where it says suite one or office two so we went and did all that and submitted these um as well
so it's the five owners that are directly there and everybody you know across the street as well
down the street 1400 or 4200
so you can identify every single um it's also worth noting there's another smoke shop at i guess
14 to 30 that has had no issue as well and some of these businesses like buy trade sell i mean
they're all these smaller owned you know businesses you know given the size and nature
of of the properties or these are the directly adjacent ones the flower shop
DGLM gallery. There's a food market across the street. So I guess the point,
Harris, the point I'm making is we not only went back and did what they asked for
and would have had more support than not, but also we made sure to get across the street and
down the street as well. Just want to just sort of lastly mention
that, you know, again, the use that we're providing is an existing use that's already
been there. We believe it's grandfathered in and don't believe that this small business owner should
be required to move their business, try to put something else there after being there for so
long. I believe there's a hardship given the fact that the city's decided to enforce rules late.
And also that, again, in order to comply with the code, we could do a medical marijuana dispensary tomorrow, which I don't think anybody would like and probably have more concerns.
Or you'd have to have this person move out of their, break their lease and move out of an existing small business, which I don't think is the goal of this code.
It's also worth noting in 2035 comprehensive plan that Busselton Avenue is a priority corridor for commercial activity and investment, specifically page 27, and calls for the city to concentrate commercial zoning with active commercial areas to reinforce previously planned public-private investment and also explore opportunities to introduce more commercial nodes in residential areas, which this is not, to promote walkability.
I think that what I tried to express to the community group was that it's really not our job to discriminate against certain businesses or certain owners.
It's to decide if there's a real hardship here and if we meet those requirements.
And I do think that this is somebody who's been a very good member of the area.
He has the respect and support from the directly adjacent businesses.
And I don't think him relocating his business and breaking a lease is the lease modification.
And again, there's no violations, 311 calls or any issues.
cause for this property. So, um, if I can bring my client on, uh, Savage on, um, if he could
be promoted while we're bringing him on, I think also just from a hours of operation perspective,
this operates from 6 PM to 2 AM. This is not an all day, um, operation as well. So minimally
impactful as far as the timing. And again, it's on Busselton. So it's not in the middle of a,
residential area or next to a school or anything of that nature
promoted the panelists thank you sir could you please state your name is
spell for this photographer can you hear us hello
do we see his hand yeah i think it was up but then went down okay put it down okay
they were there for a moment but then they've um they broke off they might have gotten kicked out
now i can't see them you see him now no okay no sir okay so counsel you're an officer of the court
um we'll take your testimony questions from the board
questions from our attorney
um just the clarification um
so and you'd mentioned that the zoning history was a little confusing because there are multiple
units at this site is there a particular suite or unit number that that goes along with this
business that where this use is being requested yeah it would be suite one okay thank you sure
um councilman o'neill's um i think chief of staff is sitting in front of me um
alice could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer alice udovich u-d-o-v-i-c-h
on behalf of councilman brian o'neill do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do please proceed good evening chairman members of the board
i want to dispute a couple of the things that ms pritzker said a use permit for retail sales
even if it was for tobacco never covered a smoking lounge and an eating and drinking establishment as
far as i know in the city of philadelphia hasn't allowed smoking for many many years this gentleman
has only been here a couple of years these are popping up all over the northeast without getting
the proper licenses or permits and then asking for forgiveness because there's a hardship because
they've renovated the place but that use permit does is not grandfathering anything that's happening
here um she is right though that the neighborhood does have a disdain for these types of things and
mainly because they allow them to bring bottles in and there's no regulation from from the uh
Pennsylvania Board of Liquor to control it. And they've become a real nuisance.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead. Yeah. Just so if I can respond. So.
Rachel, why don't I do this? Why don't I see if there's anybody in the audience?
Sure. Okay. Sure. Is there anyone in the virtual audience relative to this?
I do not see any hands with the chair. Please proceed, Rachel.
Yeah. So, and Allison, I've talked about this because I went and poured through this because the first time I've seen a situation where the health department was like requiring this. And so the, as I had on the screen, they, this is what came from the city, right? That they basically said that, you know, this has been on the books since 2019, which was legislated. And then they're now going back sort of ad hoc and trying to enforce all this.
you know that was so this isn't a situation where he was operating and didn't was you know there was
a violation on the property or someone had called and so then he was like oh shoot let me you know
now go do this as you know this was operating you know since 2013 he bought that existing business
from the person and so that that was operating a hookah lounge and so when he went to renew
the tobacco license in his LLC, this is what triggered all of that. If he had known that
this was going to cause all this in the beginning when he purchased it, he probably would never
have purchased this site in particular, but this was not flagged at all at the time he purchased
it. If there was a violation and he had to correct it, I get all that. And this is different just in
this instance, particular to this instance, where this is an existing building that's the
existing property that's operating an existing business. He's not trying to open a new one.
He has, I think it's a year left. He had a five-year lease with at this location. So this
was not something that is brand new for him. And so again, I get what you're saying completely.
And I had that conversation with the community. It's just in this instance, he was already there
and it's the city as he was trying to do the right thing by renewing the tobacco license that they
said, hey, you need to get a zoning permit. And that's why, you know, we're here. There's no
violations. He could have continued to operate. That's not how we moved. So I get it. But in
I get it. But in this instance, I just want to flag the difference there. And before 2019, there was nothing that you could apply for like a smoking lounge. So like Van Gogh and all those places were just, I think, eating and drinking establishments or retail sale of consumer goods.
this instance, I just want to flag the difference there. And
This one in particular, he had it as, I guess, retail sale of consumer goods from 2013, and the application for this exact one said, you know, especially tobacco establishment, but there was, you know, there's no use for that.
So I guess L&I determined that this was going to be the use.
So, and I agree with you and understood the concerns around alcohol.
You can go into any restaurant and have a BYOB.
we had said to them, you know, they're only open from 6 to 2 a.m.
And he's got, you know, security. He's got people checking IDs.
And again, there's been no complaints from any of the property owners there.
It wasn't, you know,
it wasn't like all the property owners that have businesses next door were
complaining that that was not the representation. So, you know,
I just would ask that this one gets looked at for this case in particular and
not as a whole,
because otherwise what we're asking is for this guy to try to get out of his
lease, lose his business and figure out how to relocate in our city where you can't put one of
these anywhere. Like we have made it so you cannot do this anywhere. And I'm not personally a smoker,
but I'm not going to, you know, put that on, you know, someone else's business. There's other stuff
that goes on socially that I don't like either that we open up all over our city. So, you know,
I just don't want to not acknowledge your comments, Alice. I don't disagree. It's just
in this particular instance that's this is the facts that we have here okay um planning commission
good evening liz fuselay on behalf of the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from rsa2 single family
to cmx1 commercial mixed use the city rezoned this neighborhood in 1977 in a council supported
map change this property has a documented history as a smoking lounge dating to at least 2015
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed use variance
for a smoking lounge thank you um rachel we're going to take this and we'll vote on this next
wednesday at two o'clock um we just want to sit and talk about it a little bit and try to understand
where we want to be with this and okay thank you and thank you alice thank you very much
number 11. mi 2025-005-853-526 east rod avenue verna anastasio is the attorney
Good evening, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Vern. I'm sorry we're so late.
Just for the record, state your name.
Vern Anastasio.
The system won't allow me to turn on my video.
It says that the host will not allow it.
Okay, so could we help him with that?
I don't necessarily need it, but I know you like that.
We might want to see some presentation, right?
Certainly my presentation.
You don't need to see me for that, but okay.
Okay, all right.
okay either way it's all good we're good um could you identify your client relationship with the
property yes i represent mr nourish ready the uh owner of the property and our um and you have
the unanimous support from fishtown neighbors 21 votes and a letter of non-opposition from
council member squill and applicant has seven signatures from neighbors uh our vice chair
has a few questions thank you good evening good evening have you submitted your documents and
there been five days in advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy i do okay thank you let's uh share your screen and begin your case
thank you so uh 526 east gerrard avenue is a pre-existing building uh and what we're trying
to do is just get some parking there's there is a space for parking uh and uh it's just uh
We're doing it for the, it'll be an accessory use to the single family dwelling, which is above the commercial space on the first floor.
But we are refused because the parking is on the side.
It's not technically in the rear.
And that's why we're here.
So with that, I'm going to.
I have more photos, but this is the property in question.
It's very handsome beautiful old commercial mixed-use property and then as you'll see
commercial mixed-use property. And then, as you'll see, I'll zoom in a little bit.
This is the garage that they would like to have legalized. It's already a curb cut here.
This was already done as it is, but it's not legal. So we are trying to legalize it.
We have the support of everyone in the immediate area, including the owner of this garage right
here who came and testified at the at the rco meeting on our behalf i'm going to pull out
here's the corner property in question
and here is the garage uh parking pad
it's on ire street
I'll show you some additional photos as you can see it. There's no parking on that side of the street.
And the curb cut already exists. So it's pretty straightforward. Although I hate to say that.
That's just these are just interior shots where the commercial first floor is staying as is.
There's proof of posting.
Some basement of the building itself.
This is the outdoor space in the back.
This is looking at that same roll down gate from inside.
as you can see there's still ample space for a little patch of grass and a table and chair
tucked in the corner there
so it's a nice property very handsome inside very convenient to have the
parking in the rear but for it not being in compliance
and i'm going to leave it there you have our signatures of the immediate neighbors
uh in support you have the rco's unanimous support as well where immediate neighbors
testified and you have councilman mark squilla's letter that i was able to get earlier this week
For all those reasons, I respectfully request the granting of this pretty straightforward variance.
And with that, if my client is still with us, I'd like to call Neresh Reddy.
But he may not be.
Do we see his hand?
All right, counsel, what is the name of the individual again?
The last name is Reddy, R-E-D-D-Y.
i do not see them in the virtual audience very good burn your office of the court yep questions
from the board questions from our attorney hillary yes i'm sorry oh go ahead is this open uh is there
a roof over this or is it a enclosed garage or i'm sorry that's okay yeah i'll show i can show
you the picture again there's no roof okay it's just a roll down gate okay that's that's what i
thought okay there it is see yeah okay because otherwise i'd be concerned about ventilation
or something like that but since it's open it's okay all right okay thank you um
questions or comments from our attorney yeah i just wanted to clarify because the the refusal
didn't make any mention of the commercial um but you did note that there was there was commercial
on the first floor so i assume that's remaining yeah we're not touching that i mean it'll be used
by the uh by the owner of for her own business not open to the public but it the property remains
cmx2 okay all right i just we might if the board decides the grant we may just want to include
a proviso that you know the previously approved uses to remain yes it looks like there were a
couple other there's a permit also for limited lodging that was issued around the same time so
it's yeah i just want there would be confusion that they're yeah my applications typically
Although the examiner don't they don't usually put it on the refusal is for whatever it is. I'm seeking plus all previous approved uses, you know, that's right. Right. So I was I was a little bit confused when I looked at this because I thought it looked like there was commercial, but there was no mention of it or previous uses.
So, yeah, it's still CMX 2 and the front still is, you know, the 1st floor there is is that. Okay. Thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience.
okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
don't see any hands mr chair planning commission good evening liz fuselay on behalf of the
philadelphia county planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
cmx2 commercial mixed use zoning at this location the city rezoned the neighborhood in 2015 in a
community requested map change there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property
that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code the property has a
curb cut on iris street which the appellant seeks to use for off-street parking the city planning
commission grants the propose recommends granting the proposed variance for accessory off-street
parking with the proviso for the existing commercial uses thank you mi2025-005-853-526
gerard avenue i vote yes with proviso previously approved uses to remain
great michael johns my vote is yes with provisos
Carol Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Danetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ioan, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Number 12, MI 2025-005-863, 28 South 2nd Street.
Dan DeMauro is the attorney for the owner.
the support from the old city district rco seven votes and non-opposition from council
member squilla we're coming back in as a panel okay
good evening good evening mr tomorrow could you please state your name
and is spelled for the stenographer?