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?