reworked okay let so let me get clarification from ellen i because their definition of you know
the definition of demolition in the code is not a complete tear down it can be removing
you know so so much portion so many portions of the member you know like you know the roof and a
wall or something to that effect so let me let me see if when they reviewed this they considered
it demo based on the the proposed changes to the building or if we need to amend the refusal just
to indicate it's a change of use with additions um so i think we'll just need to hold the vote on
that to get that clarification and perhaps a new refusal um but that's for the this particular
piece of it i think the signage on the board can go ahead and vote on that today so we vote on 15.
um yes you couldn't you could vote on on the signage yes and and hillary how do you want to
hold you want to make six a resumptive hearing um or you'll just handle it when we get the
information yeah i think i think we'll need to determine depending on what we get the information
because it may be that ellen i considered the changes to constitute a demolition and that's
that's why it was written the way it was um so we may be fine or maybe that the refusal needs to be
rewritten and it may generate refusals a little bit differently um depending on how they view it
yeah i guess it's important to be accurate so it matches the building permit yeah yes yes all right
questions or comments from the virtual audience i do not see any hands mr chair any commission
hi amy board with the planning commission is it all right if we also hold our testimony or
would you like it now okay thank you all right well we're going to vote on one we're going to
vote on 15 the signage one one is the building and the other one's just signs amy okay i can do
signs sure thank you um that's 15 yeah the comprehensive plan recommended no change from
existing I-2 medium industrial zoning. In 2023, the zoning was changed to ICMX commercial mixed
use. A small portion of the parcel remains I-2. The proposed signage, which are accessory under
ZP 2025-002709, will not enter the use of adjoining properties. The Planning Commission
recommends that the Board grant the requested variances for special exception. Sorry.
thank you that's okay go ahead i rewrote them together
so number 15 mi 2024
So, number 15, MI-2025-002-693-5597-99 Tulip Street, I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Haywin, my vote is yes.
And number six, MI-2025-001-087-5597-99 Tulip Street.
We will hold this until we get information back from L and I.
And I just want to note for the record that we'll need the recommendation from the Planning Commission as well once we get that information.
Oh, sure, sure, sure.
Thank you.
Okay, number seven, MI-2025-001-088-1518 Moore Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of support with provisors from East Point Breeze Neighbors.
I'm back in as a panelist for the second.
Afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Anastasia, we have already sworn you in.
Just for the record, state your name.
Yep, Vern Anastasia on behalf of Lindsay Everett, 1518 Moore.
Right.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the hearing and agree with the refusals, and you agree with its accuracy?
Yes, sir.
Please start your presentation, sir.
Thanks.
Okay, 15, 18 more.
We're here for a referral.
So, as you know, we are not seeking a variance. We're seeking a special exception for an event assembly facility in an existing structure.
Excuse me, Mr. Anastasio, before you proceed, we did not receive proof of posting for this matter.
Do you have that available? Because we do need that in order to hear this case.
I do not have that.
um okay if we do not have that then unfortunately we will not be able to hear this today okay we'll
have to hear it at another time just ask respectfully for a short continuance then
okay well i i would recommend that we continue it and then um you give a give a call to a dba
office and thank you very much with them thank you all right so my 2025 001088 1518 moore street
that case is continued. Staff will create a date in the future. Appreciate it. Thank you.
So number eight and number 14, MI 2025 001089, 1729 North Lambert Street. Devin Upta is the
attorney and number 14 is um mi 2025 001 493 1727 north lambert street um no rco letter
we we we don't believe there's been communications between the rco
So. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Council. Council, can you hear me? Yes.
Did I swear you in once today already? Yes. OK. Have you had RCO meetings on these two cases?
No. So the RCO has not responded to us. So in turn, we sent out mailings and then we also posted at the property.
I will say that this refusal that we received and the two family homes that we're looking to do on these two properties, it actually was already approved in 2022.
The project didn't move forward, so we're just seeking to have the same refusal granted again for 2025 so we can move forward with the project.
It's exactly the same one that was approved in 2022.
But I think we, Hiller, am I right?
We still have to do the RCO?
Well, so, Mr. Ecto, one thing that would be helpful to supplement in this case, because you did do the letter, you did do the posting, is your efforts to reach the RCO.
There was no materials submitted indicating the steps that you had taken to reach them.
So I think the board could hear it today, but I would suggest either holding for that additional information or having a resumption hearing just to see if you have a little bit more time to see if they would.
having a resumption hearing just to see if you to have a little bit more time to see if they would
if they if you know they would like to provide some feedback um i will say well if i may i will
say um i did cc the board all my each time i reached out via email to the rco um the board
and the council um i can upload the like the email chain of me constantly like reaching out
and just to no avail um if that's helpful but i i to your point i didn't include that in the
presentation, but I mean, I can add it to the presentation at the end of the day.
Sorry. Yes, if you could add that to the record, that would be helpful. So, we have a record of
the efforts that you made in addition to you fulfilling the requirements of sending the
email or sending the letter to the near neighbors and doing the posting.
devin do we have the deeds leases yes yeah so i got the email about the deeds so i have that in
this presentation as well which i'll upload that at the end of you got to send that in today right
yeah i'll send in today and i'll add in the email all right why don't we start on both
both at the same time yeah can i share my screen please
All right. So this is 1727 and 1729 North Lambert Street. These are vacant lots. They have the same owner, same owner structure. As I mentioned in the past, they're vacant lots. They're going to be made into ideally two family homes.
And they're originally, originally they were rezoned by my partner in 2022. And I was granted, this has been a time lapse and we're just seeking to have it rezoned again.
so here which you're looking at are the notice of refusals make that just make your things just
a little larger if you could yeah sure
that better that's better yep okay so these are the two um notice refusals they're exact same for
each property. So basically for the
erection of an attached structure,
roof deck, and roof deck access
structure for two-family household
living, sign and location showing
the application. Again, vacant lots,
both of them are exactly the same
and they're next door to each other.
I did get the notice that these were
required here. Here's the D for 1727
North Lambert Street.
It's been recorded, and here is 1729 or Lambert Street, which is also recorded.
So basically, I'm just going to give you an idea of the surrounding area.
Again, this property is, these two properties are actually vacant lots, but there's a good
amount of development that happened in the area and on a block.
um let me just give you so again uh lambert street is here in between susie moore and
montgomery so this is north philly not far from temple a little bit a few blocks up from broad
street um currently this area rounds stolen as rsa 5 cmx1 and an arm one um on the block as you'll
see there's a good amount of these properties that are vacant and have been recently rezoned
if i go to to another high view of the map of the area
yeah so this is the vacant property like over time so it's been vacant for some time now
this is directly across the street so as you can see these are newly developed properties
directly across street they're three stories so it'd be directly across the street from the vacant
lot this is also some of the new housing that's been developed um in the area uh on lampard street
you're looking down the block so there's a lot of new development on the block on those on the
properties that are not just vacant lots again this is the property down the street as you can
see is a new development as well um and here are the plant let me zoom out though because it's now
so these are the plans um that were submitted again these are not um again again there's no
changes to the to the plans from prior to 2022 i mean two pro two properties directly next to
each other three stories on there will be two units in each property they'll be built um exactly the
same so on the bottom floor of our basement would have some storage in that laundry bathroom as you
on the bottom floor of our basement would have some storage in that laundry bathroom
as you come up is a bedroom so it's two bedrooms uh kitchen so this is the two
come up as a bedroom.
houses side by side um as you can see the same exact layout
um again i don't have letters of support so what i have is just proof that you know
in the past the community supported it so as you can see this is a side-by-side view of
what was granted in 2022, and then what we applied for in 2025, which are exactly the same.
So the community is supported. I'm not sure why the RCO was non-responsive, but in the past,
it was granted, and they did have community support for the projects.
Counsel, go back a minute. I'm not sure. I thought you showed the basement in the first floor,
right? So there's two more floors. Am I correct? Yeah. So it's going to be identical. Like each
thing is, the units are identical.
So I show the basement and first floor, and
then the unit above it is going to be the same exact layout.
So the unit
above, but how many floors? Only two floors
you're building? It's three floors.
So what goes on the third floor?
So it'll be like, the
units are bi-level. They're bi-level units.
Okay, but the basement is just
washer, storage? Dryer, storage,
yeah. It's like, yes.
All right.
um here is the yeah so this is in 2020 as you can see what we're applying for was already granted
in 2020 i'm reapplying it so because it expired um again they had the community support then i'm
not sure why the rto was not responsive now but um as you can see side by side they're they're
exactly the same um these are the letters that i sent out to the community also provided copies
to the board for both properties because I was not able to schedule
an RCO meeting. Here's proof of zero balances
on both properties. Here are the posting
of the notices at the properties. Again, it's a vacant line, so they're posted on
the fences at the property.
And then here's proof of mailing.
I also have the owner on the line
who may want to give some insight about the project
because he does some additional development in the city.
Damani, are you on the line?
If you are, could you raise your hand?
Can we see the owner?
Yes, they're coming back in as a panelist now
chair thank you
damadi can you hear me
good afternoon good afternoon how you doing good could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer my name is Damani Hamlet Doherty first name is D-A-M-A-N-I last name is hyphenated
H-A-M-L-E-T
dash D-A-U
G-H-E-R-T-Y
You swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Damani, did you hear my testimony?
Yes, I did.
And will you verify that it was true or accurate statements?
It was true and accurate. Yes, it was.
And would you adopt my statements
and testimony?
No, I just want to add further insight.
I wouldn't adopt anything
you uh adopt anything that you said just so one more time uh no i will just add more insight in
regards to the rco but no yeah i know you said everything you said was beautiful it was i agree
with everything you said thank you okay um and do you want to share anything else with the board i
know you have some development in the area your experience and some of the developments you've
done um right so um this is a little bit of history um i'm actually my first home was actually
adjacent property right next door, 1725 North Lambert Street, where I provide affordable
housing via Section 8 and PHA.
This project originally started out, we bought those lots as a family, 2014 and 2013, so
it's been a long time.
And we originally got a variance, as Devin said, but due to not having the means to get
enough financing to start to build, it has significant delays.
But we finally have a good funder by the name of LISC, so we're hoping to get this variance to proceed.
I understand there's some issues with getting in contact with the RCO.
I understand there's some issues with getting in contact with the RCO, but I do have an old letter.
Now, I know that my attorney tried to reach out numerous times previously, but I do have an old letter that shows initial support way back when we got the variance previously.