related
to the RCO's position. Yvette or Tanya, do you have a specific date for the resumption? Only for
the purpose of the letter from the rco whatever date you wish chair if it's just the reading of
the letter okay 11 11 9 mr chairman if that's good or 11 10 that's uh tuesday or 11 10 11 10.
okay so this case will be resumed on november the 10th at 9 30 a.m at which time the board
will consider any feedback related to the rco's position thank you very much have a nice day
thank you case number three mi 2021-003 423 129 west roosevelt boulevard
barbara fulton i believe is the uh as a pro se case the owner of the property
ms fulton if you're out there
ms fulton if you're here can you please raise your hand
notes indicate there were no exhibits and this is the first listing she may not be ready
i see no one with that name at this time chair but hillary emerson does have her hand up
yeah miss emerson please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
good morning mr chair members of the board hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman
sherelle parker affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
okay the um in this case the the rco meeting was held and the applicant
submitted um some exhibits actually even prior to the rco meeting and i forwarded those
um to sharon last night when i saw that there were no exhibits listed i think she was still
missing one or two things um but i have not heard from her so i i would i would have thought she
would have wanted to try to proceed today because i know she was up against some financing deadlines
um but i mean if the case needs to be continued it needs to be continued
yeah but there were there were some yeah there were some exhibits that were submitted we'll have
continue with but thank you so mi 2021-003423 129 west roosevelt boulevard this case is continued
must be heard
excuse me sir you're unmuted
I have a paper on top of my computer. Sorry about that. Thank you. MI 2021-003064,
2323 Jefferson Street. Steve Bertil is the attorney of record. Brewery Town,
Sharswood Community Civic Association sent a letter of support.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Bertil. Please spell your name and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, Claire Harrison, Harvey and Bransburg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Please swear from the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Mr. Bertel, you agree to wait through reading of its refusal and stipulate to attackers?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Yes to both.
Please proceed.
Thank you very much.
Start sharing my screen.
Okay, good morning again, members of the board, Mr. Chairman.
As stated, my name is Steve Bertil.
I just want to confirm that you're seeing my screen share currently.
Should be a zoning map.
We do.
As stated, we're here for 2323 Jefferson Street.
I represent the applicant, Frankel Enterprises, the properties owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
This application is part of a collaboration with PHA, Council President Darrell Clark's office in the city of Philadelphia to provide much-needed workforce housing in the city of Philadelphia.
Frankel Enterprises has a history of doing affordable and workforce housing projects in the city.
an idea is to increase the supply of workforce housing as an objective of the city's 2018
housing action plan. And so the idea for the workforce housing program in Philadelphia
was created to help maintain affordability for Philadelphians in a particular income range,
such as teachers, firefighters, and others who work every day and live in neighborhoods that are
becoming increasingly unaffordable for their budgets. And so this project is part of that
initiative. So we're here today to request a variance relief for the erection of a D-TAC
structure that houses 36 workforce housing dwelling units with one-to-one accessory parking.
The property in question, as you can see, is on this RM2. It's on 2323 Jefferson Street,
between 24th and 22nd street. It's a zoning map. The property is currently, there's an aerial here
for your reference. The property is currently a, excuse me, the property is currently a vacant lot.
It's about 62,000 square feet. The refusals that we have, as you can see here by the notice of
refusal is due to two-dimensional refusals, which is the rear yard depth and the gross
area, floor area of the proposed structures. And then also two refusals for the amount
of bike parking and the electric vehicle parking. And so under the current zoning designation,
We required 12 bicycle spaces. We're not proposing any. And then we're also required two electric vehicle sort of plug-in spaces, and we're not proposing any as well.
The proposed project, let me go to plans here. The proposed project is, as I stated, 36 housing units. All the units are three stories, two and a half baths.
Generally, most of the units, about 30 of them are about 1400, a little over 14 and a half hundred square feet.
And there are six units that are the corner units that are a little bit bigger, about 1500 square feet.
What you're looking at on the screen is an elevation on the Jefferson Street.
There's some more elevation so you get a sense of the exterior of the project.
There's an additional rendering. As you can see, the exterior is mostly brick broken up
by some siding. And here's the area, so you can see sort of the placement of the project
on the lot. As you can see, there's an abundant amount of green space, a walking path, and
and the accessory parking that you can see here as well.
the accessory parking that you can see here as well.
We did meet with the community.
We met with Brewers Town Charlesworth
Community Civic Association, as you can see here.
Please report that received a letter of support
from that community group.
Here is a copy of their meeting summary report
showing that we had no votes in opposition.
we had 15 votes in support and no opposition and two abstainees. And as such, because we believe
that this project is vital to establishing the workforce housing within the city and that the
variances are de minimis in nature and sort of necessary for the placement and get the amount
of density we want for the unit counts on the parcel, we believe the variance is appropriate
here and ask for the board to grant that. With me, I have Max Frankel, who, if he could raise
his hand, to be recognized from Frankel Enterprises, who can adopt and affirm my testimony.
Hey, Steve, how are you?
Hey, Max. How are you doing?
Doing well.
If he could be sworn in.
Sir, you, sorry.
Please tell your full name.
Yeah, sir, please spell your full name.
I'll swear you will.
Excuse me, sir, you're muted.
Sorry.
Max Frankel, M-A-X-F-R-A-N-K-E-L.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Bertil.
Max, did you hear the testimony and what I've provided to the board this morning?
I did.
Do you affirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as their own?
Do you have anything you'd like to add?
Unless the board has any questions.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Q.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
i see no hands at this time chair you planning commission thank you chairman to chico ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing rm2 multi-family zoning at this location with
regard to the dimensional variances the proposed buildings are generally consistent with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the variances do not conflict with the purpose
and spirit of the zoning code. However, with regard to the use variance for bicycle parking,
we don't think the applicant has met the burden of proof to demonstrate that there's a hardship
for not being able to provide that. There hasn't really been any presentation of evidence linking
the omission of bicycle parking to a unique physical condition of the site, and so we
therefore recommend that the board um deny the variance for bicycle parking while granting all
the other variances so could you address that for you um sure let me just bring it back up
are you seeing my my aerial
Got it now. Okay. So the inclusion of bicycle parking. Well, first, in terms of the actual
site, we wanted to maximize the site for green space and the parking to keep one-to-one parking
as much as possible. As you can see, all of the units are street facing here. And so the rear
opens up into just the green space for most of the, well, not most, all of the lots. And then
the circulation that we need for the parking is what's utilizing for anything that's not green
space so basically every exterior space here is either for circulation to the parking for one-to-one
or for green space for the units because as we know particularly in this area green space
is hard to come by and so we just prioritized that and we thought that in terms of the target
let's say demographics of the workforce housing program we wanted to prioritize providing those
spaces over bicycle parking excuse me council could you use one of the parking spaces for bikes
uh we a unit would lose right now we have one-to-one parking
A unit would lose. Right now we have one-to-one parking and a unit would lose.
But that was a goal one-to-one. That's not a necessity.
Sure. It's definitely not a necessity, but we believe in terms of amenity for the workforce
housing projects, if this was a market rate sort of project.
But it's not market. You're only using one parking space for bikes.
Right. My point was that what I was trying to get to was that I don't believe that because
this is workforce housing that they should be, that the type of amenities that they would
obtain, if it was market rate, should be reduced because it's workforce housing. I think they
should get the same type of amenities. And if this was market rate, it would essentially,
you know, that would be the goal. And so I don't believe that workforce housing should have,
should be, those type of amenities should be mitigated just because it's workforce housing.
Sure. Steve, can I chime in here for one second?
Sure. Sure. So as Steve mentioned, this is, yes, this is Mr. Frankel.
um as steve mentioned previously this is workforce housing this is deed restricted income restricted
housing that is being sold at 250 000 the reason that this is not subdivided into single family
units is given that the common space is here but for all intents and purposes these are single
family homes and single family units the idea for the lack of communal bicycle parking comes from
the idea steve is mentioning that there is ample green space and privatized green space associated
with each unit that allows for each tenant to be able to park their bicycle or any other vehicle
that they might have within the confines and gates of their own home rather than having a community
parking for bicycles. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you. Any more questions?
No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
no hands chair thank you again like we already asked the planning commission correct
that's correct mr chair thank you thank you for that explanation mr frankel
MI 2021-003064, 2323 Jefferson Street.
My vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, yes.
Thomas Harman, yes.
Case number five, MI 2021-003089, 2456 Frankfurt Avenue.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney of record.
east kensington neighbors association sent a letter of support and councilman mark swillis
sent a letter of non-opposition and i believe there may be revised plans should the board decide
to approve this here we have um brandon coming in as a panelist now
Mr. Saveron, there you go. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Brandon Saveron, B-R-A-N-D-O-N-S as in Sam, A-V as in Victor, R-A-N with Pritzker Law Group.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Pluz has some questions for you.
Yes, sir. Do you agree to waive the region of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, we did.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes. The RCO is ECNA. We have a letter of support.
We also have a letter of support from a secondary RCO, which was the Fishtown-Kensington Business District.
I'll make sure I got the name correct there, but answer is yes.
May I proceed?
Thank you. Yes, you may.
Thank you.
So let me actually, I'll get back to that secondary RCO letter in one moment.
I'm going to share my screen.
okay um so good morning uh mr chairman members of the board um the property uh we are speaking
about today is a proposed consolidation of what is currently six lots um these lots are located
on the 2400 block of frankfort avenue um the proposed consolidation would join two lots
on Frankfurt with four lots on Martha Street and basically would create a through lot.
What we're proposing is a 16-unit mixed-use development with one commercial space fronting
Frankfurt Avenue. Let me just scroll through the exhibit packet briefly. And before I do that,
I will just confirm that we did submit one page of revised plans to the board last week.
So here's the location on the zoning map of the proposed consolidated parcel. The four lots on Martha Street are very small. They are each about 650 square feet.
The two Frankfurt Avenue lots, I think, are a shade under 1,200 square feet each.
And I'll get to the refusal in a moment, but when we set out to
sort of choose what to do with this site and to show you they are all vacant, this is the aerial
view. Here is the view from Frankfurt Avenue. If we did not consolidate the lots, we could have
two, you know, fairly narrow commercial spaces on Frankfurt Avenue, since this is zoned CMX,
and four very small homes on Martha Street. But instead, we really, one goal here was to get
like a modern sized commercial space on Frankfurt that would be wider. In order to do that,
We started thinking about consolidation. And the sort of problem with consolidation, and I'll get to the refusal here to discuss this. Consolidating puts the entire site, if you take all six lots that we're proposing, RSA 5 would govern the consolidated site rather than CMX 2 under the code's new multiple district site.
rules. So that sort of triggered a lot of different variances because RSA 5 is a strict
zoning designation. And then we began to think through what we could design to sort of reduce
some of these refusals. So the revised plans will knock off some of these refusals, and I'm going to
go through them one by one in a second, and I'll tell you which of them remain relevant to the
current plan. Just to go back to my packet for one moment, more photos along Frankfurt Avenue.
Bear with me, I just want to get to the letters. So here is the meeting summary from ECNA,
who was the coordinating RCO. Strong support from the community here. If you look at the vote tally,
which was 21 in support, two in opposition, six in non-opposition. Here is their letter that was
attached to the voting summary. And here is a letter of non-opposition from Councilman
Squilla's office. The secondary RCO I mentioned is the Fishtown Kensington Area Business Improvement
District, who also offered a letter of support. We also have some near-neighbor letters of
support, but I'll save you from that presentation. So back to the refusal here briefly. We are
going to have a refusal for multifamily given that we're proposing 16 units. That sticks even
with the revised plan. We're going to have a refusal for offering commercial space along
Frankfurt Avenue because the entire site is governed by RSA 5 now that we're consolidating,
although I would pose to you that commercial use along Frankfurt Avenue is entirely appropriate
here. This block of Frankfurt Avenue Avenue has many commercial uses, and I can go through them
if you'd like, but otherwise you can take my word. Yeah, I think we're familiar with that.
Okay. Yes, Mr. Chair. And then the other three refusals down here, the height refusal is going
to stay. I think we dropped the height in the revised plan slightly. It's still over 40 feet.
The two refusals for minimum roof deck setback and the solar collector will no longer apply as we brought those two issues into conformity with.
will no longer apply as we brought those two issues into conformity with the code in the
revised plan that the architect will walk through in a moment. And I think that we sort of attested
to that in our proviso plans change form if the board needs further detail in writing on the
changes. But again, the remaining refusals, excuse me, are multifamily, commercial use,
and the height. So with that, I'm going to allow Amanda Bonelli to share her screen and I'll stop
sharing mine and she'll show you the plan. Thank you. Good morning, ma'am. Please spell your full
name and I'll swear you in. She's coming back in as a panelist now, chair. Thank you.
please spell your first and last name and i'll square you in
excuse me you need to unmute
there you go
hello miss bonelli
can you hear me
barely you have to speak up or turn your volume up
Just speak loudly. It's faint.
Good morning.
Spell your first and last name.
Amanda Benelli.
A-M-A-N-T-A.
B as in boy.
O-N-T-L-L-I.
I swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
i do ma'am you're still a little bit muffled i don't know if you're too far away or maybe
can you turn up your volume can you hear me now a little bit better
try again please
Amanda if we're not able to hear you I will um sort of narrate but could you at least share
the plans on your screen are you able to do that and I can do it if not just let us know
okay we can see them thank you
do you want to present yeah sure so um i'll just walk through the plans briefly um so the um
sort of uh site plan is in the the bottom center there that shows the consolidation of the lot
there's a building uh section on the bottom left um that sort of shows you where the commercial
would be located on the first floor on the frankfurt avenue side um there is um really
sort of a kink in the building um if you kind of remember the zoning map i showed you the
that sort of shape of the building accommodates the shape of the lots and we sort of build a notch
into the middle section to create a really nice size courtyard that will allow more light into
the units um and also uh an outdoor space uh for the residents there is bicycle parking by the way
um with this proposal we did not get a refusal for that um amanda can you um just show a rendering or
two so amanda you you sort of uh i think what we're looking at here is uh is this the frankfort
avenue side of the building yes it is so um mr chair on the left side of what would be the
storefronts of display windows is like a gateway into a open corridor that goes into that courtyard
thanks amanda yep you can keep going if you have another rendering
this is the Martha Street side of the project so um uh no commercial space here um that that's sort
of a the back end of that same channel that goes into the courtyard um and what you sort of have
there is an architecturally interesting um entry stoop um under the curvature of the rest of the
building with some doorways into it. Those on the upper left are private decks for some of the
units. And then there will be a common roof deck with a solar canopy at the top.
at the top and we adjusted that roof deck so we no longer have any dimensional refusals for it
And we adjusted that roof deck. So we
by putting in the proper offset from the street um since we're having some technical difficulties
i'll i'll rest there and uh the board has any questions yeah do you need to have your client
adopt your chance of the money yeah that would be great so the representative for the client is um
Donnie or Danielle Assarelli.
Ms. Assarelli, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Yes, I believe I have.
Can you hear me?
Yes, please spell your first and last name.
First name is Daniela, D-A-N-I-E-L-A.
The last name is Ascarelli. A-S-C-A-R-E-L-L-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Sadler.
Hi, Donnie. Were you able to hear my testimony this morning?
I was.
Was it true and accurate?
Yes, it was.
And would you therefore adopt it as your own?
I would.
Thank you.
Thank you.
any questions from the board no mr chairman anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand chair we have someone with the last four digits of their phone number five
zero five six you can unmute yourself and speak now
caller on five zero five six please unmute yourself if you would like to speak regarding this case
excuse me anyone else you need to press six to unmute yourself
Star six. Chair, the hand has disappeared. Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair. Thank you, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair DeChico. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board, in 2016, the zoning map was amended from RM1 to CMX2 and RSA5 at this
location and this was done in accordance with uh recommendations from the comprehensive plan
the intent of the remapping was to encourage commercial and residential mixed use on frankfort
avenue while supporting the single family row homes on martha street the proposed configuration
meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan and recommended and adopted zoning in terms of use
and overall massing the overall unit density is slightly higher than would be allowed in either
zoning district applying to the lot but we feel that reflects the hardship presented by the lots
irregular shape so we would therefore recommend that the board grant all the variances in this case
chair you're muted
mr savran uh is it one page of revised plan yes it is mr chair okay thank you mi
MI 2021-0030892456 Frankfort Avenue.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Revised plan one page approved today.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you. Case number six, MI 2021-003-058-307 Lombard Street. Jared Klein is the attorney of
record, Society Hill Civic Association. I'm not aware of a letter that we've received as of yet,
but Mr. Klein, I'm sure you'll clear that up for us. Please identify yourself.
Back in as a panelist now, Chair.
I'll swear your full name and I'll swear you in.
Absolutely.
It's Jared Klein, K-L-E-I-N, from Blank, Rome, 130 North 18th Street, Philadelphia, 19103.
Do you want to tell the truth, all truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Does Mr. Klein, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I can waive the reading.
We do have a question about the accuracy of the height refusal, but we're not making this an appeal against LNI.
So we will proceed with the refusal as is, but we're not stipulating to accuracy.
Okay, and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Okay, and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have. And I was joining as a panelist. I heard the chair ask whether we do have a letter. Yes, we do have a letter from Society Hill Civic. And I believe that Paul Bonney is on the Zoom also and will articulate the civics position.
Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen and make sure everybody can
see that. Is that appearing for everybody? Yes. Great. So I have the pleasure of representing
St. Peter's Church this morning, and this application is to expand the church campus
to allow them to offer a wider variety of services to the surrounding community.
St. Peter's Church has been at 3rd and Lombard for a very, very long time and has become an integral member of the surrounding community.
And this application is to use one of the locks that is contained within the campus to build a new structure that would serve as a parish hall, meeting house, and offer other uses that are accessory to the church next door.
The reason that we received the refusals are because each of the lots that make up the St. Peter's
campus is its own OPA lot. We can't have uses that are accessory to another address. And so
the zoning code requires us to go through the variance process to use this separate OPA lot
in conjunction with the lots next door. We also received a refusal for some fencing,
which you will see as I go through the presentation.
With regard to the refusal that I raised a question about,
we believe that the height refusal is really indicative of a misinterpretation
of the mechanicals that are on top of the proposed roof.
The height of all of the structures will not exceed 38 feet.
There is a portion that goes higher, but again, that's for mechanical use,
and we're not sure that the examiner got it right.
But as I'll explain, given the context of the community support,
we don't believe that there's an issue with that. Just to orient the board to the location,
this is the St. Peter's campus here. The proposed location of the building is this lot here.
And so in terms of a hardship, what we have is a lot that is surrounded by a
active church use here and the St. Peter's religious school use here. And so that sort
of unique context of the site creates a hardship for the use of this lot if it wasn't to be used for
a religious purpose. Zoning map, the entire thing is zoned RM1 with a variety of other uses that's
surrounded. To orient the board to the site, these are some photos of the site as it exists today.
And these are photos taken of the surrounding corners and nearby structures.
and photos of posting of the zoning notices on both sides of the property. Now, we do have
revised plans that are going to be three pages, and I'll share those now. This is the overall
site plan. You can see that this is the area of the new structure here. We're going to have the
main ingress and egress um coming uh off of the side street not on lombard street a number of
the near neighbors had some concern with people queuing on the sidewalk uh if there were events
taking place and so we've assured them that the doors to lombard street are going to be egress
only and will not be an access point um to give the board a better sense of what this might look
like. Here are some elevations. This is the mechanical area that I was speaking about here
but the height to the roof does not exceed 38 feet at any point. This is a conceptual rendering
of what the building will look like when it's completed and some additional renderings of
exterior views just to give the board a sense of the context of how this will fit within the
neighborhood. As I mentioned we did have a meeting with the Society Hill Civic. It was a very good
conversation. Their letter of support with Proviso is on the screen in front of you.
And I can share that this was a Proviso that was mutually developed between my client and
the RCO, something that we feel is appropriate given the uses that we're applying for.
As you can see, the RCO notes that they're generally supportive of the church and its
operations. The concern was that if the church were to sell this to a third party, a more general
variance approval might allow a future user to use the event space in a way that wasn't consistent
with the religious use. You know, we anticipate the space being used for Paris.
with the religious use um you know we anticipate the space being used for parish events uh you know
weddings funeral receptions um those other sorts of events that go along with what a church would
use its meeting hall for and there's parish halls throughout the city that have a similar concept
we understand the civic association's concern with the future user they've suggested the proviso
that you see on the screen that would note that all uses authorized by the variants shall
be related to the operations of St. Peter's Church located at 313 Pine and all major events
occurring pursuant to such uses shall be conducted with the church's approval. That's language
that we are comfortable with and if the board has no objection we would allow that to be
included as a proviso to whatever conclusion the board might reach today. As I mentioned
Paul Bonney from Society Hill is also on. He can further articulate that. But as you can see,
the vote of the meeting was largely in support of the application. I could spend a lot of time
on the architecture and I have them on the line, but I don't think the board needs that level of
detail. What I would ask is for the Reverend Sarah Hedges-Kleagerman to virtually raise her hand,
so she might adopt my testimony.
Ms. Kligerman, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good morning, Reverend. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Sure. Sarah Hedges Kligerman, S-A-R-A-H-H-E-D-G-I-S hyphen K-L-I-G-E-R-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Klein?
Thank you. Good morning, Reverend.
did you have an opportunity to listen to my presentation? I did. And would you adopt my
testimony as true, correct, and your own? I would. Thank you. Was there anything else that you wanted
to share with the board about the context of this application? Yes, thank you. As I said,
I'm the Reverend Sarah Hedges-Kligerman, and I'm the sabbatical rector at St. Peter's at Third and
Pine. And I wanted to take a second to say thank you to the board for considering our application
and to give just a brief context around the why of this project. So since our establishment in 1761,
St. Peter's has been a vibrant and active faith community, and we're blessed that this continues
today. We're a church that gathers more than just on Sundays. We have a food cupboard that
distributes food to those among us without enough to eat. We offer world-class musical training to
children and youth through our Chorister Academy, and we are seeking all the time to be better
stewards of creation through our eco-ministry initiatives. Even during the pandemic, we've
welcomed 20 new members to St. Peter's, and we're grateful that we seem to be meeting a larger need
in the community. And as one of the clergy of St. Peter's, I can tell you that the greatest
obstacle to our continued vibrancy is the lack of space. I wanted to say that we see this building
as an expansion of our ministry, that instead of giving out groceries only, we could host community
meals. We would have space for children to not only come and sing as choristers, but to study
and do their homework before and after. And as you'll see on the architecture plans, neighbors
who already enjoy taking walks with their friends and pets through our churchyard would be able to
stroll through the additional gardens and green space this project would bring. I believe that
wherever two or three are gathered, God is present. And after COVID, I think we can all agree
that humans have a way of finding out how we can connect to each other, even in the most
unusual circumstances. But I could only imagine how much more St. Peter's could do if we had the
space to be in community, hence our presence here today. Having grounded us in the why of this
project, I'll say thank you again. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I don't have anything further
other than to remind you that we have three pages of revised plans if the board is inclined to
proceed. Right, and I'm going to ask you at some point to pull up that letter again. I have some
language that Ms. Saleta gave me this morning about the variance relation related to the
operations but i'll use your exact language because i have an address of 317 pine i suppose
i suspect it should be 313 pine uh my screen should hopefully be shared again you can see
that you got it right there so when i'm ready when we're ready to vote on it i'll
i'll refer to that uh anyone else to testify in this case
here we have mr bonnie with his hand up
bonnie good morning you can unmute yourself and speak now
good morning mr bonnie please spell your name and i swear you
Good morning, Mr. Bonney. Please spell your name, and I swear you won't.
Good morning. My name is Paul Bonney. My last name is spelled B-O-N-I.
You're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm the chair of the Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee of Society of Civic. I'm also an attorney.
and um i think um our position was accurately conveyed i just want to make a couple comments
um for the for the board's benefit um you know this is a big project in our neighborhood um i
think there are some pros and cons but we come out um net uh as as supportive of this generally
is assuming the proviso can be granted. I think there will be, you know, an increased number of
people coming to the neighborhood, to this facility, maybe looking for parking, which is
always tough in our neighborhood. And there may be, you know, more activity, which is sometimes
unsettling to people. But on the pro side, you know, this is going to expand the St. Peter's
church campus and operations. And, you know, we really have, you know, there are no better
neighbors for the community than St. Peter's Church in all the things that they do. Also,
I think on actually the parking issue, it removes a surface parking lot, which, you know, isn't
really the best thing to have in the middle of our neighborhood. And of course, I think the design,
the architectural design of this building is really fantastic, something that we look forward
to. So that's why we really come out in support of this. As far as our proposal, I think we look
at it at this. If a New York City catering and event company would come to our neighborhood and
want to put this sort of in our neighborhood, you know, for private purposes and corporate
events and things, you know, we would have much more concern. But given that this is, you know,
affiliated with St. Peter's Church and is going to, everything's going to occur under their sort
of umbrella, that's why this, that's why we're supportive. And also that's why this proviso is
here it in in theory the church could sell off this property in you know 30 years um to a new
york city um you know to to that other scenario and that's what um you know we want to make sure
this stays with the church in terms of their approval and um you know and is related to their
operation so that's the purpose of the uh that's the purpose of the proviso so thank you very much
i'm happy to answer any questions thank you uh board have any questions no mr chairman thank you
uh anyone else to testify in this case chairman we have someone with a hand up by the name of
albert albert you can unmute yourself and speak now
i believe i'm trying to unmute am i being yes you are you are unmuted spell your full name
please uh thank you mr chairman uh my name is albert meinster common spelling albert last name
is M as in Mary, E-I, N as in Nancy, S-T-E-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I'm a Society Hill resident
and a member of the Society Hill Civic Association, and I've been elected to the board of directors
of that association, representing the neighbors who live in the area of the proposed parish
campus.
I think Mr. Bonney has expressed fairly well some of the attitudes that we have toward
the project.
However, in speaking with neighbors, there is a major concern about the increase in traffic,
parking availability and noise and as Mr. Bonnie pointed out you know there is a trade-off
we're receiving an improvement in the area however there there are some negatives
and I think those negatives have to be looked at and minimized as much as possible
My concern is that the large great hall that the drawing seems to specify can be used for affairs, drawing large numbers.
my concern is that the large grade hall that the drawing
One would assume that those affairs would be held by parish members, although there's no guarantee of that.
And that's where my fear and the fear of some of the neighbors that I've spoken to.
And by the way, as a representative, I have made it a point to speak to neighbors in that area.
And so the concern I'm expressing is not only my own, but with that hall being made available to non-church members,
there exists the possibility of a more frequent use than one would anticipate if confined to church members.
Now, reading through the proposal, I see nothing that does confine the church members.
And there is a fear that in order to raise funds for the operation of the church, use of the hall may be extended, may be extended to non-members.
And what we may have in our neighborhood is a venue, is a venue for affairs.
We're very concerned about that.
And so I asked the board to go back to the applicants to rewrite their proposal to provide guarantees that use of the hall will be confined to Bonafide Church members.
Thank you.
you uh mr klein um i don't recall the exact application but i remember having something
the board having a case similar to this where the uses were restricted to the
uh to the applicant or and or his or her use as a put they don't want it to turn out to a catering
hall that's going to be rented out to parties that are not affiliated with the church i think
is what I'm trying to say. Is there a language in there that we could inject that would protect that?
So I think, Mr. Chair, that's what we were trying to achieve with the provisional language.
Let me interrupt if I could. I'm looking at it and it says authorized shall be related to the
operations of St. Peter's Church. Yeah, I guess that would be sufficient. Yeah. Right. I mean,
we, I think having the language that, you know, the uses will be conducted with the church's
approval, I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that the church, which has been a good
neighbor for over 100 years, would be sensitive in the types of events that they would allow to
take place there. So if there's a concern that there's going to be, you know, a New York City
style club rave taking place there, that would be as objectionable to the church as it would be
to the immediate neighbors.
Anyone else that testify in this case?
If I may respond to that.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Albert?
You have muted yourself.
You need to unmute.
Mr. Albert?
I believe I am unmuted now.
yes you are if the uh if that is the attitude of the church certainly the community would assure
the reassurance that placing it in writing uh would provide and that language is not really
quite specific you know with the perhaps for the wording was authorization of the church
i mean the church can simply authorize the use of that to well whoever so i would like to see
the language tightened up to provide the community with the assurance that indeed it is not going to
become a venue for well god god knows what simply with the okay of the church
i'm not a lawyer as you guys know i'm just looking at this i don't know i understand with
what that gentleman just uh is referring to i i tend to think that the variance
it looks to me as though it will satisfy those concerns correct me if i'm wrong mr client unless
you have some uh suggestions uh we'll move on no i i i think we can we can move on mr chair the only
other thing i'll point out is that the actual application did uh specify that the you know
parish hall meeting room and uses will be accessory to the religious assembly so even our our uh
application was intended to tie these tie these uses together we're not looking to create some
We're not looking to create some sort of crazy event venue.
sort of crazy event event venue it'll yeah yeah i i know
Yeah, and I don't think the gentleman meant that, but I guess they're looking down the road if things change that they don't want it to turn into a commercial venue outside of what the church's purpose is.
All right.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Chair, we have Ms. DeMonte with her hand up.
So, Ms. DeMonte, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good morning, Chairperson and all that are listening.
Ma'am, please spell your first and last name.
I'm sorry, Doreen, D-O-R-E-E-N, last name DeMonte, D-I-M as in Mary, O-N as in Nancy, T-E.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
hello hi yes i was listening to um mr bonnie's concerns and just had a couple of comments i live
at 304 lombard street i own three properties there so i'm directly across the street from
the um what will be the egress entrance exit um which um the attorney for the for the church
Mr. Klein has assured me would only be used for staff and not as a public entrance, which is
definitely reassuring. My concern is when we're talking about events at this property, which
could possibly be a wedding, for example, for church members, what would be done in terms of
soundproofing I mean weddings often reception would include a band people may want to gather
outside depending on the time of year so what would be in the plans to control noise whether
it's inside outside for an event like that which may impact the neighborhood
I'm a little bit familiar with St. Peter's and I know part of the curriculum and I think it may
have been mentioned in the testimony they have music programs I know they have school events in
the school hall music playing singing and stuff like that and with the elimination of the parking
lot I think that is also has been used in the past for a play area for for students so there's
a noise level that has always been there I just don't I can't imagine it being any greater than
what you're already in fact that may be better because the existing school is very old and i
think the acoustics and they're you know are being that old may not i don't mute the sound if you
will emanate sound from coming out of the building i i hear what you're saying man but i i don't i
don't know if there's any they're going to build this thing and i'm sure they're going to build it
just the standards and it may not um i don't think you want to have that kind of a problem
there but uh anyway anyone else to testify in this case
no chair there are no other hands at this time thank you planning commission thank you chair
chico ian hegarty for the city planning commission uh comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
The RM1 zoning, the proposed use variance is reasonable given the existing buildings on the block, and the proposed dimensional variances are minimal and do not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variances.
Thank you.
So let the record reflect that a board member, Mr. James Snell, is also in attendance.
So MI-2021-003058, 307 Lombard Street.
My vote is yes.
With the proviso revised plan, three pages approved today, and that all uses authorized by this variant shall be related to the operations of St. Peter's Church located at 313 Pine Street and all major events occurring pursuant to such uses shall be conducted with St. Peter's Church approval.
Confessor Plaza, yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, yes, with proviso.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
Number nine on our list, MI 2021-003060, 4601-25 North 4th Street.
Mr. Steve Bertel is the attorney of record.
Esperanza Housing and Economic Development, RCO, sent a letter of support with provisos if approved.
RCO sent a letter of support with provisos if approved.
Mr. Battelle, please identify yourself.
You're still under oath.
After that, Mr. Plaza will have some questions for you.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good morning again, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
You're still under oath, so Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Mr. Bertil, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, totally.
Okay. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Okay. Thank you.
I'll just share my screen here.
Okay. Good morning again.
As stated, my name is Steve Bertil.
I represent the applicant,
the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
or SEPTA.
as the applicants and owners of the site.
The property in question is 4601 North 4th Street.
As you can see, the property is currently
an existing parking lot utilized for SEFTA's employees
for the facility across the street,
which I believe is 200 West Wyoming
as the official address.
the property is about 70,000 square feet, and it's zoned as ICMX2. We're here requesting a special
exception to allow for safety and stormwater improvements to the existing site and overall
sort of sprucing up of the parking lot, which I'll get into in a second. So we have a referral
from the Department of License and Inspections
for the proposed use as non-accessory parking.
Now, the site was previously and has been a parking lot.
The cause of the referral here is that there was a structure
on the site, on the 4601 North 4th Street site
at one particular time that was demolished and removed.
And so the removal of that structure changed under the code
what was, I guess, generally considered accessory to that structure
because it was on the same parcel and is now considered non-accessory.
And so now that we're trying to do improvements to the site,
we required a special exception to memorialize that use.
Now, that said, the site in actuality is accessory to the 200 West Wyoming Avenue facility across the street.
But again, as you saw in a previous application earlier today, that is a different tax parcel.
And as such, it doesn't meet the requirements to be determined as accessory to that.
And so that's why we're here today seeking a special exception to approve the retrofit that we're trying to do to the site and the use.
And so what we're trying to do here, let me zoom out so that's the entire screen, is, as I stated, is a stormwater retrofit,
It was essentially where making changes to the site to mitigate some of the stormwater issues that exist on some of these older parking lots and also to mitigate the heat island effect of these older parking lots.
So things such as adding green spaces, trees, water detention basins, updating curb cuts, and the overall, as I stated, sprucing up of the lot, the changes and updates that we're making in this vein will require us to lose a few spaces.
I think in total at the end of the sort of rehabilitation of the parking lot will have 176 spaces.
And again, as I stated, this lot is being used by SEPTA employees for the facility that's across
the street. The applicants did meet with the Registered Community Organization,
who's Esperanza Housing and Economic Development, as you'll see by their letter of support here.
As you'll see by their letter of support here, we received no opposition.
I believe there was a, there was discussion of, you know, possible additional trees and the maintenance of those trees being done by a program that is ran by Esperanza.
maybe that's the proviso that was referenced earlier. I wasn't aware. I don't believe it's
actually an official proviso. It was just a discussion of that. But as you can see, there was
no opposition to the project at the meeting. And as such, because there's a special exception,
there is no hardship requirement. But I will say that overall, the changes
in terms of a net benefit to the community with any density like throughout Philadelphia
that's surrounding parking lot. Stormwater management is important and vital to maintaining
the proper infrastructure in the city, and this project will help to do that. And so
unless the board has any questions, I have a representative from SEPTA,
um Mr. Malik Bates if he can raise his hand um to affirm and adopt my testimony let's get your
client on and then I'll ask the board if they have questions okay Mr. Bates you can unmute yourself
and speak now morning Mr. Chairman and members Mr. Bates spell your first and last name please
sure uh first name is malik m-a-l-i-k last name bates b-a-t-e-s
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you mr bertell thank you mr chair uh mr base did you hear the testimony
and uh that i provided to the board this morning yes i did do you confirm the truth
of my testimony and adopted as your own i do thank you um i have nothing further mr chair
unless there are questions from the board questions from the board no no one else would
like to testify in this case please raise your hand chair we have slow folks mr folks you can
unmute yourself and speak now good morning mr folks please spell your name identify yourself
and i'll swear you in good morning chairman to chico members of the cba board my name is sloan
folks s-l-o-a-n-e-f-s-f-i-r-o-l-k-s representing the office of councilwoman maria quiona sanchez
room 508 city hall you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do sir thank you uh the applicants having met with uh the coordinating rco and receiving a letter
of support the council offers her support for this uh request thank you thank you planning
can anyone else to testify no chair there are no other hands at this time thank you planning
commission thank you chair chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the icmx industrial commercial zoning at this location
This proposed special exception will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what normally might be expected for this use.
Planning Commission just wants to express thank you to SEPTA for working with us on parking lot landscaping design and on contributing to stormwater management at this location.
City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant this special exception.
Thank you. And Mr. Bertillo, two pages, revised plans?
Oh, yes. My apologies.
no no it's okay i want to make sure of our notes are correct that's correct two pages revised plans
excuse me chair you're muted
well i apologize i'm every time i move my paper i hit this mute button
on the state. No worries. MI 2021-0030604601-25 North 4th Street. My vote is yes with the proviso
revised plans. Two pages approved today. Professor Plaza, yes with proviso. James Snell, yes with
proviso. Thomas Holliman, yes, proviso. Thank you. We'll go to case number 10. MI 2021-003-086-600
600 Brill Street.
Brill Street. Alan Notkinson is the attorney.
Alan Knockinson is the attorney of record.
Lawn Crest Community Association, RCO, sent a letter of support.
Mr. Knockinson, please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you win.
Chair, Ms. Amazon is coming back in as a panelist now.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning, Ms. Amazon.
Please spell your full name, and I'll swear you win.
Clemente Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N, address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Ms. Amazon, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof of
tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing
yes i did okay and have you uh met with the rco and have a letter you have a resounding letter
of support um so yes thank you please proceed i'll just go ahead and share my screen
can everyone see my screen yes perfect so again today i'm presenting 600 pearl street a project
that i am particularly proud of my client yasmine brown is looking to open these tiny market
with a focus on fresh fruits and vegetables she's not providing any processed foods in any way at
this particular property she actually is looking to partner and have a csa so this is really
supposed to be a mini market, similar to what I would consider co-op in many ways. So during my
presentation, I will go through the notice of refusal. Again, we did meet with the RCO for
this project on September 16th at 630, and we received unanimous support, a personal record of
45 to zero. This property is currently zoned as single family. Again, it does have a history of
multi, excuse me, a history of commercial use on the ground floor. So we're not looking to change
the use in any way in that regard. We also have maps of the area, photographs of the property,
our proposed plans and drawings. It is an existing structure, so we're just really changing the
interior a bit. We have an application to repeal, the notice we sent out for that September 30th
meeting, the lease, as well as our certificate of tax clearance. So, our refusal. The property
is owned a single family, although it has a history of commercial use on the ground floor.
our refusal states that it is for food beverages and grocery but again this is really a mini
market similar to a co-op in no way is it similar to a corner store or a bodega we're really putting
a focus on fresh fruits and vegetables here my client's looking to have a csa as well as a pickup
so people from the community have access to fresh fruits and vegetables it is our understanding that
there is a bit of a food desert here while there are other convenience stores in the area no one's
really providing fresh foods and vegetables to the community. We're not going to have any
cooking on the premises either. It's going to be pre-made and packaged foods with a focus on
healthy eating. So we did meet with the community on September 30th, as I mentioned, excuse me,
September 16th, and we did have a unanimous support of 4520. The community was very excited
about this project and that we are filling a void that is going on in this neighborhood as it
relates to having a food desert. And we are going to make sure that we maintain reasonable hours of
operation. We also spoke to the councilwoman, and she mentioned that she would have a position of
non-opposition to this project. So, our hours of operation would be Monday through Friday,
10, excuse me, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. So, we're not staying open late in any way. For the weekends,
we're just open from 10 to 6. Again, this isn't a corner store. It's not a bodega. We're not
looking to be a nuisance to the neighborhood in any way we're actually looking to hire local
we want to be really considerate and provide what's really lacking in this neighborhood
as it relates to the zoning of the property again it is owned a single family however as you can
see from this permit it does have a history of commercial use on that ground floor
so here we have the map of the area another map of the area here's a view of the front of the
property from Bell Street. If you have a side of the property from Bingham,
rail to the right of the property, rail to the left of the property, Bingham to the right of
the property, and Bingham to the left of the property. And there are other properties within
this area that have similar variances in that they are single family with commercial on the
ground floor. However, most of these are what we consider bodegas or corner stores. Again,
what we're looking to do here is provide fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and supplement what
fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and supplement what we believe to be a food desert.
what we believe to be a food desert.
We're not providing any processed foods, no candy, no tobacco, anything along those lines.
So in the basement, we would maintain trash storage. We don't want to be a noose to the
community as it relates to trash. We do have the register in the front. Again,
produce from a local CSA would be front and center at the front of the market,
prepared foods, which would not be cooked on the site, but would be provided.
We have the grocery area. Again, no processed foods would be provided.
We also have dairy, drinks, as well as a freezer in the rear of the property.
Our application for appeal.
Again, the refusal of the property is owned as single family, and we're looking for commercial use along that ground floor.
We have reasonable hours of operation.
Our project information form.
The notice of the meeting for September 16th at 630.
157 properties were notified.
Actually, about half of them show up to that meeting.
again we had unanimous support reporting back to zero the certificate of mailing my clients
lease for the property so with that if i could just enter certificate of tax clearance excuse
me so with that i will just have um yasmine brown youth raise her hand so that she can adopt my
testimony. Ms. Brown, you can unmute yourself and speak now. Hello, my name is Yasmeen Brown. My
name is spelled Y-A-S-M-E-E-N. My last name is Brown, like the color B-R-O-W-N. Do you swear
to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Ms.
Thank you. Yasmeen, did you hear my presentation today? I did. And is it true and correct? Yes. And would you adopt it as your own testimony? I would. And Yasmeen, what are your hours of operation? My hours of operation are 8 to 7 Monday through Friday and 10 to 6 Saturday and Sunday.
And do you plan on selling tobacco or processed foods at this property? I do not. And what is your intention? What's the focus here?
My focus is to bring healthy and fresh foods to the neighborhood within walking distance.
Everybody doesn't have a car, so I wanted to make sure that I was providing healthy foods in the food desert.
And is it correct that you have 10 plus years of experience as a grocery manager?
Thank you, Yasmeen.
No problem.
If the board has any questions.
Any questions from the board?
no mr chair no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have hillary emerson with our hand up miss emerson you can unmute yourself and speak now
thank you good morning again miss emerson just identify yourself for the record you're still
under oath can you hear me yes we can sorry i was a little technical witch there um good morning
again, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Hillary Emerson, on behalf of Councilwoman Sherelle
Harper. As Ms. Amazon indicated, the Councilwoman is not opposed to the proposed use of this
property. It does have a history of ground floor commercial, and it is also a corner
property. It's not unusual for those properties to be used for commercial purposes. The one
concern, not with this applicant, but with this use that we've had in the past is hours of
operation, because we often have, you know, convenience stores operating sometimes 24-7
or into the wee hours of the morning. And we appreciate this applicant willing to keep her
hours, keep her hours reasonable for the community. We would ask, and the community
asks as well in its letter of support, that there be a proviso for the hours of the operation
in the event another business would come into this property later and use the variance granted
here. Thank you. Hillary, I know Ms. Amazon mentioned it earlier. What are the hours of
operation that you agree to? At the meeting we had talked, I think she said she wanted to be
open as late as eight, and it sounds like she wants to close earlier. We're still fine with
eight o'clock if we want to have it close any day of the week, you know, open no later than
eight o'clock um any day of the week to give the the applicant all flexibility but um yeah we feel
eight o'clock is since it's a residential neighborhood um will be appropriate
miss amazon was your client looking to be open on sundays so we're requesting to have monday
through friday 8 a.m to 7 p.m um in light of community concerns we didn't want to put it
close and then for saturdays and sundays we're looking at 10 a.m to 6 p.m and the six okay i
and the six okay i want to make sure i had it right thank you anyone else to testify in this
want to make sure I had it right. Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case?
case please raise your hand there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning
commission thank you chairman de chico members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the rsa 5 zoning at this location however the proposed use is consistent with
documented prior uses of this corner property and the existing structure as you could see in the
photos presented by council is configured for one commercial space and one residential unit
so the city planning commission would recommend that the board grant the variance thank you mi
2021-003086 600 brill street my vote is yes with the proviso hours of operation monday through friday
8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Saturday and Sunday
10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Confessor Plaza
my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell
yes with provisos.
Thomas Holliman
yes with provisos.
Thank you.
Excuse me, sir.
You're muted.
it but i'm a i'm a mess today i'm sorry it's so you're fine mi 2021 that's zero zero three zero
nine one seven zero one south mind street brett fellman and i believe melanie lacy are the
attorneys of record bell vista neighbors association sent a letter of non-opposition
as did Councilman Mark Squill.
Mr. Feldman or Ms. Lacey, if you're here, please raise your hand.
Ms. Lacey is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning, Ms. Lacey.
Please spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
good morning can you see me and hear me yes we can please spell your full name i'll swear you in
okay melanie lacy m-e-l-a-n-i-e last name l-a-c-e-y and i'm with claire harrison harvey
and brentsburg we're firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
thank you thank you mr plaza has some questions for you yes ma'am uh you agree to wait the reading
of its refusal and stipulate to attackers? I do. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the
required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I do. And have you met with the RCO and have
the letter? We did, yes. Thank you. Please feel free. Okay, I am sharing my screen. Are you able
to see the PDF? Yes. Okay. Okay, so I represent the applicant record release ice cream and little
pop shop. The applicant is seeking special exception approval for a proposed ice cream
and popsicle shop located at 701 South 9th Street. It's at the corner of Bainbridge Street and South
9th Street. So some of you might be familiar with record release ice cream. It's a growing local
company. They started with a location in West Philly, and their success allowed them to branch
out to Fishtown. And if approved, this Bella Visa location will be their third scoop shop as you
refer to it. So to give some background on Weckerlees, it's a carefully crafted brand with
a thoughtful business model. Their existing locations are clean and inviting neighborhood
spaces, and they source from local farms to ensure fresh and great tasting treats.
And this results in a rotating menu that features seasonal flavors.
They support local nonprofits through monetary and in-kind donations, and they employ professional staff of adults on long-term bases.
It's a year-round operation, and hours run from noon to 10 p.m., Tuesday to Thursday, and on Sundays, and until 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays during the summertime, and it would close slightly earlier during the winter.
So as you can see from the referral letter, the special exception relief is required for prepared food shops in the CMX-1 commercial zoning district.
The zoning map also shows that a number of corner properties in the surrounding area are zoned commercial, and the property falls under two CTR overlay districts.
But this won't be the first establishment at this location to sell ice cream on the site.
But this won't be the first establishment at this location.
You can see the zoning history shows that prior to the last user, there was a grocery store that sold ice cream and magazines.
So the applicant is a tenant of the property, which is currently vacant.
And you can see on the site photos that it's a ground level commercial space in a mixed use building.
Here we have a photo of the front entrance, the side entrance, an aerial, and a close-up
with their decal signage superimposed on the beautiful floor-to-ceiling windows.
So zoning notices were posted in accordance with the rules on October 5th.
And here we have a copy of the floor plan and a rendering again that shows the space
with the Recolese signage. So it's important to underscore that Recolese is very conscious of
its environmental footprint and committed to maintaining cleanliness of the neighborhoods
in which its shops are located. Before the RCO meeting that was hosted back in August,
Recolese actually hosted an open house as well to get feedback from the surrounding neighbors
and to understand the priorities. With this feedback, along with their standard practices
at their other locations, Barkerleys has a comprehensive trash management plan. It includes
compostable cups and spoons and wrappers, but the trash is actually limited due to the fact that
most of the items are edible, for example, cones. You can see that the trash and compost cans will be
stored in the basement, which has access on Bainbridge Street, and the compost will be
hauled regularly by a private commercial company. So in response to feedback at both meetings,
waste receptacles will be provided both inside and outside of the shop during business hours
and emptied regularly. And they will have trash sweep before and after they open, before they
open and after they close. And overall, Weckerlees has a track record of pristine business operations
at their existing locations. So as for the nature of their operations, there will be no cooking,
no frying, no venting on site, and all treats will be prepared off-site at their micro-priming.
I'll also mention that the patronage usually results in, it results from regular foot traffic.
So there wouldn't be any undue congestion resulting from their presence at, you know,
in this neighborhood. Here we have the Bella Vista Neighborhood Association attendance and voting,
as well as their letter of non-opposition,
the tax compliance certificate, the application of appeal, as well as the project information form,
and the RCO notice and certificate of mailing. So that summarizes my testimony on the application
i'm also accompanied by andrew satinsky and gene chang who are representatives of the applicant
who will be sworn in are they panelists applicants please raise your hand so you can be uh
you can be sworn in
mr satinsky you can unmute yourself and speak now
oh uh thank you uh i'm here please spell your full name and i swear you in andrew a-n-d-r-e-w
satinsky s-a-t-i-n-s-k-y you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you miss lacey okay so um andy did you hear my testimony before the board
this morning yes i did do you have um do you affirm that the presentation was accurate
I do and do you adopt the testimony as your own yes and do you have anything that you'd like to add
uh I'll just add that uh we are um we'll be you price all signage for a little pop shop as well
in the um in the images who uh will be represented in the space as well
with Jeannie Chang representing there also as a leaseholder.
Okay. Any questions from the board?
No, Ms. Kelly.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Ms. Chang, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Thank you.
anyone else there are no other hands at this time chair planning commission
thank you chairman de chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission members
of the board this is a special exception referral um and the proposed special exception will not
cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected for this
use and so the planning commission would recommend that the board grant the special exception thank
you mi 2021-003091 701 south 9th street my vote is yes professor plaza my vote is yes
james now my vote is yes thomas howlin my vote is yes i believe that completes the 9 30 list
is there anyone who feels as though they've not been recognized or is there any outstanding
business for the 9 30 list please raise your hand there are no hands at this time chair thank you
thank you everyone for your help and i will see you all back here at two o'clock you got it see
you guys then see you later see you guys yes and uh we'll wait for the go ahead
nope we're all ready already okay thank you tanya good afternoon 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 board secretary confessor plaza president board member mr thomas holloman
Present.
Mr. Board Member, Mr. James Snow.
Present.
Board Administrator, Yvette Benton, and our Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon, excuse me, Ms. Rebecca Cole, are also in attendance, as is the Zoning Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkit.
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 that the recording will be made available to the public by contacting our board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett at tanya.sunkett at phila.gov.
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 and leave your email address and address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that.
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'd like to remind everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat comments questions
or concerns should be directed to our board administrator ms yvette benton having said that
i will now begin by reading off a request for continuance or withdrawals on the two o'clock list
number eight on our list mi 2021 that's 002 899 3237 north 17th street this case is continued
at the request of the attorney number 11 mi 2021 that's 002 910 3900 main street is withdrawn
number 12 mi 2021 that's 002913 5024 race street this case is being continued if anyone objects
to the cases i just read in as to being continued or withdrawn please raise your hand at this time
if you disagree with the cases i just read into the record to be continued or withdrawn
on. Chair, we have Clementa Amazon with her hand up. Ms. Amazon, you can unmute yourself
Ms. Amazon, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
and wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Ms. Amazon.
Please identify yourself for the record.
You're still under oath.
Thank you.
Clemente Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name A-M-A-Z-A-N.
And I would like to request a continuous for 2435 Pail Thorpe Street.
what is the address again 2435 palethorpe street i believe it's number five on your list
nope you are you looking at the two let me see it might be the three o'clock
case all right west burks number six mr chairman
oh palethorpe street i'm sorry that was number six
okay so mi 2021 that's zero zero two nine one four two four three five palethorpe street
is continued.
Again, I'm asking
if anyone disagrees with the cases that
have been read into the record as being
continued, please raise your hand.
There are no hands
at the sign, Chair.
I will now ask if anyone would like to request
a continuance or
withdrawal on the 2 o'clock
list, please raise your hand.
Chair,
we have ryan boland with his hand up mr boland you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
you good afternoon mr boland please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
good afternoon ryan boland r-y-a-n-b-o-l-a-n-d 1801 market street suite 2300 philadelphia
pennsylvania 19103 we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Hello?
You ready for me?
Yeah, please proceed.
I'm here on 1718 Fairmount Avenue, which is meeting ID 2021-3110.
And I'm here.
There's a letter from Daryl Clark's office there.
I also believe that Assistant City Solicitor Ellen Corrigan is also here requesting a continuance.
But, Mr. Chairman, I'm here.
I represent the Appellant Spring Garden Civic Association.
It's an appeal of an over-the-counter permit issued.
And this is a little unique because we already had a really long hearing on this project back in April.
And the reason I'm requesting the continuance is pretty simple.
My wife just had a baby.
We had a son.
I'm out on paternity leave.
I'm not supposed to be working right now.
If this wasn't a matter I was so deeply involved in prior, I would hand it off to someone else.
I just don't feel comfortable doing that, and I'm not supposed to be engaging in billable work.
It's as simple as that.
It's as simple, but it's a little confusing because it's been a while.
I still have a little bit of a hard time to disrespect understanding that in a firm as big as yours, that there was no one else who can handle this case.
And maternity leave, I appreciate and respect that.
But I mean, I don't know. We've all been on leave for almost two years.
Chair, this is Tanya, the administrator. Did you want us to promote the attorney, Mr. Bertil?
Yeah, I'm getting to him next, Tanya. Thank you.
Also, if I can just convey, I don't know if Ellen Corrigan is on the line, but she emailed me last night.
And as you, Miss Corrigan will be representing Ellen and I here.
and she let me know and I also spoke with Len Reuter via email over the past week. What I heard
from Ellen last night is that they don't have an examiner present today. Anyway, Len Reuter
thought a continuance was going to be granted and it's my understanding they want to request
a continuance. I don't want to say gotcha. I don't want to say gotcha. Let's hear from the
other parties and i can all i know is i know you're with the the appellants uh a continuing
which is going to be a couple of months out at the earliest maybe three months uh mr bertill
mr bertill please identify yourself you're still under oath from earlier uh good after good
afternoon mr chair steve bertill b-e-r-t-i-l claire harrison harvey and brandsburg um 1835
Market Street, 14th floor Philadelphia PA 19103. I wasn't on the list earlier today. I was on the
I wasn't on the list earlier today. I was on the list this morning. I don't know if that's okay, if I can go forward.
list this morning. I don't know if that's okay if I can go forward.
Yeah, you were this morning. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I think you've sort of identified the crux of the issue here. And I think Mr. Boylan is conflating the issues.
This is a third-party appeal, but by right permit. As the filer, the burden is on Mr. Bolin and his client to establish a legitimate basis for appeal.
They filed an appeal to this permit back in July. They obtained notice of the date of the hearing, I would say in early September.
Um, Mr. Bolin at that time stated that he had a scheduled, um, paternity leave. Um, and I'm,
and I'm certainly sympathetic to paternity leave. I have two young children under seven myself. Um,
but this is not a situation where, um, you know, birth came early or late or whatever the case
may be. This was scheduled months out. And at that time, we informed Mr. Bolin that we would
be opposing that request because this is a buy-right appeal and not an appeal of a buy-right
permit and not a variant. And the permit holder and property owners shouldn't be delayed because
Mr. Bolton is not available, particularly because he's not a solo practitioner. He's at a firm
that has over 200 attorneys that can provide coverage. Furthermore,
this is, in terms of the specific scenario with the, I don't want to get into the substantive
issues yet, but this is a owner-occupied or intended to be an owner-occupied property.
This is going to be the residence. The permit holders are currently living in transitional
housing waiting for completion of this project. At a certain point, as I think everyone here is
aware, when it comes to construction, it becomes prohibitively expensive to move forward under the
cloud of an appeal. And I think Mr. Boland and the board is aware that administratively the
board is backed up substantially. And this is something I spoke to the city about, the law
Department, I believe Ellen Corrigan is on the line, and Councilman Clark's office about
to inform them of the particular situation going on here, that this is not a typical
scenario. And I think most importantly is Mr. Bolin's appeal is, this is not a situation where
there's ambiguous language in the code that needs to be interpreted by multiple, you know,
experts or examiners, et cetera, et cetera, his appeal is based on the facial reading of the code
where literally just reading the sections that he cite will show the board whether he's correct
or not. And so because of that, I don't believe that necessarily needs to be continued at the
detriment of the permit holders to have this cloud hanging over them. Also, my understanding,
I was privy to the conversation with Mr. Bolin and a lot of part of my understanding is that they are not opposed to us moving forward today with and having the respective parties make their arguments.
Now, if the board feels after that they still need to hear from the examiner, maybe a resumption hearing for that examiner could be possible.
But I don't think it's necessary to continue the entire case, particularly because Mr. Bolin is here and he made the claims.
You know, I don't think this is a complicated matter.
I don't think that there is an extensive list of witnesses.
In fact, I don't really think any witnesses is needed on Mr. Bolin's part, because these are just legal arguments about facial reading of the code.
So for all those reasons, I think it would be prejudicial against the permit holders to, you know, kick them into next year because Mr. Bolin is here and doesn't want to stand on the arguments he's made in July.
Thank you. I'm going to rule that we go forward with this case.
And as you spelled out, Mr. Bertil, if need be, we can always do a resumption if we need the city to weigh in on this.
So the request for continuance is denied.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
I see no other hands, Chair.
If you haven't said that, we'll begin with case number one.
MI 2021-002918, 101 North Independence Mall, number E, or letter E, I guess that's the suite number.
Mr. Jared Klein is the attorney of record.
old city civic old city district rather sent a letter of support as did councilman
Old City District, rather, sent a letter of support, as did Councilman Mark Squiller.
Mr. Klein, please identify yourself.
You're still under oath from this morning.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Again, Jared Klein, K-L-E-I-N, from Blank Rome, 130 North 18th Street, Philadelphia, 19103.
I believe I'm still under oath from this morning's session.
Yes, you are. But thank you. And Mr. Plaza has questions for you.
The client, you agree to wait to read in of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy.
Yes, I do. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, sir. I have. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I'll share my screen, just confirming everyone can see that.
Great. So I have the pleasure of representing the Museum of Illusions, which will be a tenant inside this already existing structure at 101 North Independence Mall.
Museum of Illusions is an interactive museum where patrons can both interact with the exhibits within the museum and learn about those exhibits while they're doing so.
The best way to describe it, most analogous use in Philadelphia, is the Franklin Institute on the main lower floor level that I'm sure you're familiar with, where you can walk through and interact with some of the exhibits while having an educational experience.
This is a similar concept, as they'll have rotating exhibits of an educational nature inside the premises.
The reason we received the refusal, and I'm sure the board is very well aware, there is supplemental use controls that cover the old city area.
And we would fall into, by the nature of our use, the nightclub and private club zoning category, although we are most certainly not either a nightclub or a private club.
As the board's well aware, this was sort of a catch-all overlay that went in to prohibit the proliferation of nightclubs in that area.
And we fall into it due to the fact that we're a use that has people gathering for an entertainment style use.
Though we are we are neither a nightclub or a private club and have no plans to use the facility that way.
Just to orient the board quickly. Here's your property here.
Our zoning classification. Notice posters in the window and photos of the exterior of the building.
Just to orient the board to which property we're talking about.
The most important thing I can show you is the floor plan of the space.
This is space 102. That will be our leased space.
It's got a maximum occupancy of 132 people.
There are restrooms here, and the rest of this remains for other tenants of this existing building,
which is shared with the American Bible Society along with several other tenants.
we did as the chair noted in his summary met with the old city civic association
they were very supportive of the application their letter of support is up on the screen in
front of you and we also received the support or non-opposition of councilman squilla who submitted
a letter as well i've got the owners of the business on the zoom with me if you have any
specific questions about the operation um but i don't want to take the board's time with detail
you might not need anyone to uh adopt your testimony yes i'd ask jason waxman to raise his
virtual hand mr waxman you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
jason are you with us yes i am uh good afternoon sir please spell your first and last name
jason j-a-s-o-n waxman w-a-k-s-m-a-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you mr klein jason did you have a chance to listen to my
presentation this afternoon yes i did jared and would you adopt my statements as true correct in
your own testimony yes i do thank you very much uh again mr chair if the board has questions about
the specific use of wax material otherwise we would rest our presentation thank you uh board
have any questions no no mr chairman no anyone else uh like to testify in this case please raise your
hand. There are no heads up at this time, Chair.
There are no hands up at this time, Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
Please spell your last name.
I'll swear you in.
B as in boy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, N as in Nancy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, D as in dog.
I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth.
Nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan
we feel the museum use is appropriate for the location accordingly the planning commission
recommends the board support the variance thank you uh jared uh am i correct in referring to this
as sweet number sweet letter e as in edward uh the specific space i believe is unit 102
or what one yeah 102 mr chair i heard you say that so that's why i was asking okay
Very good. MI 2021-002918, 101 North Independence Mall, Suite 102. My vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you all. Have a good afternoon.
Thank you. MI 2021-002912, 1731 Edgley Street.
Clementa Amazon is the attorney of record, 32nd Ward, RCO, sent a letter of support.
Ms. Amazon, please identify yourself, spell your name.
You've already been sworn in.
Chair, Alan Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist now.
They keep switching up on me.
All right.
oh god mr knockamson my notes have commented when i have it's her when i have her on it's you
we like to keep her fresh i you certainly are okay please identify yourself spell your name
i'll swear you in uh yes alan knockamson a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
Do you swear if I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Anakosom, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack your seat?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, we have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you. Please, Kristen.
Oh, actually, you know what?
Clement is telling me that our office accidentally submitted the paperwork late on Monday,
but that we did submit it to Ms. Saleta after realizing our office had it in the draft queue.
Mr. Chairman?
uh was it the rco letter or the documents it was just the presentation materials um you know we
just want to acknowledge that that was for whatever reason stuck in our our draft inbox
but we did apparently pardon the interruption apparently the letter was received because
these are notes that were submitted to me by sharon and she indicates in her notes that the
32nd ward did send a letter of support no i just want yes i just want to acknowledge that our office
did not submit it within the five-day time frame.
I just didn't want to say the falsehood.
Thank you. Appreciate that. We'll proceed.
All right. Can I share my screen?
Yes, please.
All right. So we're here for 1731 Edgley Street.
This is a proposed duplex.
In our presentation packet, you'll see the notice of refusal,
the letter of support from the 32nd Democratic Ward,
maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area,
plans and drawings, or application for appeal, proof that we sent the meeting notice to the
surrounding community and that we did have the community meeting, our deed to the property,
and our certificate of tax clearance. This is an RSA 5 property. We have several refusals versus
use. We are looking to put a duplex here. It's not out of character to have a duplex in this area
of town. You'll see in the following exhibit, we have a letter of support from the 32nd
Democratic Ward. Prior to the meeting, during the meeting, and after the meeting, I spoke
to Representative Judith Robinson, and she indicated to us that she surveyed the surrounding
area and indicating that we want to do a duplex. They stated it's not out of character, and
given the support from the surrounding area and the community, she stated typically they
She stated typically they do letters of non-opposition, but here because in her quote-unquote stated that it was a no-brainer.
do letters of non-opposition but here because in her
So that's why they gave a letter of support, but typically they give a letter of non-opposition.
The second refusal is the maximum occupied area.
Whether this was a single-family home or a duplex, we would run afoul of this, you know, just given the length of the property.
and in terms of the setback you have a two-story home on either side we're asking to not have the
eight-foot setback requirement whether it's a single-family home or a duplex we would run afoul
of that because we would need a functional floor plan on the third floor and that's why we're
asking to go straight up again the community was in full support of this project knowing all of
these things and again you'll see here there were six people my understanding it was unanimous
support they particularly not only had the meeting but they surveyed the neighborhood before and
after the meeting and they gathered that the neighborhood was in favor of this maps of the
area as you can see we're in this small little pocket of yellow and rsa5 but otherwise this is
an rm1 neighborhood where there is multi-family even within the yellow portion of that and then
just where we are in the neighborhood uh we're behind between uh french and uh westmont and
17th and 18th the major streets are susquehanna and diamond streets not too far off a broad street
photographs of the area where the the vacant lot in the middle
then you know edgeley to the right of the property edgeley to the left of property as
you can see there are some three-story structures on uh edgeley that go straight up
architectural plans and drawings i'm just going to make this a little bit smaller so we could
just venture through here but you know traditional brick facade uh three-story structure
um our open area is or you know it's not much different to the properties to the left and right
of us floor plans i'm just going to make this slightly smaller so i can just maneuver
where you walk through the front steps there's a vestibule area to the right is unit number one
living room kitchen bedroom number one open floor plan flex space go up a flight of steps the second
floor you have a living room kitchen bathroom bedroom there's trash storage areas for each one
there's a mission here but each unit has a trash storage storage closet and ventilated trash
storage closet and each unit also has a trash compactor unit number two you go up a flight
of steps there are two more bedrooms so it's three bedrooms three baths then
our remaining documents are application for appeal to the zba along with the notice of refusal and
the project information form our proof of mailing uh we had our meeting uh in october early october
there are 134 addresses notified here are the addresses our proof of mailing
and then our detail property showing in 1956 and 8th street llc is the owner of the property
and then our tax clearance certificate with that being said i would like my client
fernando santos to adopt my testimony mr santos can you virtually raise your hands
i only have someone with the last name looks like miliari is that the same person yes yes it is okay
mr miliari you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good afternoon mr miliari please spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in
fernando miliar f-e-r-n-a-n-d-o my last name is m-i-l-i-a-r-i
you swear or from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you mr knockinson yeah fernando you heard everything i stated today
yes and is it true and correct yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony
yeah they do okay thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
no what else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
there are no other hands this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential on the comprehensive plan
we feel the proposal represents an overuse and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship
additionally there is no hardship for regularly sized or shaped vacant parcels accordingly the
Additionally, there is no hardship for regularly sized or shaped vacant parcels.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the board deny the variances.
Mr. Notkinson, I should have asked you this earlier.
Are there any other multifamilies on that block?
Well, besides the RM1, I am not aware.
But again, this tends to be a multifamily portion of the city.
This has been a vacant lot, at least based on Google, for the last 13 years.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2021-002912, 1731 Edgley Street, my vote is yes.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Mr. Nockimson, are you up next?
or is it coming? If it's North 5th Street, I am up next, Mr. Chairman. It is. Okay. MI 2021,
that's 002924, 1800 North 5th Street, Old Kensington Neighbor Association. I don't see
whether they sent a letter of support or not. You can clear that up. Mr. Nockamson,
just identify yourself. You're still under oath. Yes. Again, my name is Alan Nock. I'm
of Nockmson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Mr. Plaza has a few questions.
For Nockmson, you agree to wait a reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack her scene?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing?
Yes, we have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
We have a letter, non-opposition, or support, actually, sorry.
May I share my screen?
Please do.
Okay, so what you're seeing here is 1800 North Fifth Street.
I'm just trying to make it bigger.
This is a corner property on the corner of Montgomery and 5th Street, and what we're proposing to do is have a four-unit dwelling here.
This is not uncommon on this property because it has a previous use as a quadplex, plus next door is also a quadplex.
And traditionally, again, most of these corner properties in Philadelphia tend to be multi-unit in nature.
the lot is over 1600 square feet so we're not trying to jam in density on a small lot
here we're trying to put something that has been in the past and hopefully in the future
so in our presentation materials you'll see the notice of refusal the letter of support from the
old kensington neighborhood association a permit showing that this was previously a quadplex
maps of the area photographs of the property architectural plans and drawings or application
for appeal. Our RCO meeting notice also showing the agreement of sale that we're subject to,
hopefully to purchase this property upon zoning approval and our certificate of tax clearance.
So first things first, this is an RSA 5 property. We have no dimensional refusals. The only refusal
we have here is for our requested for family dwelling, which will be a condominium. The owner
this property, Keith Aliats, has in the past done work in Philadelphia. He focuses on these
corner properties. He feels like that's the most appropriate use to have these multifamily
structures, multiple forms of egress, to have garbage stored in the rear for light and air
purposes. So he focuses on these boutique condominium buildings in Philadelphia. You'll
old kensington neighborhood association uh again overwhelming support for this project
and as you can see in here uh akna and their neighbors are excited about the fact that the
proposed project brings home ownership to our community that was very important to them
especially the affordability aspect of it like many neighborhoods in philadelphia there's been
new construction with a focus on single family new construction which has priced a lot of people
out of these neighborhoods, they want a diversity of housing, which will make it more affordable
for people to stay and to move into a lot of these neighborhoods in Philadelphia.
So you can see the permit. Again, this was a four-family dwelling back in 1985 before it was
knocked down. You can see maps of the area. We're right off of a commercial corridor,
we're right off of a commercial quarter germantown avenue again from a city planning perspective
Germantown Avenue. Again, from a city planning perspective.
it makes sense to have density as close to a commercial quarter as possible to support that
commercial quarter and especially when you're dealing with a corner property as well maps of
the area from a google perspective photographs of the property you can see we're a vacant lot
we're a regular shape lot but what you can see is next door is multi-family next door
side of the property from west montgomery avenue to the right of the property on north 5th to the
left of the property on north 5th to the right of the property on west montgomery to the left of the
property on west montgomery again the multi-family structure at 1802 north 5th street which is right
next door to us and just examples of the interior of other projects mr aliotts and this company has
done in the past. As you can see, they really focus on having quality materials in there
for their new construction projects. Example, the bathroom, example, the delivery room with
an open floor plan. Again, just an example with more of a rendering of what his properties
look when used. Example of a bedroom. And then just our plans and drawings. Again, what
we're trying to do is a traditional brick facade with a modern touch. Again, you can
see there's multiple forms of egress for this building. And then just to kind of go through
the drawings, you know, quickly, let me just first floor plan. So unit number one, you
go through Fifth Street. It's a bi-level, lower level, and first floor. You have an
open floor plan on the first floor. And then you go down to the lower level where you have
additional living unit number two is you one of the entrances on montgomery avenue again you go
you go in direct access you have an open floor plan on the first floor as well as the lower level
as well as access to the rear everyone has access to rear in terms of garbage so you see here the
receptacle so everyone has access that would be a common element in the condo uh the second the
third and fourth units you go up the this separate entrance to the second floor the second floor has
unit number three which is the whole floor right here again right there and you go up to the third
floor and that is unit number four which is right here our application for appeal
proof of mailing to you know in terms of our community notice just going to make a little
bigger you can see that we had our meeting in mid-september we notified 66 addresses of this
meeting you know the addresses that were sent and our proof of mailing and then the remaining
documents are just our agreement of sale showing that we have an interest in this property as well
as a certificate of tax clearance where we are in good standing with the city with that being said
um i have mr aliats on the line so mr aliats can you virtually raise your hand
mr aliats you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
yes please spell your first and last name
Sure. Keith, K-E-I-T-H, last name Alliotz, A-L-L-I-O, T as in Tom, T as in Tom, S as in Sam.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Knockinson?
Mr. Alliotz, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Great. Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
no mr chairman no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have slow folks with his hand up mr folks you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr folks i think you're still under oath from earlier today please identify yourself for the
record yes chairman chico my name is sloan folks s-l-o-a-n-e-f as in fire o-l-k-s representing
the office of council one maria quinones sanchez room 508 city hall uh the applicant having met
with the uh coordinating rco and receiving a letter of support uh the councilwoman offers
no opposition to this various request thank you thank you anyone else to testify in this case
Chair, we have
Frances Mangubat
Ms. Mangubat, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Ms. Mangubat, you can
unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Thank you
Hello, can you hear me?
Sir, good afternoon. Please spell your full name.
My name is Francis Mangubat, F-R-A-N-C-I-S, Mangubat, M-A-N-G-U-B-A-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yep. So I live on 1917, or I own a property on 1917 Lawrence Street. There's not a lot of action going on on this corner of Fifth Street. I think just having a corner property with density, bringing more people into this area is just going to make the neighborhood better, especially in a city where development costs are so expensive and other developers are staying away from this project.
And on top of that, this developer builds an incredible product and just way better than other developers.
Other developers put like, you know, the metal side, the corrugated metal or like the hardy to save money.
This developer puts up brick and a very quality product.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify?
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission this property is indicated
for single family residential in the comprehensive plan we feel the proposal represents an overuse
and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship the multi-family use is not grandfathered
in at this location while the triangular lot is unusual nothing about the lot justifies the
proposed higher density accordingly the planning commission recommends the board deny the variances
okay mi 2021.0029241800 north fifth street my vote is yes confessor plaza yes
James Snell yes
Thomas Holliman
my vote is yes
thank you
number case number 4
MI 2021
that's 003376
Fairmount Avenue
Mr. Boland you're still
under oath from earlier
and Mr. Bertil you're under
oath as well
So, I guess, who goes first here?
Mr. Bolin?
Mr. Bolin, if you're still in the room, please raise your hand.
Or Mr. Battelle.
How do you want to proceed?
Yes, I'm here.
I'm sorry.
When it was making me, panelists, it blacked out.
You want to proceed with your case?
And then we'll hear from the appellate.
I mean, if Mr. Bolin doesn't want to start with his appeal, I'm happy to do so.
Mr. Chair, I apologize.
I think we can streamline this a lot if I go first.
Terrific.
So I'm not sure whether or not Ms. Saleta got a chance to review the applicant's letter. I got it at about 830 last night. But based upon what is in that letter, this is a lot simpler than I thought it would be, because the applicant ignored our primary argument here.
there's I'll just walk you through a summary and then I'll walk you through in more detail
the sole issue here on appeal is whether a non-conforming structure that occupies 100%
of the lot when the code only allows 75% can be gutted and have the interior reconfigured
so they get rid of two floors inside the existing structure and they have three which would increase
the square footage within that non-conforming structure. Here, I believe the examiner got
confused because it's a little weird because there's a fourth floor addition. As far as today's
concerned, the fourth floor addition means nothing. We're not challenging anything with respect to the
fourth floor addition. It's just what can they do inside the existing building envelope. As I'll
explain section 143056G of the code, it governs renovations of non-conforming structures. And it
says you cannot increase the square footage when you engage in interior renovations. And here,
this isn't a de minimis. This is about a 50% increase to go from two floors to three floors.
and this might still be in the board's mind, but there was a long hearing back in April involving
And this might still be in the board's mind, but
there were
this, and at that hearing, there was a refusal for height, and the applicant actually agreed
that Ellen and I had missed a second refusal, which was that the fourth floor needed to only
occupy 75% of the lot, so they refiled their plans here, and they fixed the height refusal
by using a bonus, and they got rid of some of the additional space on the fourth floor.
But at that last hearing, there was an unresolved legal issue, and that was the same issue we
raised today. Can you demolish the two existing floors and add three? And I don't know on what
basis the board made its decision and whether or not that came into play because there was a
height variance. But as the board knows, it denied the variance. So we're here today. This is a very
simple, I'll try to speed it along. This is a 35-foot hall building. It has two stories. It
occupies 100% of the lot. It's non-conforming because under CMX2, you can only occupy 75%
of the lot as an intermediate lot. And here it occupies 100%. The plans that were submitted last
night um by the applicant um show that we're that the plan here is to demolish the two floors
and to add three with it um and here's here's the argument the argument is pretty simple
and if i can share my screen
if what I have up here is my letter which um has excerpt from um section 143056 of the code
governing non-conforming structures and I'm just going to scroll down to the subsection
here, which is G. And that provides here repairs or renovation of a non-conforming structure or
site improvement that brings the structure or site improvement into greater compliance
with the building code as permitted. It then goes on and states that
interior work, which does not result in increased gross floor area. And here,
this is not a permitted repair or renovation because it increases the gross floor area.
So what we simply want is L&I to issue a refusal and to go back through the process. It's as simple
as that. That's the primary argument here. The other argument, which is quite frankly academic
because it's a fallback argument, is that under the first provision here of subsection six,
It states that a non-conforming structure, if you expand or extend it, that it does not increase any existing non-conformity.
And here we believe, because you have a non-conforming structure, that by increasing the density within that non-conforming structure, you are increasing the existing non-conformity.
We are not contending that they can't build the fourth floor up.
they can do that. They're limiting it to 75% of the occupied area, which the code allows. That's
fine. They just can't take this space and make it infinitely larger inside. That's the problem here.
We also argued about the one-year rule. And again, Mr. Chairman, this is completely academic
because if they missed a refusal the first time and the second time, the one-year rule,
it's academic. It really would only come into play if you rule in my favor today and we have
subsequent zoning board hearing so again that that really isn't that really is not important today
but if the board wants I can take them through anything else in more detail
I just think this is a pretty simple legal issue and I don't want to waste any of the board's time
thank you for that does the board have any questions for Mr. Boland no Mr. Chairman no
Mr. Bertil. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I'm going in the right order or not in the wrong order,
just let me know. I see Ms. Culligan, I believe, is present as well. So we'll go with you,
Mr. Bertil, then we'll go back to the city. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So let me start here.
I'm pleased and surprised, but pleased to hear that counsel for the appellant is stating that
the addition on the property um is not an issue here um the the the the appeal that was filed
made um in multiple paragraphs mentioned of it and had addressed that issue um but i won't
address that if um if council is con is uh is is stating that that is not an issue of his appeal
um because we believe that that that we agree that that's not an issue
because we believe that we agree that that's not an issue and that addition is by right
and not an extension of the non-conformance. Now, regarding to council's main point,
and I'm glad that you still have this section up. I was going to share, but I can just use
what you have here. Counsel, in his reading of the section, sort of conveniently omitted
a sentence. What this section states is repairs to a renovation to a non-performance structure
or site improvement that brings a structure or site improvement into greater compliance
with the building code is permitted. For the purposes of this section, a repair shall be
defined as one of the following. A, interior work that does not result in the increased floor area,
or B, replacement of up to two-thirds of the structural framing members when work involves
the replacement of any portion of the exterior wall. So what this section is saying is to be
defined as a repair in this section, you need to meet one of these two definitions. Either the work
doesn't increase the floor area, or section B, replacement of two, it's up to, it's under two
thirds of the structural framing members. That section of, this section of the, of the code,
It's only to establish whether what you're doing is a repair or not. It has nothing to do with whether you can actually increase the floor area of a nonconforming structure. Because if you think about what Mr. Bolin is saying, it essentially doesn't make sense.
You can't say that you can't increase the ground floor area of a structure, but you can put an addition on the structure.
I don't know how you can put an addition without increasing the ground floor area.
It's counterintuitive.
Furthermore, the ground floor area of the structure is not the nonconformity.
To say increasing the ground floor area of the structure increases the nonconformity is essentially saying that anything you do or change to a nonconforming property would be increasing the nonconformity.
Because Mr. Bolin, in his pleadings and in his argument, agrees with us that the nonconformity here is the occupied area of the structure.
That's not increased by the GFA.
What's happening here, and I can actually share my screen and illustrate this easily, if Mr. Bolin can stop sharing, so thank you.
Is the board saying that?
What's happening here is that there's an existing structure that's two stories right now, the
building envelope.
The building envelope is not changing.
And what was submitted to LNI and what was clear to the examiner because it's written
here, and it's also clear on the plans, which I'll zoom out and show, is that the proposed
renovation in addition to the existing two-story structure, there's no ambiguity there, we're
stating that's a two-story structure, into a four-story structure with the, excuse me,
with the interior of the existing building to be reconfigured for three floors within
the existing shell.
So nothing is changing with the structure in terms of the shell outside of the one addition.
And so that's why the addition on top, when the project is completed, will be deemed the fourth floor because the building as it's currently situated can fit three floors for the use that we're trying to put here.
But again, I'm explaining this just to show that there was no confusion.
L&I was fully aware.
It was on the face of the permit application.
It's on the face of the permit.
Frankly, it says the same thing here.
Existing, the addition will be above the existing third floor once that's completed.
And also, it's in the diagram showing that in the elevation that we're proposing a three-story structure, and then we're also proposing a four-story addition.
So there's no confusion here. But none of that matters because the section that Mr. Bolin is referring to has nothing to do with the increase of a ground floor area of a non-performance structure for the purposes of whether you can do that or not.
The only the only thing that that section speaks to is whether something.
The only thing that that section speaks to is whether something can be defined as a repair for the purposes of bringing a nonconformance structure into compliance with the existing building code.
And the reason that matters, as I think the board and Mr. Bola knows, is that there's a difference, obviously, between a repair and a demolition when it comes to what you can and can't do with L&I.
So they need to establish, you know, what can be determined, a repair or not.
But that section is clear.
It's for the purposes of when you want to bring a nonconformist structure into compliance, into greater compliance, excuse me, with the building code.
We're not doing that here.
No one said we were doing that.
We never proposed we were bringing this into compliance.
What we propose is an adaptive reuse and an addition.
By that definition, this just doesn't apply. And as for the one year rule, just quickly, because it was mentioned, I know Mr. Bolin said it was minor, but because it was mentioned on the record, I want to just address it quickly, is the one year rule, which we're all familiar with, does not apply when something is when a permit can be issued by right.
And it's clear on that. It states, if such a determination is made, and if the application is not one that L&I may grant as a right under the zoning code, then L&I shall deny the application and note on the application denied one-year rule.
So this is a by-right permit. It's not subject to the one-year rule. They never have been. And unless this code section change, I don't think it will in the foreseeable future.
And so, the only issue here is really none of the, essentially none of the appellant's claims are supported by the code sections that they're citing.
They're just, that's just not what the code section says. And it's a, you know, an attempt to sort of bend it to that purpose, but that's just not what it says and it doesn't apply here.
So the non-conformance structure itself can be renovated in any way possible under the code, and it's not limited by this. The ground floor area can be increased because if you couldn't, you essentially couldn't do anything with non-conformance structures, and you wouldn't be able to have the addition that Mr. Bowling conceded you can have.
And lastly, the increase of ground floor area is not an increase of the nonconformance because there is, that's not the ground floor, excuse me, that's not the nonconformance for this building.
And to sort of highlight that even further, this property is zoned as CMX2, as this area shows, and CMX2 zoning district doesn't have a limit on ground floor area.
So it can't be an increase of the non-conformance, as you can see here, there's no limit on that
under CMX2.
So, you know, I said at the beginning of this that this is something that was just regarding
the facial reading of the, there's no ambiguity here.
This is regarding the facial reading of the code, and there's just a misreading of the
code and a misapplication.
It just doesn't apply here.
are you resting for the moment oh excuse me yes I will okay thank you uh Mr. Bolin and or
Ms. Corrigan who's up next I will wait for Ms. Corrigan in case there's something else I have
to state Ms. Corrigan please please spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in
Yes, Ellen Corrigan, E-L-L-E-N-C-O-R-R-I-G-A-N, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia Department of License and Inspections.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
um so i it was stated earlier i did not uh have the opportunity to speak but the city was given
uh the impression that this this continuance would have been requested and and
much further back than it ultimately was and we have not been able to secure the attendance of our
plans examiner at this time. Obviously, a lot of the conversation here is centering around how the
plans examiner has read the code and read the plans themselves. And as someone without that
sort of expertise in reading plans, I'm certainly not going to substitute my word for his. So
So unfortunately, uh, we don't have that, that plans examiner, uh, present today.
unfortunately, we don't have that plans examiner.
Um, we don't object to the resumption, uh, after a brief continuance based on, uh, what
Mr. Bertil suggested earlier this afternoon though.
Thank you.
Mr. Baldwin.
Um, I, I don't know if you want me to, to provide a brief rebuttal or explanation, but
if this is going to be continued. I too was really hoping to hear if Ellen and I agreed with me and
I thought they would be supportive. So I was really hoping for that today. I'm going to ask
Rebecca Cole, our counsel. I was thinking of doing a resumption hearing as opposed to a continuance
because I said the continuance, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tanya, probably wouldn't be till
january or february uh and i suspect that the owner of this property who's probably has in his
perform his or her performa uh figuring in the 10-year tax abatement which will expire at the
end of this year and if he doesn't get the go-ahead uh he'll lose he or she will lose that
opportunity uh so rebecca school yep that's certainly oh i'm sorry i didn't mean to cut off
this cool uh if we do a resumption hearing and maybe tanya will weigh in we can limit this
could we not to testimony uh from but uh from the city right and i would ask am i simple oversimplifying
it i don't believe you are um mr chair frankly i don't believe we even need um testimony from the
city if we want this if we're asking the city we may want the city to weigh in when i say a
resumption here i'm we're only talking of i guess tanya will be able to answer it better not too far
from today we're not looking at you know next year yeah rebecca cole if if the board is inclined to
grant some sort of a continuance in order to hear such testimony. It could be limited and
the request could be for as short as possible, not to overly prejudice circumstances as they are.
And Mr. Chair, I would ask that since it seems like the, based on, maybe he'll disagree, but
But based on Mr. Bolin's arguments that the only thing really at issue here is this particular section, I would ask if we can limit whatever resumption we do to the examiner's determination of whether this section applies to this application or not.
Because at that point, we will just essentially be redoing the hearing.
yeah well we're not going to redo the hearing and that's why again i'm asking council's advice
to do a resumption hearing and you know limit it to a very small
uh scope of what the city might uh the city would be testifying to um
miss miss corrigan um well let me let me start here tanya if we do a resumption hearing
what what what are we looking at a couple weeks no january oh still i'll be after the first in
the year oh well in that in that case uh we're gonna have to object to that i hear you i hear
you i hear i mean this is to me this is not complicated at all on its face my apologies
i didn't think we'd have to wait that long all right any other question any question
Mr. Bolin, I'm sorry, are you resting?
Yes, I would like to bring up one thing, Mr. Chairman.
A building permit was already issued, which is we filed an appeal of that on the same basis and as well as another basis,
because we don't believe the zoning permit gives them the ability.
So that issue is still going to be floating out there and they can still get a they can still go ahead and get the tax abatement.
But I understand that you might, once it's ruled on once, it's likely to be the same decision a second time.
And Mr. Chair, I just want to highlight that the tax, I know for normally, you know, we represent developers and things of that nature where the tax abatement is the preeminent issue here.
But this is the permit holder's residence.
They're living in transitional housing.
They started the project.
And at a certain point, they can't continue expending funds.
I mean, they already paid $41,000 into the housing trust fund for the bonus.
for the bonus that's non-refundable um so at this point they they can't continue to move forward
That's nonrefundable.
So at this point, they...
with construction under the cloud of an appeal especially when it's not a it's a fairly simple
appeal it's you know it says it right there in the code that this doesn't this is about the
definitions not about whether you can um increase ground floor area i think mr chairman can i
suggest something is it possible i'll waive the right to cross-examination and the examiner
submits a sworn statement under oath in the next week and then you decide it it's something i i just
want to know i think ellen i is going to be on our side so i'd like for you to have the opportunity
to hear what their position yeah i kind of was going you obviously explained a lot better than
i could being a lawyer but i i was that's what i was looking at there's some way of resolving
having a resumption and resolving it in the next couple of weeks with just basically testimony
from L&I or from the attorney for L&I. So Chair, this is Tanya. If we are going to limit the
testimony and it can be a brief resumption, I can squeeze it in. We cannot do a full hearing
for this year because unfortunately, if you look at our calendar, we are booked solid. So it would
depend on that if for some reason we need to have it i could squeeze it in november the 16th
for limited testimony only because we still have that's a tuesday where we still have um a full
case for two o'clock so we could do it that tuesday at two o'clock yeah that's where i was
Mr. Chair, I'm actually not opposed to Mr. Bolland's suggestion of submitting it, just submitting written affidavit within the next week.
In fact, that would be preferable to us than waiting until the 16th.
Well, I'm sure it would be.
Again, I didn't want not to have the city weigh in if it was all possible, and that's why I was trying to figure it out.
and Tanya has helped me out, obviously, and Ms. Cole, to limit the testimony to anything that was
germane to the city's law department's position. Again, I'm not sure if I'm explaining that
accurately or not. Ms. Cole, you might want to help me out with that.
Rebecca Cole here, if the parties are essentially in agreement about how to proceed
and would accept a written affidavit from the L&I examiner.
Ms. Corrigan, would that suit the city's purposes?
I think we can do that.
Just checking my calendar really quickly.
When would the board need this by?
Tell us when you can get it.
We're talking about the 16th, if possible, November 16th.
No, Frank, I think they're, Mr. Chairman, they mean sending something in.
yeah yeah but i think miss corrigan's asking when would we need it by correct
um if i i can pose the end of next week november 5th if that works for all other parties um i can
try and push the plans examiner to to get that done i understand there's a time limit on this
we don't want to drag this out so um i'll do my best on that so uh the fit you're are we looking
at the 6th or or the 13th oh I'm sorry I got the wrong hold on one second apologize
so we're looking at the the 10th uh which is a week from two weeks from today
is that do you think that would be sufficient time Ms. Corrigan I think it should be yes
we all agree in agreement on that mr boland mr bertill i am not uh opposed to that mr chair
um i just wanted to clarify and just confirm that the city is going to weigh in on whether
section 305 6g the the section that mr boland is saying should have been should have created
a refusal applies to this application or not my argument was a little bit broader because i also
focused on that first paragraph of section 14305C, where I believe, I'm sorry, where I believe that
I'm just trying to pull it out, but it's that whole section. It's the whole section,
not just subsection G. Correct. I believe under C there does not increase any existing
nonconformity. I believe that's another reason. That's fine. I thought you said,
that's that's perfect i'm not opposed to that um if this if the city is going to weigh in on whether
um that section applies or whether it's an increase of non-conformance
um that section applies or whether it's an increase of non-conformance um i'm perfectly fine with it
if i can just confirm 305 6g
and then and i believe you said whether an existing non-conformance is increased um
just so i can make sure we're limited to the to the issues what section is that
it's uh 305 6
well 305 6 a b c i guess the the first section actually doesn't have a letter it's before a
oh excuse me okay the initial paragraph is three or five six first paragraph as well as g
just want to make sure that we're in the right spot uh as far as
our response so we're not going too far out of bounds
okay so if you want to repeat that miss corrigan what what do you believe they're asking and then
we'll move on the city uh is going to provide a written statement from the plans examiner
um no later than november 10th which is two weeks from today then and also
provide a statement weighing in on section 3056 the introductory paragraph as well as
subsection g and the interpretation as it applies to this permit that is that accurate
Mr. Bowen and Mr. Bertel? That is accurate, yes. Yes, I believe so. No objection, okay. So I'm
going to probably ask Rebecca to fill in the blanks here. This hearing will be resumed
on Wednesday, November the 10th. Tanya, what time? Oh, I'm sorry that we didn't discuss a
resumption for that date. I thought this was just sending in
documents.
We're at Yeah, the documents will be submitted by the for the
for the board of the 10th, correct? November the 10th.
That was my understanding to be read into the record.
Okay, just documents to be read into the record now? Yes.
Okay, that November 10 will be perfectly fine at whatever time
you choose 9 30 a.m no problem at all chair thank you and miss cole did i leave anything out
uh i don't believe so as long as the parties are happy we're happy
okay thank you all and congratulations mr bowling congratulations thank you time for a nap
excuse me chair if I may we do have um hands raised no we they're not no it's not appropriate
this is an appeal against LNI okay thank you Mr. Bertil Mr. chair I don't I don't think you
mentioned that a vote will be taken after one a vote will be taken at the November 10th uh 9 30
session. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We go to number five now. MI 2021-002898224
East Sharpneck Street. Leo Mobile Hill is the attorney of record. I believe Mr. Councilwoman
ambassador's office is going to be weighing in. So allegedly, and I say allegedly because I'm a
little confused here, East Mount Airy Neighborhood Association, no letter, but I'm also reading where
they did have a meeting and the community unanimously opposed this project. So Mr.
Mobile. I'm coming back in as a panelist now. Yes, good afternoon members of the board. My apologies,
I'm having a computer issue that I'm trying to rectify right now so I can get my screen shared
and get everything along. In the meantime, if you would identify yourselves by your name,
and I'll swear you in. Certainly. Name is Leo Mulvihill, L-E-O. M as in Michael, U-L, V as in
Victor, I-H-I-L-L. You swear we're from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. My address is 315 Green Street, First Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19123.
Mr. Plaza has a few questions.
Mr. Moverhill, you agree to waive the region of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to this?
copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this uh hearing i have
and have you uh met with the rco and have a letter yes thank you please proceed all right
good afternoon chairman members of the board i'm here today on behalf of p b as in bravo jack
properties llc and this is an application for uh multiple what are essentially single family homes
on a single parcel, which would be governed by a PUD, but under the zoning code, this then gets
classified as multifamily because we have multiple structures on the same lot. What I have now on the
screen, I hope, is my zoning packet, including the following, the refusal appeal and project
information form at page one, area zoning maps at nine, with my client's deed at 10, commercial
activity license at 14, tax clearance information at 15, my zoning notification proof of mailing at
16. The RCO letter I have separately, as we just received that, I believe, earlier today.
I have photographs of the property at 19, and I have revised plans at page 35. What I'll do,
members of the board, is first I'll go to the area zoning map to indicate where we are. So we're in
the East Mount Airy neighborhood, just referring to page nine of my packet. Our parcel here is
approximately 5,000 square feet, give or take, and we are located in the area indicated in blue
in RSA 5 district. Looking overhead with a site from Google Maps, we can see approximately where
we're located on the 200 block of East Sharpneck Street. Zooming out, this is my client's feed at
page 10, commercial activity license at 14, tax clearance at 15, showing no taxes owed.
This is my RCO notification letter at page 16, including the certificate of mailing,
showing that 151 mailing pieces went out on the 29th of September. There were two community
meetings held. One was informational. The second was a voting meeting at which we provided
revised plans to the community to eliminate one of our refusals. For purposes of the record,
I'll just go through those refusals here. So initially, because we were essentially seeking
to build six single-family homes oriented perpendicularly to the street with a common
drive aisle and all-street parking for each, we were issued refusals for multifamily, as I
discussed earlier. We were also issued a refusal for minimum rear yard depth of nine feet. Our
revised plans have been amended such that that refusal has been eliminated. So essentially what
we're talking about today is a lot where we're seeking to build more or less six single family
homes on one lot governed by a PUD or HOA. At page 19 of my packet, what I have here are photographs
of the posting for the property. I'll proceed through those. So this is the subject property
members of the board. It includes the structure to the left, which is a two-and-a-half-story
home that I believe has previously been used for a two-family dwelling, although I don't see any
history in LNI regarding that legalization. There's then this little gate and this one-story
structure, which has essentially been used as a garage, and there's a curb cut more or less there.
Whether it's legal at this point, I don't believe it is, but it has existed for quite some time.
now this is looking down sharp neck street and what i'll do is i'll just do a 360 degree view
there's the subject's property covered in that beige stucco and another shot of the subject
property you can see a lot immediately adjacent as both open area and a one-story structure
because we have one-story structure on the side of us we did not receive a refusal for a third
fourth setback uh the community group disagreed with the reading of the code but as this board
knows unless you have structures on either side of you that are both two-story you don't receive
that third floor setback refusal so we didn't receive it in this case
this is looking down the other way of sharpneck street and then directly across the street
as you can see there is parking on both sides of the street but we do have a curb cut essentially
in front of that garage this is the subject existing house which is proposed to be demolished
And this is our proposed development. As I stated before, members of the board, there's going to be, these are oriented perpendicular to the street to allow for the construction of six single family homes.
Looking to the size of this lot, because it is relatively wide and deep, we tried to look, approached it as how many single family homes will be allowed by right based on this square footage of the lot.
and under that mathematics, it's six. The way the lot is shaped is impressively deep and not
impressively deep and not quite so wide. So our hardship in this instance, which we explained to
quite so wide. So our hardship in this instance, which we...
the members of East Mount Airy Neighbors Association board and community, which they
rejected, is that the dimensions of the lot are such that we can't really develop on it unless
we did three narrower sort of styles, single family homes facing the street, which would be
allowed by right. But the dimensions of this lot are quite so deep that the hardship would be
developing it in a way that was economically feasible for this RSA 5 zone lot. For each of
these homes are three stories tall. They have interior all street parking as we can see on each
of the homes that are presented and we're asking for six overall based on the total lot size.
This is our amended site plan. As you can see this is our common drive aisle. We have six units.
They were originally slated to be 25 feet wide a piece. After our initial community meeting
consulting concerns of some of the neighbors with respect to open area and wanting to eliminate some
of the refusals, we actually shrunk each of the units from 25 feet to 23 and a half feet. And what
that did was provided us with a rear yard of nine feet, which eliminates our rear yard refusal.
Note that each of the single family style homes also have their own rear yard behind the units,
Although under the zoning code, it would be defined as a side yard, just since we're kind of going perpendicular.
It is a side yard, but it acts as rear yard for each of the units.
So it's a two way drive aisle, 20 feet wide, and we propose some street trees or pardon me off street trees and a privacy fence to the rear to try to buffer this property's development from any of the properties behind it.
these are just additional photos of the subject property which we've already seen
this is a view of the property from the drive aisle again each of the houses three stories
not to exceed 38 feet each of them does have a roof deck and there's no pilot house on them
because we sought to reduce the overall massing of the properties so there is a staircase but
it's not there's no need for a pilot house for access to the roof deck and we can see that from
the side view of the property here again basement one two three and then these stairs are recessed
actually into the third story to allow for roof deck access um the structures themselves are
relatively sizable we do have a basement which has a space for storage and mechanicals there's
a non-excavated area for purposes of the garage. So in the first story of the properties,
we do have a bathroom and a proposed bedroom, office, something along those lines as well,
access to the rear yard for trash and recycling, which is denoted here.
Going into the second story, as you go up the switch back stairs, you have a living room to
the front, dining area to the middle, kitchen to the rear, with mechanicals and a powder room.
Here's a storage closet as well. Going up those stairs, we bring us then to the third story, which has a bedroom in the front, bedroom in the rear, decent sized bath for each of the properties as well as decent sized closets.
The laundry is also located on the third floor. On the roof, we have the proposed roof deck. Again, we have stairs that are accessed and recessed into the third floor, so we're not going to be towering over any of the properties on the block. There's no pilot houses whatsoever.
What we have, I'm going to attempt to share this now since I just received it and was not able to keep it and provided this part of my zoning packet.
We received earlier today a copy of the zoning letter from East Mount Airy Neighbors.
Ultimately, they brought up a couple of concerns. Some of them were based on a misreading of the zoning code, specifically the required setback for third stories.
EMAN zoning committee insisted that we needed a third floor setback under the reading of the zoning code as interpreted by L&I and plans examiners.
We don't. And that's strictly because we have a one story building on one side of us and a two story building on the other.
So the third floor setback does not apply.
They also had some concerns that our property was not set back sufficiently from the street.
Namely, a two-story apartment building is set back on one side, and there was contention that the one-story building on our other side was set back, but we received no refusal from this from the plans examiner.
Neighbors brought up some concerns about stormwater, but with respect to this parcel, we're going to have permeable pavement.
We have significant open area. Approximately 50% of the lot, if not more, is open to the sky and will be covered with either permeable pavement in the drive aisle or open area will be grass, trees, things along those lines for both the rear and side yards under the zoning code.
One moment, members of the board.
One moment, members of the board.
There was a concern that was brought up regarding the fact that this is classified as multifamily.
Members of the community were concerned that perhaps these houses could even later be parceled up additionally.
And I attempted to explain that that would require additional zoning applications, variance requests, refusals, etc.
But for whatever reason, the community was still concerned that this could be further subdivided, even though more or less these are single family style homes.
As I said, simply under the zoning code, they are defined as multifamily because we're looking to have an HOA or a PUD govern them all.
that's the ultimately they also prepared some other documents um with respect to the property
but i'll just defer to whatever they sent into the zoning board at this point um and i'm going
to go back to my presentation in chief there we go now i believe my client david jackson is on the
line mr jackson if you can raise your raise your hand and wait to be unmuted we're going to swear
you when to testify you can unmute and wait for the chair
oh can you hear me yes please spell your name sir and i'll swear you in certainly my first name
David, D-A-V-I-D, last name Jackson, J-A-C-K-S-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Mulvey. Yes. Now,
Mr. Jackson, you've heard my testimony today. I have. Okay. And it's in this instance,
our specific hardship is that the lot is overly deep and insufficiently wide to maximize or have
a property that you could develop without some of hardship in this instance is that correct
it is okay and the suggested three uh homes fronting on sharpneck street uh that's simply
not feasible with a project of this scope is that correct i don't think it is no
and you've heard the remainder of my testimony and it's true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge and belief? Yes. You'd otherwise adopt my testimony as your own in this instance?
I would. And is there anything else you'd like to add at this point? No. Thank you. I have no
other questions for you, Mr. Jackson. Just one more thing, members of the board, some community
members did bring up the question of affordability. And I did explain to the community as best I
could that with building six units versus three uh the prices of the homes are going to be
significantly lower because there are certain fixed costs that are associated with construction
building six versus three means that there's more affordability uh inherently to the homes
that would be constructed um so that's how we tried to address that issue with the members of
the community as well at this point i'm happy to take any questions that the board might have
thank you any questions from the board no mr chairman no no anyone else like to testify in
this case please raise your hand chair we have nina curl it miss curl it you can unmute yourself
or wait for the chair charlotte please spell your full name and i'll swear you in sure
I'm muted to our chair. This is Tanya. Ms. Curlet, may I ask that if you have two devices on,
you mute one or close it out, turn it off, and then utilize the other because we're getting
the echo from the two devices. I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? Sorry about that.
very well thank you yes we can thank you please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
um my name is nina curlett n-i-n-a-c-u-r-l-e-t-t
you swear or affirm the title of truth the whole thing about the truth i do yes please proceed
so we we did have two meetings about this project um
to be very frank the main issue here is that the applicant still has not
been able to demonstrate hardship um other than financial which was repeat
Other than financial, which was repeatedly the reason, we are still unclear what the hardship is about building on this lot by right.
um we we would also contend that even if this were to be built by right as um the claim
has been put forth to us that as it's been designed it cannot be based on the code because
there is no front setback at all as it's been shown to us and that not only would it need
a front setback in relation to the properties that surround it the buildings that surround it
but it would also need an additional eight feet on the third floor totaling 14 foot at that level
regardless of that the community does not see that this in any way actually adds value to the
neighborhood um the structure is far overly dense and this lot clearly can be built by right
preferably we'd like to see the house that stands on it which is an existing home
renovated and two built but if it they chose to demolish three could be built
and by doing so would not need any variance at all neither dimensional or um use
It is concerning that this is being suggested to be a planned unit development, because as was stated by the applicant, there are concerns with how and what those implications will be in the future.
um not only whether or not if these were to be turned into apartments by separate owners as they
are apparently going to be deeded if it were to be built um would they be able to be broken up
into separate units and not need to go through another variance process um it seems to me based
on listening to arguments go on and on and on at the zba that that's very well possible which is a
very big concern to neighbors. This is already the most dense neighborhood in East Mount Airy.
It's being targeted to build like this, sideways properties on what seem to be
not very safe drive aisles onto a one-way street that is one of the more narrow streets in the
neighborhood. And given that, it seems that these overly dense propositions are detrimental
to existing neighbors and to new neighbors that might move in, given they are not
having the opportunity to have any outdoor space due to this. Open space is a huge concern.
Permeable pavement is better than complete, you know, full paved driveway.
However, on a lot this size, that is a very, very big amount of area that no longer will be able to support any life in an area that right now is completely overtaxed with not only the existing infrastructure over the Winnahawking with a combined sewer shed,
but new building that is going up, new development that is going up, creating even a larger flood
threat for not only us in the neighborhood, but everyone downstream. There is no hardship.
We have not been able to, we repeatedly asked to please explain the hardship, but I would contend
that there is no necessary hardship here the lot is not particularly different than others in the
neighborhood um it could be built by right uh in such a way that it did fit into the neighborhood
with yards as opposed to roof decks which are becoming a a concern for neighbors as well due
to their inability to be able to utilize their yards in a way they feel um they've been up till
now, which is in a safe and private manner. And the burden on the infrastructure was
definitely a point raised, considering that if this were to be built as a planned unit development
with an HOA, we feel that the burden could easily fall on near neighbors if for some reason
that infrastructure broke down and the HOA did not make these repairs. That burden will either
The HOA did not make these repairs. That burden will either fall onto the city or neighbors, which means that the trash for six times the amount of people that currently are zoned to live on that lot will then have to fall on neighbors.
fall under the city or neighbors, which.
And that is not something anyone looks forward to, either for the new neighbors or the existing neighbors.
um and dimensionally again as i said the the fact that each the fact that they cut a foot
and a and six inches off each of these units to to afford a nine foot rear theoretical rear yard
uh really to the neighbors that means nothing to the neighbors they are simply proposing something
that needs to be conformed to based on the code as it's written and it's sort of a thinly veiled way
of simply giving something that they would need to have need to give anyway if this could indeed
be built by right which we believe it cannot not having any street frontage for for any of these
units um i could i could continue on i will say that the very first question asked when this was
brought back to the neighbors um happened to be so your takeaway from everything we discussed at
the first meeting was a nine foot rear yard um which clearly was not it's great but again it's
something that they would need to have provided anyway. And every other concern that the neighbors
had was essentially ignored. The change to multifamily, the demolition of an existing house,
adding six times the amount of current density, the lack of outdoor space, the safety concerns
with the drive aisle now being essentially a street, a dead-end street off a one-way street
for six families 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that's a big deal, especially if building
like this were to continue. The stormwater and flooding issues are huge. We're seeing the effects
of that every day. I mean, we all just lived through something that we never want to live
through again. But if we continue to do this, we will. And certainly the neighbors in this
neighborhood will and everyone downstream it is not it is not something any of us look forward to
so continued development above the winnihocking is is detrimental and um already severe severe
flooding has proven uh has shown that not only is it possible to lose property but lose lose lives
um and again removing removing the trees that exist there the tree that does exist there that's
that's that's a big deal we're losing tree canopy at an amazing rate the quality of life
is being reduced what makes this neighborhood what makes this neighborhood appealing is exactly
what's being taken away by this by this proposal and we do not agree there's any hardship for this
at all. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Chairman, if I may report. Yes, please. Just
looking to this lot size, it's approximately 9,000 square feet divided by six puts us at
approximately 1,500 square feet per unit that we're proposing, which is in excess of the 1,440
required in RSA 5 districts, which is what we were looking at with respect to this property.
The hardship in particular has to do with the dimensions. We have 60 feet of street frontage and 150 feet of depth. In addition, with respect to the concerns about stormwater, we're having a lot here with over twice of what's required in the NARSA 5 district with respect to open area, 53.9% looking to the zoning data chart that I have now on the screen, page 36 of my zoning packet.
in addition permeable pavement in addition we're proposing trees and potentially the
landscape rear yards for each of these units which are technically defined as side yard but
they have sufficient depth in that we have nine feet of rear yard depth for each of the proposed
unit and nine feet of rear yard depth on the actual lot itself with respect to concerns brought up
about roof decks that's not a zoning concern roof decks are allowed by right and i continue to
respectfully disagree with their, with the RCO's assertion that we must be set back in any way
whatsoever. We were not issuing refusals for that. And if we, if we needed to have any sort
If we needed to have any sort of setback, whether on the lot itself or on the third story, the plans examiner would have issued that.
of setback, whether on the lot itself or on the third story, the plan.
So those are my remaining points with respect to this issue.
Oh, one last thing with respect to trash.
Because we have six units, this could very well just be a matter of city trash.
There could be a private trash collection if the zoning board is so required, but because we're under the number of units that would be required to have private trash, this would be serviced by the city.
um just just a thought i mean can see i understand the issue with the depth
of this lot and uh i mean if there there are other ways of doing uh development there maybe
not with the full six units maybe as an example just as an example is two twins which would give
you four units or four singles well we would not be able to do four singles as a matter of right
chairman just because this mentions a lot because we would still require street frontage we only
have 60 feet of street frontage i understand that but if the issue if one of the issues and i read
the letter i want to go back and read it again but uh if one of the issue is the density uh you
could reduce some of the density i don't know if the numbers work uh but you could reduce the
density anywhere from one to whatever even again you can do four singles maybe not by right but you
can you can build that and that might be something i'm not i don't know that for a fact that might be
something that the community well might be accepting just just thinking out loud trying
how do you develop this um you know 9 000 square foot parcel yeah my understanding chairman is that
the community itself, based on our discussions, was set on having three homes facing Sharpneck
Street, which would require a completely separate application. It would require the relocation of
lot lines. So we'd be looking at a completely different lot altogether. And right now,
we're looking at the lot as it exists, 60 feet wide by 150 feet deep. Now, if the board were
to issue a proviso limiting the number of units at five, potentially that's something we could
live with um although frankly considering our only refusal here is due to quote-unquote
multi-family and that's based on the dimensions of the lot being so deep and not quite so uh wide
yeah understood that's our issue it's a unique parcel okay it's a unique parcel chair all right
anyone else to testify in this case and if so please something new and different uh miss curlet
It gave a very thorough presentation as to why the community is objecting.
So if you have something new and different, that would be helpful.
Here we have Charles Richardson with his hand up.
Mr. Richardson, you can unmute and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you want to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
So, Councilwoman is opposed to this randomness variance.
The project is overly dense.
They need to reduce the number of units.
You know, this is actually a manufactured hardship that seems like it's designed to maximize the profit of the developer.
There were two meetings as Ms. Curlett had gone over. All of the attendees in both meetings were totally in opposition to granting the variance. There are other ways that this can be done that they're not looking at because of the fact that they're trying to maximize profit.
But because of these facts, the councilwoman is, and because she stands with the community, she is opposed to this, granting this variance.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case?
Again, I would ask you to please provide something new and different.
Chair, we have a Ms. Rita Griggs. Ms. Griggs, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Hello?
Hi, ma'am. Please spell your full name.
Rita Griggs, R-I-T-A, G-R-I-G-G-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
I would like to clarify one sworn truth by Mr. Mauville.
There is one side parking on Sharp Next Street.
There is not two sides.
There are signs posted on each Telegram poll.
the people parking on the other side are parking there because they do not have
adequate parking around there so they're parking on their payment illegally um this
adequate parking around there so they're parking on their payment illegally um this has been
addressed over and over again so i just wanted to make that clear that he swore on his statement
that this was the truth and it's not because there are signs posted that it's only one side parking
that is will become another issue and i know parking does not make a difference when it comes
to development for the neighbors but it should because in this time of what's going on people's
tempers are high and parking around here has become a problem. There are issues with conflicts
and this will not do nothing but create another conflict of type for parking. I also have one
other concern about the demolition of an old building. They said it was not going to be any
harm to neighbors. There will be if you demolish a building with asbestos and lead paint, which we
will deal with dust and runoff even though you're watering it it hasn't stopped COVID so it's not
going to stop this. I have a concern with the lasting effect of the dust fumes and the runoff
from demising that older property rather than restoring it and keeping it intact and that was
my concern and also my last concern was this is not conformity to our neighborhood and it and as
far as how much it will cost to live there versus how much the people are paying across the street
to own their own homes, I feel as though it will become a problem to the residents of the block.
Thank you for your time. If I may, Chair. Yes, sir. With respect to the testimony that was just
given, I don't believe I suggested that there was parking on both sides of the street at any point.
Irrespective of what this design does with one curb cut is allow for the all street parking for
six vehicles, which ultimately would assist in unburdening the street parking that's being
exasperated on the block. With respect to the demolition, I understand the concerns. That's
endemic to the demolition of any old house. My client will take any sort of precautions necessary,
and the demolition isn't necessarily an issue here in this case. With respect to the pricing
that was brought up, again, with the construction of five, six single-family style homes in this
lot. My client's able to offer a lower price than if we were to take this lot and build only three
homes, which would have a significantly higher price tag just because of the costs that are
endemic to construction itself. Those are the only points I wish to bring up on rebuttal.
Anyone else to testify? Something new and different, please.
Chair, we have a Kelly O'Day. Mr. or Ms. O'Day, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Ready to be sworn in, Chair.
There you go.
Kelly O'Day, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Kelly O'Day.
K-E-L-L-Y-O apostrophe D-A-Y.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I live in East Mount Airy and I'm on the zoning committee. I'd like to point out the
Mr. Mulville had a photo of just a minute ago that showed the building. If he could possibly
restore that, that would be very helpful to him and to the board, I believe. It shows the rendering
of the proposed building exactly flush with the building next door if we could bring if you could
possibly restore that uh yes that's the photograph the rendering right there what i think is very
important if you look at the aerial photographs you'll see that the existing apartment building
yes you can see it there the existing apartment building is set back 14 feet and the proposed
building is not set back at all. So I know that the plans examiner did not raise that question,
but it is clear when you read notes four and five in the RSA 5 code that it needs to be set back
consistent with the adjacent building. And so the adjacent building is a two-story building
set back 14 feet and I beg to differ that I'm not sure what the zoning practice is but the code is
very clear on this point and then the other point is we've talked about before is the
building on the 216 side is the garage it's set back six feet so from my standpoint
the building as a minimum should be set back six feet and I would argue that the eight feet
The building as a minimum should be set back six feet, and I would argue that the eight feet is more important because the 230 E-Sharpnack, the principal building there is an apartment building, a two-story apartment building.
The principal building on 216 is a garage, and I would believe that an apartment building would be more important than a garage.
So I would argue that whether or not the plans examiner identified it, it should be considered by the board that the code does call in this case for at least the six foot and more likely a 14 foot setback. Thank you.
and chairman in response I brought that up in my case in chief and we I just stand that the
plans examiner was correct in not requiring either an eight foot setback or any setback
in the street based on the adjacent structures of the parcel on the other side so noted thank
you anyone else there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
the density of the proposal is in line with what would be allowed as of right if the property of
this size was subdivided by right accordingly the planning commission recommends the board
to approve the variance. Thank you. Mr. Mulvihill,
would it make any sense if you guys would go back and try to see if you can figure out
another design that might reduce the density? Well, Chair, what we have in this case, I believe
is we're at loggerheads with the RCO, as their position remains that this should be developed in,
this should be one resubmitted with a completely different application okay including a subdivision
um my i mean if if the board would have a proviso max five units uh perhaps that's something we
could live with i just have to get my client on the line again to affirm that um okay planning
commission stated where we did this with respect to this lot looking to the overall requirements
of rsa5 lot size considering the interesting dimensional um restrictions that are placed on us
with 150 foot deep lot that's only has 60 feet of street frontage thank you all right um mi 2021
does zero zero two eight nine eight two two four east sharp nick my vote is no confessor
James Snell, my vote is no.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
Number seven on our list, MI 2021, that's 002-911-2601 Reed Street.
It's either Mr. Notkinson or Ms. Amazon.
Grace Ferry Community Council sent a letter of support.
Chair, Ms. Amazon is coming back in now as a panelist.
Hey, good afternoon, Ms. Amazon.
Please identify yourself.
You're still under oath.
You're muted.
Yes, thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board.
Clemente Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Amazon, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal,
or referral, photos, and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, and we have a letter of support.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Of course.
I'm just going to share my screen.
I'll take that as a yes.
Thank you.
So today I'll be presenting 2601 Reed Street.
This is a project, excuse me.
Okay, so this is a very straightforward project.
The board may remember that we presented
2600 and 2602 Reed Street last week.
It's a similar request here.
It's a similar request here. I will go through the notice of refusal, letter of support from Grace Ferry Community Council.
I will go through the notice of refusal.
Letter of support.
Our request is not uncommon for this block. This property is zoned as CMS1.
It's a residential block. The community would like to maintain that residential use.
So we're just looking to eliminate the commercial use here and place it with residential use.
We have maps of the area, photographs of the property, our proposed plans and drawings, the notice that we sent out for that community meeting,
as well as the application for appeal, deed, and certificate of tax clearance.
Again, the property zone, CMX1, is a residential block.
We're just looking to replace that commercial use with residential.
We met with the community on September 30th, and we're happy to say that we did receive support for this particular project.
And there are several properties along this block of Reed Street.
unfortunately i'm having technical difficulties i cannot show them to you however last week the
board also um approved 2600 as well as 2602 in addition to the two other properties on that
block that are also multi-family properties um i'm sorry i'm having some time i think we i think
we have proved that did you have the case on the other side of the street last week 26 yes exactly
I did. For some reason, some of my slides are not coming through, but here's a view of the front of the property along Reed Street, view of the side of the property from South 26th Street,
Reed Street to the left, Reed Street to the right, views of South 26th Street, our plans and drawings.
And I apologize for whatever glitch I have going on right now, but they're comparable to what was approved last week.
We had the meeting with the community on September 30th at 7 p.m., which included the refusal, date, time, and Zoom information, as well as I'm just going to stop sharing and hopefully that will resolve whatever is happening right now.
But we did send out notice of that community meeting. It was well attended. We did receive the community support. Here's a list of the properties that were notified.
And our certificates of mailing, which for some listeners are also not voting.
The application for appeal that you see here.
And the project information form, as well as our certificate of tax clearance here.
um so with that if i can have joe out of seven raise his hand so that he can adopt my testimony
that would be great
if not i can stipulate as an officer of the court yeah we'll stipulate you being an officer court
your client would have adopted your testimony any questions from the board no mr jim
Anyone else to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
We feel the applicant has demonstrated a sufficient hardship for the commercial use.
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board approve the variance thank you mi 2021-002
9-1-1 2601 reed street my vote is yes professor plaza yes james snell yes thomas holliman my vote
is yes to the court reporter we have four more cases uh do you need a break chair i would
appreciate one thank you okay it's four o'clock we'll be back in 10 minutes thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay good afternoon everyone again it's 4 10. um mr kelly you're back
I am chair. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we're ready to proceed. Uh,
um, yes, Mr. Case is nine and 10. I think we're going to be hearing them together.
MI 2021-002901 3623 Fairmount Avenue. Meredith Ferliger is the attorney of record,
mantua civic association sent a letter of support and mi 2021-003026 3801 fairmount avenue
um miss ferlinger ferlinger and uh the match was civic did send a letter of support
do you want to hear these both together yes please okay please identify yourselves by your
name and i'll swear you in sure meredith ferlinger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r of the law firm
delworth paxton 1500 market street suite 3500 e philadelphia pennsylvania for a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i certainly do thank you mr plaza has a few
questions for you yes miss farlinger you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate
to attack RCA? Yes. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five
days prior to this hearing? Yes, to all the above, for both. Okay, and have you met with the
RCO and have a letter? Yep, the letter is in the packet. Thank you, please proceed. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. As I mentioned, my name is Meredith
Verlager, and I have with me here today my client, Rami Schrein, the owner of both of
these properties. The request before the board today concerns two properties in Mantua, located
at 3623 Fairmount Avenue and 3801 Fairmount Avenue, both which receive support from Mantua
Civic Association. Now, the reason that we are presenting these cases together, and to give the
board a very broad overview of why we're here, both of these projects had permits prior to Mantua
being rezoned. Due to COVID-related issues with L&I and the timing of the building permit
submissions, the zoning permits expired. And so we were forced to reapply. Of course, the lots are
now zoned RSA 5 as a result of the Mantua rezoning. So what were the previously approved
by-right multifamily projects are no longer by-right. So let me walk you through these in a
little bit more detail now that you have the broad context of why we are here. To orient you to these
two particular properties, you can refer to the zoning map I have up on the screen at Exhibit 7.
3623 Fairmount Avenue is just off the corner of North 37th Street and 3801 Fairmount is right at
the corner of North 38th Street. Both lots are between 1300 and 1500 square feet. Now regarding
the specific proposals and let me just bring up some renderings for you. For 3623 Fairmount Avenue
The proposal is for a three-story structure for a four-family dwelling, so four units.
3801 Fairmount is also a three-story structure, but this one will have three units.
All of the units average around 800 square feet or greater.
The units are intended to be for sale units at below market prices at around $250,000 per condominium.
My client has also been working with the councilwoman regarding his intent to work with the local housing agencies in the area when it comes time to.
his intent to work with the local housing agencies in the area when it comes time to sell these
proposed condominiums. He's been working with Andrew Budman in her office not just on these
projects but on other projects he has in the area as well. The design of the structures is intended
to match the surrounding neighborhood including the front setbacks, porches, and the brick facades.
Trash for both of these is stored in the rear and is collected by a commercial hauler several times
a week. So now turning to the refusals themselves, as I mentioned, both of these projects were
previously approved. So as you can see in Exhibit 8 that I'll bring up on the screen here,
3623 Fairmount Avenue was permitted on July 7, 2016. 3801 Fairmount Avenue was issued a permit
on August 23rd, 2016. As you can see on the top of both of these permits, the properties were zoned
RM1. Now, it took some time to secure financing for the projects and get the construction drawings
drawn up. So, the specific timeline of what happened here is reflected in my email that I
sent to Curtis Daniel, who's the development director over at L&I. Rami and his design team
attempted several times during 2019 to secure the one-year permit extension that's permitted
by the zoning code at section 1430310d. L&I was unresponsive. As you're likely aware,
when COVID then started in March of 2020, L&I issued a subsequent extension to all permits.
With the one-year code extension plus the COVID extension, both of these permits would have
remained valid until January 2020 and February of 2021. Having still received no response from
L&I, they submitted for their building permits. At that point is when I reached out to Curtis
to resolve the timing issue. Again, even I received no reply. So after many attempts,
we ultimately determined that we had no choice but to submit for new zoning permits and get the
process started again. So, of course, as you're aware, Mantua was rezoned about a year after the
permits were first issued, as is shown in Exhibit 10 at the remapping bill. The properties were
rezoned to RSA 5, so the previously approved projects now generated use variances for the
proposed multifamily use. As the refusals reflect, the sole refusal here is for the use, which is as
a direct result of the rezoning. Nothing else about the projects has changed from the way that
they were originally approved. Not only did Rami purchase the properties as RM1 properties,
but he invested significant time and resources into securing permits and preparing detailed
construction drawings for these exact projects. Now, despite the rezoning, the proposals are
consistent with the character of the immediate area. The blocks contain a mix of multifamily
uses mixed with some remaining single family, as well as some vacant land. This is precisely the
reason why Mantua Civic felt that a condominium proposal would be ideal for these blocks.
There is a large 10-unit complex directly next door to 3623 Fairmount, as well as a four-unit
proposal recently approved by this board at 3605 Fairmount and 3606 Olive Street. There are several
other examples of the mixed multifamily character of the blocks at Exhibit 14. The density proposed
here is less than many of the surrounding structures, and the multifamily condominiums
will represent a nice blend to the mixed character of the street. As always, we do submit these are
the least minimum variances, and the proposal will not increase any congestion, harm neighbors'
properties or impair light and air. Full analysis is included in the memo of law at tab 10.
Now, also, as an aside, should the board require any further authority to grant these variances,
we do also submit that this particular situation meets the legal standard to grant my client these
variances on the basis of having a vested right to these proposals. Should the board require it,
I would be happy to walk you through the specific elements that would entitle them to a variance
based on the vested rights theory here. With respect to the community, as you know,
Mantua Civic did issue a letter of support at Tab 16. And aside from formal Mantua,
the formal Mantua meeting, Rami did also meet and discuss the project with several other
your neighbor separately shortly after Mantua's meeting. So at this time, I will call up Rami
So at this time, I will call up Rami to adopt my testimony, and then we'd be happy to take any questions.
to adopt my testimony, and then we'd be happy to take.
Rami Shreim, please.
Mr. Shreim, when you get on, please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Shreim, you've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
hello this is rami shrine spelled r-a-m-y s-h-r-a-i-m 433 north 32nd street
Philadelphia Pennsylvania you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth I do please proceed uh rami have you heard all of my testimony given at the board today
yes and would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt that
testimony as if it were your own i do thank you any questions questions from the board
no mr chairman no no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
there are no hands at this time chair thank you uh planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan and was
recently remapped we recognize the project was previously approved under the previous rm1 zoning
and has only returned due to expired permits accordingly the planning commission has no
objection to the board granting the variance variance that were both uh peter 3801 and 3623
Fairmount? Correct. Thank you. MI 2021-0029013623 Fairmount Avenue and MI 2021-0030263801
Fairmount Avenue. My vote is yes to both. Professor Plaza, yes to both. James Snell,
yes to both thomas holliman yes to both thank you number 13 thank you number 13 on our list
mi 2021-002-908-5115-39 bellfield avenue according to my notes penn area neighborhood
association was not able to reach an agreement regarding this application but further note says
if the board were to approve this they would ask that it would be approved with revised plan two
pages miss pritzker is the attorney of record good afternoon chairman members of the board
afternoon please identify yourself and i swear you in yep rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 you were sworn in earlier today you're still
under oath i was not sworn in chairman no i'm sorry uh do you swear affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes that's right your case was continued uh mr uh plaza has
some questions for you yes miss prisker you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate
of its accuracy yes and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents
proof of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five
days prior to this hearing yes and have you met with the rco and have a letter yes thank you please
for a seat. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. This is our application for 5-1-1-5
Belfield. I'm going to bring up the refusal. This is a large 116,398 square foot I-2 existing
industrial structure. It was previously designated as historic by the Historic Commission with
support by the owners. It was the previous site of a storage facility for LaSalle, although there's
no records of that besides just knowing that LaSalle had ownership, but more important than
that, before it was a light industrial use by Dittmart-Penn, but has not had any viable
productive use since its donation to LaSalle University. My clients purchased the property
in 2020. Our proposal here is for the erection of basically just an addition connecting the
two existing structures. There's a two-story and three-story existing buildings that we're
buildings that we're going to be adaptively reusing as per our proposal for 77 units with
going to be adaptively reusing as per proposal.
67 parking spaces, including three accessible spaces, four electric parking spaces, and 30
bike spaces. The only variance, as you can see, is just for use as multifamily or any residential
use is not permitted in I-2. As I mentioned, the previous use of the property dates back to the
80s and had since been vacated for a long time and just used for short storage although there
was no use permit that I could find to that effect. Again it's a 116,398 square foot building
literal enforcement of I2. It presents a hardship. I'm going to just show the site quickly so you
can see. The layout is quite unique compared to most other industrial sites. It's kind of oddly
shaped. And so as you can see, it's sort of like in an island of itself, Armstrong, Bellfield,
and Worcester streets. It is surrounded completely by, this is, although to the right here is RSD,
it is just vacant parkland there's parks here and then green space here and then as you can see a
lot of residential single family this ICMX property behind I'll go into in a little bit
that was actually it actually obtained zoning relief for a variance for I believe it's 30
residential units so really there's no industrial uses that are being utilized over here and mostly
residential uses. And as you can see from this aerial, again, we're kind of in an island on our
own. This is an aerial view of the site. As you can see, it's a pretty dilapidated industrial
structure. Again, it's two two and three story structures. And the only addition we're making
to it is just to help connect the two buildings so that individuals can walk in between them
and just sort of come with a little bit of a better layout. There's a mixture of landscaping
and graded area. One of the hardships that we found, besides the fact that obviously it sat
vacant for quite some time with no viable industrial use, is that the property is really
ill-equipped for sale or rental for uses that are permitted in I-2. The property's multi-story
structures, uneven terrain, single vehicular access point, and chopped up parking arrangement,
half a dozen small parking lots are scattered across the site rather than one large lot,
makes it an extremely poor candidate for modern-day industrial use, as does the fact that it's in a
district not near highways, freight trains, and is surrounded by residences. The city's 2035
Upper Northwest District Plan states only one percent of the district land is currently zoned
for industrial uses, which sort of highlights the past and present ill-fitting nature of industrial
use on this property. It doesn't really feature, the plan doesn't really feature an extensive
discussion of the private market's appetite for industrial properties, but several of the other
district plans do. And we find that in alignment with those plans and just industrial uses across
the city, the comprehensive plan strongly recommends allowing for vacant industrial
zone parcels to transition into other uses. So we find that, you know, given the hardship of the
site, its location next to residential, the fact that it's in incredibly poor condition and sort
of the layout of the building in the middle of this sort of island landscape makes it a better
site for an adaptive reuse. Again, this building has been designated as historic, so it will still
retain its industrial character and will pay homage a bit to the historic nature of what once
was. However, it will bring back into a use that will lend to the surrounding neighborhood. And
again this has been vacant for a long time so I think any industrial use probably would have
come into play at some point had it been an appropriate site for that. Additionally it's
worth mentioning for the record that the property has near neighbors that were permitted multi-family
household despite being zoned either for low density single family or industrial commercial
mixed use, as I mentioned. This building over here is 525 to 47 Armstrong. It's a way smaller
lot than ours. It's only 11,694 square feet, but it obtained a variance in 2012 for 30 residential
units and a takeout restaurant, as did these buildings directly to the right on the screen,
which are both zoned RSA 3, but they were awarded over 50 units with no parking on way smaller
lots directly adjacent. They're owned by LaSalle. And there's a handful of others that are provided
in my packet that are also zoned RSA3 and were awarded variances for mold.
um RSA 3 um and were awarded variances for multi-family just showing that the desire and the
appropriateness of multi-family on the site and adjacent sites has already been recognized by the
board um and again our project is over a hundred thousand square feet um far less result residential
density than any of the other properties that were allowed um this type of relief i'm gonna pause
there aside from just showing the zoning posters and some of the images of the site, as the board
can see, it's very run down at this point, has not had any habitable use. And again, most of the
work that we're planning on doing is for the interior of the site and just kind of connecting
it to each other. The last real use on this was back in the 80s, as I mentioned, and really hasn't
had an industrial or light industrial use since. We had two meetings with the community and they
were pretty well attended, as you can see from the letter that was submitted. So there was 21
at one meeting and 17 at the other. Most of the concerns were about traffic, not enough parking,
um the impotential impact on traffic and um some of the site conditions um we have our civil
engineers here we already do have irsa approval by the water department so any of the and we don't
trigger any steep slopes or anything of that nature so all that um has been reviewed prior
to the submission and obviously we'll work with the water department and the other agencies to
work through that um but a lot of the issues have also been addressed via revised plans
We submitted revised plans, which I'll have the, I'm going to stop sharing my screen and have our architect go into.
I believe Michelle is on the line.
And we made some improvements to the site, dumpster locations, work for trash removal.
That was one of the concerns.
And also adding in sort of pedestrian walkway as well to include a little bit more pedestrian safety for the site.
Again, none of these things we have a refusal for, but, you know,
we did believe that a lot of those concerns were very valid and wanted to fit them in for for a
better project the person you're bringing up michelle she should be on the line promoted to
panelists now chair thank you michelle please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
you need to unmute yourself michelle
Michelle Kleschick, K-L-E-S-C-H-I-C-K, from Parallel Architecture Studio.
Or from the Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, Nothing But the Truth?
Thank you.
Michelle, are you able to share your screen and go through the revised plans?
I'm going to do, I think I'm going to do that right now.
There we go.
you can see it now yeah can you zoom in a little bit okay so um a little bit more if you can thank
you i think i'm i can't see you can see this whole screen we can see like a little bit now
yeah you can only really see the top right corner that's weird okay hold on
stop sharing and try to share
is that better
a little bit larger
there you go that's good thank you
so this is the only addition that we're proposing
and that's what we've proposed from the beginning
um the notes that that the community had asked us to include and add to this plan since the
zoning examiner had seen it they commented on dumpster locations and accessibility within the
site so we did add a dumpster here here here and up here and then there would be a walkway that we
be fitting in to come down off of the street if anyone were to walk through it because again this
all back here has varying levels of sloping so you can't get into the property anywhere except
for at this corner so this would add an exit like a an easily walkable access point for pedestrians
to the site um the other the other these the other revisions to this plan were things
The other revisions to this plan were things from the zoning examiner, and we had just failed to clearly mark our electric vehicle spots and some fences that we were cleaning up and upgrading.
So that's what those revisions were.
And I don't know if there's anything else you want me to point out, Rachel.
No, I think that covers it. I just wanted to be sure to add the dumpster locations as trash was a concern and the pedestrian walkway, which was referenced in one of the RCO letters.
So that was included as well, in addition to lighting and fencing of the site.
um i think as far as parking is concerned i just mentioned that we're almost directly about 500
feet away from the chestnut hill east line and there's a route j bus route stops directly in
front of the property so we're including 67 parking spaces for 77 units and without disturbing steep
slopes we cannot fit any more parking also as i said the property was designated as historic so
we cannot demolish parts of the building to add parking um they're really just trying to use the
existing parking that is there um other than that uh i don't have any more questions for you michelle
and um does the board have any questions for the architecture no no mr
If I can just share the screen again, the only other thing I wanted to mention is we did speak
with a real estate broker who deals with industrial sites in order to get an expert opinion as to the
ability to utilize this as an industrial site. The letter is submitted in the packet. Essentially,
I have them on if the board is interested in hearing their testimony, but we do have a letter
that was submitted in the board's packet, essentially saying that given the poor access
to below Bellfield Avenue, the way that the building is currently situated, the way that
the industry is working right now, the way that industrial companies are looking at this,
is this doesn't is not a viable industrial opportunity moving forward with the board
okay the last thing just to mention as well is our directly near neighbors are a lot of the
property is owned by LaSalle University and we included a letter of support from LaSalle
University in our packet as well one of the things mentioned by the community that was important
as they're building you know relationship with LaSalle that LaSalle is supportive of this project
and so we did share this letter with the community and also have it in the board's packet as well but
our near neighbors at la salle are also very supportive of this project
you have a client yes um phil balderson
Mr. Balderson, you can unmute and wait for the chair.
Mr. Balderson, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Philip Balderson, P-H-I-L-I-P, Balderson, B-A-L-D-E-R-S-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Pritzker.
Phil, have you heard my testimony today in front of the board?
yes i have do you believe it to be true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and
do you adopt it as your own yes i do thank you very much thank you i have any questions uh any
i'd asked the board already does anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have charles richardson mr richardson wait for the chair good afternoon again mr
richardson please identify yourself you're still under of the roof yes sir charles richardson from
the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall as the three rcos and the community
had two separate well-attended meetings with the developer and could not come to any agreement and
did not conduct a vote the councilman has decided that there will be no position that she's taking
on the project we did encourage the three rcos to write their own letters with their own opinions
and I'm aware that Mr. Nick Cavolis of the PANA RCO wrote the meeting summary with commentary that
Ms. Pritzker earlier shared and Ms. Inez Love of the FAIF RCO indicated that she was co-signing
with Mr. Cavolis of his account of the meeting. I'm also aware that Ms. Sandra Broadus of ACCA
also wrote her own account and I believe that she might have received that earlier today.
her own account. And I believe that you might have received that earlier today. So that being
So, uh,
if they,
said, the councilwoman is leaving it in the hands of the board to make the decision. Thank you. And
thank the councilwoman. Anyone else to testify in this case?
no more hands here thank you planning commission
hello good afternoon chair my name is keith davis with the planning commission i am stepping in
for peter right now hey keith spell your full name and i'll swear you in yep k-e-i-t-h-d-a-v-i-s
where it confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you sir please proceed uh the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change
to icmx at this location the proposed multi-family use is inconsistent with both the existing and
proposed zoning. The property is within a depression adjacent to a major trunk sewer
and is below grade of surrounding properties. PWD has conducted a hydrologic and hydraulic
analysis in the sewer shed associated with the subject project to understand flood depths and
flood risks. These analyses demonstrate there is an elevated flood risk on the subject parcel
uh in its present condition accordingly the planning commission believes that granting this
variance would endanger public safety and uh we urge the board to to deny the variance
am i able to respond to that chairman yeah yeah please yeah so i guess i would just mention that
we've already been through the irsa plan review with pwd and they didn't trigger any of these
same concerns we had a bit rated by mr davis in addition i don't know how it would be feasible
that an industrial commercial mixed use with trucks, heavy machinery, and potentially retail
and a lot more visitors would be a safer bet for the site than 77 units on almost 115, 16,000 square
foot site that sat vacant for however long. Potentially, if this was denied, it would sit
vacant for another couple of decades and definitely would not be protecting from any potential
concerns. So I would just suggest that as in accordance with their own plan that PCPC does
recommend usually an adaptive reuse for long-standing vacant industrial sites and that
will happily work with the city and any other agencies to resolve any flooding or risks that
are brought to our attention. Rachel, how recent was the PWD? It was this year. It was several
months ago before we submitted to the board so within 2021 they didn't raise those issues correct
no they did not okay all right uh mi 2021-002915 whoop excuse me wrong one mi 2021-002908
5115-39
Bellfield Avenue. My vote is yes.
Two pages, Rachel? Yes. With revised plan, two pages
approved today. Professor Plaza, yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso. Thomas Holliman,
yes, with proviso. Thank you.
Thank you. MI 2021-002915, 5210 King Sessing Avenue. There's a letter of non-opposition from King Sessing Area Civic Association. I'm not sure who's representing this case, either Mr. Knockinson or Ms. Amazon.
Ms. Amazon is coming back in now, chairs and panelists.
All right. See, it has Alan on my sheet. That's why I didn't call it out.
Hopefully you're not disappointed.
Please identify yourself. You're still under oath.
Clementa Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name Amazon, A-M-A-C-A-N, 123 South Cross Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
Thank you, Mr. Plaza has a few questions for you.
Yes, Ms. Amazon, you agreed to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. I will share my screen.
Can I see my screen?
Can I punch you on the screen?
Great.
Great.
So again, I will be presenting 5210 King Sessing Avenue.
So again, I will be presenting...
This is a very straightforward project in that we are requesting the legalization of a duplex.
As you can see from the photo in front of this property, there are two separate entrances, one for each unit.
When my client purchased the property, she was of the impression that it was illegal use, and she was looking to renew her certs and realize that it was not, in fact, legal.
So during my presentation, I will go through the notice of refusal, the letter of non-opposition from King Sessing Area Civic Association, in which they express that this is a longstanding use.
To their knowledge, it has always been a duplex, hence their letter.
We also have a use permit showing that it does have a multifamily history, maps of the area, photographs of the property, as well as the interior, our proposed plans and drawings.
Again, it's an existing use, the application for appeal.
Again, we did meet with the community, and we have a letter to that effect, as well as our deed and certificate of tax clearance.
So first things first, we have the notice of refusal.
The property is owned as single family.
However, it has a longstanding use as a duplex, and we're just looking to legalize that use.
We do have a letter of non-opposition from King Sessing Area Civic Association, as you can see here.
The property has a service already been known by the community as an apartment.
The meeting wasn't particularly well attended, and that was attributed to the community knowing the property as a duplex, which the RCO mentioned in their letter in that last line that you see right here.
The vote for the meeting, use permit showing that multifamily history.
Here we have a map of the area here on King Sessing Avenue along 52nd Street, a Google map view of the area as well.
Here's a view of the front of the property. Again, as you can see, there are separate entrances for each unit.
A view to the right of the property on King's Lessing, a view to the left of the property on King's Lessing.
There are multiple hot water heaters in addition to multiple electrical meters.
Here are just some views of the interior of the property, specifically the one bedroom unit, as well as our plans and drawings.
So the first floor is just a studio, one bathroom, which you enter through the door on the left.
And for the second floor unit, you enter into on the right, you go out the steps, you have a living room, kitchen, dining area, as well as one bedroom, one bath.
That is the unit that we showed the photos of previously.
Our application for appeal.
Again, this is a zoned-ed single family.
However, it has a history of multifamily use.
The RCO acknowledged that within their letter.
our project information form we met with the community on October 7th at 6 p.m. as you saw
151 properties were notified as a list of the properties that were sent said noticed
and our certificate of mailing as well as the deed showing that my client Margarita Theodorakas
owns the property and if I could have Margarita raise her hand our certificate of tax clearance
so that she can adopt my testimony that would be great
you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair hi please uh spell your full name and i'll swear
you in? My name is Margarita Theodorakis, M-A-R-G-A-R-I-T-A-T-H-E-O-D-O-R-A-K-O-S. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Miss
Amazon? Thank you. Margarita, did you hear my presentation today? Yes, ma'am. Is it true and
correct? Yes. And would you adopt it as your own testimony? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Any
questions from the board? No. Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your
hand. Chair, we have Diane Settles. Ms. Settles, you can unmute and wait for the chair. Thank you.
ms settles please spell your full name and i'll swear you in my name is diane d-i-a-n-e
last name is settles s as in sam e-t-t-l-e-s do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do i just have one question um with regard to when the
notices go out, if it could be included when I'm sorry, when the attorney sends out the
letters to the affected community, if it could be included on there when the actual ZBA meeting
was. And the reason why I bring up this question is because I've been on several
And the reason why I bring up this question is because I've been on several other cases where they didn't post the zoning notice.
And so if the people don't see the zoning notice, that's an eye catcher for them.
They see the zoning notice and it has that on it. But a lot of attorneys I see are saying referencing to the zoning notice.
But if the zoning notice isn't posted, when it should be posted or where it can be posted without it being an intrusion of somebody's privacy on the property.
So that's my question. Is it any way that it can be done or is it just the option of the attorneys?
They're required to post. Did you not see a posting?
um what had happened was that um mrs amazon said that the posting was on the front porch
i went by that day and there was no um posting on eye level where anybody passer by could see it
um she was so the owner was kind enough to go and put the posting on or at least they showed that
posting down below because as you see on that first picture that she showed you
You would have to walk up about eight steps, go on somebody's property, and then that's
trespassing.
And that's putting the person in danger.
So to alleviate all of that, that's why I raised the question.
It's not just for Ms. Amazon, but it's for all attorneys.
Is it anything that-
There are requirements, and if they do not follow those requirements, people like yourself
should call in and say you've not been properly notified.
Chairman, if I may, we did post the property to Ms. Settle's point.
She wanted it moved, so that was a bit more visible, which we did the day of.
Yes, she did.
She did do that.
But what I was saying, as I said to her, the way that it was, it would have been an invasion
or could be looked at as trespassing.
I'm just looking to ward off that for anybody else that may encounter that.
That's all I'm asking.
Understood.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
anyone else there are no other heads at this time chair thank you planning commission
hi good afternoon keith davis planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential in the comp plan the property is
long-standing documented use as a multi-family residential and we feel that the applicant has
demonstrated sufficient hardship accordingly the planning commission recommends the board
approved today thank you mi 2021-002-915-5210 king sessing avenue my vote is yes professor plaza
my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes thomas holland my vote is yes the two o'clock list uh
is there any outstanding business on the two o'clock list does anyone feel as they've not
been recognized please raise your hand there are no hands at this time chair okay let's see
yvette are you ready to go um unless without objection we can go right into the 3 30 list
unless anyone needs a break if so just let us know i'm ready to go chair but it's at your
discretion i'm okay all right so i'll read the introduction and then we'll get into it
uh good afternoon 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 board secretary mr
confessor plaza present uh our board member mr thomas holloman present and board member
Mr. James Snell. Present. Thank you. Board Administrator Yvonne Benton, Yvette Benton,
excuse me, and our board attorney, Ms. Rebecca Cole, are also in attendance, as is our zoning
board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett. 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 also that the recording will be made available to the public
by contacting Ms. Tanya Sunkit at tanya.sunkit at phila.gov
pardon me 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
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 number 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 like to remind everyone,
please do not attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments or concerns should be directed to
our board administrator, Ms. Yvette Benton. Having said that, I will now read off a list of requests
for continuance is on the 330 list. Case number two, MI 2021-003128, 1827 West Cuyahoga Street.
numbers seven and eight on our list MI 2021-003-132 8622 Germantown Avenue and MI 2021-003-131
8624 Germantown Avenue. If anyone disagrees with the request for those continuances
please raise your hand at this time if you object to the cases i just ran in
to be continued please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time chair thank you i will now ask if anyone would like to request
a continuance or withdrawal on the 330 list to raise your hand now please
if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal
I see no hands at this time chair. Thank you.
3.30 list the first case MI 2020-000214 1825 East Pacific Street. Sean Ward is the attorney of
record my notes indicate the hearing was continued as a request of turning moving party at the last
listing. Mr. Ward did not request a re-listing. So if Mr. Ward if you're out there maybe you can
clear that up for us. Councilman Swillis sent a letter of opposition.
Chair, hi this is Tanya the administrator. I'm almost certain that he's not here but what
happened was this was relisted because we were unaware that it should have been attorney moving
party so if you can continue it as a continuous that would be gracious and we would put it as
an attorney moving party until he notifies us okay thank you sharon did somewhat explain that
this morning so i'll redo it mi 2020 that's 000214 1825 east pacific street attorney moving party
Tanya? Yes, Chair, thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll now go to case number three. MI 2021-0031272413, looks like rear 15, or I'm sorry, should be 2413-15 Tulip Street.
old richmond civic sent a letter of non-opposition as did councilman mark squilla
there's emails in opposition from the neighbor mr jeffrey reen r-e-n-y-e renee
that's either mr knockamson or miss amazon
mr knockamson is coming back in now as a panelist chair thank you good afternoon
Mr. Nockmson, please identify yourself with a record and I'll remind you you're still under oath.
Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Thank you. Mr. Plaza has a few questions for you.
Mr. Nockmson, have you agreed to wake the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack your feet?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this year?
Yes, we have.
And have you met with the RCO and have the letter?
And have you mowed the RCO and have the letter?
Yes, we have a letter of non-opposition from the coordinating RCO.
Yes, we have a letter of non-opposition from the court.
Please proceed.
Yes. May I share my screen?
Thank you.
All right, so we're here regarding 2413R-15 Tulip Street.
This is actually a hodgepodge of properties.
It's 2409R, 2411R, and 2413R-15.
We're combining these three properties into one, and we're proposing to have a four-unit building in the old Kensington part of Philadelphia.
As you can see, this is very unique architecture.
My client hired Bright Common, which you'll see is like one of the preeminent local architecture firms and has been recognized time and time again by AIA on a local level and on a national level for their unique architecture.
My client actually lives at 2413 Tulip Street, so not very close by, and he wanted to put a project together that was very unique and interesting, but in a creative way, but also affordable, because what he's seen, he's been very involved in this community, is that there's been a push for many single-family homes in this part of the neighborhood that's pushed people out and not allowed people in.
So he's looking to put a four unit here on this 2000 square foot lot to create a diversity of housing for people in the neighborhood and for people to move into the neighborhood.
So we'll go through the materials. We have our notice of refusal. We'll go and talk a little bit about Bright Common and their accolades.
We have our letter of non-opposition from Old Richmond Civic Association. I think I said Old Kensington by accident. I meant Old Richmond Civic Association.
are letters of support from nearby neighbors so my client lives like adjacent to this property at
2413 tulip obviously he lives there so obviously he's for this project but there are other nearby
neighbors 2415 tulip street which is which is also impacted by this project is in support of
this project and we have other neighbors within the vicinity of the project who are also in support
of it maps of the area photographs of the property as well as the surrounding area plans and drawings
our applications for appeal, proof of mailing of our RCO meeting notice.
Mr. Notkinson, I apologize.
I had a minute.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on one minute, please.
Mr. Notkinson, I apologize.
I got a call in from Sharon.
So I'm going to put you on hold for just one minute, please.
Thank you.
do you have a letter uh from the uh old richmond civic and if so is it in support or opposition
non-opposition old richmond is in the non-opposition okay because i'm getting some
conflicting calls here and uh all right i apologize again i had to cut away uh i left
off shortly after you began your presentation so if you could yeah so just we're just going
through our table of contents like you know you know the rco meeting notice the deed to the property
and certificate of tax clearance we'll have carlos mastiff and uh jeremy avalino of great common
obviously as witnesses uh to this project so the first thing is is there a notice of refusal again
we have three distinct locks 2409 r 2411 r and 2413 r-15 uh all rsa5 properties kind of a hodgepodge
It says Tulip Street, but it's really not.
And you'll see from our maps, it's really on East Boston Street, which is kind of like
on an island.
There's not many properties on our side of the street that are developed across the street
there are, but not on our side of the street.
And we only have two refusals.
Obviously, we have the refusal as it pertains to the use.
We're trying to put a four-unit building here on our RSA 5 property, and that's a refusal.
The second refusal is we created a side yard to create light and air and have this unique architecture.
But, you know, we think that, you know, this refusal, again, based on the circumstances, us trying to create a creative architecture, trying to create light in there is a de minimis under the circumstances.
is a de minimis under the circumstances. So again, Bright Common. Again, my client decided
So, again, bright comment.
to create something that was unique and interesting, something that's generational.
Again, he lives in the neighborhood. He's very involved in this community. He's actually a member
of one of the local CDCs, New Kensington CDC. So he's very involved in terms of architecture
and affordability, and he wanted to choose an architecture firm that is known for their
uniqueness. So if you look up Bright Common, they're not that cookie cutter. So there's
nothing unique about them. But if you can see their accolades, in 2021, they were recognized
by Architectural Record. 2020, on multiple occasions, they were recognized by AI Philadelphia,
by Greenville the United, 2019 by AIA Pennsylvania. They received a William Willard G. Bill Rouse,
the third awards for excellence, best of Philly. So things like that shows that they care about
their architecture and their uniqueness, and that was what brought Carlos to them.
Letter of non-opposition. Again, if you look at the letter of non-opposition, it stated, it says, while issues surrounding parking density were raised by the community members at the meeting, they felt that the proposed project may be in the best interest of the neighborhood.
the high demand in our area combined with low supply has pushed property prices and rents out
of reach of many existing residents orca's mission includes maintaining property values
in neighborhood stability and they felt that the proposal would contribute to that goal by
increasing the supply of housing then we you know reach out to the community again mr massive who's
the principal of the property owner lives at 2413 he would of course be in support of this project
but he also has um you know the owner next door to him 2415 tulip street he has you know again
many different people who have supported this project we have more than a half a dozen people
who were kind enough to uh to support this project in writing my understanding that there may be
members of the community who hopefully waited this long period of time we told them there was
a 330 listing but our understanding is that may be additional members of the community in support
this project who would state their you know support again you'll see where we are this is
tulip street mr massive his personal residence is right here he wants to build oops right here
so it's really important to him to have something that you know makes sense for the community uh as
a whole and that's responsible building 2415 which is right here which would be the one who's most
directly impacted actually there is a letter of support from that and there's other letters of
support not as direct but within the close proximity to the project that we have in our
packet of materials here's our uh you know a map of the area uh from a google perspective we're
right next to a commercial corridor east york street again from a city planning perspective
usually you want to increase density next to a commercial corridor to help support that
commercial corridor and that's what we're trying to do responsibly on this 2 000 square foot lot
combined square foot lot photos of the area as you can see right now is just vacant my client
purchased these three separate parcels i'm hoping to develop them to the right of the property
to the left of the property and then our plans and drawings again very unique architecture
interlocking three-story structures each of the struct each of the units have their own separate
entrance. So while it's a multifamily in name, in actuality, there's no vestibule. Each one will
have their separate unique entrance. So in essence, they're almost like four single-family homes.
You know, here are the elevations of the property. And let's just go start with the first floor plan.
All right, so the first floor plan. You'll see for unit number one, there'll be a common entryway on Boston Street. This is where, and it's not reflecting the drawings, I do apologize, but there'll be a separate little garbage area that's enclosed that's near the alleyway so no one would be affected to it.
But, you know, there's a sanitation plan for these units because of this common area right here.
But you walk in on Boston, here's unit number one and entrance.
Here's unit number two on Boston right here, directly on Boston.
And then here is unit number three on Boston, just off of in the common area.
And then here is unit three as well.
So units one and two and three or four are mirror images of each other.
and three or four are mirror images of each other unit one is on the first floor and the lower level
unit one is on the first
so you would have an open floor plan with the kitchen and the bedroom and then you would go
down a flight of steps where you have additional living area and then you would go up a flight of
steps for unit two which again has its own entrance and going up a flight of steps unit
four which again is uh same as unit two would go up a flight of steps and unit three mirrors
number unit number one where it's first floor and lower level then if you go on the second floor
this is for units uh uh let me just make sure i don't units two and four uh you see that there
are two bedrooms and two baths and again two bedrooms and two baths and then you see that
But on the third floor is the second level of units two and four.
And those are also have a bathroom and has a common living area.
And then you also see that these units, upper level units, also have loft space as well.
Our application for appeal.
and there are a hearing notice or a community meeting notice or a community meeting took place
October 14th at 7 p.m. 159 addresses were notified these are the list of the addresses
and this is proof of mailing of that notice to the community and there are detailed property
showing that Old Richmond Ventures LLC owns the property and showing that they owe no taxes on
this property. With that being said, I would like to have Mr. Massip adopt my testimony. And if you
have any questions for me or the architect, Jeremy Avellino, we'd be more than happy to answer them.
Mr. Massip, can you virtually raise your hand?
Mr. Massip, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Massip, please spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in.
Carlos, C-A-R-L-O-S, Massip, M-A-S-I-P.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Not Concerned.
Mr. Massip, you heard everything I stated today.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, it is.
and do you adopt as your own testimony yes i do all right thank you any questions from the board
no mr chairman now anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
here we have alyssa banks miss banks you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
miss banks please spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in
Thank you, Chairman. My name is Alyssa, A-L-Y-S-S-A. Last name is Banks, B-A-N-K-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Well, to start, I'm confused with the letter of support or the letter of not supporting from the ORC.
that meeting was a bunch of my neighbors all expressing their displeasure with the plan and
their confusion as related to the fact that there was no hardship to justify the request for the
change of zoning from single families. In addition, as mentioned in the beginning,
it's the wrong thing and it's too big in that it lacks the foot and change it needs to make that
five foot on the side um it's fine to have support from tulip street but they're they don't come and
go from tulip street they come and go from boston street and so i've spoken with a bunch of my
neighbors and i won't speak for them but i'm confused as to where all the support is coming
from because i'm not hearing it um up until very recently we were all two family uh two story
structures. And just in the last kind of wave of building, we had a handful of three story
structures pop up through either, you know, underpinnings and adding another story or new
construction. But this building is very not aesthetically in line with the vibe of our
little square of the world. And the fact that they are being built to be rental units is of
concerned to me and the neighbors that I've just spoken to about this. There was a price point
mentioned on rent for these units in the ORC meeting, and they are very expensive, so I'm not
sure what's being added to the neighborhood, because it's certainly not affordable housing.
what's being added to the neighborhood because it's certainly not affordable housing
um as far as york street being a commercial corridor yes by the time you get down near
aramingo east of us it is a commercial corridor but in for beyond the school which is on the
other side of york from us we are blocks away from any businesses it's all just houses on york
street houses on boston street houses on tulip street true um right i just i would just like
my voice to be heard in opposition of this project and i appreciate your time thank you thank you for
your testimony yeah i too was a little bit uh confused uh when i think and correct me if i'm
wrong when i read the case off i mentioned that old richmond civic sent a letter of non-opposition
however councilman mark squilla sent a letter in opposition so mr knockinson i and i asked you a
question earlier i asked you what was the community in support i think i heard you say
they were the the rco the coordinating rco said or sent a letter of non-opposition and that is
i could put it back up is that old richmond old richmond yeah yes that's what that's what i'm
saying yes i will i will grant you that this oh hold on you don't want to see all my stuff but
um i will grant you that it was rather unique in that sense that the you know the community
enlarge that you enlarge that please yeah so when i saw this it indicates to me
scroll down more no i know oh geez i just messed up you know i get it i'm i see that the community
voted like against the project but the coordinating rco voted it sends a letter in non-opposition
again a lot of the things that we're talking about even today are non-zoney related
like she's talking about the fact that we're putting a three-story structure on there
which which is out of which is not out of character which she admitted
um she was talking about the aesthetics which is not zoning related talking about the rents
you know i understand that i understand that i'm i was totally confused i'm probably still
as much confused now yeah the letter of opposite non-opposition however you're saying was showing
17 people who oppose versus six who support and then the councilman councilman mark school
will send a letter of opposition so anyway i i'm going to ask if anybody has any questions
and we'll go from there any other questions from anyone who would like to participate in this
hearing chair we have uh had the murphy miss murphy you can unmute yourself and wait for the
chair thank you miss murphy please spell your full name and i'll swear you in h e a t h e r
m-u-r-p-h-y you swear we're from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed um am i also in opposition but the question being about the
variance so i'm also a little confused on this myself i live directly across the street and in
the presentation um during the meeting it seems that there were two homes to zone for two homes
property at some point. And then sometime eight or 10 years ago, the lot lines got strange and it
was re-lined for three. But as far as I know, there's never been more than two homes on the
property. And I want to know if there could be, you know, not being totally opposed to something
happening over there but why can't it be two homes or two residences that would also be able to
include a parking area um there could but that's not what the applicant is proposing so they so
the question i guess i guess i'm confused as a question is it saying are we saying it should go
from three to four or from two to four uh mr knockdown i don't know if you can answer either
way they're asking to go to four whether it's two or three okay so yeah too many yeah so if we were
to put parking there mr chair as you know or propose parking that would require an additional
variants. We do think that given the uniqueness of this property, it has a Tulip Street address,
but it's really on Boston. There's really no properties, houses facing Boston. I think there
Houses facing Boston, I think there may be one on that block, on that side of Boston.
may be one on that block, on that side of Boston.
And like I said, this Old Richmond Civic Association is a very sophisticated board that vets projects very well.
Typically, they do go with the community.
But in this circumstance, they believe that this is in the best interest of the community to have this project here.
Uh, and then also the fact is, is that my client, the principal of the company actually lives like right behind there. So he's trying to do something, you know, good for his neighborhood, uh, responsible for his neighborhood.
Chair, you're muted.
Anyone else to testify in this case, if so, please raise your hand and if you're testifying
something new and different, please.
Chair, we have Jeremy Avellino. Mr. Avellino, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello, Chair. This is Jeremy Avellino.
Hi, good afternoon. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Sure. It's Jeremy, J-E-R-E-M-Y, last name Avellino, A-V-E-L-L-I-N-O.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed
sure thank you chair my name is jeremy avelino i'm the architect on the project and i just
wanted to talk a little bit about the concept and answer any questions that might come up
as was stated uh the design was developed on these three uh leftover lots they were rear lots
behind houses on tulip street so it was a very unique condition there's only one other um
house facing Boston Street. So we developed a housing model in response to these unique
conditions, but also the unique ways that I feel the pandemic has begun to alter how people
are wanting to live, right? Like people are spending more time at home, both living,
working, and even schooling their kids by choice and sometimes by necessity.
So we did look at a buy rate scheme of two homes. And honestly, talking with Carlos,
we didn't think it actually in this case fit well within these lots nor was it again providing the
kind of housing that people have been asking us for in the world we're living in now and I can
explain why I mean to make the numbers work for a buy right scheme that would have resulted in two
you know 3,000 square foot luxury townhomes that essentially would sell for about $750,000 each
we didn't think that was in scale or frankly the economy of the neighborhood and what that results
in in terms of the architecture is on the side walls often called the party walls that face you
know all of the you know the neighbors that faces all their backyard windows that you get these two
large blank facades that have no material quality no you know no breaking up of massing or anything
they're very unfriendly facades right and these houses usually uh demand you know to sell at that
level demand a roof deck and a pilot house this is not going to it's not the kind of architecture
I want to live around either so the idea that two single family homes work here in this economy in
this time you know I personally don't think so and I live five minutes from here so I you know
I'm also a neighbor for what it's worth so our design yeah Carlos said come up with something
more unique more creative that responds to this site and our design is the same area it's under
six thousand square feet yet it allows four families to each live safely and separately
but to come together as they feel safe to do so. So each unit is a three-bedroom home designed for
family use, each with its own separate entrance, again, kind of in response to the times we're in.
Each home has its own outdoor space and plenty of natural light. So we're thinking of it more
as a four-unit village, the same square foot, but designed as a grouping of homes set away from the
neighboring houses so that each facade can have windows in them. And there's really only one
blank facade, and we kept it as short as possible. And again, we also purposely designed it to have
no pilot houses, which I think are pretty offensive, or upper roof decks, which can be
intrusive onto the neighbors. Again, it's being developed by an immediate neighbor. It's in his
backyard. And, you know, Carlos can speak to this, but I also think he's a great guy to work for
because he's born and raised in Philly. He owns and operates a small local business like me,
and he hires local high school kids to train them up for the trades. You know, he's got a
nonprofit that does this. He's a job creator. So I believe he wants to do something good in
the neighborhood. I believe he wants to do something unique. I don't think everyone's
going to love it, but I hope that you would consider that and support him. Thank you, Chair.
But, you know, I hope that you would you would consider that and support him.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony.
Anyone else? Chair, we have Venise Whittaker.
Ms. Whittaker, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Unmuted. Thank you. Ms. Whittaker, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
sure it's venice v-e-n-i-s-e last name whitaker w-h-i-t-a-k-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes always thank you man i just want to add i also
as the last speaker live five minutes away from here and attended the meeting the residents did
vote no for it despite what the rco's decision in their letter the council person also supported
opposition so i'm hoping the zba will follow what the residents had requested and the councilman
thank you thank you any other questions anyone else to testify
i see no hands at this time chair thank you uh planning commission
uh ron bednar city planning it's r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-e-n-a-r do you swear affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you ron please proceed this property
is indicated for residential use on a city plan no changes to the existing uh residential two
family one family zoning uh at this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with
evidence of unique circumstances that would prevent it from being used in conformance with
the code. Therefore, we recommend that the rest of fairness not be granted. Thank you. I'm going
to recommend that the record be closed and the board will discuss this next Wednesday's
executive session, next Wednesday being November the 3rd at 9 30 a.m. Next three cases, Mr.
Mr. Nockinson, are you handling them or Ms. Amazon?
I'm going to pass it on to Ms. Amazon.
And we'll do all three together.
MI 2021-003130, 531 East Chelten Avenue.
Faith Community Development Corporation sent a letter of non-opposition.
MI 2021-003229, 533 East Chelten Avenue.
again faith faith community development sent a corporation sent a letter of non-opposition
as they did for mi 2021-003-129-535 east chelton avenue
miss amazon please identify yourself for the record i remind you you're still on the road
you're muted thank you chair yes it's been a long zoom day
Thank you, Chairman. Clementa Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600-19109.
Mr. Plaza has a few questions for you.
Yes, Ms. Amazon, you agree to wait for the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack your receipt?
Yes, I do.
and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof of
tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing
yes i have oh and uh have you met with the rco and have a letter yes we have a letter
for each property thank you please proceed thank you
can everyone see my screen yes yes perfect so again i will be presenting 531 to 535 east
shelton avenue as you can see from this cover page um it is three separate lots um it's one
full structure here and then we're filling out the other half of the twin for 535.
so during my presentation i will go through the notices of refusal
the letters of non-opposition that we received from the community development corporation
maps of the area photographs of the property our proposed plans and drawings it's identical for
each property the application for appeal the notice that we sent out for the community meeting
as well as the deed and certificates of tax clearance so our notices of refusal so our
refusals are a direct byproduct of us trying to be in conformance with what's already on the block
So we do have dimensional refusals, so I'll just go through them.
Our first refusal is for the multifamily use.
We are looking for a triplex at each lot.
However, this isn't uncommon in any way for this block.
One of the structures that we're actually attaching to 537 East Shelton Avenue is also
One of the structures that we're actually attaching to, 537 East Shelton Avenue, is also multifamily.
multifamily. It has three units and during my presentation I will also go through other
properties on the 500 block of Shelton Avenue that are also triplexes. So we do have a refusal
as it relates to the height, open area, rear yard depth, side yard, as well as parking.
As you will see through the renderings, the height is comparable to what's in the area. We're not
towering over any structures in any way the open area is a byproduct of us having a front porch for
this property it's a porch block we would like to maintain that feel the rear yard depth is a result
of the setback that we have to match the properties in this area so we're required to have 15 feet and
we're providing 20 so that eats into our rear yard as well as a refusal for the side yard this is
actually comparable to for example 537 that we are attaching to and for a refusal for the parking
spaces this block doesn't have parking although it is required by the code so our design is fully
in excuse me complies with what's normal for this block although it does have several refusals as
it relates to the dimensions of the property so it's identical refusals 533 shell in as it relates
to the height rear yard parking open area and the number of units again each property is just
triplex use again these refusals are byproducts of us trying to do conformance with what's on
the block currently.
So we're fused with 535, we shall end the use of triplex occupied area as a result of
us having that front porch, our yard depth, our front setback, it's into that depth.
The minimum side yards, again, this is common for the area, as well as us not in performance
with the parking requirement, again, none of the properties on this block have parking.
So we did look at the history of these properties when we were creating this design, we did
see that there is a history of three families for 533 East Shelton Avenue, as well as 535 East
Shelton Avenue. And there are multifamily properties along this block, as I mentioned
prior. Again, one of the properties we are attaching to, 537 East Shelton Avenue has
a current rental license for three units. 515 East Shelton Avenue also have a rental license for
three units. 505 East Shelton Avenue, also three units. We did meet with the community and they
provided us with a letter of non-opposition. They were really happy with the design that
we provided because it does match what's in this neighborhood. And again, we're just
three separate lots, 531, 533, and 535. Google map view of the area. There are also several
vacant lots along this block. So it is a mix between vacant lots, multifamily, and a handful
of non-multifamily properties. So here's a view of the front of the property, a view
to the right of the property along East Sheldon Avenue to the left of the property and this is
a lot that has been vacant for some time going back as far as August 2008 and here we have again
the rendering that you saw previously for our cover page as you can see we're not any taller
than what's already here we're matching along 537 in terms of height front yard we really wanted to
create a design that matches what's in this neighborhood unfortunately it did result in
the refusals that you saw for the dimensions, setback comparable to 537 as well as 529.
A view of the side are site plans for each property in terms of the depth. As you can see,
we're not too far from what's at 529. There is also a side alley that's about four feet. So
although we do have a refusal for a four-foot side yard, there's also a four-foot alley. So
Comparable site plan for 533 and 535.
Again, matching the bare yards up to the properties next door.
And here we have the floor plans.
Unit one would be bi-level basement being finished and open.
First floor would be the living room, dining room with the bedroom in the rear.
Unit two is a two-bedroom.
I'll just zoom in a bit as they are sizable units.
Two-bedroom, two-bath for unit two.
It's 976 square feet.
And we have unit three, which is also two-bedroom, two-bath.
and that would also be 960 square feet. So we're not looking to cram in unison anyway. The properties
have a history of multifamily use. The block is full of multifamily properties as well.
Our applications for appeal, again, it's a dental application for each property. Although we do have
refusals that are dimensional in nature, we're really just matching what is in this neighborhood
as it relates to height, rear yard, our open area, and parking. Parking is not common here either.
The project information forms, again, it's identical for each lot.
The notice that we sent out for the meeting that was held on October 14th at 6 p.m., and there were 25 properties that were notified, a list of the properties we notified, our certificate of mailing.
And again, it's the same notice for each property.
And again, it's the same notice for each property. So here we have 533 East Shelton Ave. Again, 25 properties, as well as 535 East Shelton Avenue, which is also 25 properties.
So here we have 533 East Shelton Ave.
And the certificate of mailing, the deed showing that my client owns the properties, as well as our certificates of tax clearance.
A payment was made for the balance for 533 East Shelton Avenue. 535 is all clear.
So with that, if I could have my client, Steve Olszewski, raise his hand so that he can adopt my testimony, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Olszewski, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
okay how you doing steven oschewski s-t-e-v-e-n-o-s-i-e-c-k
sorry you're breaking up could you try that again please even oschewski s-t-e-v-e-n-o-s-i-e-c-k-i
you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth
i do thank you miss amazon did you hear my presentation today i did and was it shown
correct yes and would you adopt it would you adopt it as your testimony i would thank you
do you have any questions from the board yes mr chairman
counselor this is new construction correct that is correct
um i was just my question would be if you can reduce the number of units could you reduce the
number of refusal? Because you had a lot of refusals.
Understood. So as I'll just go back to the floor plans. The properties have a history
of multifamily. The layout that we have isn't that we're trying to cram in units. Each unit
is on one floor. So it's not that we're cram in units in any way. So even if we were to
comply with the dimensional standards, which is common for this block, I think it would
result in the same number of units thank you of course thank you any other questions from the
board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
chair we have mr charles richardson mr richardson you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
thank you mr richardson uh and you're still under oath just identify yourself with the record
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312, City Hall.
The Councilwoman is unopposed to granting all three variances.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else?
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
All three properties, 531, 533, and 535.
are currently indicated for single family residential they were all recommended for
remapping in the adopted district plan the proposal would be as of right under our recommended rezoning
therefore we recommend the requested variances for all three ron you broke up you recommend
that the um we recommend that the requested variances for all three uh be granted
Thank you. MI 2021-003130, 531 East Chilton Avenue. MI 2021-003229, 533 East Chilton Avenue.
And MI 2021-003129, 533 East Chilton Avenue. My vote is yes to all three.
Professor Plaza, yes to all three.
James Snell yes to all three Thomas Holliman yes to all three I believe this
completes the 330 list is there anyone who believes that they have not yet been
recognized please raise your hand there are no heads at this time chair it was
any unfinished business seeing none this concludes our hearing for the day thank you everyone
thank you for the folks zoning planning commission everybody who makes this day possible
thanks have a good one everyone