Thank you.
okay chair we have 35 attendees and we can start as you wish thank you good morning everyone my
name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's eba hearings with me is our vice chair
Ismail Shahid. Present Mr. Chairman. Our board member James Snell. Present Mr. Chairman. And
our alternate board member LeBaron Leonard Palmer from Development Services. Good morning Mr.
Chairman. Good morning. Also here is Hillary Emerson our attorney and also our executive
director Tanya Sunken. Here's our virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
a video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phila.gov. For the benefit of
our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to unmute and star 6,
I'm sorry, star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To an appearance statement, call
267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in question. And finally, the
question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be
directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken. Let's look at the continuances that we have for
today. Number one, MI 2022-004-030-9311 Volts Lane. In this case, there's a request for
continuance from the Greater Busselton Civic League. Is the applicant present, Janik Patel?
Good morning, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be your co-host for the day.
I see no hands at this time. Thank you. MI-2022-004-030-9311 Bolts Lane. This case is
continued. Mark, must be tried. Number two. Yes. There's someone up. There's someone who has their
hand up with the last name Patel. First name looks like Bharat. That's fine. Mr. Bharat,
Please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Mr. Patel, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Bharat Patel.
I'm the neighbor right next to me and him.
The one house is a party wall, and I'm the contestant.
I'm opposing the...
So you are not the applicant?
No, I'm not.
All right, so we're not taking testimony. I'm getting ready to announce what we're going to do with the case, okay?
Yeah, this is the second time, sir.
I understand. I understand. Let me announce what I'm going to do, okay, sir?
MI 2022-004-030-9311, Bolts Lane. This case is continued. Mark, must be tried.
Number two, MI-2022-007-379-3695 Kensington Avenue. This case is continued. First listing.
Number three, MI 2022-003-865-4063 Holland Street. This case is continued. Mark must be tried.
Okay. Number six.
Number six, MI 2022-005-303-4140 Poplar Street. Is Jeffrey Young, the attorney, present?
Chair, we have Mr. Young with his hand up.
Thank you.
Please bring him on.
Mr. Young, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Young, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Young.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Young, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Jeffrey Young, J-E-F-F-E-R-Y-Y-O-U-N-G, counsel for the owner of the property at 4140 Poplar Street.
All right. Do you swear or affirm that's all the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Young, the council person has requested a continuance for this case.
Yes. Yes. And we are in agreement with that continuance.
My client has revised plans that we need to submit to the community for the review.
We'd like to come back to the board with those revised plans.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Young.
MI-2022-005-303-4140 Poplar Street, this case has been continued.
Thank you, Mr. Young.
Number 10, MI-2022-003-935-2627 West Oxford Street, this case is continued.
12. MI-2022-004-033-2235 Cecil B. Moore Avenue. This case is continued. Attorney moving party.
number 13 mi 2022 003 948 5017 walnut street um council person has requested a continuance in
this case council person got the a andrea ford tillman or trees of justice or andrea tillman
Are you in the audience?
Ms. Tillman, if you're in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
This is the second time this case has been called.
We have no exhibits also.
So MI 2022-003-948-5017 Walnut Street, I vote to dismiss.
James Snell, Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Thank you.
And number 15, MI 2022 007 343 6020 Lansdale Avenue.
This case is continued.
Are there any comments from the audience relative to the cases that have been continued?
chair we have lucille mccarski miss mccarski please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
hi um good morning could you come good morning could you state your name please and spell for
the court reporter lucille mccarski l-u-c-i-l-l-e-m-o-c-a-r-s-k-i right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. What case are you calling
about? I am a protestant on the case. I didn't hear it mentioned, but I see in the chat that
it's been continued. It's for 2022-004477. What location, ma'am? 2633 Orthodox Street,
we didn't call that case yet Mr. Chair
I just saw it in the chat
it says continued
say the location again
I see it here
I'm getting ready to call that
okay thank you all right so sure thank you
this is hillary this is hillary i think um i think that that that was number 10 that was
continued that was 2627 west oxford street i think the uh the address was hillary i misreferenced
yeah yeah i think if you look at the number 11 2633 orthodox street there's no exhibit
second listing yes no no no that's what i mean but i think in the chat the case that was continued
It was actually 26, 27 West Oxford Street.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
Chair, we have Eloise Young. Ms. Young, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Chair, we have Eloise Young.
Ms. Young, please unmute yourself.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning. My name is Eloise Young, E-L-O-I-S-E-Y-O-U-N-G.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And what case are you calling about, ma'am?
I am calling about case number MI-2022-007343, 6020 Lansdowne Avenue, which was just continued. It's number 14 that you continue.
Okay, thank you.
That case has been continued, and I believe we – it's just the one – no, I'm sorry.
That case has been – what's your name again, ma'am?
Eloise.
Eloise Young.
You're not a complainant in this case, are you?
No, we're the RCO.
You're not an applicant, right?
No, I'm the RCO.
okay so so if i'm not mistaken we dismissed that case did you just miss it or continue it
mr chair that one was continued number i'm sorry yes that was continued at the request of the
attorney for the applicant that's what i wanted to know i just wanted to know why it was continued
thank you okay you're welcome all right is there anyone else with the continuances
chair we have michelle cruz miss cruz please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
sorry i could you hi could you state your name and spell please for the court reporter
michelle cruz m-i-c-h-e-l-l-e cruz c-r-u-z do you swear for him to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do okay and what what case are you calling about
well i raised my hand because i saw that 2633 orthodox was continued but now i see
that it says it's not continued yeah i haven't got to that case yet ma'am okay
okay um is there anyone else for continuances chair we have jeffrey young with his hand up
mr young please unmute yourself and wait for the chair good morning mr young
morning again i've been sworn just what what's your location what's your case uh 5900 pulaski
that's number nine Mr. Chair yep okay um you're requesting a continuance uh yes Mr. Chair we're
requesting the continuance and asking that the attorney be uh the moving party uh we're still
trying to work out some details with the RCO uh for this particular use thank you Mr. Young
Number 9, MI 2022-003-966-5900, Pulaski, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
Thank you for calling in again.
Okay, case number 4, MI 2022-007-383-1440, Hellerman Street.
We have no exhibits. This is the first listing. And Needlow Valentin is the owner applicant.
Mr. or Ms. Valentin, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Chair, I see no hands at this time. Thank you. MI 2022-007-383-1440 Hellerman Street. This is the
first listing. This case is continued. Marked must be tried.
Number seven, MI 2022-003-410-123 Leverington Avenue, Crystal Johnson.
This is, we have no exhibits. This is the third listing.
Ms. Johnson, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. MI 2022-003-410-123 Leverington Avenue, I vote to dismiss.
James Snell, I vote to dismiss.
yes my phone went out chair where are you at i had to come back in
we're at uh here number nine no problem do you agree to wait the reading
yep do you agree i'm sorry i'm sorry wait a minute
seven numbers yes number seven number seven this was the third listing we still have no documents
It's MI 2022-003-410-123 Leverington Avenue.
I voted to dismiss, so did Mr. Snell.
Ismail Shaheem, I voted to dismiss.
Thank you.
Number 11.
MI 2022-004-477-2633 Oxford Street.
We have no exhibits.
This is the second listing. Michelle Cruz.
Chair, Ms. Cruz is coming back in as a panelist now.
All right. Good morning, Ms. Cruz. I believe I've already sworn you in.
Hello. Yes, this is Michelle Cruz.
So, Ms. Cruz, we have no exhibits for this case.
you do not have the paperwork i submitted the exit uh paperwork i have never gotten a response
back i emailed them twice miss cruz this is hillary emerson we've been in touch via email
and we've advised you a couple times that you need an attorney on this case
yes have you became an attorney yes who is your attorney donald funk he is on the line
Okay, we did not receive an exhibit packet. I received something from you yesterday that was related to your, your Airbnb, but we've not received documents like e-tax clearance, photos, that sort of thing.
Proof of posting, none of that.
Maybe I don't know what the exhibit, I thought that what I was submitting yesterday was the exhibits.
no it was not there's a when you are there is information in the email that you are sent with
the poster about a month before your hearing that tells you what you need to submit i did post the
poster okay but there's a whole list of documents you need to submit and we have not received them
okay so this case will need to be continued so here here's where we are mi 2022 004 477 2633
orthodox street this case is continued mark must be tried next listing must be tried thank you
okay um we're going to go to our add-on list
mi 2022 003 293 2409 north 17th street the vote on this matter has been moved to
Wednesday, June 14th, 2023 at 9.30 a.m. Second case on our add-on list, MI 2023-001-253-1330 East
Burke Street. The vote on this matter has been moved to Wednesday, June 14th, 2023 at 9.30 a.m.
And number three, MI-2022-007-290-1800 North 22nd Street. The vote on this matter has been moved to Wednesday, June 14th, 2023 at 9.30 a.m.
um case case number five was our first case of the day mi 2022 007 037 431 north 41st street
alan knockamson is the attorney this is a resumption hearing
here mr knockamson is coming back in as a panelist now
Good morning, Mr. Nachamson.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Alan.
Yes, Alan Nochamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nochamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Just for the record, do you identify your client?
Oh, yeah.
My client for this matter is Poplar Development LLC, and in the virtual audience is one of
its members, Christian Sanchez.
We have an update from council person.
I understand she's she's in opposition, but the community has been willing to consider a low density, multiple family variance.
That's that's the last thing I have had. So so just for the sake of the math, this this resumptive hearing will be you first giving us an update.
Then we're going to see if the RCO is here and then we're going to go to planning and then we'll consider whether we vote or not.
It sounds great. So, yes. Originally, this was a project where we proposed six family dwelling units along with an accessory parking space and a rooftop deck.
We had a preliminary meeting with the West Paladin organization. Very passionate group, very community oriented.
Originally, it was told to us if we eliminated the roof deck, eliminated the parking space, and reduced the unit count to four, that would be something that would be acceptable to the community.
My client then revised his plans to eliminate the roof deck, eliminate the parking space, but held steadfast to the six units, and there were going to be a total of six bedrooms for those six units, each one-bedroom units.
We thought that the density created by six one-bedroom units was low in comparison to the amount of bedrooms we could have put into the property, and instead, you know, did not take advantage of the request of the community before units.
we made that presentation we received a letter from the uh community group that the board has
where they stated a preference for uh three to four units they indicated that they would
you know not have any objection to that we then presented it from the zoning board
um you know it seemed like there could be further communications between the parties as to that
unfortunately those communications were not fruitful. We did not have another certified
meeting with the RCO. So where we stand now is we've adhered to every one of the community's
requests regarding the roof deck and the parking. We did reduce our unit count to four
at the initial hearing on this matter. So the question is whether the board would grant
you know a variance for three what the community has been asking for or for now there is some
there is a letter that came in front of my desk last late last night where they indicated
that you know that they're now their preference is to have single family use ultimately which
again is not economically feasible this lot has been a vacant lot for some time and we're looking
to develop that lot responsibly. But we still have a low bedroom count of six bedrooms for
four units. And in the letter that we received last night, it indicated that their preferences
for single family use. But again, they indicated that if this board feels so inclined,
they would ask for only three units with a total of six bedrooms. We're four units with six
bedrooms. So either way, this is clearly a property that should and needs to be developed.
And we're hoping that the board would grant a variance with a maximum of four units. And we
also have revised plans, which eliminated the roof deck and eliminated the parking space. But
if this board does not feel like it's appropriate for four units, we would ask that the board then
adhere to the three-unit request by the community. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nocromson. Is the RCO present in the audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I see Pamela Andrews from the RCO present. And I did want to note,
because I see a couple other hands raised, we are not taking further public testimony in this case.
We took it at the prior hearing. This resumption hearing was for the limited purpose of discussion
about, yes, about additional conversation with the RCO. Thank you.
Hi. Good morning. Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court
reporter? Good morning. My name is Pamela Andrews, P-A-M-E-L-A.
Good morning. My name is Pamela Andrews, P-A-M-E-L-A Andrews, A-N-D-R-E-W-S. I'm the chair of West
Pout and Saunders Park RCO. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. Well, we're here this morning
because we've met with this client on numerous occasions. We have always said from the beginning,
our preference for this lot was to uphold the RSA 5 zoning. We've attempted to work with this
client. We requested that if we were going to approve any type of variance for a multifamily
unit, we wanted only three units at that site. Our particular community, when we tend to approve
of variance for a multi-family lot that is zoned RSA 5, we always basically attempt to keep
to keep density low by requesting that the client only be allowed to build a three-family unit.
In the letter that we sent to you prior when this case was heard, we did say
three units but preferably four units but preferably three and at this point we went
back to the attorney we met with the client on numerous occasions we asked them we asked him to
please we would allow a variance for three units they refused and came back and presented four
So at this point, we feel as if there really is no hardship, which would keep the client from being able to develop that lot as a single family home.
There is a current house next door that was built there back in 2017, I believe, and that property is sold for almost half a million.
So, our RCO's goal is to maintain and increase single-family dwellings in our area, and we feel as if he would not agree to us allowing a variance for three units, then we wanted to hold him to the request to the RSA-5 zoning.
Thank you.
Thank you.
and Mr. Chair Becker just respond um I appreciate um Ms. Andrew's frustration um my client has been
very strong on his belief that you know that you know four units and not three units but as you
heard the group this this community has you know stated you know an allowance for at least three
units and I would say just point out that this is a 1900 square foot lot so this is a rather large
rsa black property um so we defer to the board in the planning commission
good morning chair david fecteau f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir i do proceed thank you sir uh good morning chairman and members of the board
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This neighborhood was rezoned in 2015 in accord with the recommendations in the comprehensive plan.
The community requested that the zoning for this block remain the same.
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 City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the use variance for six dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2022-007-037-431-North 41st Street.
I vote yes with provisos.
Revised plans, one page,
stamped by ZBA, June 7th, 2033.
Maximum three units,
no bedrooms in basement.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheem, my vote is yes with proviso.
Mr. Knackenstein, could you stay on, please?
Number eight, MI 2022-007-061-315 North Preston Street.
This is a resumption hearing.
I noticed from the council person
that has no opposition
to the revised proposals per provisos.
The provisos directly respond to change requests
by near neighbors and brings the proposed use
by near neighbors and brings the proposed use and building footprint to be more in line with the
and building footprint to be more in line with the strength.
surrounding properties. My understanding from our council, this resumptive hearing will be
update from Mr. Nockleson yourself, comments from the RCO, and then to the Planning Commission. So,
Mr. Nockleson, could you just state your name for the record, please? Alan Nockleson.
Proceed, sir.
And identify your client, please let your...
I'm sorry.
It is Preston Berkeley, LLC.
And in the virtual audience is the owner's representative, Bill Murphy.
Thank you.
Proceed, sir.
So we also dealt with Ms. Andrews' organization for this project as well.
I am glad to say we did reach an agreement with Ms. Andrews where we would have a maximum
of six units.
Okay, thank you.
And it's receptive in our revised proviso plans.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Ms. Andrews is still here, Chair.
Ms. Andrews, please unmute yourself.
Ms. Andrews, could you just state your name for the record you've already been sworn?
Pamela Andrews.
Okay, thank you very much. Proceed.
I'm just here to say we are happy to report we were able to work with Mr.
Nockmson and his client regarding this property and the community is happy with the results that
we were able to achieve. Thank you very much for calling in for both cases. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property.
We'll prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed use variance for six dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2022-007061, 315 North Preston Street.
I vote yes.
Revised plans.
One page, stamped by ZBA, June 7th, 2023, maximum six units.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 14, MI 2021-002-828-6516-20 Upland Street.
Edward Quinn is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Southwest Philadelphia Consortium of RCOs.
Chair, Mr. Quinn is coming back in as a panelist now.
good morning mr quinn morning chair bergman good morning could you could you state your
name please and spell for the court reporter yes sir my name is edward quinn e-d-w-a-r-d
q-u-i-n-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth. Yes, I do. Could you identify your client the relationship to this property? Yes, sir. I'm
counsel for Lamb Agencies, LLC, the single member LLC and owner of 6516 Upland Street. All right.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir. Yes, sir. Good morning, counsel. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you
emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing? Yes, sir. We have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. Sorry, I'm one of the few millennials. It's probably tech challenged here. Just figuring
out how to share screen. The green button on the bottom there says share screen. Thank you chair
Bergman. Here you go. Okay. Okay good morning. Good morning all. I'm a counsel for this matter
for land agencies. 651620 Upland Street is located in the ICMX district concessing neighborhood.
was purchased by my client in 2019.
He inherited several violations, which initially caused an issue
when he went to apply for his license to run the garage, which
which necessitated the application here today.
necessitated the application here today.
We actually been, unfortunately, had to continue the case several times due to COVID, language issues, and then travel.
So this matter has been going on for a while, but we had a meeting last April with several RCOs and community and received a favorable response.
response. My client has been running a very professional workman-like shop.
Here these are some of the photos of the property right here.
This is where the parcel is located near McCreech playground in Concessing.
This is a zoning overlay showing the ICMX mixed use. On the street there are
several manufacturers like custom carpentry, custom cabinet shops.
There are also several auto shops located in this region, but not on this block of Upland Street.
Photos from Google Earth showing to the left here is the cabinet manufacturer and wood shop.
On the right is the property before my client purchased it and began clearing the violations of painting.
There's an inside photo of the shop.
Just a photo showing we've been posting the notice requirements.
Some of the feedback we got initially when we applied for this with the ZBA was vehicles
being left outside or work being done outside of the garage.
That's something my client has been very cognizant of.
And just we have some photos just showing what the shop looks like during work hours.
This is obviously from last year, but we've been continuing to just run a very professional shop with a copy of our application for special exception.
And sorry, my computer is freezing here.
Project information, these are the required submissions.
This is the notice of referral from L&I, title, and tax clearance, recent tax clearance.
And also our letter of support from last April's community meeting.
what is your client present to adopt your testimony
uh my client is not present unfortunately he's dealing with a medical issue
okay all right you're you're an officer of the court we will accept your testimony
questions from the board
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
Chair, we have Craig Melodosian. Mr. Melodosian, please unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Craig Melodosian, C-R-A-I-G-M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
All right. I'm the coordinating RCO for this project. And while we did submit a letter of support and we still support the operation, based on repeated visual inspections of the facility, we're asking that proviso language be included.
uh the uh we believe the applicant has abrogated his agreement with us to not park cars on the
sidewalk we regularly find including as of 3 30 p.m this past monday uh a black mercedes benz
always parked facing the north elevation of the building on the right hand side of the main garage
entrance and there are usually cars uh parked on the left hand side of that entrance in front of
the front door. We still agree that the internal shop is outstanding compared to the other
facilities that we've dealt with in that street or in that area. We are working with multiple
applicants, automotive-related uses on Upland running between 68th Street and 65th Street.
We're trying to set a standard, and that includes no parking on the sidewalk regardless. And on all
of those occasions, there was ample street parking to park on the street. If they don't want to park
the Mercedes Benz on the street, then they need to move it into the shop. But it should not be
on the sidewalk. And we would ask the proviso language to indicate no parking or servicing
The proviso language indicate no parking or servicing of vehicles on the sidewalk.
of vehicles on the sidewalk.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for calling in and taking the time.
Mr. Quinn, before I give it to the planning commission, do you want to respond?
Yes, thank you, Chair Bergman.
Those are valid points, well received.
Mr. Melosian was kind enough to call yesterday.
Okay, good.
I would just add that I spoke with my client.
The Mercedes is his head mechanic, and he has been instructed to not park on the sidewalk.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair Bergman.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and board members, in 2019, the zoning map was amended at this location from commercial mixed use 2 to industrial commercial mixed use in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
The applicant has shown that the proposed vehicle maintenance and repair will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what normally might be expected.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the special acceptance.
Thank you. MI 2021-002-828-651620 Upland Street.
I vote yes with proviso. Interior storage of vehicles and parts.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Quinn.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Thank you, all members of the ZBA.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 930 case has not been called?
Here, I see no heads at this time.
Thanks, everyone.
See everyone at 2 p.m.
Thank you.
good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this afternoon
2 p.m zba hearing with me is our vice chair ismail shaheed he should be right on here
our board member james snell present mr chairman and our alternative board member
LeBaron Leonard Palmer
from Development Services.
President, Mr. Chair.
And also here is
Hillary Emerson, our attorney,
and our executive director,
Tanya Sunket.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available
by contacting Tanya Sunket
at Philadelphia.
Okay, thank you.
For the benefit of our
court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before
testifying. If you're participating by phone and you wish
to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand
and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call
267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for
comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sumpkin.
Let's look at the continuations we have this afternoon. Number one, MI 2022, 007-295-5737
Elmwood Avenue. This case is continued. And number eight,
8. MI 2023-000-471-2829-59-North 23rd Street. This case is continued. Are there any comments
relative to two cases I've just continued? Good afternoon, Chair. This is Yvette Benton. I'll be
your co-hosts for this afternoon. I see no hands at this time. Thank you. Are there any other
requests for continuances? Chair, we have Brittany Gardner. Ms. Gardner, please unmute yourself and
wait for the chair. Ms. Gardner, could you state your name and spell it please for the court
reporter. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Brittany Gardner, B-R-I-T-T-A-N-Y-G-A-R-N-E-R.
I am counsel for... Hold on, hold on one minute, hold on. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, and your case is MI 2022-007-293-2200
East Cumberland Street, am I correct? 2200 East Cumberland, that's correct. Okay, proceed.
Yes, this is the Attorney of Record. I am requesting a continuance for today in order to meet with the community.
Yes, this is the attorney of record. I am requesting a continuance for today in order to
Okay, thank you. So, number 10, MI2022-007-293-2200, East Cumberland Street, as cases continue. Thank you for calling in.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Chair, we have Paige Fetchon.
Ms. Fetchon, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hi, yeah, my name is Paige Fetchon, P-A-I-G-E-F-E-T-C-H-E-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What case, what location?
The same case that you all just discussed, 2200 East Cumberland.
And I just want to contest that as well.
Okay, fine.
So you'll be notified of the next hearing, okay?
Okay, excellent.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Chair, we have Vito Canuso.
Mr. Canuso, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Vito Canuso, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, counsel. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Vito, V-I-T-O, Canuso, C-A-N-U-S-O, attorney for applicant on property 2524 North 15th Street.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. Your request continues?
no you're uh mr chairman i'm requesting my client is in traffic and is traveling
and is is not available right now can i be placed at the end of the list
well well council just so you know we do not have exhibits for this case
i sent them over uh okay um hillary did we do we could we check again for exhibits for this case
um yeah we will we will check again um mr canuso i will add you to the end of the list so we can
check yeah mr canuso where did where did you send the exhibit do you remember where you sent them
As per the instructions, I sent them to three locations, rcozba at phila.gov, s-u-l-e-t-a-z-b-a at gmail.com, pcpc.zoning at phila.gov, those three locations, those three email addresses.
Okay, we will check.
That's it. We'll hear this case last. Thank you, Mr. Canusa.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Are there, right, here we go.
So we're going to go to our add-on list.
Number one, MI 2022-001-768-1625 North AT Street.
I vote yes for hearing and reconsideration,
request for reconsideration. I vote yes. James Snell, my vote is yes to a rehearing and
reconsideration. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes for rehearing and reconsideration. Thank you.
Number two, MI 2022-003-722-3500 Ainsley Street. The vote on this matter has been moved to Wednesday,
June 14th, 2023 at 2 p.m. Number three, MI 2022-007-288-4223, Poulton Avenue. The vote on
this matter has been moved to Wednesday, June 14th, 2023. We're going to go to our main list,
Number two, MI-2022-007-294-1833 South 18th Street.
Olok Sokoloff is the attorney.
Letter of Opposition from East Point Breeze Neighbors.
Applicant also has provided seven form letters of support from neighbors on the 1800 block of South 18th Street.
Chair, Mr. Sokoloff is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon, Chair. Members of the Board, Oleg Sokolov, O-L-E-G-S-O-K-O-L-O-V,
from Rabinovich Sokolov Law Group, on behalf of the applicant, Gabrielle Dicci.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
our vice chair has a few questions thank you good afternoon council do you agree to waive
Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree?
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy good afternoon um have you emailed in
all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of
this hearing i have sir sir thank you please proceed share your screen thank you very much
green button on the bottom yeah i'm sorry i just the permissions were turned off just one moment
All right. I believe that's working. Is everyone able to see that?
Fine. Yep.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the Board, we are here seeking a variance to use this property for the purposes of visitor accommodation.
This property is located on the 1800 block of South 18th Street. If I may I will take you through
our exhibit packet. As read by Mr. Shahid, here is our refusal as the proposed use is not allowed
in the RM1 District. Just some pictures of the property. You can see that it's a single family
dwelling. This is looking south and this is looking north. I'd just like to draw the board's
attention to the fact that this neighborhood does have some mixed uses in the area, especially here
on 18th between McClellan and Sigal Street. And, you know, every corner property is a CMX2, so
the neighborhood is peppered with commercial uses as well as RM1 residential uses.
I'll quickly take you through the interior of the property. You can see that this property is immaculately maintained.
I'd also just like to mention that this neighborhood in and of itself does not have many hotels or other types of residences that people from out of town could stay in.
And when the applicant herself comes on the line, I'll have her speak quickly to her experience in managing properties
and why she's particularly adept at being able to manage a visitor accommodation so as to have no issues with it.
I believe this property was originally purchased for Ms. Dietschy's personal use, but as a
result of some work situations has been, or we are seeking this variance to use it for
visitor accommodation.
Our project information form. Our application for appeal.
As the Chair stated, we met with the community on Wednesday, May 17th.
our proof of mailing.
Pardon me. Here's our letter of opposition from the East Point Breeze Neighbors Association.
As you'll see, there were only four people voting and all four did in fact oppose, but
we felt that it wasn't enough of a representation of the neighborhood to really accurately gauge
how the neighborhood feels about our request.
Photos of the zoning posters in the property.
I apologize, I'm having a bit of an issue scaling it.
And then, as the Chair mentioned, we did submit, along with this exhibit packet, seven letters
of support from neighbors in and around the property that weren't able to attend the meeting.
from neighbors in and around the property that weren't able to attend the meeting I do apologize
I do apologize.
for the format that they're in I understand they're not the cleanest copies but there are
seven here and then here's I'll go through this exhibit packet and then I'd also like to add a few
more letters that were generated of support that were generated since the time that this packet
has been submitted so here's the deed showing Ms. Dietschy is on this property since March of 2018.
and our tax clearance.
Lastly, Ms. Dietschy recently has been able to obtain
a few additional letters of support,
which I just want to confirm that,
is everybody able to see that?
Okay, thank you, Chair.
And that's one, two, this is, you know,
almost a direct neighbor at 1826 South 18th.
This is just around the corner.
This is, once again, on the same block.
This is right around the corner at Sigel Street.
So with the Board and the Chair's permission, I would like to supplement our exhibit packet
with these additional letters of support.
With that, I would just like to ask Ms. Dietschy to raise her hand so she could adopt my testimony
and quickly share her experience in property management.
Ms. Dietschie, please unmute yourself and wait for the chairman.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hello?
Ms. Dietschie?
chair she's unmuted but i'm not getting any response
okay um counsel you're an officer of the court we will gladly take your testimony
thank you if i may just add miss dici herself is employed in in facilities management and
commercial property management so she has a unique skill set that make her very adept at managing
any kind of commercial property or property that's used for commercial purposes such as
visitor accommodation. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience? Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Just a quick note,
Mr. Sokolov, if there are letters that you showed the board today that were not in the
exhibit packet that was submitted, please submit them to the board ASAP so they can be included
in the record. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you, Ms. Emerson. I'll do so right at the
conclusion of this meeting. Chair, we have France Pierre with his hands up. Mr. Pierre,
please mute yourself and wait for the chair. Sir, could you state your name, please, and
spelled for the court reporter. Good afternoon. Yes, that's France Pierre, Councilmember Johnson's
office. The spelling is F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Where are firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good afternoon, fellow board members. At this time, due to the opposition of East Point Breeze, Council Member Johnson does join RCO in their opposition to the appeal. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no other hands at this time.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Chair Bergman. David Effecto with the City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in the zoning at this location from residential
multifamily to residential single family. There is no unique physical condition or circumstance
of this property to prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code. The City
Planning Commission recommends the board deny the use variants for visitor accommodation.
Thank you. MI-2022-007-294-1833 South 18th Street. I vote yes for a temporary variance that expires 7-8-26.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, counsel.
sold. Thank you, Gordon. All right, we're going to number four, MI 2023-000-500-726-28 Market
Street. Jared Klein is the attorney.
Jared Klein is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Washington Square West Civic Association with Proviso and letter of non-opposition with Proviso per RCO from Council Member Squillin.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good morning, Council. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court report?
word? Certainly. It's Jared, J-A-R-E-D, last name Klein, K-L-E-I-N. Right. Do you swear or affirm
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Could you identify your client
in relationship to the property? Certainly. My client is Citizens Bank, and they are the tenant
at this address. Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions. Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
So we are here for 726 to 28 Market Street, which is an existing building that Citizens Bank is renting some ground floor retail bank space from.
As you'll see as I get into the exhibits in a moment, there is an existing mural for Five Below that is on one portion of this property.
So this application is seeking to do a mural for Citizens Bank on the other portion of the wall that is available.
This is something that the landlord enjoys having on his building and the least specifically contemplated Citizens Bank ability to do this as sort of a permanent installation on the side of the building.
The refusal that we got is for the size of the sign, because it's a sign that is on the wall.
It's not a projecting sign, and it is not considered an outdoor advertising sign because it is flush against the building.
It's being treated as a mural, and the size of this mural exceeds the zoning code requirements in these three categories.
The top edge of the sign, the general size of the sign, and where it is located.
The concept that Citizens is thinking of can be seen here.
This is the Poe's mural.
It is largely an artistic rendering incorporating Citizens and Seams of Philadelphia.
The actual Citizens Bank identification is limited to their logo here in the upper corner.
And you can see very on the back of this gentleman's shirt, there's the Citizens logo.
But by and large, it is designed to mirror the Five Below mural, which is existing, which you can see here.
It's more of a general piece of artwork with the Five Below logo off in one of one of the corners.
So what we're proposing is designed to sit well with this mural and sort of mimic what it's doing at that site.
This is an artist's rendering of how it would look affixed to the wall of the building.
It is a little bit smaller than the existing Five Below mural because we don't have as much building wall here as there is on the other side there.
and this would be a view from the other direction
if you were walking along Market Street here.
We think the signs are very, very attractive.
They blend well with each other
and we'll make a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Just for context, the site is zone CMX3
and the aerial view is here
to give the board some additional context
on exactly where this is going to be located.
There are some pictures of posting that I'm going to scroll through, but the sign was placed within the requisite amount of time in the leading window.
And just a picture of the existing condition absent the mural.
This is the same photo you saw before, but this is just what the existing condition looks like without the artist rendering superimposed.
this is a larger scale version of the actual mural so the board can can see a little bit
more clearly what is being proposed with this version now that we can blow it blow it up a
little bit you can see that there is reference made to the rocky statue liberty place love park
and other philadelphia attractions so it's it's really designed to not be a piece of corporate
Philadelphia Traction. So it's really designed to not be a piece of corporate marketing,
but something that is unique to the market in which this is being done.
We had our meeting with the RCO. Here's our certificate of mailing that went out.
And their letter of non-opposition is in the file here. One of the provisos that the RCO asked for
that we are happy to agree to, is to limit the size of the actual Citizens Bank branded material
to 500 square feet or less, which is about the same size as the five below branding on the
building next door to give the board a sense. That was the same proviso that was in the approval for
the five below sign, 500 square feet. So this is designed to be consistent with that also.
And with that, Washington West was in non-opposition.
So with that, I'd like to ask the board to unmute Lisa Tretien.
Lisa, if you can raise your virtual hand, please.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Lisa, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi. State your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter.
Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Cretien. It's spelled L-I-S-A. My last name is C-H-R-E-T-I-E-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. I swear.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Lisa, did you have a chance to hear my presentation this afternoon?
I did.
And do you adopt my statements as a true, correct, and your own as if you'd had a chance to more fully testify?
Thank you. Mr. Chair, we're happy to answer any questions the board may have.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
Thank you. Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I don't see any answer this time, Chair.
Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman and board members. David Effecto with the City
Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed
use zoning at this location. The appellant is requesting three variances for installing signs
on their property for the proposed location and size. The appellant has not shown that an economic
detriment would accrue to the property if the proposed dimensional variances are not granted.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the proposed signed variances.
Mr. Klein, do you want to respond?
I think, you know, what this mural is designed to do goes beyond economic detriment to the applicant.
This is both a piece of marketing and an aesthetic piece that will improve the skyline and aesthetic of that area generally.
And so we think it's it's contextually appropriate, even though it is not being driven by purely economic factors.
I 2023 00500726 to 28 Market Street.
I vote yes with proviso area of sign with the business logo shall not exceed 500 square feet.
James Snell my vote is yes with proviso
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes with the proviso
Thank you council
Number six
MI 2023
000 496
129 Washington Avenue
Stephen Pollack is the attorney
letter of support from queen village neighbors association letter of non-opposition from
council member squiller chair mr pollock is coming back in as a panelist now
i think i'm here here i am hi good afternoon mr
Mr. Pollock, could you say your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Stephen with the S-T-E-P-H-E-N-G for middle initial, Pollock, P-O-L-L-O-C-K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
I have with me today Kenneth Van Horn and Cindy Lee, who are, Ken is the owner of the property as an individual.
They together have been running Society Hill Beverage, the business that we're trying to reestablish since 2000.
business that we're trying to reestablish uh since um 20 2006 at this location and the beer
distributor was owned by a prior owner since 1990 uh at the same location so i have those with me
and if i can as i usually always try and ask uh if i could have nico realbuto my uh associate be
elevated to a panelist also because he will share the screen for me thank you and our vice chair
has a few questions for you sir
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon, Mr. Shahid. Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I believe we have.
Thank you. Please proceed to share this reading.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, if I could, Nico, thank you for allowing Nico to share.
Back in 2018, the zoning board granted a variance, and it's on the refusal to allow a single family, a single structured garage-like structure that used to house the Society Hill Beverage since 1990 and be replaced by this four-story or five-story building with eight-family dwellings.
Unfortunately, when they made the application, even though Society Hill Beverage was what was being replaced, the applicant only asked for a vacant commercial space slash warehouse on the first floor.
Ken Van Horn has been the owner and Cindy Lee have been the owners of this property and have conducted Society Hill Beverage since 2006 when they took over.
throughout our packet. And we have our exhibits A1 through A16. We have in our packet the
application showing going back to as far back as 1990, where a variance was granted
to allow this property to be used. And there it is. That's at A12 for retail sales,
pre-packaged foods as part of an existing retail and wholesale beer distributorship,
distributor. And that's one of the keys that's also happening. It says beer distributorship
in the refusal. In parentheses, it has wholesale sales and distribution. The property has always
been used for not only the wholesale, but retail sale. I don't want to get screwed up in that
and of malt beverages. And it also had the prepackaged food being allowed. When this was
filed by someone other than I and I wasn't involved in the 2018 case for what happened
with failure to call this what it's been and what it was intended to be used for ever since
Ken and Cindy decided to knock down the old structure and be the developer as well as the
occupant developer of the of the apartments they actually are going to live in the I think one of
the apartments. They will testify to this and can hopefully affirm my testimony and also house the
first floor as their new home for Society Hill Beverage. So we also have just after this at 813
and 1990 L&I memorandum. Again, it says beer distributor. And there you go. Beer distribution
with accessory retail sale of prepackaged foods. So it's historically been that way. They did not
down the building. That's true. And in the zoning law, you can argue that knocking down a building
100% is an intent to abandon, but there was never any intent to abandon Society Hill Beverage. In
fact, if we go to which I believe is at page 23 of our long list of exhibits, but it's the site
plans that were used in, not that one, but there you go. This was part of the site plan package
that was presented back in 2018 for the first floor.
And even though the application called
for a vacant commercial space,
we can blow it up just a shade, Nico.
Hopefully the board can see that it called it out
as Society Hill Beverage.
It's a 3,200 square foot space.
The two elevator and stair corridors you see
will be servicing the upstairs apartments.
So Society Hill Beverage is gonna be in that location.
And they called it out.
They said it right there on the plan. But when they presented to the board, for some reason, you know, as I said, I've been at this game about 46 years now. And I was livid when I saw what happened back in 2018. But we went. So that's where we're going with that. As a poster, what we posted on the property, besides.
As a poster, what we posted on the property, besides the zoning notice and the refusal, was we posted and then presented to, we provided this proposed proviso language.
It was tried to incorporate everything that had been given in the past, that there's a beer distributor store, including retail and wholesale beer sales and distribution with the retail sale of prepackaged foods as per the zoning permit.
and and one of the permits that the board actually when it granted its original variance and we have
no problem with this was that there would be no use of league street for ingress and regress for
the beer distributorship of course at that point it was only a beer distributorship didn't have
the apartments up above but there is no physical barrier or physical way for the trucks to come in
people to come in patrons to come in off of off of league street so we are adhering in our plan
to that nico go to the other which is page 27 which is the floor plan that we do have for the
for the beer distributorship so this would be how it would be used um the front part is washington
avenue the back part is leak street and as you can see from the store store uh part there's no access
to um leak street there is access up in the upper left corner but that is the um cylinder or cone
that services the apartments so we've tried tried to do that we did have a great meeting
with the queen village neighbors if you can pull up that letter um and the chairman piven
stated three different um provisos and we would love to have them incorporated because one it
does now cover the sale of pre-packaged foods to be allowed in addition to beverages but we are
concern that we don't want L&I to interpret, if the board is willing to grant us the variance
today, that beer distributor doesn't allow us to have the retail sale because that's always been
there as we've shown since 1990 on the property. And then Ken and Cindy took over in 2006.
And there is a sign that we never applied for a sign on this application, but there was a sign
that was shown in the 2018 plans.
And we could go to that one, Nico.
You'll see, it's just really a building identification sign.
I think we have, keep going.
You have to get to, keep going, keep going.
They had a sign that said, all right, maybe we passed it.
It just says, it just says over in Channel Letters,
South Street, I mean, Society Hill Beverage.
Is that it? There it is. I don't know if you can see it. Can you blow that up just a little bit? It was in black lettering. I mean, we're not asking for a sign, but if the board wanted to limit us to that sign, we're fine with that also.
So it was intended, therefore, that there was a hardship proven to this board back in 2018 that given the prior uses and everything like that and the new use, and now it's in the CMX2 zone, whereas before it was in a residential zone way back when, which required it to get the variances, that there was an intended commercial use for this floor.
And as I said, I will have Cindy and Ken testify to this.
It was their intent always, since they were the owners of Society Hill and operators of Society Hill, to take over this first floor and use it for that process.
So we would say that for years, since 1990, there's been a beer distributor at this location.
Neighbors have had to deal with people coming and going to be served at this location.
So I don't believe it's going to cause congestion in the public streets nor block any transportation that serves along Washington Avenue and that it will not be detrimental to health safety.
The neighborhood, given all these years and given the support of Queen Village that would surely know, they've really sort of agreed to this one two times because it was back in front of them in 2018.
And now in 2022, what happened was when they went to get their building permit for the beer distributorship, Ellen and I said, whoa, wait a second.
Guess what? You don't have approval for the beer distributorship.
You only had approval for vacant commercial space.
So that's what brought it to the attention.
If you want to go through the pictures real quick, Nico, just to show the board.
Those were the plans for 2018.
So that's the existing building.
The apartments haven't been occupied quite yet.
We're waiting for an elevator certification for the apartments.
Keep going.
Here we go.
So there's the building.
And the lower level is obviously where the beer distributorship would be.
And the lower level is obviously where the beer distributorship would be.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, go down.
This is along Washington Avenue.
It's right across from the Mummers Museum.
Diagonally across, basically, from the Mummers Museum on Washington Avenue.
Keep going.
There it is again, Mr. Chairman.
And that's looking towards 2nd Street, looking along up Washington Avenue,
looking down towards the I-95 and Delaware Avenue, across the street.
And keep going.
keep going more pictures and there's the mummers museum up in the upper left you can't miss the
mummers museum uh looking again on towards north towards uh washington avenue keep going
and that's looking up washington avenue towards where the building will be keep going
because this is like a triangular piece of ground in fact that building in the front corner used to
be Venuto's veal and meat market. I represented Dominic Venuto years and years ago. So keep
going. Again, showing you the wide sidewalk. There is parking along the street. Keep going.
I just want to show the board. And there's looking from 2nd Street back towards Front Street.
Go ahead. Another picture. 2nd Street back towards Front and the building facade. Now
we're getting behind it on League Street. Go ahead. Nico, keep going. That shows you there's
no physical entrance to the beer distributor on League Street. There'll be no signs or anything
like that. Another part of the League Street side of the property. Keep going. I just want to go
ahead. Just want to show the interior shots just so the board gets a sense. Keep going. There we go.
just they had they've had to stop construction so that would that that is uh pretty much where
we're at with this mr chairman we've had pre-marked exhibits a1 through a16 we also have
a letter of non-opposition from council member skill squilla uh with that i would like to call
up uh mr paul just one minute hillary just just to clear the record we're showing that zba hearing
was 2019 and maybe the plans are dated 18 could that be it the the last decision was in 18 i
believe yeah i think it was our records we're saying 2019 i said once as per revised stamp
plans 212 2018 but um okay that's fine thank you thank you this may be a typo mr chair thank you
All right, good. Thank you, Mr. Pollack.
Because the board had to file revised plans to confirm to some agreement.
Let's get Ken Van Horn or Cindy, whoever wants to talk.
Mr. Van Horn. Ken Van Horn. Cindy, are you there?
I know Cindy's there. She told me she was there.
You have to raise your hand.
You have had any luck?
No hands at this time.
Okay. So, Mr. Pollack, as you know, you're an officer of the court. We will take your testimony. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Okay. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I have no hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and board members. David Vecto with the City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location. The proposal for wholesale sales and distribution is consistent with the prior use of the property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use variance for wholesale sales and distribution.
Mr. Chairman, I just, if there was ever a way to also, since it doesn't, the refusal didn't say anything about prepackaged foods, but the foods, but the provisos in Mr. Piven's letter clearly says sale of prepackaged food to be allowed in addition to beverages.
I should. You want that, right?
We would love to have that. And I would just love to clarify that wholesale includes retail at this location, because as for, you know, as years have gone by, and we also had the liquor licenses at A15, it's in safekeeping right now. But we don't want to have any problems where we're told that they can't sell at retail. Because there used to be that old distinction between wholesale and retail.
Wait a minute. You've got retail sale of packaged foods.
No, retail sale of packaged food.
But we want the beer distributors to be wholesale and retail.
Because beer, selling a beer, selling beer.
Okay, okay.
That's it. Got you.
Yeah, Mr. Chair, just jump in.
Mr. Pollack, I did have a conversation with L&I because, you know, there was prior approval for this.
And there is some retail sales that is incidental to wholesale to begin with.
to begin with but the um the retail sale of food beverages and groceries is by right
but the retail sale of food, beverages, and groceries is by right.
but we can include that um with the the wholesale um variants that the board decides to approve that
both for the beverages and for the pre-packaged foods okay that'd be great i just want to be sure
that okay they didn't lose what they started in 1993 hold on were you also comfortable with the
hours. Yes, we are. We are, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Yeah, we are. Okay. All right. So MI 2023-000-496-129
Washington Avenue, I vote yes with provisos. Use limited to wholesale and retail sales of
distribution of beverages, along with the retail sale of prepackaged food and beverages.
Two, ingress and egress for commercial space on Washington Avenue only.
Three, hours of operation, Monday through Thursday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Friday and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.
And Sunday, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, Mr. Pollack.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't have written it any better. Thank you.
Number seven. MI 2023-000-366-5929 Keystone Avenue. David Orphanese is the attorney.
letter of non-opposition for
Whistle-Gnoming Civic Association
Chair, Mr. Orphanides
is coming back in as a panelist now
Thank you
Thank you
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides. Last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in the relationship to this property?
Certainly. My client is WB, so Waterboy Investments, so WB Investments, LLC. They're the owner of the property and the applicant on the zoning permit application and the appellant in the zoning board matter.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
The only thing we had to supplement, two things we supplemented, we submitted everything five days in advance.
We didn't have our tax clearance until I think yesterday or the day before.
I think I forwarded it yesterday to the zoning board attorney, and we had the letter of non-opposition that we received, and we forwarded that as well yesterday.
Okay, thank you.
please proceed, share your screen. Certainly. Can everybody see my screen? We can. Great.
Let me just reduce, minimize some things here. So again, my name is David Orphanides. I'm with
the law firm of Orphanides & Toner here in Philadelphia. And I'm here this afternoon
on behalf of WB Investments LLC, the owner of the property known as 5929 Keystone Street.
The property is located on the southeast corner of Keystone and Conley Street. It also, for some
purposes, has an address or is known as 4900 to 12 Conley Street. I have with me today Brooke and
Dan Wasteboard. Dan is a member of the LLC, a sole member of the LLC, I believe, and would be
here today to adopt my statements. And his daughter, Brooke, is here as well to assist Dan
if necessary. The subject property, as I indicated, is located on the southeast corner of Keystone
Street and Conley Street. You can see here at aerial images that I have at tab five of my
exhibit book. You can see that the property is located right to the west of 95 and the railroad
tracks that are to the west of that between our property and 95 that run, you know, Amtrak and
SEPTA up and down the west side of 95 in this area. The railroad tracks back right up to our
in this area the railroad tracks back right up to our property you can see right here that
property.
the property is developed with a structure or a number of structures that are but one another
the property was approved in 1983 as you can see here from the zoning archives for the subject
property at tab seven for the erection of seven two family dwellings with accessory parking again
that shows up in the aerials that I have at Tab 5. Back in and also in 1983, in November of 83,
a permit was issued to erect decks, eight-foot-wide decks, along the Comley Street side
of the structures that were approved back earlier in 1983.
three. Those structures, you can see here in the aerials, there are decks here right now.
Those decks were constructed eight feet wide, and they ranged in width at least where they were
separated by screens or railings between the different units, I think 20 to 24 feet.
But you can see here, back in 2000, these are historical images I pulled off of Google Street View.
And you can see the first image I have at Tab 8 here is from 2008, then 2011.
And you can see that from 83 to 2008, the decks were getting in pretty bad shape, pretty bad state of repair.
Here's 2014, 2018, and you can see that they're, and here's 2019, pretty bad condition.
My client hired a contractor to replace these decks, and unfortunately, when the client
replaced the decks, thinking that we're replacing them in kind, they built them a little bit
wider than they were originally permitted, as indicated, and as shown in that permit
from November 1983. You can see here on the plan, they were eight feet wide. Right here,
you can see I'm circling the plan that was approved, and it was also indicated here in
the description for the proposed construction or alteration as being eight feet wide.
When my clients, they hired somebody, like I said, to do the work, and what they ended up doing was
building decks that you can see here. This is also a picture from Google Street View from May
of 2022. I have more recent photos at tab six. Nice structurally sound deck, nice railings,
obviously not in a state of disrepair visually and not in any concern structurally as opposed
to what existed there previously, but as indicated, it was one foot 10 inches wider than what was
originally approved back in 83. And as a result, my clients put in an application for that deck
and they received a refusal for the deck or the portion of the deck that was larger than or wider
than what was originally permitted. They have the right under the zoning code to replace that deck
and to repair or replace that deck in kind, but not to build it larger.
And the zoning code at 14604, and I have the provision of that zoning code provision at tab 9,
states that you're not supposed to have decks in a front or a side yard.
Here, the property is indicated in the zoning map.
See right here, which is at tab 4.
is zoned RM1. As I believe you all know, the board members know, RM1 does not have a yard
requirement for side yard. If you do have a side yard, it has to be five feet. And then the front
yard requirement is you can be no closer further away than properties to either side of you,
buildings to either side of the property. And if there are no buildings to either side of you,
the setback is right at the um right at the street so we received a refusal for having a deck in a
yard um i don't know that the planning commission made a determination as to um what was a front and
what was a rear but under the zoning code every street frontage is deemed a front um we kind of
had the position that there is no front yard requirement um but there is a distance or an
area between the building and Conley Street again as shown uh in that the photos from Street View
and then also as you can see here in these photos that I took of the property more recently um you
that i took of the property more recently um you know there is obviously a distance between
know there is
the existing buildings and the property line along conley street and it was just easier at
this point just to move forward with the variance as indicated we have a letter of non-opposition
from the coordinating rco as you can see that's a tab 2a i did reach out to councilman driscoll's
office on two occasions with a copy of this letter to ascertain their position in the matter and i
did not receive a response. You can see here at tab 14 that the Wissan-Oming
Civic Association was designated by the Planning Commission as the coordinating RCO for the
project. We did an initial mailing of 14303 notice within as required by the zoning code.
That was before we had made contact with Wissan-Oming. After we made contact with them,
They requested and directed us to send out another notice, which provided specific contact information for their zoning director, which we did.
That went out to the list of addresses that I have here at 14-D of our exhibit book.
And again, we have certificates of mailing of both 14-303 notices in our exhibit book.
So the property at tab 11, deed showing my clients own the property, W&B Investments, LLC by deed dated January 18, 1999.
Again, the tax clearance certificate at tab 12.
Copy of the hearing notice for today's hearing is at tab 13.
And then posting photographs.
Let me zoom out.
I care to look at them.
Second page level.
You can see at tab 14, you posted both street frontages, both Keystone Street and Conley Street, both being visible from the sidewalk.
The plans that were submitted to L&I are at tab 3. There are construction drawings that have been prepared, and you can see those also at tab 3.
And with that, it's a pretty straightforward application. We feel that actually, in many respects, this is having the deck extend further out to the full width of the side yard, as you can see in the zoning plan, is a better design.
And to build it back the way it was creates a hardship and creates a problem for passersby, for pedestrians walking by on the sidewalk,
given the space between on the property where people could become a problem for the decks themselves and for people living in the buildings on Conley Street.
It's obviously not going to impact the air and light to any abutting properties.
We obviously have the railroad in 95 directly to the east of us.
I did show in the photographs across the street from us, as you can see right here, not until you get up to the corner do you have – you can see photographs of what's directly across the street from us, like non-residential property across Conley Street from us.
And then even either direction down Keystone Street, you have non-residential uses.
For all these reasons, the de minimis nature of the requested variance and the other things that I've stated, we believe that we've sustained the case for the granting of the variance in this matter and requested the zoning board, in fact, grant the variance.
You want to have your testimony adopted?
I do. Dan or Brooke, if you could raise your hand and be sworn in.
Do we see your hands?
Mr. Weisbord, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Daniel Weisbord, D-A-N-I-E-L. Weisbord is W-A-I-S-B-O-R-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weisbord, what is your position with WB Investments, LLC?
I am the sole member.
Thank you.
And did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt them as your own?
Thank you.
With that, I ask that my exhibits be moved into evidence and rest.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman. David Fechter with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The appellant built the latest iteration of the deck without the benefit of permits.
This newly enlarged deck will not impair the use of adjacent properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the use variants for construction of a deck in the required front yard.
Thank you.
MI 2023-000-366-5929 Keystone Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
May I be excused?
You can, sir. Thanks. Have a great day. Thank you. Number nine. MI 2023-000. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Can we go back to just number three for one second? Mr. Canuso? Yes, please.
proceed um yes so um for 25 24 north 15th street um we have not been able to find a complete or
timely exhibit packet for this matter so we'll need to be continued let's bring mr canuso on
mr canuso
Mr. Canuso
Mr. Canuso, please unmute yourself
Mr. Canuso
Are you on?
Present
Okay, so you've already been sworn, we cannot find the packages of your exhibits.
So we're going to have to continue the case.
No problem, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for, and we'll see when we can get you back in, okay?
MI 20, proceed, Mr. Canusa, what were you saying?
MI 2022, 007, 292, 2524 North 15th Street, this case is continued.
Thank you, Hillary.
MI number nine, MI 2023-000652, 1909 North 24th Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from 32nd Ward RCO.
Applicant also provided a petition of support signed by approximately 43 neighbors.
Chair, Mr. Knockelson is coming back in as a panelist now.
Mr. Knockelson, you've already been sworn.
Just for the record, could you state your name?
Yes, Alan Knockelson.
And could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is the Sanctuary Farmer, Philadelphia.
Okay, and our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to his accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that
are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
All right, I'm here to present 1909 North 24th Street.
During my presentation,
we'll first review the notice of refusal,
then the correspondence from the 32nd Democratic Ward,
which is in non-opposition to our project,
as well as a petition in support of our project as well.
A little information about Sanctuary Farm,
basically they're a community garden
in this part of North Philadelphia,
and they use a horror cultural to combat food insecurities then a little information about
their community engagement maps of the area photographs of their property or plans and
drawings for the building structure that's next door to one of their community gardens in which
we're proposing to have their offices our rcl meeting notice which shows proof of mail in that
noticed and we had a well-attended meeting where multiple individuals obviously
we had a well-attended meeting where multiple individuals obviously supported our project.
Our deed to the property showing the owner of the property is Sanctuary Farm of Philadelphia
and our certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion of the presentation, I'll ask Ms.
Van Tori to virtually raise her hand, be sworn in, and to then adopt my testimony as her own.
uh so first things first this is a notice this is our notice of refusal uh this you know the
zoning classification at least according to this refusal is rsa5 and rm1 uh what we're really
trying to do is put our offices uh which uh in this in this building structure um again we have
our community garden next door and this will give you the ability to seamlessly uh conduct and
and perform our business operations with this community garden.
And this is our proof from the coordinating RCO,
the 32nd Democratic Board, that not only we met with them,
but it's actually community support.
So again, it was a well-attended meeting.
And during that meeting, many of the individuals
who are part of this community who signed this petition
are in support of this project.
And then just a little bit about the sanctuary farm. Again, they use horticulture to combat food insecurities and essentially fill in vacancies or within residential neighborhoods like this.
So rather than having vacant lots, you have an ability to use those lots productively with community gardens.
And then this is just an article in the Philly Mag about, you know, the good work that this organization does.
And then just a little some pictures you would see of the community garden that's next door to us.
And then just our community engagement.
You know, not only do they have the ability for residents nearby to plant fruits and vegetables, but they have engagement with veterans, they have a summer camp, they have gardening classes, and they have employment opportunities as well for people within the community.
And then obviously there's volunteer opportunities as well.
And then maps of the area.
We're on 24th Street right here, just off the corner.
This is where our community garden is.
And then photographs of this particular building structure, as you can see, is a three-story building structure.
The client has kept it in good stead.
To the right of it is the community garden that we're talking about.
Proof of posting for today's hearing, the orange notice poster at the front of the property.
And then just a context, you know, here's North 24th Street to the right of the property.
As you can see, there are many vacant lots on this block.
North 24th Street to the left of the property. As you can see, this is a community garden. There's more vacant lots across the street.
And then these are just our plans and drawings. Again, it's just our offices where we would have meetings and maybe some of our activities like classes and such.
But, you know, you just walk in on the first floor. There's an open space for offices and different activities we would have with the community garden that's indoors.
There is a breakout room here. There's an ADA bathroom. You go up to the second floor again and kind of open floor plan with another bathroom and an office. And then the third floor is, again, another office and another bathroom and another office in there.
And then the proposed elevation. We're not doing any work to the building structure itself. We just, this is merely a use variance.
and then we had a well attended meeting on June 5th at 6 p.m. so earlier this week
169 addresses were notified of today's of that meeting uh two days ago
list of the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses
and then our application for appeal that we filed on on behalf of the sanctuary farm of Philadelphia
along with the notice of refusal and the project information form,
our deeds of property showing the sanctuary form Philadelphia is the owner of the property,
and our certificate of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing with the city
as it relates to real estate taxes.
With that being said, I would ask that Andrea virtually raise her hand.
Ms. Vittori, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Jimmy. Good afternoon. Could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon. Could you please state your name and spell it for the courts tonight.
Sure. Andrea, A-N-D-R-E-A, Vittori, V as in Victor, E-T-T-O-R-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed, counsel.
Yes. Ms. Vittori, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Correct.
Is everything I stated true and correct?
Correct, yes.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman and members of the board.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This building has a documented history of use as a triplex since at least the 1950s.
There is no evidence of use as a business and professional office.
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 City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the use variance for a business and professional office.
Mr. Chair, can I just respond?
you can sure oh yeah so as you can see from the pictures uh this neighborhood there's many vacant
lots and abandoned buildings here my client has done good for this neighborhood by providing a
community garden they need offices nearby to this community garden they happen to own next door
and they hope to use you know this building for those purposes
And so, did you see the 32nd Ward recommends one enforceable proviso, no residential use?
Oh, yeah, we have no objection to that.
Are you comfortable with that?
Yeah, our intention is to have no residential use in there.
MI 2023-000652-1909-24th Street.
I vote yes, proviso, no residential use.
James Stem, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 11, MI 2022-007-221-617-29 South 15th Street.
Daniel McElhatton is the attorney.
um letter of support from sasna for a five-year temporary variance with unenforceable provisos
joint letter from your neighbors requesting a new fence
chair mr mckelhenny is coming back in as a panelist now thank you
good afternoon council could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Daniel P. McElhatton, M-C, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
My clients are Peter Sarravo and his sons, adult sons, Peter Sarravo Jr. and Dominic Sarravo. And the property is 617-629 South 15th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Thank you. Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We did with one exception, and that is that yesterday, the most recent deed, which incorporates the ownership interest of Mr. Saravo's two adult sons, was forwarded to counsel for the board.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Give me just a moment.
This application will be shorter, I think, than some of the others, sir, that we're not really asking for anything new.
What we're asking for is an extension of the existing variants on this parking lot, which is between Bainbridge and Cater Streets along 15th.
What we're asking for is an extension of the existing variants.
And the current variants will expire in November of 2023. And we are requesting an additional five years for the variants to continue the use of this area as a private parking lot for 25 vehicles that would exit onto Bainbridge Street.
This is a use that was granted a number of years ago. It is well needed by the community. And as you see from the SOSNA letter of support, usually SOSNA will give non-opposition, but their letter was actually in support, and they made two observations.
One is that there was a large supportive community at the variance request before SOSNA, and that they then stated that the near neighbors and parking lot users all commended the owners on the cleanliness and maintenance of the lot and are in favor of the continued use of the parking lot.
And I think that you can see that it's as a result of the use of this lot has been, you know, impeccable in terms of how it's been maintained.
You can see that, you know, and the two provisos that SOSNA has requested is that there be an automatic gate on Bainbridge Street, which the owners have agreed to, and some shade trees on 15th Street.
Now, when the case was called, there was a new question that was raised about a new fence.
That was not something that was raised by SOSNA as a condition.
This fence has been there and it's been well maintained.
The Saravos also clean the sidewalks all the time.
Whenever there are storms, they make sure that not only is the lot cleared and cleaned,
but the sidewalks are also cleared and cleaned so that they are able to, you know, continue with the maintenance that they have shown.
Here's again from Cater Street.
This shows the sidewalk as maintained by the Soravos and the shrubbery that surrounds the property completely.
um it's it's a use that is absolutely critically necessary in the community um based on the number
of properties that have been built over the last number of years and that the uh the waiting list
for others to try to use this is significant uh my clients have agreed to those two conditions
And I would like to see if you could elevate them, Mr. Sarravo, so that he could affirm my summary of the request.
Counsel, before you bring them on, just let me clarify.
The temporary variance was up 11-1-22?
No, sir. It's up 11-23. And that's on the recusal.
Okay, thank you.
can you elevate uh sure siravo
do we see his hand if not i would represent as an officer of the court yes he's been promoted
okay he's promoted thank you sir could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
sir oh there hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
peter saravo s-i-r-a-v-o right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair Bergen. Mr. Sravo, you and one of your
sons was present during the summary of the application that I presented to the board
today. Is that correct? Yes. And were the facts that I presented true and correct to the best of
your knowledge? Yes. And would you adopt my summary as if it were your own? Yes. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have James Kahn.
Sir, please unmute yourself and wait for the Chair.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
James Kahn, J-A-M-E-S-K-A-H-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Yes, I'm here on behalf of the 10 immediate houses, immediately adjacent.
And first of all, just I have to clarify something that was said about the property maintained.
Often it's maintained, but there's been many times when we've had to go ourselves and pick up trash that's been there for weeks or even months.
around the perimeter of the property.
I think the situation's improved lately,
but I can't agree that the property
has been maintained immaculately.
We've had to do this,
but we hope it will be in the future.
But the reason I'm speaking,
and I appreciate the chance to speak,
is that the hurricane wire fence that's there
is a temporary fence,
and it's not compatible
with what's turning out to be a permanent use,
which we don't oppose, a parking lot,
of permanent use in this community. These are new houses. It's a nice neighborhood. It's nicely
appointed. And, you know, we don't protest the parking lot or using a fence for the parking lot,
but to replace it with a nice, you know, metal fence, looks like wrought iron kind of thing,
would really be appropriate for the neighborhood rather than this temporary looking kind of shabby
wire fence. It's around a parking lot that has nice plantings and such. But still, that fence
is just not compatible with the neighborhood. And probably replacing the fence itself using
the existing framework would cost less than the motorized gates that are being used for,
I guess, will help the people who park there, certainly. It's neutral in terms of the
for the neighborhood, but putting up an iron fence, you could buy at Lowe's, wouldn't cost
that much, less than putting in the motorized gates in. It's something that us as neighbors
who are adjacent to the property and one of the, in fact, the walls of our buildings are used as a
barrier for the property where they don't need a fence, we would appreciate if a fence would
be put in. If that can be put in as a proviso, we will respectfully request that. Thank you.
for your comments. Mr. McElhant, let me wait. Let's see if there's anyone else in the audience
first. Is there anyone else in the audience? Chair, I see no hands. Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Chair, the RCO process is for a reason, and that is that the applicant can find out what the
issues are. This issue was not raised at the RCO meeting. There were a lot of people there.
It is certainly something that I know that Mr. Savravo has heard today. And if there is an
opportunity or if the fence needs repair or replacement, I'm sure he will take that into
consideration. The people who were at the RCO meeting, many of them were adjacent neighbors,
and they were effusive in the maintenance of the property. If Mr. Khan has an issue with it,
He can certainly make sure he has my contact information and Mr.
Saralba has other properties, even across the street,
and he's down there almost daily.
So I certainly would implore him to open up a line of communication with the
owner so that if there is a trash issue that can be addressed quickly.
Thank you very much.
Planning commission.
Thank you, chair Bergman and board members,
David Fecto with the city planning commission.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance that would prevent this property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the use variants for non-accessory parking lot.
MI 2022-007-221-617-29 South 15th Street.
I vote yes for temporary variance.
Expires 11-1-28.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
I don't complete my business.
May I be excused, Mr. Chair?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, sir.
All right, number 12, MI 2023-000465-447-49 Queen Lane.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from the 12th Ward.
Coordinating RCO.
Letter of non-opposition from Solo Germantown.
With provisos.
Mr. Nockamson.
Mr. Nackamson is coming back in as a panel.
Mr. Nakamura is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. Nackamson?
Mr. Nockleson, should we be joining as a panelist?
Oh, sure, sure, sure, sure.
Thank you, Jason.
No problem.
Sorry that having technical difficulties with my computer yet again.
Just for the record, state your name, please.
Alan Nockleson.
And you've already been sworn.
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yeah, it's Microcosm LLC and its member, Pete Shryer's, in the virtual audience.
Okay, and our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case?
Are these in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed to share your screen.
all right so i'm here to present 447-49 west queen lane um you know this is one of these projects
you know you know once a while we do these projects they're they're very impactful for
the community and something that you know we are going to look back in a few years and say wow that
was a great thing that happened here um the architects for this project is new architecture
They're well-known in Philadelphia and award-winning in terms of their architecture.
And I believe they did an awesome job for this irregular shape blocks.
During this presentation, we'll first review the notice of refusal.
This is a lot that's over 15,000 square feet.
It's regular shape.
It's near mass transportation.
And, you know, we worked with the community.
And you saw that through those letters that were very descriptive, both the 12th Ward Democratic Committee, as well as SOLO, two RCOs that are very sophisticated and caring about the community.
Through their efforts and our efforts collaboratively, we were able to make a very beautiful, impactful, and socially responsible project.
And we'll review those letters as well as the project as a whole.
So during our discussions, and this is not zoning related, it was very important for the community to have this project as both rentals as well as to be for people in the community to purchase it.
So we just, you know, we showed this to the community and we're showing this to the zoning board, but there's a program called Home Ready, which provides low interest loans to this community, as well as grants to this community for closing costs.
Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notice for the last community meeting we had that was well attended, our application for appeal that we filed, our agreement of sale.
This is subject to the agreement of sale and our certificate of tax clearance.
At the conclusion of my presentation, I will ask Mr. Schreier to virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and to adopt my testimony as his own.
I will ask the boards to hold this matter, though, because we're waiting for an amended refusal.
So we're, you know, after the hearing, once we receive that amended refusal, we'll ask the board to vote on this matter.
But the board should hold this matter because we're waiting for an amended refusal because of changes the community asked of us, which we would need a new refusal for.
So the notice of refusal that we have today, this is an RSA by property.
Again, the lots over 15,000 square feet.
Initially, and it's four lots into one.
Initially, we were putting 19 units with 11 parking spots over the course of three building
structures.
You'll see through the presentation that there was a building structure facing Queen
Lane that was a triplex with parking on the ground floor.
There was a long driveway that went, you know, from Queen Lane through the development and then making a left on Lauren's.
There was parking there in the middle of development.
And there were two building structures.
There were eight duplexes.
At the request of the community, we decreased the volume from 19 to 15.
from 19 to 15 so instead of eight duplexes we now have six duplexes and one triplex
So instead of eight duplexes.
we increase the amount of parking from 11 to 15 so we now have a one-to-one ratio
we have three refusals for this project one is whereas no more than one principal building is
allowed in rsa5 zoning district and you'll see from the lot configuration this is a very regular
shape line um you know again this is an undue hardship in the truest sense uh and we try to
have you know the least modification possible under the philadelphia zoning code uh the second
refusal has to do about the common driveway uh having a common driveway is not inappropriate
for these circumstances but for the fact that we have one owner so we were if this was multiple
owners, this refusal would disappear. But because we have one owner, it's not considered a common
driveway or a shared driveway, and we have that refusal. But we're using one curb cut off a clean
lane, which is existing, which we're actually decreasing in size. And we're using another
curb cut on Lawrence such that we have 15 units, but also 15 off-street parking spaces.
And then the third refusal has to go with the multifamily nature of this property. Again, 19 units was originally proposed. We reduced that to 15 units, which is almost in line with the amount of units that would be allowed, you know, based on the 15,000 square foot lot.
We're a little bit above what would be allowed, you know, based on the 1,440 square foot requirements, but not that much off.
Then we have two letters.
First one is from the 12th Ward Democratic Committee.
As you can see, no one was opposed to this project.
We either have support of eight or non-opposition of two.
So, again, everyone in this community that attended this meeting, which was well-attended, were either in support or non-opposition of this project.
And the reason why is their letter of explanation.
First, we went from 19 units to 15 units, and we also went, you know, that's a zoning matter.
The non-zoning matter is we elected to sell the duplexes in the rear of the property and keep the three unit as a rental.
But it was really important for a sense of homeownership with this project.
The second reason why this community supported it is the fact that we lowered the height, the effective height of these buildings.
And contextually, the community felt more supportive of the fact that the boot lines match the context of this community.
And then, you know, the fact that we increased the amount of parking spaces from 11 to 15.
So those are the main reasons for the 12th Democratic wards.
Then we also received a letter from Solo Germantown Civic Association.
they internally voted and as you can see uh they either voted in support or in non-opposition to
this project not one party who stated a vote was in opposition to this project and you know they
kind of went back to what you know what the 12th democratic board stated was that we worked well
with the community um and they appreciated that um they did have provisos being stored inside so
So as you'll see, we do have trash stored with each of the duplexes individually.
And then there's a common trash room as well for the triplex.
They mentioned about the mailboxes being stored inside the building as well.
And then this is just about the program that we talked about, the Home Ready program.
But this will give the ability of many members of the community to purchase our units with a lower interest rate, but also the ability to get a grant to pay up to $8,000 to pay for closing costs.
And again, as you can see, this property falls well within the borders of this program's availability.
And then just, you know, you can see the irregular shapes of this lot.
This is Queen Lane.
This is Lauren.
This is our property.
We start out very slender on Queen, and then we kind of expand out as well.
Here, you'll see from the plans and drawings of how the driveway starts on Queen Lane and then exits out on Lawrence Street.
and then exits out on Lawrence Street and then you can see here that this is where the subway
And then you can see here.
line for Queen Lane is and which is not too far from where our property is located but regardless
we have a one to one ratio between units and parking spaces and then photographs of the property
this is Queen Lane from the front of the property this is proof of us having that notice poster
on Queen Lane, as well as in the rear as well. And then this is West Queen Lane to the right of the
property. You'll see that there are porches in this area. You'll see that from our duplexes,
we try to emulate them. This is West Queen Lane to the left of the property. And these are our
plans and drawings from different angles. This is the view from the north, the west, the east,
and the south but you can see the irregular shape of this lot and then you can see from
basically site conditions the architect of gnome architecture did a great job
showing you know how this building would look if built compared to the surrounding buildings
so this is view from the north on queen lane and view on from the south on queen lane but we really
They did try to keep the height of the building in line with the surrounding properties.
And then this is the site from Lawrence Street.
And as you can see here, again, looking from Lawrence Street, you can look at the height of the buildings that are coming from those sites.
And this is the site interior towards King Street and the site interior towards King Street as well.
And these are the corresponding numbers with those pictures.
As you can see, this is a very undeveloped part of the Germantown community.
And our hope is to develop this to make it as a valuable member of the community.
And then this is the interior towards Queen Street from the lot.
And this is another section of it, a little closer towards facing, this is facing from the locks and looking towards Green Street.
And then this is the inspiration in terms of materials that my client's using that's close by the neighborhood, talking about brick, metals, greenery, brick pavers.
You'll see that throughout the design of the project.
And then you'll also see from the architecture, too, you'll see this is a porch neighborhood.
You'll see the roof line and the arches as well from here, the church here, and the building structures here, these buildings as well as here on King Street.
But we try to mimic the architecture that's there in the neighborhood.
So these are the properties on King Street.
You can see the roof lines.
These are the roof lines that we then try to mimic that's within the courtyard duplexes.
You look at the front door on Queen Street that we're proposing mimics the front entryway on 530 King Street.
And then this is just our property from a site plan perspective.
As you can see, this is, you know, Queen Lane.
You come in. This is Queen Lane. You come into a shared driveway. There's one, two, three, four, five, six cars on the first floor. Here is the common trash room for that.
This is the first building, which is a three-unit building.
You come in, you can come out through Lawrence Street as well, and there is additional parking here for the duplexes.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.
So there's a total of 15 parking spots for both the duplexes, as well as the three unit apartment building. And each of these duplexes hug the rear of the property. There's one, two, three, four, five, six duplexes. And there's a common courtyard.
guard, it was also important to the community that we buffer these houses on King Street.
So in order to provide light and air and privacy, my client has proposed to do significant
landscaping along the common border between the King Street properties in the rear and
then our property in the rear.
And then this is just the elevations of the property, showing that our properties, actually the triplex goes 31 feet 2 inches.
um actually the triplex goes 31 feet 2 inches which is here
and then the duplexes go 33 feet 6 inches which are these nice
and again this is just the site plan from a landscaping point of view as you can see there's
significant landscaping in the rear to basically buffer off us from the King Street residences,
which are close by, as well as right here on the side of our property, but towards the properties
on King Street. And there's landscaping throughout. There's even like a common courtyard area
in between the duplexes to provide like a sense of community. And then the floor plans for the
triplex are pretty simple or fairly simple you have the entryway which is on the queen
and then they're at each bi-level unit so the second floor and the third floor for there's a
common hallway and there's a unit here there's a unit here there's a unit here and then there's
internal staircases for each of them and then for the duplexes uh you know the typical duplex
these are you know up and down units uh they're each duplexes are each two bedroom two bath for
each of them so for this one you come into a common hallway um you come into the unit uh
unit number one is two bedrooms two bath the first floor is um is an open floor plan of a
living room, and the kitchen. The lower level are the bedrooms and the bath. There is an actual
separate staircase, exterior staircase in the rear, so they have exterior access directly from
the rear as well. And then the second and third floor units for the duplexes, again, you have
a basically open floor plan where you have the living room and the kitchen and a half bath,
And then you go up internal flight of steps where you have two bedrooms and two baths.
And then this is just an aerial view from the illustration.
As you can see, this is the triplex right here.
This is the common driveway where underneath the triplex are six parking spots.
And then you have parking here as well for the community.
And then here are the six units or six duplexes, 12 units.
And then you can look at the materiality that we selected.
Again, it was really important to the community during this process.
We even amended what we're going to use in terms of material.
But, you know, again, we're using brick and then we're using stone as well.
And then there will be concrete paving that would mimic the brick paving that you saw in this community.
And then this is just a rendering looking from Queen Lane.
This is the triplex again, and you can see the parking behind there.
You can see this is the front entrance from Queen Lane, and this is the common driveway as well.
And then this is a closer look where you can see the parking here, and you're going to see closer now to where the duplexes are.
And then these are where the duplexes are.
So this is the three-unit structure.
And then these are the six duplexes.
And you can see the parking here and then the landscaping here.
And then this is looking from, I guess, those parking spaces as you head towards those duplexes.
You can see that there is a courtyard area that was created where people can sit.
And then you can see the porches that are here that mimic the porches that are in the neighborhood.
we're trying to create a sense of community and that's from the back end of queen street
and then again same thing courtyard interior view more towards the back of the property
and then this is towards the the rear rear of the property where this is again where the buffer is
to allow light and air and some space for the residents that border us on king street
and again same thing we did add additional biking here as well uh to you know again provide for
people who don't drive and then it was asked of us to provide knife views um of the property so
from a rendering perspective we did as you saw from the photographs of the property how it
currently exists. It's basically a wooded area that has overgrown trees and weeds. And what
trees and weeds and what we're trying to do is to activate this property now we last met with
we're trying to do is to activate.
the community on may 8th at 6 p.m 110 addresses were notified of that meeting here's the list
of the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses our application for appeal that we
filed on behalf of our clients the notice of refusal the project information form the agreement
of sale, and there's, you know, there's several addendums, but ultimately, you know, we're still
in good standing with this agreement of sale, just waiting for this board to decide, and hopefully
we can purchase the property and close on it. Here are certificates of tax clearance showing
that no money is owed to the city of Philadelphia. So with that being said, I would ask that Mr.
Mr. Schreier, virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Schreier, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Schreier.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court sonographer?
Mr. Schreier?
hi can you hear me now we can sir could you state your name and spell it please for the
court reporter uh peter schreier p-e-t-e-r last name is s-h-r-i-e-r do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth sir i do chair counsel yes uh pete you
heard everything i had to state today about your zoning matter yes and is it true and correct
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Certainly.
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N
from the office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass,
room 508 City Hall.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
The Councilwoman has no opposition
to granting the variance.
Thank you very much for calling in.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Hillary, I'm going to have
the Planning Commission step in now.
Yes, Mr. Chair, they can give their recommendation.
Planning Commission, please.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and members of the board.
David Vecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location to industrial and residential mixed use to promote transit-oriented development.
This property was remapped in 2015 from commercial mixed use to residential single-family per a council request.
This is a deep plot, about 15,000 square feet, which supports the appellate's hardship claim for multifamily use.
Multifamily use is also roughly consistent with the comprehensive plan zoning recommendation, and the generalized growth strategy of the Upper Northwest District Plan, part of the comprehensive plan, also recommends increasing housing density around the Queen Lane Regional Rail Station.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the use variances for multiple principal buildings, multi-family housing, and accessory parking, not accessed from a shared driveway, alley, or street.
Thank you very much.
We're going to hold this for an amended refusal. The record is otherwise closed.
Thank you, Mr. Nogamson.
Okay, we're going back to...
Okay, we're going to go back to number five, right, Hillary?
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Okay, number five, MI 2023-000-559-230-36 Vine Street.
Reporting in progress.
Richard Presby is the attorney.
Franklin Bridge Neighbors
reporting RCO did not
reach an agreement on this application
Councilman Squill
is leaving it up to the board
Mr. Pressman
Chair we have someone with their hand up
but it's not the name you called I don't see
anyone in the audience with the name Pressman
Mr. Chair this is
Hillary I believe
I spoke to Mr. Pressman earlier
I believe he is with his client
I believe he is with his client who is the person whose hand was raised.
who is the person whose hand
was raised
Okay, fine
We can check and see if that's him.
Thank you.
Mr. Zakin, could you put your hand up again, please?
Chair, Mr. Zakin is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Hello. Hi, Mr. Pressman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Richard Pressman.
Hi. Could you spell your name, please, for the court sonographer?
Richard, R-I-C-H-A-R-D, Pressman, P-R-E-S-S-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client, the applicant is Groom Investments, LLC, is the owner of the property.
And with me to my left is Shimsham Zaken.
He's the representative of both the applicant, Groom Investments, LLC, as well as the designer,
Atrium Design Group, LLC.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Councilor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? Yes, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits
that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes,
we did, Your Honor. Thank you. Please proceed and share your
screen. Thank you, Mr. Sheehy. Are you able, Mr. Chairman, to see the... We can. Absolutely.
Good afternoon. As I said, this is a project that is owned by Groom Investments, LLC.
It's located at 230 36 Vine Street. It's also formerly known as the Painted Bride,
for those who are familiar with the project.
The proposed development is a by-right construction of 85 visitor accommodation units
on five floors with commercial space on the first floor.
And this is a proposed as of right with mixed use commercial visitor accommodation
and sit-down residence in a CMX3 district.
The only reason we're here today is to get approval by this board for a roof deck
to be used for commercial use in the CMX3 property.
If this was being developed as a multifamily property,
the roof deck would be permitted as a right
without any restrictions on its use.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, go through the package with you
of what we provided.
The first page is the summary.
The second is our tax clearance for the owner.
The third is the notice of referral,
which I spoke with Ms. Emerson today
and we're going to be needing to go forward
with an amended referral to add the 30 parking spaces
which we're going to discuss later.
So at the end of this proceeding,
we're going to request that the board hold this in advance.
We're also going to be amending this notice of referral
to reduce the number of visitor accommodation units
from 110 down to 85 and remove the bicycle parking.
Next is the vesting deed back in March of 2022, when it was purchased from the Painted
Bride.
Next is the application for the Special Exception that we're here for today and followed by
the project form sheet.
their project information form and then followed in the package by a site plan
showing the current design for this including from this is a top-down view showing the roof
decks there are two roof decks on this property one would be accessed by the visitor accommodation
units which are going to be under lease with sonder which is currently executed and in place
and the other roof deck is for the commercial user which will be a restaurant hopefully to
be under contract in the near future. Going down the the next is the location it's part of the
package the presentation that was given to the RCO this shows the location of the property which is
This shows the location of the property, which is between the I-95 connector, also the friend Franklin Bridge and that section of Old City at 3rd and Vine.
between the
Next will be some, this is a visual of the two roof deck areas.
This is a design, this is not the final configuration.
The sign on Vine Street, side of Vine Street would be for the restaurant usage.
AND ON THE NEW STREET BOVINE AREA IS THE ROOF DECK FOR VISITOR ACCOMMODATION.
AND THIS IS ALL PART OF THE PROPOSAL WHICH SHOWS THE ZONING AND THE REDUCTION THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE GOING TO WITH THE REFERRAL BEING AMENDED AND TAKEN BACK TO L&I.
THIS IS A STREET VIEW OFF OF VINE STREET SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW PROJECT BECAUSE
Again, it's by right for the construction and needs all dimensional requirements, and that's the entrance to the parking.
And this shows the five floors with commercial space on the first floor and the visitor accommodation units on the remaining five floors.
And then the roof deck's on top.
Excuse me, counsel, this is the court reporter.
Could I ask you to please keep your voice up just a little bit?
Thank you.
Sure, I'll move in a little closer.
Is that better, sir?
That is.
Thank you, sir.
I apologize. This shows the parking underneath, subterranean there, and the commercial space on the first floor, and the roof decks on top.
This is the courtyard between the two wings of the building, and this is the basement on the left, and then the first floor commercial space on the right, showing the restaurant there, as well as the rooftop.
there'll be an elevator there that will go directly to the roof.
And this is an additional, this is a roof, and in between the two are the space for the courtyard,
and then the units will be separated with the mechanicals on the rooftop that are covered there.
And this is a view of the proposed use of the restaurant deck that would be the front on Vine Street,
and this would be the visitor accommodation site that's in the rear of the building.
And this is, again, the front street on Vine Street there.
And this is a night shot of the proposed design.
Again, all of this is by right.
Again, the reason why we're here is to discuss the special exception for the roof text.
You want to go down to the photos of the, here we go.
This is our photos of the existing conditions.
The building, the painted bride, as you can see, is still enclosed in mesh.
It's recently been taken off.
request of the artist to document the mural that encompasses the building and is that new street
that's vine street and the usual other view was new street is that correct and bow down
this is a pictures of the posting it's been up for the required time
and we posted it on two sides
and there's the notice of the referral
as well posted next to it.
Next is the letter
sent out in February to the near
neighbors and if you
scroll down you'll see
the certificate of mailing
with the individuals
that were sent notice
We did have the op
go back up
and go back.
So at this time, I wanted to go into the special exception. Again, we're here to discuss the picture.
that for the special exception the building is should be approved for special exception it's a
permitted use under cmx3 we've met all the dimensional requirements for this there's no
outstanding use requirements that are not being met in the proposed design when you get to the
specific detrimental impacts that are required to be addressed in a presentation to the zoning
board, there will be no congestion in the public streets or transportation that would be expected
from this use compared to any other roof deck usage. This is only going to be used for patrons
of the hotel or the sit-down restaurant. There will be no overcrowding of the land. This is a
right building with less density now that we've reduced it from 110 units down to 85.
There will be no impairment of the adequate supply of lead or air to adjacent properties.
Again, all the heights are per code and by right. And likewise, there'll be no burdening of water
And likewise, there'll be no burdening of water source, school park or other facilities as this is being used as a right.
source school park or other facilities.
And it would be expected of any roof deck usage would not be overburdening to those facilities.
And then there'd be no permanent impairment of any adjacent properties.
Again, for any use of a roof deck, there's not a really extensive use of these facilities.
It will not be endangering the public health or safety
by fire or other means,
because again, the abuse is permitted as of right.
And it's not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
It's actually permitted under the plan
just by special exception.
That's why we're here today.
I'd also like to point out to the board
that we have looked at other roof tech restaurants
and lounges, and we want to share them with the board
there we go this is the stratus rooftop lounge at the hotel monica fourth and chest fifth and
chestnut and i want to point out to the board that the hours of operation for the lounge is published
go to 10 p.m during the week for the most part and midnight on thursday and to 2 a.m
on the weekend Friday and Saturday. The assembly roof lounge at 1840 Benjamin Parkway again has
late hours on Sunday to Thursday to midnight and on Friday and Saturday 2 a.m. Here's the Bach bar
at 800 Mifflin which is in South Philly again the hours on the weekend go to midnight with 11 and 10
p.m during the week and the square is another rooftop uh restaurant bar um this is in queen
village 5th and bainbridge um this is above a sondra hotel and it has a again open space in
the residential neighborhood and this is something close by at second and walmart street the
positano restaurant um we're gonna we also have been in touch as i said we have a um a lease
with Sondra and I have with me today
someone from Sondra to testify, Mr. Pena,
regarding their restrictions
on the use of the roof deck for their visitors.
And he'll be here to testify shortly
after I have Mr. Zakin go through
and speak if he wants to regarding it.
Do you want to bring up Mr. Zakin
to adopt the testimony, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, I do. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. My name is Shimshon. Shimshon is S-H-I-M-S-H-O-N. And my last name is Zaykin, Z-A-K-I-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zaykin, you were present with me when I discussed this project and you heard my testimony. Do you adopt that testimony as if it was your own?
Yes, I do.
Did you have anything you wanted to add with regards to the project and the discussion you had with the RCO regarding the prior meeting and the accommodations you made?
I think you described it pretty good.
Okay. I would like then to do, just to amplify that, if you are may, Mr. Chairman, we met with the RCO on two occasions.
We initially met with them in February of 2023.
We at that time had an original proposed plan for 110-room visitor accommodation on five floors with the commercial restaurant on the sit-down restaurant.
And the original plans are attached to the package as 15, Exhibit 15.
at the end of that meeting there was a vote and they were 52 opposed three not opposed and one
in support of that we listened to what people had to say we went out afterwards and discussed it
with the board as well with the RCO board and also with people that were familiar with the
project it was at that time that Mr. Zakin went back and tried to address those concerns by
inducing the number of visitor accommodation units from 110 down to 85. He introduced the
on-site parking of 30 units for vehicles that would be available for the public to use. It would
be a third-party business to run it. Operator would not be run by Sonder or by Mr. Zakin.
And he would increase the deck setbacks from five feet to seven feet on all sides by code.
The setbacks are required to be five feet along the edges of the streets, and Mr. Zakin increased that to seven feet.
And Mr. Zaykin, the increase that to 70.
Also in the courtyard.
And also in the courtyard.
Off the courtyard.
Off the courtyard, which you wouldn't have to have any setback.
Exactly.
And we also discussed reducing the occupancy on the decks from 150 in each deck by code
to 100 for the restaurant and even less for the sonder space,
since there'll be restrictions there
for the number of people that can gather at any time.
And we also agreed to have the Sondra restrictions extend
if it became a multifamily.
This also gave me flexibility to convert this
to a multifamily in the future
under current code restrictions.
So we're here for a special exception
to permit the construction of the two roof decks
for the non-residential uses in the CMX3 district.
One would be a deck for the visitor accommodation
and the other would be for the sit-down restaurant.
It should be mentioned that the restaurant would have, obviously, a provider upstairs at all times.
They'll have service with, hopefully, a bar restaurant, so there'll be people on site taking care of the space
and making sure it's managed properly and the patrons behave themselves.
And Sandra has very strict rules and limited accessibility, which Mr. Penney will testify to.
So we believe that the two decks meet the dimensional and use standards under the zoning code, and we believe that we've met that standard to get the special exception for these two accommodations to this building.
And, Mr. Zakin, I'll ask you again, was everything I just said after you testified accurately?
Accurate.
And you adopted as your own?
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if Mr. Pena is available from Sondra to testify with regards to their use of the property and the roof deck.
Mr. Pena, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Thank you. Andres Pena, first name A-N-D-R-E-S, last name Pena, P-E-N-A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Receive counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pena, thank you for coming today to testify. Can you identify
who you work for?
Sure. I work for Sonder, and I'm the head of public policy for North America.
And as part of that, do you oversee properties in Philadelphia with regards to policy?
Yes, I do. So in my role, it's my job to interface with governmental bodies like a zoning board or elected officials on land use, regulatory issues, policy issues, and make sure my colleagues on the ground who are running our operations are doing so above board and in line with our expectations as a good corporate citizen.
And for those who aren't aware of who Sonder is, can you tell the board what Sonder does?
Of course. Sonder is a global publicly traded hospitality company. We're in over 40 markets
today. That spans 10 countries and three continents. And we have over 10,000 live
units across the globe. And in Philadelphia, we currently operate 15 total properties,
10 of which have roof decks. So we're not new to the city of Philadelphia. We have an impressive
footprint there. But in summary, we operate lodging businesses and properties all across the globe.
Thank you. And are you aware of whether or not you have a lease on this particular property at
230 Vine Street? We do. And with the properties that you know that have roof decks in the city
of Philadelphia that are unsigned to properties?
Is there any history of incidents that are negative with those properties that you're
aware of?
No, no.
Like I mentioned, we have 15 properties today.
10 of those have roof decks, and we don't have any history of incidents.
I think that's a reflection of our strict rules that are in place, the ones that you
referenced and the ones that I see on the screen in front of me.
But in short, no history of rooftop incidents.
And can you go through the restrictions there?
And I think that you had sent updated rules. This is part of the package I've already submitted to the board.
What are the hours of operation that currently are in place for Philadelphia RooTechs?
Sure. Our current hours are 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.
And those are the only hours that we allow our guests to access the roof.
And supplemental to that, access is an important thing.
So the only way to get up there is through a unique individual code that our guests can obtain through the app.
So the same way that a guest pulls up the app to get their code to access the building in their unit, they would do that same thing for the roof deck.
So so the hours are 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. And the only way to get up there is through one of our codes.
And you're able to track then who went on the roof at any given time as well through that app.
And you're able to track in who went on the roof at any given time as well through that app.
Is that accurate?
Absolutely.
We do have cameras as part of our standard operating procedures, but the tech that we use does allow that.
So we can determine if a door is open, who has opened it, and react accordingly if needed.
And are parties permitted on the roof as part of your policy?
No, we have a no-party policy, not just for roof decks, but for our properties in general.
So if there were one, we would act swiftly, just like any other incident, to manage it.
Now, you don't have someone on site at this property or any of your Sondra properties necessarily 24 hours. Is that accurate?
That's correct. So our staffing model is flexible.
We, at any given time throughout the day, we have about a dozen staff members who are active, and they're all servicing different properties. So they float around the city and different zones that we manage. And what that means is that although there's not one, you know, physical body, one person who's at the front desk 24-7,
We do have quite a number of people who are always on call and always going to all of our different properties for various needs, whether that's a guest needs, you know, more towels or, you know, there's a cleanup in the hallway, something to that effect.
There are always Sonder employees who are visiting the property throughout the day.
And is it accurate to state that there's no allowed amplified music up on the deck?
That's that's correct.
You know, we have quite a number of rules that restrict noise and gathering on our roof.
So amplified music is a great example.
There's no alcohol or smoking that's allowed.
No pets are allowed on the roof.
And no one is allowed to linger past that 8 p.m. time.
And 8 p.m. is actually when our third-party security starts doing sweeps.
So throughout the night, our third party security company that we use will be visiting the rooftop multiple times to make sure that there's no one up there.
And, you know, we feel good about our access procedures that are in place as well, because once it hits 8 p.m., those access codes to the roof deck no longer work.
So even if you're a Sondra guest and you want to go up there at 8.05 p.m., the code that you would pull up through the app on your phone, it just won't work and no one will be able to access it.
So so so many things in place to prevent disturbances, noise and gathering outside of our permitted hours.
Again, other than the time from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., being the hours of operation, are the rules that are before you now still in place?
I'm sorry, can you repeat that one time, Rich?
Sure. Other than the change in the hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., are the rules that are set forth on the exhibit in front of you, which is exhibit 13 in our package, still applicable to the property issue here on Vine Street?
Yes, all the rules are still applicable. They look exactly the same. As you mentioned, the only small edit is that we actually reduced our rooftop hours across the city to be 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., when previously there were a couple of extra hours all the way up until 10 p.m.
But like I mentioned, we've reduced that, which we think is a good thing.
Thank you.
And do you believe that Saunders guess as using the roof deck in accordance with these
rules would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood beyond which would normally be
expected of any other roof deck in the city?
I have no further questions for Mr. Pena.
I appreciate your time, sir.
Thank you, of course.
Thank you, Rich.
Thank you, Chair.
Is that your presentation, Mr. Pena, sir?
Yes, sir.
I mean, at this point, under the zoning code, the burden shifts to any protesters to show that it would not be able to have the roof deck there.
So, yes, we're willing to shift that burden out.
And I would rest with moving in my exhibits.
Okay, so you're through with your presentation?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have someone under the email address, F.J. Purcell.
Sir or madam, could you please unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court sonographer?
Sure. Francis Purcell, F-R-A-N-C-I-S, Purcell, P-U-R-C-E-L-L.
Sure. Francis Purcell, F-R-A-N-C-I-S, Purcell.
Right. Do you swear or swear on to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Proceed. Are you a neighbor? Are you a neighbor, sir?
Yes, I am a neighbor. I have the property that's at number 249, as well as 251 North 3rd,
as well as 239 241 New Street the corner abutting right up to this and as being a resident in this
neighborhood for a very long time we've seen a lot sort of come and go and I guess today we're
just addressing the roof deck and not everything else but my dear dad once told me as a kid
be careful because you might get rather than two crocodiles you get one big alligator
and when we were proposed this project we were told it was going to be eight individual townhouses
at one point in time and then i think mr zakin described as being sort of somewhat of a sex hotel
where the groom was going to mount the bride and they're all laughing and thought that was
interesting and we were told that basically it was going to be 110 additional sondor units in
the neighborhood where to be honest with you we've not had very good experiences with sondor
whatsoever at a property known as 257 North Third Street that basically Sonder is no longer a part
of. But in the meantime, our neighborhood is being inundated right along Vine Street, as well as on
the other corner of Wood, and then going back on Ray Street with a good number of temporary
residences, which I think totals somewhere upwards of anywhere from like 200 to 400 residences in
the neighborhood. And when we heard that 110 were coming down, we thought that was a bit much.
so then we found out that from 110 we're getting reduced down to about 85 but this all could be
converted to multi-family at some point in time so we're sort of thinking we're not exactly sure
what that density means for the neighborhood um and as a result we were then told number down
but roof deck up and honestly with this neighborhood we've had some serious problems in
the past. So we've got a jaundice eye. There was a bar restaurant two doors down from this that at
one point was named the Griffin, where there were two homicides. And then it was Cecilia's, where
the IBEW union workers would sort of congregate after work. And we had a lot of broken windows
and noise and trash coming as a result of that. And fortunately, that was no longer. And I'm not
necessarily opposed to having good neighbors. But then when we heard this sort of final straw of
having what effectively would be like the Revolution House, which is down at Setkin and
Market, which is a big rooftop noisy deck with alcohol up top, as well as a multi-use rental
roof deck up top in an area that's fairly low. Although there is some tall buildings in the
neighborhood that they pointed out to us being the Chocolate Factory, as well as right across
the street as being new street commons and uh one other that's located across on third street
bridgeview i believe it is um everybody abutting this is the same height so effectively we're
going to be looking into a fairly noisy restaurant and one of the examples that was given here was
the monaco and that is actually up if i understand correctly about 10 to 12 stories up in the air
And they actually have a greenery blocking that so it can't be sort of seen from Independence Mall. Another instance was over on the Parkway, which is a very big, large open area that doesn't have buildings, literally, I mean, the one street right here in question is Bodine Street, which is only approximately 10 feet across.
I mean, it's to the point that if a van goes down there, their mirrors have to be folded in.
And, you know, it's kind of almost like Lucille Ball might want to give Ethel a cup of salt.
I mean, one neighbor could literally reach right across and get the other neighbor's hand and pass something window to window.
That's how tight this is. And when the Painted Bride was there, we had numerous numbers of lunch trucks serving food in that alleyway with smells coming up and noise and that sort of thing.
sir i think we want to concentrate on the deck because the only thing in question is the deck
so why don't we just concentrate on the deck and your thoughts about that all right is the deck
proposing to serve food i i will when council will have a chance to get back to you with that
in a couple minutes okay and what i understand the deck will be serving alcohol as well
and i guess council will get back to me on that but what i'm trying to point out is that
in this neighborhood we've had a very bad history with all that and much less to have it up at a
rooftop level where we're living rather than down at street level
um is conceivably going to be a problem and this is a fairly dense area and we've never had
is conceivably going to be a problem and this is a fairly dense area and we've
a roof deck restaurant like this in this neighborhood before all right um so obviously
you're against the rooftop deck yes just i mean also we're not sure how food and alcohol is going
to be delivered to this location and traffic is going to be trash is going to be removed and that
kind of thing okay as well as what i'm going to do is have other people if they're in the audience
come on, and then I'll have counsel respond to it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Robert Germankin. Mr. Germankin, please unmute yourself. We'll wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Robert Germankin, G-U-R-M-A-N-K-I-N. All right, do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, sir. Are you a neighbor? Are you a
neighbor, sir? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm the president of Franklin Bridge North
Neighbors, the presider of RCO. I also live at 319 Vine Street, a block away. As Mr. Pressman
said, we had a February meeting and the neighborhood was uniformly opposed. And when
they came back in May, as he also said, they added parking and smaller number of units. And I think a
a lot of our neighbors were swayed by that, not really taking into account that what we're dealing
with was a roof deck. But in any case, the vote was too close for us to take a position.
That being said, personally, we do have two Saunders in the neighborhood with roof decks.
They don't seem to be a problem. The issue that most people have is having a
bar restaurant on the roof of this building, especially being open till midnight. Mr. Pressman
pointed out several examples around the city. However, other than the Bach building, none of
them are in residential neighborhoods. And in the Bach building, that building is much, much,
much higher than any other building in the area. The other building that they said, which is a
sonder is me squared which is fifth and bainbridge that's pretty much a residential kind of mixed
residential that building or that restaurant closes the roof deck at 10 p.m and 11 p.m on
weekends okay we uh we specific i specifically spoke to mr pressman after actually about a week
or so ago asking about reducing the hours to 10 p.m., same as ME squared, and that we were turned
down. We also asked about reducing the roof deck size. 100 occupancy is going to be one of the
larger roof decks in the city. It's hard to tell from what they had, but Vine Street, that block of
fine street is primarily residential we have three or four first floor resident um i'm sorry
businesses the only restaurant in our neighborhood in our rco catchment we have one it's in byo
so i feel it's inappropriate to have a hundred occupancy bar slash restaurant on the roof where
noise is going to be pouring out over the neighborhood um again our neighborhood is
primarily residential there's three construction sites on this one block all of them are building
strictly residential townhouses and multi-family no additional um commercial is being built
so no but i i think i think the issue of that is not relevant we're only talking about the deck so
right i just want to i want to concentrate on the deck because that's what what the variance is
about no and i understand that and i understand the burden of proof is on us no no no i just
we're interested in your thoughts yeah so my thoughts are we went to the mr pressman
with the idea that we could go from no decision to non-opposed asking that the roof deck hours
be reduced to be part of the zoning as a provisor and we were turned down all right and i'll ask you
if you would consider that you know 10 p.m closure 11 on weekends would make a big difference in the
neighborhood, you know, people coming out on the street at midnight. Thank you. Okay. Thank you
very much for your input. We appreciate you calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual
audience? Chair, we have John Summers. Mr. Summers, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Chair, we have John Summers. Mr. Summers, please unmute yourself. We'll wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Summers, could you state your name and spell it for the court sonographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is John Summers, S-U-M-M-E-R-S.
I am here representing Jeffrey Reinhold, who is the owner of Chocolate Works, which is located...
hold on one minute do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes proceed sir thank you um as i say i am here on behalf of mr reinhold who i will ask several
questions and will testify at this proceeding excuse me one one moment please uh yeah sorry
Mr. Summers, are you here as counsel for Mr. Reinhardt?
Okay, thank you.
And he is here to vigorously oppose the restaurant roof deck that I believe is the subject of the chairs.
That's the only issue we have.
Exactly.
Mr. Reinhold, are you there?
Do we see Mr. Reinhold's hand?
Chair, I see no one by the name of Mr. Reinhold with their hand. There he is. He just put his
hand up. Okay. Mr. Reinhold, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Jeff Reinhold, J-E-F-F-R-E-I-N-H-O-L-D. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Counsel, proceed. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reinhold, good afternoon. Good afternoon. You are the owner of Chocolate
Works, is that correct? Yeah, I am a partner in the partnership that owns the Chocolate Works
apartment building, which is located directly to the south adjacent to this proposed development.
it's 231 North 3rd Street. And approximately how many feet is the edge of the building from the
edge of the proposed roof deck? So the Chaco Words, again, is located to the south of the
proposed project along New Street. And New Street is a 20-foot wide street with the two sidewalks
on both the south side and the north side. It's located about 40 feet away from the proposed
building. And approximately how many units are there in Chocolate Works in total? There's 135
apartment units. And approximately how many do you believe would be affected by the proposed
use of the restaurant roof deck? Well, the building, the Chocolate Works building is a
six-story building, similar to what's proposed, I believe, by groom at the Painted Bride,
but it's about 25 feet taller. So about 30 apartments directly overlooking the
um the the the proposed development and therefore visible and would be able to see the the roof
decks but then there are other apartments on that side of of the building as well probably another
20. another 20 so for a total of how many? about 50 on that side of the building
um let's um let's if you could explain to the chairman and the board how if at all you believe
uh the chocolate works uh apartments will be affected and the residents will be affected by
the planned restaurant roof deck. Yeah, I'd be happy to do that. So as I stated, the distance
between the two buildings is only 40 feet. Of course, there's a setback proposed for the roof
decks about seven feet. So the residential roof deck that Shimmy's been talking about is the one
it's directly to the south and directly across from the Chocolate Works. So it's 47 feet
from the building and from apartments. The bar and restaurant side is about 147 feet away
to the north. So, you know, really, you know, I'm not as, I'm not really, I'm concerned about
the size of both of the decks and I'm I'm concerned about the residential but
I'm concerned about the residential, but I'm not opposed to the residential.
I'm not opposed to the residential I think that
I think that that is something that is is normal and standard with projects like this, certainly apartment buildings.
And I guess for these these limited stay type properties, my concern is the size of the roof decks and the close proximity to the chocolate works.
And the size, if we just talk about the residential side, the south side, that size of 100 people is far in excess of what's probably needed for 85 short-term rental units.
So it's the size and the fact that it's 47 feet away from the building.
But my real concern is with the bar restaurant and that use.
And that concern is, again, the size of a 100-person roof deck, but it's the use.
Clearly, the use in this neighborhood with residential all around it, and in the case certainly of the Chocolate Works and some other buildings with residents who look directly down onto these roof decks, will be negatively impacted certainly by the activity on the commercial side with the potential for, I guess, amplified music.
just boisterous activity. Again, we'll be serving alcohol and the hours that it will be in
operation. My understanding through Franklin Bridge North is that the developer has stated
that they will close by 12 p.m. That's just unacceptable. But the use overall, I believe,
is unacceptable and not appropriate for what is primarily a residential neighborhood. I understand
that it's zone ZMX3, but the reality is there aren't very many bars and restaurants in this
neighborhood and it's primarily residential. So again, my concern is the close proximity of the
decks, and then the use of the bar restaurant, and the noise and the potential disruption to
the neighborhood, 100 people in that deck, plus, you know, a restaurant on the first floor
of over 4,800 square feet, which I know is by right, it just seems like an overwhelming amount
of people for this residential location. But it will have a direct negative impact,
significant negative impact to the Chocolate Works building. Mr. Reinhold, you heard
an executive from Saunders testify about a policy that it has applicable to the residential deck.
Isn't that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And you heard that one of the policies is that Saunders prohibits on the residential deck amplified music, right?
That's correct.
Am I correct that there is no such amplified music prohibition applicable to the restaurant side?
I don't believe that there is, and I don't believe that they're really connected.
The Sonder residential side is separate from the bar commercial side.
Likewise, sir, you heard that there's a policy prohibiting alcohol and partying on the residential deck.
Isn't that right?
Yeah, that's correct.
And am I correct that there's no such prohibition to the restaurant deck use, correct?
far as I know. You also heard Sounders executive testify that there was a late night curfew of
eight o'clock on the residential deck. Isn't that right? Yeah, and I was very, very glad to hear
that. And likewise, that rule apparently doesn't apply to a restaurant, does it?
uh not that i'm aware of now isn't it true that you heard with pride the saunders executive
testifying that these rules are very good in assuring that the saunders building is a good
neighbor didn't you hear that yes sir and the rules applicable to the restaurant that assure
To the restaurant that are sure a good neighbor actually don't apply to the restaurant, as you understand, and it has been maintained by Saunders. Isn't that right?
a good neighbor actually don't apply
But...
That's correct.
There could be dinner parties where there's alcohol, loud music, boisterous conduct, bright lights, till well after the hours that Saunders normally has its roof deck allowed.
Isn't that right? Well, I would expect from any bar or restaurant that has a capacity of 100 people to have all of what you're speaking of.
um you heard some comments from uh other neighbors that were objecting to the roof decks
um excuse me were objecting to the supposed comparability of the roof decks the hotel
monaco the assembly bach building emmy the positano restaurant um do you agree with the
statements that were made by the other objectors? Yes, I mean, the other buildings are in
commercial areas in, for the most part, with decks that are above other uses, including if there is
any residential use so i am in agreement with with that um that that that is is exactly what
these other decks and that you know how they are positioned within those areas the 400 block of
chestnut street is not a residential location like where this plan site is isn't that right
No, it's clear that it's not. You know, it's an historic area. It's on the corner really at Fifth Street. So, and it has, I think it was already stated by one of the near neighbors that there are screens all the way around that deck. And that's correct. I've been there. I've seen it.
Mr. Somers?
I have no further questions.
Thank you, Ronald.
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Again, I just want to reiterate because I think it's important.
I am not at all opposed to a residential deck that is used strictly by the residents of the building.
I think that that's a good use.
I do have a concern about its size.
I think it's much larger than it needs to be.
And I'm also extremely concerned that it's 47 feet away from the windows of my residence on that side, the south side of the building, or the north side of the building for me.
So that's what I'm concerned about.
But I am very encouraged to hear from the representative from Sonder about the rules and regulations and their change to an 8 p.m. closing.
That's that's that's that's great. The use of a bar restaurant on this roof deck and with the proximity of certainly the Chocolate Works and other residential, I think is just is is not appropriate whatsoever.
And I am extremely concerned about the impact not only to my building, but to the neighborhood from the use of a hundred seat bar restaurant.
Mr. Reinhold, one other question.
Mm hmm.
Go ahead, Mr. Summers. Please get your question out, please.
One other question, and that is that the Saunders facility has no manager on site, does it?
That's correct. I think we heard that from the Saunders. They rotate people, and as the gentleman from Saunders said, they rotate people. There is no full-time staff on property. That's correct.
And as you understand it, there are managers on site at the Hotel Monaco, right?
Yeah, I would expect so, yes.
And at the Bach Bar and these other locations, isn't that right?
That's correct.
Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Is there any other hands in the first audience?
Here, we have two more hands.
The next person is Gary Vernick.
Mr. Vernick, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Mr. Vernick, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Vernick?
Hello. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Hello.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Gary Vernick, V as in Victor, E-R-N-I-C-K. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Vernick, are you a neighbor?
I am a near neighbor. I reside at 215 Vine Street and I own 217 Vine Street.
Okay. So, Mr. Vernick, we've had a lot of testimony. We want to know, are you for this
or against the deck? I am. I am opposed. Okay. I suppose to have in the restaurant deck on the
roof. Well, I'd like to make sure that this board understands the difference between the two decks.
Well, I think I think we do, sir. I think we've we've heard a lot of testimony about it. We
understand the difference between the two. Well, Sonder is going to manage this whole building
As to the Sonder deck, I would agree with Mr. Reinhold that as long as it closes at 8 p.m., I don't have an issue.
However, I would like to add a proviso to the Sonder deck that if you do grant the special exception, that that special exception remain in effect as long as Sonder is the tenant.
And I say that for this reason, and this may sound a little bit off, but Sonder came out with an IPO and went public about a year and a half, two years ago at $10 a share or something like that. It closed today, I think, at $0.65 a share.
But, sir, I'm not sure that we...
Well, that's why I'm asking that it remain in effect as long as Sonder is the tenant, because we don't have a problem with Sonder rules.
Okay, thank you very much.
As to what I like to call the other deck or the party deck.
Well, we're not going to call it a party deck.
We're going to call it a restaurant.
So, and if you're against that, please let us know.
I am against it.
And the one thing that I don't have to tell this board is that it cannot regulate behaviors.
And when groups of people come together with alcohol, it becomes a party deck.
And understand that as a near neighbor who is sensitive to noise, disturbances, fights in the streets, parking problems, et cetera, this could turn into a disaster.
Mr. Vernick, we understand your position.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for calling in.
We do appreciate your comments.
we have one more hand please bring them on chair the other party dropped their hand there are no
hands as of now okay um mr pressman would you want five minutes to maybe two three minutes to
respond um before we go i'm sorry chair um he just raised his hand may he be allowed to speak
who is it or if i bush sure mr five bush please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Mr. Feinbush, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Ori Feinbush, last name F as in Frank, E-I-B-U-S-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Feinbush, we've had a lot of testimony about this. Could you give us your position on this?
Yes, Mr. Chair. I own 244 North 2nd. It's the same block base, effectively running from 2nd to Phillip, new to Vine.
I'm building a large development at that site, and my residents will look directly at this building, and I am fully in support of the development as proposed here.
I think it will be a wonderful addition by a world-class architect and something that our community absolutely needs, and I just wanted to make sure that potentially the minority opinion here was also stated, and that is that this is absolutely something that would be welcome and my residents would be impacted, and I think positively impacted by these developments, and I do hope that you grant the special exemptions that are being sought here.
Thank you for taking the time to call us in, Mr. Feinbush.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Pressman, would you want to have two minutes to respond?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief as possible.
First of all, this is going to be a restaurant on the roof with Sonder, which will have food service, hopefully, and bar service.
And the key here is that there will be people on the bar monitoring it.
There will be service people.
There will be employees of the restaurant there.
They'll go from the restaurant up to the roof deck by way of an elevator.
So it's going to be a high end restaurant that's going to be serviced and rep.
So it's going to be a high end restaurant that's going to be serviced and rep and also monitored at all times.
When it comes to the chocolate works. Right. If you look at the plan, is that up, sir?
With a site plan up now? Yeah. Can you see that, sir?
We do. Hey, if you go to the bottom where the highlighter is, that's where the chocolate works is.
And as Mr. Reinhold had said, that's where they are.
To go to the roof deck of where the restaurant is, which is over there, is 140 feet away.
So it's not right under his building.
It's far away from his building.
And the restaurant hours will have fully staffed on the roof and supervised.
So there won't be parties up there.
right? We wanted to, we offered to restrict with regards to getting a letter of support
or non-opposition, both the hours and also the number of people. We're willing to go on the
Sonder deck down to no more than 30, but we couldn't get the approval even after all these
concessions were made. If it went to a multifamily building, which it could do at any time, by right,
there'd be no restrictions. There'd be no hour restrictions, right? There'd be no party
restrictions. And we're willing, with regards to the restaurant, to have party restrictions.
No amplified music. This is all speculative on their part. They have put no evidence forward
that the proposed roof decks, particularly the restaurant, with a high degree of probability,
will substantially and detrimentally affect the health law for the neighborhood.
They don't want development there. They've said that from the beginning. All they want is townhouses.
But that's not what's being built. And I thank Mr. Farnbridge for coming on to show support because he knows how to build a building and run something with regards to a high end building like this.
It's an asset to the community. And they try to drive business away. That's what happened with Old City Civic Association.
They didn't want any development. And that's the mindset that you still have there today.
we've met our burden they have not met theirs they've not shown that anything on these proposed
roof decks would exceed what might normally be expected from the proposed uses of roof deck
and we request that the board hold us in advance as we requested until we can get an amended
referral in to the board with regards to the um parking in the basement as it approved by 09
Thank you. I hope I didn't overstand my time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Pressman. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location.
The appellant has shown that the proposed non-residential roof deck will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the special exception for a non-accessory roof deck.
We will need to hold for an amended refusal for underground parking garage added in revised plans appears to have been reviewed by streets, but not L&I.
Revised plans also include reduction in unit count from 110 to 85.
This will be held. The record is otherwise closed.
Thank you, Mr. Pressman, and thanks everyone else who offered input.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who the 2 o'clock case has not been called?
I see no hands, Chair.
We're going to take a five-minute break and come right back and go through the 3.30 list.
We don't have much on the 3.30 list.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon ZBA hearing.
With me is our vice chair, Ismael Shahid.
Well, he's here.
James Snell, our board member.
Present chair.
Our alternate board member, board member, LeBaron Leonard Palmer from Development Services.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Also, Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised to proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
leave your email and the address of the property in question. Lastly, the question answer box on
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Lastly, the question and answer.
the screen is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our Executive
Director, Tanya Sunken. I'm going to look at the continuances we have on the 330 list.
Number two, MI 2022-007-450-5207 West Mount Erie Avenue. This is a request for continuance
from the Coordinating RCO.
Is Kenneth Chestnut
or LBS Realty Associates
on the phone,
on the line?
Chair, I see no one
by either of those names.
So MI 2022-007-450-5207
West Mount Area Avenue.
This case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
Number three, MI 2022-007-349-5652 Windsor Street. This case is continued.
Number four, MI 2022-004-234-6729 Elmwoods Avenue. This case is continued.
Number six, MI 2022-004-386-4067 North Reece Street. This case has been continued.
Number 9, MI-2022-004-682-530 West Cambria Street.
This case has been continued at the request of HACE, the RCO.
Is Jose Cages on the line?
Mr. Cages, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Chair, I see no hands.
MI 2022-004-682-530 West Cambria Street.
This case is continued and marked must be tried.
And number 10, MI 2022-007-359-7105 Grays Ferry Avenue.
Grays Avenue.
This case is continued.
Is there anyone in the audience who has comments relative to the cases have been continued?
I see no hands, Chair.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up.
Mr. Richardson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Richardson, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Okay, sir.
21 26 West
Cambria Street
has not had a meeting
and I was wondering
if the applicant was here
because we're requesting a continuance
for that case
is Jose Cortez
or Jamie
Rivera
Jamie Rivera
There's no one in the audience by that name, Chair.
Mr. Richardson, this is the first listing.
We will probably continue this case, okay, when I get to it.
Thank you.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Chair, we have someone with a phone number ending at 3552.
Caller, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
caller please unmute yourself sorry i was muted hi could you state your name please and spell for
the court stenographer yes adrian fernandez f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z okay do you do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes what case
um mr richardson already asked for a continuance for 21 26 west cambria
yeah i'm going to call that in a minute because i have no exhibits for that
okay i told mr richardson we're probably going to continue that case okay thanks okay thank you
all right i want to go now to we have a few cases with no exhibits
Number five, MI 2022.
Number five, MI-2022-004-236-6618 East Roosevelt Boulevard.
We have no exhibits.
This is the second listing.
Mohamed Raymond is the owner applicant.
No one appeared on 12-14-23.
12-14-22.
Mr. Raymond, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
I see no hands here and I 20 22 004 236 66 18 East Roosevelt Boulevard we have no listing
for this it's the second listing listing no one appeared at the last hearing I vote to dismiss
James now dismiss
LeBaron?
Sorry, I have technical difficulties.
I'm here.
Hillary, we can take his vote for this, right?
Yes, we can, Mr. Chair.
Sorry, excuse me.
So it's 6618 East Roosevelt Boulevard.
We have voted to dismiss.
LeBaron Leonard Palmer, vote to dismiss.
Thank you very much.
Excuse me.
Number seven.
MI 2022-0007-373-2126 West Cambria.
Jamie Rivera
Jose Cortez
Do we see them in the audience?
Chair, I see no one by that name.
So MI2022
007373
2126 West
Cambridge Street. Cases continued.
Mark must be tried.
Chair, do you hear me now?
I hear you now.
Okay, I was there. I just couldn't hear you.
Okay, thank you. And number 8, 2022-007-458-5218, Art Street, first listing, no exhibits. Jeffrey Young is listed as the attorney.
mr young is not in the audience chair okay mi 2022 007 458 5218 art street no exhibits first
listing mark must be tried continued and mark must be tried okay we have one case
It's our number one case. MI 2022-007-376-9766 Clark Street. Verne Anastasio is the attorney.
No RCO letter at this point. Greater Busselton Civic League had a meeting on 425-23.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good afternoon, Counsel.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Vern Anastasio, V-E-R-N, last name Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O, 2016 Spruce in Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Yep. I represent the owner of the property, Najina Tayalabith.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy for us to be interceptors?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thanks, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
There we are.
Mr. Chair, members of the board at 9766 Clark Street is a single family residence.
My client purchased this property and it looked like this right here.
The garage, which these homes were all built at the same time in the same way, same development, this garage at some point was converted into living space, not by money.
This garage at some point was converted into living space, not by my client, but converted nonetheless, like most of the properties on the block.
And we'll get to that in a minute.
So the garage space, it's a split level, you know, an old fashioned sort of 50s style split level, typical northeast sort of layout.
The garage turned out to be a den.
here's the entrance a mud room and a den a laundry room a rec room and then the main level
is a living room dining room kitchen with three bedrooms and a couple baths and and that's that's
about it my client would just like to legalize what you know what is there and and what uh
what seems to be prevalent in in the neighborhood uh here's some interior photos to look at i think
it's important for you to see them just so you get a feeling for it's still a single family it's just
that the uh the garage has been you know converted and then used and then sold to my client uh as
part of the living area. I have 13 individual documents of exhibits, photos that I'm going to
move into evidence now that show properties just like it with the same exact condition. Here we go.
Page 16 of the exhibit packet, as you can see, a converted garage.
Page 26 of the property, I mean, of the exhibit packet, a converted garage.
Page 29 of that.
Page 30.
Page 31.
that's back to back there's two of them right there page 32
page 33
page 34
page 35
by the way many of these went before the RCO and got support
for the conversions page 36
page 38, page 39, and page 40. So Clark Street, the adjacent street, over 13 properties in
addition to my client's property, all converted garages to living space. And we're simply
asking to legalize what's there. We did meet with the RCO. I think the feedback was mixed.
Didn't help that my client, English is her second language, so it does, and that is not an asset in
large portions of the Northeast, unfortunately. So there was some pushback talking about foreigners
and things like that.
But that aside,
this is a hardship that my client did not create.
And we respectfully request the granting of this variance.
And with that, I'd like to call my client,
Nagina Tilyava.
I'm here.
Could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Nagina Tilyava, N-I-G-I-N-A.
and last name is t-i-l-y-a-e-v-a
we're referring to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes proceed thank you mr chair nagina did you hear my presentation to the board this afternoon
yes is it is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes do you adopt it as your
own testimony yes all right and you purchased this property in this condition is that right
yes thank you i have nothing further questions from the board no chair
no no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
mr chair this is hillary i just had a question um uh mr anastasio in the area marked laundry
room in your packet there is a kitchen yeah that kitchen that kitchen has it had my my client
removed that kitchen okay it has been removed okay thank you yep yeah we have someone with
Chair, we have someone with the phone number ending in 3265.
the phone number ending in three two six five caller please
Caller, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Carol Garfield, G-A-R-F-I-E-L-D.
I live next door, 9766 Cork Street.
All right, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Okay, I live at 9764 Clark. The owner does not live there. It is rented out to two families.
Hey, should have brought my mask with you.
I'm sorry. First of all, I object whether or not she lives there. This is the neighbor that assaulted my client so that she had to actually move.
I did not assault it.
My client actually had to move and it's occupied by one family.
Okay. Finish your testimony, ma'am. Hello? Chair, please. Okay. Please unmute yourself.
All right. The question is, are you against this variance? Yes, I am. Okay. All right.
Can I just say something?
Go ahead.
Can I just say something?
These homes in the neighborhood are zoned as RSA3.
They are not supposed to be converted into duplexes.
There are many homes in the neighborhood that have been converted.
I live in the middle of two of them.
There's one on each side.
I have, and each one is occupied by two different, two units.
And I do not think, I haven't gone in the 9766, but I have not seen a kitchen being disassembled.
And I did not see anybody move out.
Okay. Thank you for calling in. We appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else in the
virtual audience? Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure it's very clear. Vern, let me see if there's
anybody else in the virtual audience. You'll have the last say, okay? Chair, there are no other
heads at this time. Mr. Anastasio, do you want to comment? I just want to put it on the record
because it's vitally important. Yes, this is a single-family home. It's being used as a single
family home that kitchen that was in there again when my client purchased this property has been
removed so there's only going to be this use the use is single family home why we're here
by the way why we're here is has nothing to do with that uh it has to do with the fact that
that space was converted okay okay um planning commission thank you chair bergman and good
Good afternoon, David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This garage was converted to residential space without the benefit of permits prior to the appellant's purchase of the building.
The appellant would appear to have a hardship if they were required to convert the residential space back into parking.
The application matches the character of the block.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use variance.
Thank you.
MI-2022-007-376-9766
Clark Street, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who the 3-30 case
has not been called? They're a 3-30 case?
I see no handshare
thanks everyone
we've done a little later than I thought we would
but I appreciate everybody's work today
and take some time off
thank you
see you too