Thank you. Jason, we'll give you a few minutes before I open the session up.
Okay, just looking over the list right now.
Okay, Chair, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Before I begin, let me get my phone up here.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in this morning's hearing along with our board secretary,
Confessor Plaza, and our board member, Mr. James Snell.
Board administrator, Mr. Jason Hand, and our board attorney, Sharon Saleta, are also in
attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that as well.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that said, but before we begin, before we call our first case, I would like to ask if there's anyone out there who's requesting a continuance or withdrawal, so please raise your hand at this time.
And I will now go over a list of what we understand our continuance request.
Number three on our page, Confessor, is MI2020 -000916, 2616 South 18th.
Number four on our list, MI2020 -000437, 2901 McKinley Street.
Number five on our list, MI 2020 -000119 -3442 North 18th Street.
number six on our list, MI 2020 -001120, 348 Green Lane, MI 2020 -001123, 5201 Germantown Avenue
is being continued because we do not have any exhibits. MI 2020 -000203 -53862 Avenue.
Number 10 on our list, MI 2020 -000970 -6164 Walnut Street.
as a request i'm sorry um i just wanted to say that the um attorney did submit the exhibits
so um the request is from the councilwoman right but i on i understand there may not be
any letters from the rco on this case um we would have to call up both the questioning and
on this case yes okay so all right so i'll put that aside for the time being
yeah you could read it and let him come up and explain if he got it
okay so mi 2020 -000970 6164 walnut street there's a request for a continuance from count
6164 Walnut Street, there's a request for continuance from Councilwoman Gauthier and number 11 on our list, MI 2020 -0007549509, Wheel Pump Lane is withdrawn.
If there's an attorney and or an applicant who represents any of the cases that I read into the record as being continued or withdrawn, if there's any disagreement with that, please raise your hand.
Excuse me. We would have to call up before making a decision on the continuance for Walnut Street, if you could call up attorney Vern Anastasio, who represents the applicant.
I was asking generally
okay is Mr. Anastasio
available
Mr. Chairman real quick do we have a court reporter
on today
I don't see her but she was
yes I'm here
great thank you
Mr. Anastasio
I'm going to look for him and I'll promote him
to panelists
he has been promoted to panelists thank you mr anastasio if you're out there you may unmute
yourself and make your case sir thank you very much anastasio please identify yourself with the
record spell your name for the stenographer good morning mr chairman members of the board verne
anastasio the attorney for the owner of the subject property of walnut street 6164 1315 walnut
street is my address suite 1006 philadelphia 19107 mr chairman uh this is your name last name
please verne for this oh i'm sorry a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o and i swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed thank you uh we did in fact meet with the
rco achieve achievability uh they have not issued we have asked over the last several days
we have asked for a letter we know one way or the other we have yet to get that i'm not
i'm not necessarily opposed to the continuance if it came from the council person's office
so long as it's a short one if if that's uh doable uh let me ask this uh is there
anyone from the councilwoman's office mr goodman i'm wondering if the request was
only being made by the councilwoman because there was no letter i don't know that to be true i'm
just curious if that's the reason why yeah i i don't know like i said this is a news to me that
there was going to be a request to continue um this is sharon slid i can read you the um email
from andrew goodman that we received late yesterday afternoon let's see we expect the following case
to be continued because we have no record of rco letters if they proceed without fulfilling the rco
requirement our office opposes that was for 6164 walnut well we could still hear it and hold
correct it sounds to me the way it sounds to me uh so that's the only reason there's a request
because there was no letter yes and if mr anastasio confirms that there has been a meeting um yes there
has been a meeting. We'll go forward with the case and just hold for a week or so a letter from the
RCO. I appreciate that. For them to resume the hearing and present the letter. Yes. Okay. Thank
you. Thank you. Anyone else out there have any objection to the cases that were called
as being continued or withdrawn? Mr. Chair, at this time, I believe we have a
Lee Slamowicz, whose hand is raised.
I will promote him to the panelists right now.
Thank you.
Could you please unpromote me?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Slamowicz?
Mr. Slamowicz, you may unmute and begin to speak.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, sir.
Please identify yourselves by your first and last name
for the record and give us your address good morning Mr. Chairman Lee Shlomowitz that's L -E -E -S -H -L -A
M as in Mary O -W -I -T -Z my address is 196 West Ashland Street in Doylestown Pennsylvania
1 -8 -9 -0 -1 do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
What case are you representing?
I represent the owner on 1924 East Oakdale. That's D .I .Z. Holdings, LLC.
Got you. Okay.
I also am here on a matter for which the RCO meeting summary has not been received,
despite otherwise written support following the RCO meeting that was duly noticed and organized.
There's an additional issue, which is that there's an issue with the tax clearance website.
My client, their CPA, and myself have been attempting in various ways to obtain the
appropriate clearance. And I think we've come pretty close, but I'm sorry.
Excuse me. Excuse me. This is Sharon Saleta. We did receive a letter from Councilman Squilla indicating that the RCO supports the project and that he is in non -opposition. As for the tax clearance, I can check that for you while you proceed.
okay uh so my thinking is as long as we're willing to proceed so if there's an issue with
the tax clearance um perhaps the the panel can hold the matter under advisement until we can
resolve that issue unless what i've presented is acceptable okay so noted we'll do that
okay we'll go forward with the case and if sharon can't get the tax clearance up we'll just hold
until we get it. All right, we'll have the, we'll hear the case. Thank you. Anyone else have any
objection to the continuance or withdrawals that have been read into the record?
Or does anyone else wish to request a continuance or withdrawal?
The chair, there is a Joseph McCarthy who is waiting to be promoted. I shall do so right now.
Thank you.
Mr. McCarthy, you have been promoted to panelists.
You may unmute your microphone and begin to make a case.
Good morning, Mr. McCarthy.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, give us your address,
and then I'll swear you in.
Mr. McCarthy, you need to unmute yourself.
Mr. McCarthy, are you there?
His name is muted.
I guess we can move on forward.
What's that, confessor?
I guess we can move forward, right?
Oh, there he is.
I think he's going to be on now.
Mr. McCarthy?
I just don't know what case, confessor.
It's where I'm...
Mr. McCarthy.
um i'm sorry mr chair yeah while we're waiting we're waiting to see if mr mccarthy comes in i
just i just received a message from mr michael micklehenney i saw something come up what
he's talking
asking about
case number MI 2020
000719
Diamond Street
he said it was held
for revised plans
to be presented today
he wanted to know if it could be
if he could have the case heard in today's session
Sharon I don't have anything on that
if he can
wait until the end of the session
I can get you the information
all right just ask him
to stand by
thank you and Mr. McCarthy one more time
all right
Confessor.
chair excuse me if i can add one more thing um the last case read when we're announcing
continuances was um 509 wheel pump lane just to confirm we should probably at this point read
this as a continuance because the app the applicant's architect submitted a request
that it be withdrawn we've requested though um a letter directly from the property owner
confirming that so in the meantime if we could announce this thank you okay okay so mi 2020 dash
zero zero zero seven five four nine five oh nine wheel pump lane is continued that's the last one
confess it was number 11 we originally had it as withdrawn so we're changing the status to continue
We can now proceed with 1740
Wolf Street. MI -2020 -000240
Mr. Sabatini
I'll turn and I'll promote him to
panelists right now
Mr. Sabatini, where are you?
Mr. Sabatini
Wait a minute
I have a Mr. Bernie
Varallo. I'm going to get ready to promote him to
panelists right now
Mr. Varallo, you have been promoted to
panelists. You may unmute your mic and
make your case
Good morning, Mr. Varallo. Please identify
yourself with the records
excuse me, spell your first and last name
give us your address and I'll swear you
Mr. Varello, there you go.
Yes, Bernardino Varello, 2307 South 18th Street.
Please spell your first and last name.
E -E -R -A -R -D -I -N -O, last name Varello, V -A -R -A -L -L -O.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
confessor yes have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing this is donald sabatini attorney for the uh appellant and yes i did uh email that all more
than five business days before today also have you confessor just give me a second mr sabatini
would you please identify yourself name and address spell your name donald s sabatini s -a -b -a -t -i -n -i
7710 orpheus place o -r -p -h -e -u -s philadelphia pennsylvania 19153 attorney for the appellant
bmlv llc for 1740 welcome thank you and you're swearing for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes thank you professor also have you met with the rco and have a letter
uh yes we have i believe that was sent in thank you
do we have the letter yes it's a letter in non -opposition from gear g -e -a -r yeah yeah
gerard gerard gerard estate okay thank you uh miss mr sabatini or mr varallo please proceed
this is a application to legalize a duplex a long -standing a building that's been used as a
duplex for a long -standing time i don't believe there's any uh physical alterations planned to
the uh property it's just uh it's been used as a duplex since approximately 1978 uh without
incident uh the principal of the current owner bmlb llc mr bart mr varallo uh lives adjacent
into the property so he has firsthand information regarding you know the use and uh that's pretty
much it there's not much to it picks that um questions from the board
anyone else who wishes to testify in this case would you if so please raise your hand
i see no hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission david good morning
please identify yourself you're muted good morning mr chairman david effecto f -e -c -t -e -a -u
with the city planning commission we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes sir i do please proceed thank you sir mr chairman and members of the board
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for single
This property is
family residential use on the comprehensive plan. We do not believe that legalizing a duplex will
have an adverse impact on the block. Accordingly, we have no objection to granting this variance.
Thank you. MI 2020 -0002401740, Wolf Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Professor, the next one, Oakdale, this is the one we're going to hear but hold for the text clearance, right?
Right. MI 2020 -001163, 1924 East Oakdale Street.
Mr. Sabatini, you still?
uh yes we're still uh we're still here if you need us no no you can you've been approved so
okay we'll leave then thank you thank you
let's go
1924 east oakdale i think that was mr mclehaney um i think that's mr schlamowitz and i have
confirmed that the i have confirmed tax compliance so you can vote on this today thank you
mr slumovitz
i believe you've already been sworn in
let me yeah let me uh promote him back to panelists right now sir sorry about that
can everyone hear me yes we can sir you've already been sworn in
You're still under oath.
Confessor.
Sir, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing?
I have subject to the earlier conversation with respect to the tax
clearance.
Thank you.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I found out that the letter was transmitted this morning.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
um it's my pleasure to represent diz holdings llc the owner of this property uh my client's
proposal is to uh construct a single family dwelling on what is presently a extraordinarily
narrow uh vacant lot do you receive pardon the interruption do you have any exhibits you can
share with us? I, you mean through the Zoom platform? Yes. I, I have the exhibits that were
submitted in PDF form as with an exhibit list. As far as how to display them on the screen,
I am not sure how to do that. Share screen perhaps.
I believe that Jason will have to authorize you to share the screen.
Give me a minute, sir. I'll assist you. Thank you.
All right, you've been asked to start your video.
If you want to share your screen, I think there's a green button at the bottom of the list of options.
It'll say share screen, the green up button.
Very good. I see that. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Has that made the exhibit list visible?
Yes, it has.
Okay, so this is what you're seeing is the exhibit list that I submitted to the panel
five days ago.
As I was saying, my client's proposal is to construct a single family dwelling on a vacant
The refusal was a merely dimensional refusal predicated on my client's request and proposal
request and proposal to construct the rear of the building five instead of the required nine feet
to construct the rear of the building.
to the rear lot. It's merely a setback proposal of a de minimis four feet that we're requesting
so that the structure can be made the depth that is required.
um the uh unusually narrow lot in today's use in economic client climate requires a slightly
deeper house than code allowed uh it needs to be usable and saleable in today's market
so that a viable use which is a credit to this neighborhood can be made of this very narrow
vacant lot um as i noted it's a de minimis four foot uh deviation from code there are three
primary bases for the variants. The first is the economic hardship that this dimensional
variants is predicated on. It's not viable to develop the narrow lot without the deeper home.
The second is the community support is resounding. The RCO voted unanimously in favor of the project
and I found out that the councilman does not oppose. The structure itself is entirely consistent
with the spirit of the neighborhood and the adjacent buildings. In fact, if you were to
walk down Oakdale Street after construction is completed, you would be unable to discern that
variance had even been granted. And the next building is very similar in character to the
one my client is proposing to construct, which you can see right here in this
in this top right photograph and exhibit H is the plans. This is a picture of what we're looking to
do. With that being said, I would propose to move my evidence package into the record,
including the notice documents, the documents related to the property and the project and the
procedural documents. With me this morning, I have Ilya Zimarin, who is an authorized member
of the owner of the property, I would ask to swear him in and present his direct examination.
Thank you.
Sir, would you please identify yourself, name and address for the record, spell your name
for the stenographer.
Samarin, can we unmute and speak, please?
okay can everyone hear me now yes please identify yourself spell your first and last name for the
record yes ilia zamarin i -l -y -a for the first name z -a -m -a -r -i -n like nancy for the last name
you're going to firm to tell the truth all truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Mr. Slomberg.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Zamarin, you were present and heard the representations that I just made to the board.
Were they accurate?
And do you agree to adopt my statement as your testimony?
Yes. At Exhibit, I, in the package that I've submitted to the panel, is a photograph of the posted property reflecting the zoning notice for today's hearing.
Do you agree that you posted that sign on the property prominently on October 2nd of this year?
Yes, correct.
respect to any tax obligations, the owning entity of this property does not have any
outstanding liabilities to the city of Philadelphia, correct? Correct. It does not.
I'm going to show you exhibit H, which is collectively the plans and diagrams,
the elevation, and the floor plan of your proposed project.
You'll agree with me that you had an architect generate these plans, correct?
Correct.
And these accurately reflect the project that you're seeking to construct on the property?
You agree with me that the property, the proposal is requiring a de minimis variance for what the code allows?
You agree?
And we're asking for the least restrictive alteration to the code?
Correct.
The balance of the project, other than the variance, will be built entirely in accordance with the code, correct?
And the project, in terms of its style and design, would you describe it as consistent with the neighborhood?
um how would you mr slalom it's not to interrupt you uh if you can summarize because i believe
you covered all those points and your client agreed that to adopt those your comments as
as his okay so if you um thank you
uh just two more questions and i'll wrap up uh mr zamarin can you describe how the um
um the construction will impact uh congestion and traffic in the area
i believe it will impact it minimally uh just because it's a single family home
i don't believe there's going to be uh any additional enormous traffic generated because of
that um i believe that's all i have for you mr samara sounds good
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No. Anyone else wish to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for single -family residential use in the city's comprehensive plan.
This application matches the pattern of development on the block.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting this variance.
Thank you.
MI -2020 -001163, 1924 East Oakdale Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Professor, before we go any further, I think number six, I may have misspoke earlier. I put it in, I think, as a continuance. I just, it should be Attorney Moving Party. That's MI -2020 -001120 -348 Green Lane. Attorney Moving Party, is that correct, Sharon?
That is correct. Thank you.
Okay, so I made that correct.
In addition to that, can I mention that Mr. McElhaney requested that you do the continued hearing on or the resumed hearing on 919 Diamond Street.
I checked my notes and on October 13, you heard this and announced that Mr. McElhaney would be returning 1028 at 930 for consideration of further revisions and or submission of an amended application.
so that's it's for tomorrow not today okay great thank you next one up is mi 2020 -000 -159 -5609
park ave north park ave
we've completed your application
Is there anything else you need from me, Mr. Chairman?
No, no, we're through.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a wonderful afternoon.
5609 North Park Avenue.
Any hands for 5609 North Park Avenue?
And there doesn't appear to be an attorney involved in this case.
The property owner's name and the person who submitted the exhibits is Kary Sanders.
Yeah, Mr. Sanders has his hands up.
I will promote him to panelists right now.
Mr. Sanders, you have been promoted to panelists.
You may unmute your microphone and make your case.
Mr. Sanders, is it Mr. or Ms. Sanders?
Unmute yourself, please.
Unmute yourself, please.
Thank you.
Reece Sanders.
Yeah, please.
Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Spell your first and last name and proprietor with your address.
My name is K -H -A -Y -R -E -E.
we're getting feedback
do you have another device on
you guys hear me do better now
I'm sorry
we're getting feedback
it sounds like you have another device on
Okay, I think I'm ready to proceed so much.
Thank you.
Morning, Chairman and members of the board.
My first name is H -A -Y -R -E -E, last name Sanders, S -A -N -D -E -R -S, and I am the applicant.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Sir, are you the owner of the property?
Yes, I am the owner of the property.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I did, yes, I do.
Right. And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
uh chairman and members of the board uh this uh variance is for a professional office
uh being used at the mr sanders pardon the interruption do you have any exhibits you can
share with us i do
Thank you.
Are you going to be able to see this? Thank you. Yes, no problem. So again, the
thing is for business and professional is being used at the bottom of street
level, a already existing duplex, which is a residential space,
But the variance is for, again, the office and the professional use portion of it.
As you can see, this is the street view from the property.
There is parking out front for residents and pass or go by or shoppers.
Roll down. We're all stuck between. There you go. That's better. Thank you.
Yes, no problem. This is the rear of the property.
So this will be parking for any tenant of the property.
So there's essentially two spaces immediately
behind the property.
This is additional parking.
So the first exhibit or the second exhibit
that you just saw, which is being shown here, this is two.
And then you cross the driveway, which is being shown here.
And then there's another two vehicles to potentially fit within this space also being a part of the property.
So this is parking for any potential tents and or showers.
This is trash removal being shown.
This is another view if you're looking down the street from the property, additional parking.
You also can kind of see the SEPTA bus depot, which will be providing public transportation for any shoppers and for tenants.
You also can kind of see the .
This is the view of the kitchen space within the property.
This is the front view looking toward the kitchen or toward the back of the property.
This is if you're in the kitchen looking back toward the front door to give you an idea.
This is some closet space.
Also the hallway.
this is one of the office rooms another one of the office rooms this is the
room within the property and this is the restaurant if you're looking like from
the front room looking straight into the restaurant you see another photo of the
restroom just so you can see um and yes that's it for the exhibits that i have
i'll turn it back over to you as the chairman thank you no problem questions from the board
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time mr chair thank you planning commission good morning david effecto city planning
commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential single
family use in the city's comprehensive plan while we do not believe that the applicant has proven
that a hardship exists there is an established history of a professional office in the basement
of this building accordingly we have no objection to granting this variance thank you um excuse me
this is sharon saletta also the um the rco and councilwoman parker um support this the only
concern was that the basement professional offices not be converted to retail use since that would
require another variance, it doesn't necessarily have to be added as a proviso.
Thank you. MI -2020 -0001595609 North Park Avenue. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
okay next one up is mi2020 -000970 -6164 walnut street
burn right is this burn yeah
Anastasio, you have been promoted to panelist. You may unmute your microphone.
Mr. Anastasio, you've already been sworn in.
Yes, sir.
Vern, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance copied the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to
this hearing? Yes, I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? I met with the RCO. I do
not have a letter. Thanks. You may proceed. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board again. I'm sharing my screen. I hope you can see it. Can you confirm? Yes. Okay, good. I just
wanted to get this out of the way since it was the subject of
the request for the continuance. This is the neighbor
notification of the RCO meeting being October 22, which was
last week. And here's the proof of mailing out certified 140
individual households were invited. And several didn't
attend by the way. So this is a large corner property. See
here there's a large corner property with three separate entrances two on the side and
And one in the front is proof of posting, by the way, and for the last several decades, it has been used as a commercial space in the front of the side and a single room residence has actually been the same owner the whole time, Mr. Walton.
one in the front there's proof of
And if you could see here, in 2003, there was, I'm sorry, even before that, 1961, there was a proviso for a beauty shop, and that's the front side entrance.
And since 1961, there's consistently been a commercial space in there.
Since 2003, in addition to the commercial space, it's been a single room residency.
And that was affirmed again, subsequent to 2003 as well. So the application is for commercial space on the first floor, and the commercial space would not be a beauty shop, would not be a high impact, we're asking for professional offices, and then the rest for the single room residents.
The proposed use for the professional office requires the variance, even though it's been
commercial since 1961. The proposed used single room residence requires a special exception,
which as you know is completely different analysis. I'd like to show you the plans first.
second okay so here is the first floor and the porch
and then here is the entrance
here's the entrance to the office is here
we've got another entrance the rear entrance which will be for laundry trash storage that's
the way the trash has always been removed from the commercial trash pickup from the independent space
Here's the, that's the, oh, excuse me, I'm going to zoom out again.
I'm having some computer issue here.
Here are additional photos, proof of posting, interior, again, there's the entrance to the commercial space, and then there's another entrance here, which is for the trash room and the laundry.
That's the back, there's another rear exit, there's the laundry room door, and this for
the trash room, so it obviously looks like it's been used for commercial for quite some
time. There is the tax clearance. Here's the deed. And as I said, there's the flyer.
As I said, it's the commercial space that requires the variance, nothing else. And as you can see,
here's evidence since 1961, it has been commercially used. The front space with the
separate entrance has always been the commercial space, which makes it, given its layout and its
corner locale, it makes sense. As I mentioned, the use of the property since 1961. With respect
to the single room residence which has been in existence for nearly 20 years is it's just a
continuance of that use for the last two decades operated and managed by the same owner
who continues to pledge to continue to use commercial trash pickup with the
specified space dedicated for trash continue to save install safe safety lighting and
always have strict noise enforcement as he has for the last two decades and over the course of
always have strict noise enforcement as he has for the last two decades.
the last two decades based on my research no 911 calls to the to the property and absolutely no
311 calls to the property folks who have lived there have lived there a long time and folks on
the block know these folks very well we met with the rco last week it went well didn't seem like
anybody had any objections but we await their letter which i hope will come soon and with that
um i'd like the owner to identify himself so i could get him on the record
mr wilson
Watson
Can I look for him right now
Mr. Watson
Watson I'm sorry yes
I see what you're talking about now
Thank you
Mr. Walton
You have been promoted to a
You have been promoted to a panelist
You may unmute your microphone
and make your statement please
he's having an assistant miss Adrian Wallace mr. Walters up up in age so she
should be there to assist him okay good deal we'll wait
okay mr walton's here thank you is mr walton able to speak yes he can
can you ask him to give us his full name spell his last name for us
give your full name and spell your last name that's an l yada gaha walton e l y a d a g a h
W -A -L -T -O -N.
Thank you, Mr. Walton.
Thank you.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Vernon?
Thank you.
Mr. Walton, did you hear my presentation to the board today with respect to the former commercial uses and the single room residents?
Thank you.
And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
yes good and do you adopt it as your own sworn testimony yes thank you sir mr chairman having
submitted testimony and evidence that the proposed use of single room residents will not be a
detriment to the health welfare safety of the community under the special exception analysis
the burden would shift to anyone who would object at this time and with respect to the
variants again since 1961 it has been historically a commercial space given its proximity on the
corner and its completely separate entrance we respectfully request the zoning relief and thank
you thank you any questions from the board no anyone else like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand at this time mr chair thank you planning commission good morning
david effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is indicated for residential single -family use in the city's comprehensive plan we believe that
the basement office may have less of an impact than the previously approved commercial use
and since the rooming house appears to be pre -existing we have no objection to granting
both the variance and the special exception for this property. Thank you. Sharon we're going to
close the record on this correct? No we can't close the record if we're still awaiting the
letter from the RCO and there's also the possibility that the councilwoman's office
will want to weigh in um jason advised me that the next available date is december 9th at 9 30.
um thank you mr anastasio will that date work for you we'll make it work thank you
december 9th at what time at 9 30. thank you okay mi -2020 -000970
6164 Walnut Street this hearing will be resumed on December the 9th at 9 30 a .m.
This hearing will be resumed on December the 9th at 9 .30 a .m., at which time we will consider any feedback related to the RCO and the Councilwoman's position.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor, I believe that wraps up the 9 .30?
That's correct.
Any unfinished business? Sharon?
No, that's it. Thank you.
Okay, see you all at 2 o 'clock.
Okie doke, Mr. Chair, thank you
Thank you, and we're going to wait, as I said
for Jason
and then we'll take it from there
and confessor, I don't know if you saw the list
got a lot of continuances
for the 2 o 'clock, alright?
I've got it
We'll do what we did this morning, I'll read them off
and we'll take it from there
so tanya had a tooth pulled she's fine okay thank you sharon i tried texting her but it keeps
kicking back
okay frank you may proceed sir thank you good afternoon everyone my name is frank
i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along
with our board secretary confessor plaza and board members mr thomas hollowman and mr james snell
board administrator jason hand and board attorney sharon saletta are also in attendance
for those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings i'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect first we will be administering oaths to individual
participants prior to their testimony second for the benefit of anyone participating by phone
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying
third we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded fourth for anyone participating by phone
if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute
yourself. I repeat for anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally to enter an appearance
statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property
at issue. I will repeat. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. With that said, we can begin. But before
we call the first case and we will announce continuances that have been requested and then
we will also ask if anyone at this time uh is requesting a continuance or withdrawal to please
raise your hand i'll go through the list first before you do that sir yes yeah sorry to uh
interrupt you but there's a miss draper who's um on lip reader she's asking if uh if you could
is asking if you could uh make sure your mouth is visible i will try my best all right thank you
hey so these are this i'm calling off a list of continuances mi 2020 dash zero zero zero
six seven three three three two wilde w -i -l -d -e -y street
MI -2020 -000012, 7158 Torsdale Avenue.
mi -20 excuse me mi -2020 -000143 -3676 indian queen lane
mi -2020 -000774 -3515. Oh, I'm sorry. Cancel that. Sorry.
MI -2020 -0011133751
1 -1 -1 -3, 3751 North Darien Street.
MI 2020 -000533 -3734 North 8th Street.
mi 2020 -000383 -2810 frankfurt avenue
mi -2020 -3 excuse me start again mi -2020 -000037
3 -1 -1 -4
Frankfurt Avenue
MI -2020 -000
Kensington Avenue
MI -2020 -000
Brandywine Street
MI -2020 -000458, 1010 Brandywine Street, MI -2020 -000185, 1609 South 8th Street.
If anyone disagrees with any of those cases that have been read off as being continued, please raise your hand.
Excuse me, Chair, this is Sharon Saleta.
If I could just note that 2774 Kensington Avenue is being continued attorney moving party.
Let me get that.
So noted.
uh let me get this one so mi -20 mi -2020 -000955 -2774 kensington avenue continued attorney
moving party does anyone object to any of the cases that have been read into the record as
being continued. If so, please raise your hand. Okay, Mr. Chair, we have a Mr. Benjamin
Cochero. He has his hand raised. I will promote him to panelists right now so he may make his
statement. Sir, would you please identify yourself by spelling your first and last name and provide
us with your address. Hello, my name is Dr. Ben Cochiaro. I'm actually a professor. I was recently
promoted. Congratulations. Thank you. I live at 1918 Oakdale, East Oakdale Street,
19125. Professor, would you please spell your full name for the record?
Oh, my apologies. My full name is spelled Benjamin, B -E -N -J -A -M -I -N, last name Cochiaro, C -O -C -C -H -I -A -R -O.
And you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
So help me God.
Thank you.
please proceed um i'm a physician a family physician uh who works uh both at prevention
point philadelphia as well as project home i practice family and addiction medicine
and i would like to speak on behalf of and in support of um the kensington storefront community
Hub? Pardon the interruption, Professor, but that case is being continued. I'm sorry. I'm not a
lawyer and unfamiliar with the term. That's okay. No, that case will be continued to another date.
You can speak to Mr. Jason Hand, and he'll give you the date of that continuance.
Very good. Thank you so much. Thank you for participating. Thank you. Anyone else have
any objection to any cases that have been read into the record as being continued?
Mr. Chair, Mr. Sean Whelan has his hand raised. I will promote him to panelists immediately, sir.
Mr. Whelan, you are now a panelist.
Sir, please provide us with your name. Spell your first and last name. Provide us with your address.
Sean, we can't hear you. We can't hear you, Sean.
We can't hear you, Sean.
Sean, you might want to log out and log back in.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can.
Please spell your first and last name.
Of course.
Sorry about that.
Sean, S -E -A -N, last name Whalen, W -H -A -L -E -N, Vintage Law.
I'm here as the attorney for 332 West Wildey Street.
This is M -I -2020 -000673.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Please proceed.
i am uncertain uh who requested the continuance uh but i know there's no basis for a continuance
in this matter i don't think i've read that one off sharon no this is sharon saleta no that is
listed first to be heard on the two o 'clock list yeah we didn't read that off to be continued
okay i just want to make sure i could have sworn i heard you say it on the continuance list i
apologize i did i apologize i think you know what you may be right i think now that i'm going back
i did sorry about that all right well then i'll wait my turn yep you'll be number one all right
anyone else out there who objects or has any comments regarding the continuance request
sharon are we ready yeah we're ready i don't see any further hands
sharon do i need to make any other announcements regarding third party
no um did you when you called them out if it was a third party request did we verify that the
attorney wasn't here. I didn't say it in those words, but I'm asking if there's anyone who has
any concerns regarding the request. I'm sorry. I'm in LURB hearings as well. So, but no, the,
you asked, and if no one objected, then I think you can go forward. The only objection was the
one I made the mistake on, which was Mr. Whelan. Okay. Other than that, I believe we have three
cases to go forward with so mr whalen yes forefront um three at two o 'clock and one at four
at 3 30 right there's only three on the two o 'clock list correct correct thank you uh
mr whalen you've already been sworn in confessor yes calendar number mi 2020 -000 673
332 Wobbly Street
Sean, you
swear on the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth
for nothing but the truth? Yes, I do
And do you agree to waive the reading of
its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with
the required documents, proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance, copy
of the refusal or referral, photos
and plans five days prior to this
hearing? Yes, I did
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
yes i do thanks you may proceed before you begin mr will and i just mr hand jason
is that lip is that lip reader still on because i just realized confessor was not
uh he's only verbally on or he's only on audio not visual i'm gonna uh let me uh find out real
quick over right back sir what was that frank there's a lip reader who was on earlier and
Jason asked that I make sure they can see my lips moving.
You're only on audio.
You're not on audio.
I don't know if she's still on or he or she's still on.
Let's wait and see.
In the meantime, excuse me, Chair.
We have Ms. Dorothy Hamill, Attorney Dorothy Hamill in the waiting room.
and she has said that she did not request a continuance
on 3114 Frankfurt Avenue.
If we could call that again,
it is MI 2020 -000037 -3114 -Frankfurt Avenue.
I have it.
Sorry, Mr. Whalen.
We're just waiting to see if the person who's the lip reader is still on.
No worries.
We want to make sure everyone has access.
It's like you're trying to freeze the kicker
It's like you're trying to freeze the kicker in the big game.
in the big game.
Mr. Chair, I don't believe Ms. Draper,
Ms. Pamela Draper is available anymore.
Okay, okay, thank you.
All right, please proceed, Mr. Whelan.
All right, thank you very much,
Chairman and members of the board.
So as I was stating before,
I'm the attorney for 332 West Wildey Street.
This, I will share my screen.
and hopefully now i can't see what you guys see so just to make sure you see a rendering right now
yeah we see it okay so uh this project is to propose uh the erection of two new
attached houses at the corner of west wilde street which is here and north oriana street
As you can see, and as we'll get into more with the architect, you know, this is meant to be two very stately homes, you know, vying for the front cover of Architectural Digest, not your standard slapdash homes.
I'm just sitting here saying the same thing to myself.
So, this is, and I don't think the refusal is incorrect. It lists only 332 West Wildey Street.
However, this is part and parcel of two, actually three parcels. Hopefully now you can see it. This
is 332 west willie street that's the address that the appeal ended up getting listed at
this is 948 north oriana street and this is 950 north oriana street this proposal first and
foremost will consolidate all three lots into one lot and then subdivide it into two separate
basically square lots, as you can see here. Currently, the three lots are vacant side
and or rear yard properties, and they have been sold off by that adjacent neighbor
specifically for development and development of this kind of architectural notoriety.
we have three refusals which i will get into in more depth later one for front loading parking
which is not allowed in northern liberties one for rear yard depth where none is proposed and
seven feet is required and one for max building height where the original proposal was for 43
feet three and three quarters inches and the 38 foot is the maximum
to begin we met with an lna we had numerous meetings and phone calls with them
it was very productive and positive and you'll hear going forward how this this process really
improved the project and we made some significant concessions to to get the approval there was
no opposition stated at the public meeting. Everyone is resoundingly in favor of it. And
then we received an eight to one vote at the NLNA board meeting. So what you'll see here and
what we'll talk about again more with the architect, and I do, sorry to belabor this
little bit more than i might usually but i understand there may be an individual neighbor
who is may or may not be represented in opposition today so i'm gonna go through a little bit more
didactically all right so here is the the three consolidated parcels right here you can see this
is North Oriana Street, right off North 3rd Street, and here's West Wildey. So we would have
one house at the corner and one house at this edge, both of them fronting onto West Wildey.
This entire area is designated RSA 5, attached single family. We are presenting
to attach single -family homes. So there is no question as to appropriateness of what we're
putting there. And in fact, as you can see here, the three parcels laid out,
I would posit that if we actually proceeded to develop the three parcels, each individually,
as they are currently designated, we would end up with more refusals than we have now.
uh designated we would end up with more refusals than we have now with just the three uh before you
today um so what we agreed to do with well let me give you some context first uh this is the parcel
right here um you can see there's a huge street tree there uh it goes back this way this is west
Wildey Street, and this is North Oriana Street. So this is immediately to the right of where
the photograph is taken is the property. This is a condo development right here,
and this is looking south along North Oriana Street.
all right so here is the condo development you can see what was originally just multiple row
houses in a row fronting along north oriana street this is 944 north oriana street they
have reoriented these row homes into a courtyard condo this is significant because this rear wall
now is what would be the traditional side party wall of a front -facing row home along with our
row home. So this wall is on the party line. There are no windows on that line. And so the
seven -foot rear setback would actually go right there and would not benefit their light and air,
which is you know as as this board understands the the primary benefit and reason behind a rear
yard setback is to protect the light and air of your rear neighbors so there's really no negativity
or negative impact rather with regard to our not proposing a rear yard setback
this is the project right across the street on north oriana street just showing additional
front loading parking both without a garage and with a garage this is a common condition
throughout the neighborhood here is again the shows kind of the length of our property
going down and the vacant nature of it.
This is a brand new construction, maybe three or four years old, along with multiple houses.
This is looking northeast across the intersection with our property right behind.
And again, here's looking north along North Oriana.
our property is just to the left here just a couple more to give context again
more front -loading parking here a double park car parking
and here is West Wildey Street again here's our property and this is all new construction here
that was built with a variance including front -loading parking immediately across from our
site. And again, just a closer up shot of that front -loaded parking.
No parking on your site, correct?
Terrific question. We are proposing front -loading parking.
I meant there's no on -street parking on that site, correct?
Correct. There is actually, there is in fact, I apologize for missing that.
There is no parking along the south side of Wildey right here, and there's also no street parking, no street parking, that is, and there's also no street parking along the western side of Oriana.
So as I'll walk through with the architect, there's going to be a curb cut here proposed and a curb cut here proposed for the two houses, and that will be a reduction of zero on -street parking spaces because there's no parking on either side of those streets.
and one thing we did was we were proposing approximately 17 and a half foot wide
curb cuts for double wide parking access in working with nlna we agreed to reduce that down
to a 12 foot curb cut so that it impacts positively the the pedestrian walkability
and bikeability of the area because you have less curb cut impacting
The other changes we made, which we'll work with, we reduced the overall height by more than two feet, down to 41 feet in connection with the NLNA.
And we also set back the roof decks eight feet from both the West Wilde street frontage and
uh eight feet from both the west wilde street frontage and the north oriana street frontage
in order to um you know limit any impact there so let me this ought to be the plans um
so again here's the current condition and here's what we're proposing uh that's the center property
line, you would have one house here, which would be fronting along West Wildey, and one house here
fronting along West Wildey. The curb cut, you can see here, limited to 12 feet right in there for
this parking, and limited to 12 feet off of North Oriana as well.
I kind of messed up the Zoom here.
At this point in time,
in order to walk through the project plans,
I'd like to introduce my architect.
Adam Montalbano should be available.
Chair, I'm promoting Mr. Montalbano
to panelists at this time.
Mr. Montalbano, you have been promoted to a panelist.
You may unmute your microphone
and give your testimony, please.
sir please identify yourself with the record spell your first and last name
and i'll swear you in uh yes hi my name is adam montalbano my uh spelling is a -d -a -m last name
m -o -n -t -a -l -b -a -n -o thank you so we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes please proceed mr whalen hello mr montabano uh you are the registrar architect
for this project? Yes. Please, the board, I'm happy to go through with Mr. Montabano his
extensive credentials, but I'm also happy to stipulate if the board will accept him as an
expert. Please stipulate to your architect as being an expert. And is your intention, Mr. Whalen,
to walk us through all this? Or I'm just wondering, it might be easier if we have any questions from
the board uh i i will have uh adam just describe the project uh briefly and then we'll ask for any
questions thank you um and then there's just one diagram i will be walking through with him
um so mr montalbano uh you see here what you've designed um the board if you could just give a
brief synopsis of what your your overall thought and plan was here uh sure just uh in brief uh as
as you mentioned, Sean, that these homes are two signature style designs for the Northern
Liberties neighborhood. One is a corner facing property and one is more of an infill condition,
but the owner tasked us with developing a project that would have a significant,
you know, sort of lasting design on the neighborhood in the community,
um specifically northern liberties being a progressive uh and uh influential um architectural
neighborhood um and that this was uh something that um uh seemed uh considerable and appropriate
there um as uh mr willin mentioned uh we presented the board or presented the project to the northern
Liberties Neighborhood Association. It was met with a very good response. The design features
large windows along the north and the east facades, both street -facing facades.
In the floor plans, yeah, you can go back just one page, Sean. Great, thanks. In the floor plans,
And you can see the ground floor has the parking, which has been reduced from a two -car garage
to a one -car garage at the request of the Neighborhood Association.
The project itself is built essentially slab on grade due to certain soil conditions that
are in this location.
And that pushes the general planning of the house up a floor.
So we have the main living space on the second floor and then additional bedroom space on
the third and fourth floor the building has roof decks which again have been set back at the request
of neighborhood association they were at the standard five foot setback along both
Oriana and Wilde we've reduced that size to be eight feet to be respectful to you know concerns
about sightline or you know anything that the neighborhood had again that was at their request
one other mention is that the pilot house design on this project is as small as we
uh as small as we could possibly make it uh the pilot house itself the roof deck access structure
could possibly make it the pilot house itself the roof deck
is only there to uh enclose the elevator and in a small uh sort of lobby space just to uh weather
protect that door the uh the stairs uh themselves are open uh and that was intentionally done as
well to just make that as small as possible to be as unobstructive to anybody's views as as possible
And Mr. Montalbano, just to help this along, I'm showing the last page here, which has
the sight lines of an individual standing across the street.
And as you've indicated, there's no ability of an individual on the street level to see
any of the roof deck activities or the pilot house in this location, correct?
That's correct.
And that's what this drawing specifically indicates.
It shows the width of Wildey and both Oriana at the city plan widths and shows a simple
line diagram just to indicate that anything above the main cornice line would not be visible from
the street. Okay. All right. At this time, I'm just going to walk you through one diagram that
I asked you to prepare for us. And if you could just give a description of what this document is
and its importance uh sure this this document is uh just a diagram uh across willie street
uh with respect to and sean you can fill in on the address i apologize i i don't uh remember that on
the top of my head um sure so i'll jump i'll jump in mr montalbano to get some context and you can
fill in where i missed so uh board members what you can see here is an atlas image satellite view of
an overlay of our two properties here. That's the center line. This dark gray here is what
would be the roof decks. And what we wanted to provide in this lower diagram schematic
is any indication and the extent to which we attempted to prevent sight line issues with
other homes. Obviously, anytime somebody has a new home being built, sight lines are going
to change um but here uh specifically uh 331 west wilde uh would look uh southernly and look
directly at sort of the the far western edge of this uh this property this one would be i think
332 and this one will be listed as 330 i believe when we get new property addresses um so mr
Montabano, could you describe what the diagram on the left shows? The diagram on the left just shows
essentially a comparison of a by -right typical standard row home at 38 feet with a 42 -inch
parapet wall around the perimeter, which is fairly standard, you know, by -right construction
in the city, basically just showing both of those roof surfaces being in line with each other
across Willoughby Street. Right, and so as you said that the, and as we discussed, we're getting
into one of the refusals here. We had a roof line of 43 feet, three and three quarters inches,
and we've reduced that down to 41 feet in coordination with the neighborhood,
but our 41 feet, we have no parapet, is that correct? That's correct. The design of these
homes was intentionally not to have a parapet to minimize the the overall mass and and while on
paper a building maybe 38 feet once you actually see the parapet on there which could be at least
42 inches in some cases higher depending on where the roof deck is set that parapet can be quite
high so the intent here was to actually have the roof deck be the roof surface and to minimize any
parapet obstruction as much as possible, specifically on this project by having an
open railing and setting it further back. And we actually agreed with the neighborhood to
make the railing no longer open, but actually make it more opaque, actually 75%, correct?
That's correct. We initially had a completely open, transparent railing. It was actually at
the request of the Neighborhood Association to make the railing more opaque, which seems
counterintuitive to building massing and having it be as minimal and invisible as possible. But
it was something we accommodated at their request. Okay. So right now we have a 41 foot overall
height, which is also going to be the height of our roof deck, as you stated. And what is allowed
by right, if you had a 38 foot height by right, how high off of that could you build your roof deck
by right? You're allowed an additional 40 feet, I'm sorry, four feet above the
You're allowed an additional 40 feet, I'm sorry, four feet above the roof structure,
according to the zoning code 14 -6045B.
You're allowed at four feet above the actual structure surface of 38.
So that would put the surface of the roof deck at a maximum of 42 feet.
That roof deck then could certainly have a parapet or some kind of solid railing,
um certainly up to 42 inches high so that that could put a by right building with a roof deck
with a general mass of approximately 45 foot six inches okay so now looking at the the view angle
on the right hand side this is showing our proposed building and uh this is actually 331
west will do across the street uh what is the distance between the two uh roof decks
it's a little small on this but I believe it's close to 50 feet it's about 48 foot seven I
believe it is if I can see yeah I have it zoomed up on mine so yes I'm wearing my glasses too so
so at this at this distance with these sight lines do you in your expert opinion see any
demonstrable uh impact of the slightly higher overall roof height on our proposed building
as to what could be done by right no and and and frankly i think they're they're really very
similar and in some cases as just mentioned the by right it could potentially be even higher than
this so i think at a distance of 50 feet there's really minimal minimal difference in sightliner
view if anything at all all right thank you very much mr montobano that's all i have for you at
this moment. Sure, thank you. So to finish up for the board, you know, we've walked through most of
the issues. We have three refusals, one of which being front -loading parking. That is a condition
throughout the neighborhood. We actually believe it's beneficial to the neighborhood because it
is removing cars that would otherwise go on the street, and it is also not removing any
currently accessible street parking spots we also walked through already the so the rear property
line that we were talking about is actually if you're looking at it here this would be the rear
property line so we will have a back deck here but again that wall that we were showing is a solid
wall on the property line that can't have any windows so the only impact of light and air
is to ourselves in our own project and therefore negligible and then finally we just walked through
in maybe too much detail the refusal with regard to height we did lessen it per the requirements
and the requests of NLNA, I think quite reasonably, they wanted it a little bit reduced.
We came down below what is otherwise allowed by Wright, so I would argue that it is
negligible height difference and or de minimis. And not insignificantly, everyone in the city
knows all of the issues going on with underpinning and the safety concerns. One of the items that
the owner was considering in doing this is if in order to be by right on height at 38 feet which
would really only be another three feet we'd have to dig down a basement and put the parking
underground that puts a ramp which carves up the pedestrian walkway and it also would require
underpinning the entirety of that condo development at 944 North Oriana Street which
just seems like a risk not worth taking weighed in light of a three -foot increase in height,
which, again, we would argue is de minimis and or negligible.
So at this point, I'll rest for now. I would just ask, Mr. Montalbano, did you hear all of
the testimony that I provided today? Yes, I did. And in addition to your own testimony,
obviously, was my testimony true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes.
and would you adopt it as your own yes thank you well how many pages revised plan
the revised plan is four pages thank you questions from sorry chairman i cut you off i was just going
to ask if the board had any questions for mr montalbano no no questions no anyone else who
would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand and i'll swear you in
Mr. DeChico just very quick our chairman DeChico just very quickly I'd like to introduce Steve
Rodriguez on behalf of the ownership group please bring him on Mr. Rodriguez when you get on
Mr. Rodriguez, when you get on, please spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in.
please spell your first and last name
Hold on a second, Mr. Malekki, you're looking, uh,
Mr. Rodriguez, hold on a second.
mr rodriguez you have been uh promoted to panelist
amy i'll mute your microphone and let the chairman sway you in
hello my name is stephen rodriguez uh spelled s -t -e -p -h -e -n -r -o -d -r -i -g -u -e -z
and i'm going to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Mr. Rodriguez, you're here on behalf of the owner today?
And you are the owner and the applicant, I should say, correct?
Correct. I'm the managing member of the applicant.
All right. And you heard all of the testimony that I presented today?
And was it true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
And would you adopt it as your own?
uh finally is there anything else that you think i might have missed that you would like to add
no i think you covered it pretty thoroughly um i think adam did a great job as well
all right thank you very much uh chairman uh i offer mr rodriguez for any questioning that
the board might have questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand yes chair we have two hands raised
alexander you can now unmute yourself in alexander please identify yourself with
a record name and address spell your name for us please
you have to unmute yourself
you need to unmute yourself
apologies for that
please spell your full name
and spell it it's uh it's a l e x a n d e r m e l e c k i and your address it's 331 west
willie street that's right you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
yes sir so does that barking dog in the background no problem please proceed perfect uh so so thank
you for thank you for the time and I I've actually submitted a bit more robust argument so I'm happy
to walk through any points of that which the board has questions on but but at this point as a as a
future neighbor of the development I'm actually the occupant of along with my wife of 331 West
Bloody Street, which is the house that was reviewed in such detail with regard to the
sight lines in the last section of the prior presentation, wanted to voice objection to
the roof height -related variance on a few grounds. First, I think, as we've heard through the
testimony, the desire for a 41 -foot roof height is reliant on the notion that the variance is
de minimis. I think, you know, based on my understanding of common law in Pennsylvania,
this is meant to be an extraordinarily rare exception that should be approved, and not just
approved due to the fact that there's been a design choice by the architect that drives the
desire to build a tall house or the tallest house on the block. So I think it's worth
registering that there are no hardships that are contributing to the high inflated variants
and that this is, in fact, a request for a diminuous variance, which, again, my sense
is from Pennsylvania common law should be seen as quite rare. So maybe I'll dive into
why I don't think this variance is in fact a minimus in just a moment. But before doing so,
wanted to touch on the fact that we had reviewed just now, Mr. Whale and Mr. Montalbano had
reviewed a diagram of what the, I guess what I should presume a stick figure standing on my
A stick figure standing on my my rooftop would look like looking across the street at the at a 41 foot rooftop.
rooftop would look like looking across the street.
Actually, after after corresponding with Mr. Whelan, I've been promised I've been promised a diagram like this on, I believe, October 1st and had followed up a number of times asking for it and received it this morning.
And in fact, the diagram is not accurate. It shows my rooftop with a setback of 10 feet, which is inaccurate.
I provided information that my rooftop has a setback of five feet.
And so at a minimum, I think it would have been, at a minimum, I would say that it should be a requirement for neighborhood residents to be able to receive timely responses and help understanding what the design will look like.
and also to receive accurate drawings
before we go ahead and approve
any sort of major construction projects
in variance to the local code.
But I think relative to the height of the dust.
Mr. Malika, I need to interrupt.
Were you in attendance at any of the RCO meetings?
I was able to join the first one,
but I was not aware of the second one.
I have corresponded back and forth with,
or I had a phone call with Mr. Whalen on October 1st to voice my opposition and then followed up
the email a number of times, only receiving one response in that process and then one email this
morning. So I don't mean this to be critical. So you did not attend the second meeting where I'm
assuming, Mr. Whalen can correct me, where the modifications that took place or were agreed to.
Let me one at a time, please. So you're not aware of those until today. Is that what you're saying?
So I am I am aware that they reduced the proposed height based on feedback from the zoning board.
I am not a member of the Northern Liberty Zoning Board and so did not have a voting matter in the same.
But I did not join the I did not join that meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I think I can clear this up for you pretty easily. I'm not sure if a member from the NLNA board is here to present and support their letter. There was one public meeting that was duly noticed.
Mr. Malaki was in attendance at that meeting. All the issues were raised. What is presented now was presented. The original project was presented. The NLNA process is then that it takes that public meeting and gives it to its board.
and and the board members themselves have a private meeting that is not public
so that might be the second meeting that you were wondering i was not in attendance at that either
okay um they had that then they voted on their own 8 -1 that's the uh revisions that were made
mr malucky was aware aware of the revisions and had been provided those uh he is talking about
the site diagram uh which i walked through montalbano that he did not receive until today
that was a new document that had to be created obviously this is as you know not something you
usually see for a zoning board matter so we actually went above and beyond to even produce
something like this but that that is what mr malaki is referring to thank you all right mr
malaki malaki i'm sorry all right if you can summarize that would be helpful yeah sure i mean
My summary is that, you know, setting aside the Northern Liberty Zoning Board, I think there are a number of neighbors in the immediate vicinity, as evidenced by the petition I submitted via email, that reject or do not believe that the height -related variance is de minimis.
the petition has eight signatures on it. Additionally, I believe there's at least one
other neighbor who has joined to oppose the height -related variance and does not believe
that it's de minimis. And in some, I mean, this is a very narrow exception to the law where
variance should be driven by hardship. And because of that, I think we would ask that the zoning
board to get the variance under the de minimis doctrine. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may,
I'd like to ask Mr. Malucki a few questions. Please do. I will be very brief. Mr. Malucki,
you said you own 331 West Wildey Street, correct? I do. And when did you purchase that?
uh august of 2019 2019 okay um and that was new construction when you purchased it
2019 okay um and that was new construction when you purchased it it was all right and that faces
south towards center city correct yes um and that property was uh uh which one called that
property was built pursuant to a variance correct wait uh i i don't have any knowledge of that so
i'd rather not answer okay uh mr chairman i i have planning plans and the variants uh they
were submitted as part of my packet i don't want to belabor the point but uh at a minimum it needed
a variance for um front loading parking and there are other issues that you know we can get public
record that it is it's already been submitted as part of the record thank you anyone else who would
like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand. Mr. Chairman, I have a few more
questions. I'm sorry. I'm going to be as fast as possible. But Mr. Malecki, regardless of whether
you're aware of any variants or whatnot, you do have front -loaded parking, right? Basically,
you drive off the street. Yeah, of course. Okay. And you have a roof deck? Yes, we do have a roof
deck that's why we are opposing a roof deck being built higher looking down on our roof
and uh your roof deck also faces south towards center city right our roof deck has a 360 degree
view so i wouldn't say that it faces any one direction okay how how high is your roof deck
relative to other roof decks around you in the adjacent uh houses so our our roof deck is higher
than either of the roof decks on either side but our roof just just to note our rooftop is 38 feet
tall 38 feet tall with a parapet built 48 inches from the center uh height of the rooftop the
midpoint height which is in line with code uh you you cut off there but i think basically it was
so we have a 38 foot roof deck which is the tallest roof deck in the immediate vicinity
but it is in line with code. And we have a parapet that extends 48 inches above the
midpoint of our rooftop. Okay. I would just like to point out that 48 inches is too high
of a parapet by code. But do you have any obstructions of your southern view at this
time? I mean, you can see it. The houses are going to obstruct their view regardless, but
you can see the building right over there. I mean, I don't really know how to answer that.
I can't see forever to the south. That's fair. I think you answered it.
So what is it about the height that you object to, Mr. Mulliken?
what's that what is it about the height that you object to yeah can you hear me so stand
standing on the roof deck uh and looking across the street um we will be looking up at our
neighbors who are looking down on us and so right now uh the way that our house is positioned if the
roof were to be and so so again on this diagram uh our roof deck is actually only five feet
removed from the street not not the 10 feet indicated but on this diagram if our uh if our
neighbors had a deck that was also 38 feet tall uh similar to our deck then uh when everyone was
seated there there would be no no ability to to look over um and see what we were doing uh look
into our gatherings at our house right now uh with the deck being built uh higher than 30 feet
built up to 41 feet um the angles are such that uh neighbors would be able to look into our roof
deck from above um and so uh and again if uh if they built uh an apartments or a deck on top of
that it could go even higher um so so i think the argument was stated that i just need to you know
we're spending almost an hour on this case and i'm not suggesting i'm not suggesting that it's
not important to any either side but i we hear this a lot we live in a row house neighborhood
houses are stacked against each other there's always the potential that someone can see either
in your window or in your yard there's no space so if someone were to build a high rise a block
away they can be looking down in two blocks away three blocks away they might be looking down into
your your your roof deck as well and again i'm not suggesting that you know that life's going
to change a little bit, but I don't see it as that big of a deal because we live in a row house
neighborhood. But I think we would suggest that based on the fact that there's no real
that based on the based on the fact that uh there's no real reason for the this building
to be built taller than 38 feet just rather than essentially only only by design choice
i think i can sum this up yeah i think we've gone over that a number of times please
so uh mr i understand your concerns um i i just want to clarify one thing and then i have one
final question for you. So your original roof deck setback was feet seven inches per the approved
plans as what I pulled. Did you change and add additional roof deck tiles to make it a five
foot setback? I'm unclear. I don't have any knowledge of the plan. So were you involved
in adding this is relevant this is relevant i i just want to find out if you did that in as
permitted work or not understood understood let's not i'd rather not go down that road if we don't
have to all right chairman i have one last question and i think this will clarify everything
for you uh mr malecki if i were to offer you uh privacy screening above the we're allowed by code
to add a privacy screening above our railing along the frontage that the West Wilde frontage
that you would be able to see for the 332 West Wilde Street house? Would that assuage your
concerns if there was a privacy screening so that nobody could see over that into where your house
is? I don't think I can answer that without being able to review the designs in more detail.
Again, I was only provided with the mock -up as of this morning after discussing it on October 1st.
So it's very difficult for me to be put on the spot like that and be asked to agree to something like this in a hearing.
I will just be up front. There is nothing in the view diagram that shows any kind of privacy screening.
All I'm offering, Mr. Chairman, is an additional privacy screening, which would be basically 100 % opaque at the railing line.
and would take care of any visual sight issues that Mr. Malaki might have at his property.
I have no further questions.
Thank you.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
And we're going to have to limit the testimony between two and three minutes.
We have other cases.
Yes, Mr. Rubin, you have now been promoted.
You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Thank you.
Hello?
Can you hear me?
Yes, who is it?
This is Matt Rubin.
Oh, Mr. Rubin.
Okay, please identify yourself.
Name and address.
Matt Rubin, M -A -T -T -R -U -B -E -N.
And on some written city documents,
my first name is my full name, Matthew, M -A -T -T -H -E -W.
Thank you.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Rubin.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board, applicant, the attorney.
And I want to be clear that I am a board member
of the northern liberties and neighbors association i am not here in my board capacity i am here in my
capacity as an individual resident who lives at 1000 north oriana street which is next door to
the 331 west will de property where mr malecki lives and across west will de street from the
proposed uh project um and i will do my absolute best to keep this brief and i will also do my best
not to repeat what has just been discussed as best i can thank you of course i'll do my best
first off um i am here to express concerns about this project i will say right off the bat i
appreciate the architectural inventiveness and the appearance in the renderings that has been
designed by the architect and i would be much more comfortable with this if the materials and
the windows and the facade were things that could easily be enforced by the ZBA and by LNI,
which we all know they cannot. And so I'm just unable to take their word for it at that and
overlook anything else simply because of that. And so here are my concerns. My concerns are
they have lots that are a little over 1 ,350 feet. They have made a decision instead of orienting
them more conventionally as two 20 and a half foot wide by approximately 65 or 66 foot deep
lots to build, as you said, Mr. Chairman, row houses like we have in Philadelphia.
They've decided to turn the houses the other way for approximately 33 by 41 foot lots.
Now, normally it's not my business how you orient your lot, but when the way you orient
your lot creates conditions where you're seeking variances, then it becomes all of our business.
and so they oriented the lots a certain way which apparently relieves them of a
And so they oriented the lots a certain way, which apparently relieves them of a open space requirement. But then on that basis, they're saying they don't need a seven foot setback. And I would like to point out that a seven foot setback would require them in this lots to have approximately 17 % open space.
And by not having a seven -foot setback, they have 0 % open space.
And the concern that was raised by Mr. Whalen about the difficulty of underpinning if they created basements, underpinning is only an issue if you don't have the seven -foot setback.
If you abided by code and having the seven -foot setback, you wouldn't have an underpinning concern.
So my concern is that the height of these buildings, along with the massing, these are 4 ,500 square foot finished internal living space buildings based on what was said at the RCO meeting.
They originally had double garages, so they had 4 ,100 approximately square foot of space.
When they went down to single garages, they did not take the opportunity to keep the living space at 41 and redesign the houses to be slightly smaller.
They just tacked on another 400 square feet of living space.
They will not consider digging partial basements.
They wouldn't even have to have total basements in order to go down to permitted height.
They've made a claim of soil conditions, and I have heard nothing from the attorney or the architect of what those are, with the exception that on a nearby lot, there are old growth trees and they have concerns about root system.
This is a high elevation.
This is not a flood risk.
And as the board fully well knows, people dig partial basements all the time in all kinds of condition in Philadelphia in new construction.
And so my concern is not with the design.
My concern is not that they want to build large houses.
My concern is that they have created a situation where they need variances, and the amount of massing and square footage and height are being created by their lack of willingness to do very normal things like make even a partial basement or orient the houses in a more conventional way.
And finally, as per the roof decks, number one, these are enormous roof decks. And I am concerned as a neighbor, not because I understand we have roof decks in Philly, and they're going to look down on me no matter what. But when you have zero open space, you have no conventional yard, you force all the sunlight, daytime, and other kinds of outdoor activity up onto those roof decks, which makes them a much higher stakes proposition for the nearby neighbors.
And at a 41 -foot starting point, they are exposing people on all four sides to all of that potential activity.
The last thing I would note is a detail, which is I appreciate the increased eight -foot setback of the roof decks, but unless I'm reading the drawing wrong, and this hearing is the first time I'm seeing a revised drawing in this regard, it looks like the stairway access to the roof deck, with some decking surrounding that stairway access, is nowhere near eight -foot setback from Wildey Street.
and in my understanding that is not what was asked for. I would like a uniform at the minimum
eight foot setback as they said they agreed to and unless I'm misreading the drawing and I'm
happy to be corrected the stairway access up to those roof decks is considerable and it goes way
less than an eight foot setback from that we'll decide. So my concerns are about the height and
massing overall as a result of their choices which they are then claiming give them hardship
that they themselves have created, and more specifically about that roof deck setback.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and the committee, and I'm happy to take any questions
from the board or from Mr. Whalen.
Ruben, I know you in a very long time, and I know your work in the Northern Liberties
community.
Are you suggesting that there might be some opportunities
uh if the if you were to continue to have a dialogue with the developer and its architect
about some of the issues that you raised yes yes mr chairman that's exactly what i'm suggesting
and and with respect to the applicant i appreciate the design thoughtfulness and i do have to echo
what mr malecki said this roof deck issue is coming up at this hearing because this is literally
the first moment i have seen this and to my knowledge i don't know if anyone else saw the
particular resolution they're proposing on that roof deck which as i noted to my eye does not
conform in my opinion to the spirit and letter of what we thought they agreed to in that regard so
that is an example of why i think dialogue would certainly be helpful thank you mr chairman thank
you um mr chairman you might imagine i have a couple of questions here uh i know but i'm just
very very quickly i'm happy to answer um mr rubin uh we obviously met uh throughout this project
um mr rubin uh we we obviously met uh throughout this project correct we did and you appeared at
the rco meeting yes and i did uh the public one and i i understand you also uh appeared as a board
member at the nlna uh board meeting correct yes and nlna board meetings are also public they're
just rarely attended by people because they're not usually very interesting okay fair enough i i was
told that it was not a public vote, but I'm not quibbling over that. And in fact, Mr. Rubin,
you and I personally had multiple phone calls with regard to this project, correct? Yeah,
I believe we had at least two. Okay. And in fact, the eight foot setback of the roof deck
was actually your idea to quote cure what the issues were with neighborhood visibility and
over large roof decks correct um i don't know why you're putting the word cure in quotation marks
because i don't recall saying that but yes the eight foot the increase the increased setback
was indeed my idea um as was the um some kind of solid um uh paneling as opposed to purely open
fencing around the roof deck because of the increased visibility of what an open fencing
would be so i was not thrilled about increasing to the appearance of mass but trying to anticipate
mitigate what at the time were something like 750 foot square feet roof decks that could be a
potential nuisance that we would all be living with for decades. Understood. But so you would
agree with me that we actually adopted and incorporated your personal comments that you
made with regard to this project. I would agree that you stated agreement with them, but I would
not agree necessarily that you incorporated them because I had no opportunity to see revised
drawings until just now. And as I noted, I'm not convinced that the revised drawings reflect what
I thought the agreement was. I would simply agree to disagree, but won't belabor the point.
Mr. Rubin, you actually built 331 West Wildey and 1000 North Oriana Street, correct?
Yes, I did have them built.
You had those built, and now one is your home and one is Mr. Malecki's home?
That is correct.
okay um and would you agree that at the rco meeting you made no statements in opposition to
this project well as you might know mr whalen um the way the nlna's rco meetings go is that
the applicant proposes and makes a presentation and the committee and neighbors ask questions
and then the applicant and anyone associated with them is asked to leave the meeting and
then there is further discussion and a motion made by the zoning committee so um i would agree
with your characterization of the portion of the meeting that you were present at but i would not
agree with that as a characterization of the entire meeting nor by the way would i agree that
quote resoundingly in favor accurately characterizes the full meeting including
the part that you were admittedly not present for obviously i wasn't there mr chairman i'm i'm happy
to uh to conclude with mr rubin now and and describe from a legal standpoint why you want
of variance. I would press for a vote at this time because, frankly, I believe this is a little
bit sandbagging by Mr. Rubin, who had numerous phone calls with me personally, numerous emails
that I can produce and provide with the board. The plans, the revised plans were submitted
admittedly through Larry Friedman, the president of NLNA, well in advance of this hearing.
There's simply no basis for any kind of a continuance or further discussions, I think, at this point.
I think we've met all of the concerns and considerations of the neighborhood and the RCO, and now at the last minute, we're getting told that they want something different individually than we were told all along.
This has been months in advance.
thing that we vote on this as opposed to continuing it and any further dialogue with
with the community uh i i believe at this point uh frankly i'm trying to get my um
i'm trying to get my client on the phone to make sure he agrees with me
uh but i would suggest that we've gone over and above to meet with the rco provide them revised
plans. We then, after actually providing the documents directly to Mr. Rubin in advance,
meeting with him via phone directly in advance, then proceeded to the RCO meeting,
then had everything going forward. I mean, I can't tell you the number of phone calls I've had
between Mr. Friedman and Mr. Rubin. Well, that happens. I mean, when people are concerned about
things i mean that's not unusual that's what that's what the process is and uh the dialogue
uh the dialogue between the applicant and the nearby community that's why there's a zoning
between the applicant and the nearby community that's why
board to listen to all the stuff that you guys talk about and hopefully come up with it to make
a decision uh on what we think is the best uh for the community at large but again i i just i mean
i'm not forcing you i'm not suggesting anything but uh i still hear i heard what you're saying
that there's been numerous conversations back and forth but apparently there still was that piece
about some of the revised plans that we spoke about you spoke about today uh there's a claim
by mr rubin and mr malecki that uh these this revised plan has not yet been they had not seen
it until today i believe or this morning so again did you get your client on the phone because
we're well over an hour and again you know we don't like to rush things but no i i certainly
understand uh to be fair chairman my client says look what you know we've delayed this already to
meet the uh nlna meetings uh they had a meeting at the end of you know we have that year -end
deadline for the tax abatement that we've got to push forward on it would get a hearing before the
end of the year we're well on what i am personally well aware that 10 -year tax i'm okay with voting
now because we don't okay okay this has been over a year and while we would get a hearing before i'm
not sure who's talking i'm sorry that that's uh that's my client mr rodriguez all right so let's
let's let's move on then okay all right any questions from the board yes frank i just have
one no i i have one question frank please was there refusal for open space did you have a
refusal for open space no no no to to to be clear and i appreciate uh mr holliman that you you raise
that um just to be clear and to make sure that everyone can see it i'll throw it up on the screen
we had three refusals hopefully you can see it all one is max building height which we reduced
in accordance with the request of nlna and mr rubin specifically so you know concerns about
height are are very surprising to me at this time rear yard depth seven feet this has not changed
This is the same in the original plans as presented, as always seen.
This has not changed at all.
And then the third refusal we got was for front -loaded parking, which nobody has any
issues with, and we actually reduced the overall demand there from larger curb cuts
to single smaller curb cuts.
and i would i would simply like to point out you know obviously i i won't belabor this but
i believe we've met the marshall test for you know a variance uh we've discussed the unique
hardship of this property that there's no adverse impact on public health safety welfare i think
everyone agrees uh that this is also the least minimum variance test that we've requested
is met as we've even further reduced our requests. And notably, I think Mr. Rubin raised this,
but I would point out that hardship is not self -created. In fact, there's no adverse
inference allowed when an applicant knows its intended use of a property would be restricted
by the code at the time that it purchases the property or moves forward. That's a Commonwealth
health court case from 2002. And so on that basis, I think we've legally met all the requirements.
Again, we've met with everyone. What you're hearing now are just general concerns
at large, as opposed to any direct impact on either of the individual neighbors.
And therefore, I think they do not warrant the refusal of this variance request.
Thank you. And I appreciate the time today.
we have one more hand chair uh we're going to move for our planning commission
uh chair this is peter bernard for the planning commission
are you swearing the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do by the way my name is spelled p -e -t -e -r -b -a -r -n -a -r -d
these properties are indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
we feel there is no hardship to vacant land and that the proposed use could be done as of right
if redesigned accordingly we have no objection we have we object to the granting of the variances
you said something about redesign i missed that part
we um so i said we feel that there is no hardship to vacant land and that the
So I said, we feel that there is no hardship to vacant land and that the proposed use could be done as of right if redesigned.
proposed
Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, I won't go into the details.
If we were to propose three individual houses on each of the three individual lots, we would receive more refusals on those three proposals than we would for this single proposal for these two houses.
and uh my expert architect applying to that as well all right thank you um i wish you guys would
continue but that's it is what it is mi -2020 -000673 332 west will be street my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is yes look okay next one up
it's mi 2020 -000765 4815 baltimore avenue
you have now been promoted
uh can you hear me yes please identify yourself for the record uh yes good afternoon mr chair
members of the board my name is alan occamson of knockamson pc one two three south broad street
suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 um i don't have the ability to share my screen um it's the how i
see the zoom right now okay we'll take care of you mr knockinson you trying to find the
truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth he went out to come back in i just promote him to
a panelist. Okay. Thank you. Gotcha. So, Nakasim, you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you agree to wait the reading of his refusal and
stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copied the refusal or referral
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have
a letter? I have and I do. Please proceed. Thank you. All right. I'm going to share my screen.
In front of you is a packet of materials which include eight exhibits. The first exhibit is the
deed to the property showing that Beachwood Property Holdings 4815 LP owns 4815
uh baltimore avenue which is in the cedar park area of philadelphia the second exhibit is the
certificate of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing with respect to the property
the third exhibit is the notice of refusal this is an rsa5 property
although it is an rsa5 property currently it's legal to use it as six units we are asking to
legalize the seventh unit and you'll see from the pictures and here's the application for appeal
that we filed with the zoning board of adjustment as you can see we're on baltimore avenue between
49th and 48th we're on a commercial corridor with a trolley line as well and you can see
this is our property we're not changing the physical dimensions of this property in any
respects. So as you can see, this is the front of our property. Here is the front door of the
property where the seventh unit is. The other six units are on the other three floors of this
property. Again, we're not changing anything. I took a little zoom shot of this picture.
So this seventh unit, which is in the lower level, like a step down, has its own front door.
You'll see pictures to the right of the property, to the left of the property. You'll see our zoning
notice poster. Again, this is a legalization. There are eight separate electric meters.
Previous to our purchase of the property, the property was used for a generation by the previous
owner of the property. He actually wanted to stay and remain in the property after our acquisition,
but we stated that we could not because the seventh unit was not recognized by way of a
zoning permit, and that's why we're trying to legalize it here today. You'll see the pictures
uh from the unit itself right so these again you can see we are at grade right here we have
windows that open up you know here's you know the window closed but here's the window opened up
we have three separate windows along the side of the property
where you know for emergency egress um but again the front of the property
The front of the property is this front door.
We'll be right back.
We're not trying to legalize a basement unit that has interior access only.
We're looking to have an exterior front door, which is already there, and there are three exterior side windows which open up, which also have been used for over 20 years.
Again, here's from the outside.
This is not uncommon to have a property of this type, right?
So in the West Philly part of the city, you'll see 614 South 48th Street, you'll see 4746 Hazel, you'll see 523 South 48th Street, you'll see 4653 Hazel, and then 4752 Hazel.
here's a simple layout of our of our property again we're not changing any physical dimensions
in this property you walk into an open floor plan with a living room a kitchen and then there's a
bedroom and one bathroom now we did meet with the uh we met with the coordinator of the rco the
cedar point neighbors association and ultimately they did not come to a decision there were people
that were for it uh there were people who um who were against it really the reason why they you
know the people that are against it was mainly to the fact that they didn't want to create precedent
right uh not that this property has been used for 20 years not for the fact that there's you know
eight electric meters here uh also you know that you know this is a property where we're not changing
any of the dimensions of the property but they didn't want to create precedent so they took no
position with regards to this what i would say is that we're we're actually affirming the precedent
created over the course of 20 years for this property there are eight electric meters the
front door is like again we're not this was built this way this property like this is a you know
again this was built in a way where the front door for the for the lower level unit had its own
you know egress into it so if anything we're affirming the precedent and also not just the
precedent for the property but the precedent for the neighborhood in general with regards to all
these other properties which are similarly used where you have lower level uh access so i mean
that's our presentation in a nutshell um i do i do have my client here that can uh verify the uh
our presentation, the facts of the presentation.
Brandon, can you virtually raise your hand?
It should be Brandon Fox.
Yes, Mr. Fox, you've now been promoted.
Wait to be sworn in.
hello mr fox yes good afternoon please identify yourself with the record spell your first and
last name brandon fox b -r -a -n -d -o -n -f -o -x we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do mr markinson yes uh brandon uh you heard everything i stated today
yes and is it true and correct absolutely and would you adopt this in your own testimony
Now, you also own one of these units as well, right?
One of these properties on Hazel Street, right?
Yeah, 4653 Hazel Avenue.
That's correct.
All right.
So, it's not uncommon to have a separate entrance with a lower level unit in the West Philly part of the city, right?
That's correct.
And then, who manages these properties for this property in particular?
4815 Baltimore Avenue is managed by a third -party management group, which we oversee in great detail.
Okay. And how often do you visit the properties in general in the West Philly part of the city?
We're in the neighborhood two to three days a week, just checking up on things.
Okay. And then how many apartments do you have in this part of the city?
37 uh not not including the unit in question uh which i just want to again point out as as mr
knockamson did that this you know was occupied by the prior honor uh for many years i think in
excess of 10 years with it has its own kitchen and bathroom uh as it sits today gotcha i i have
no further questions thank you questions from the board no no anyone else would like to test
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
mr lewis you have now been promoted wait to be sworn in
yes okay i'm here yeah mr lewis please identify yourself for the record spell your first and
last name and give us your address i'm lewis baum l -e -w -i -s b -a -u -m i live at 4724 hazel avenue
where is that in proximity to uh 4815 baltimore uh it's i guess two or three blocks away
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do sir please proceed uh i have uh i was present at the uh rco meeting and uh i have a
couple of comments here uh first of all the it was stated the building was built like that with
that door um i have no way of knowing but that's extremely doubtful more than likely that was done
during a remodel when it was built changed over to apartment buildings the second point it was
stated that it is not uncommon to see these uh uh basement apartments in west philadelphia
if you uh parse that that means it is common to see them and that is certainly far from the case
There's a few, certainly, but not many.
Finally, I'd like to make a point about setting a precedent.
If buyers think they can easily get a variance, they will bid up prices and then come to the Zoning Board of Adjustment claiming hardship.
The only hardship that exists here that was not self -opposed is the difficulty of finding affordable housing in a community where prices have been up to a high degree.
To my knowledge, the owner in this case has not made a statement that the unit will be rented at a city determined or other independently determined affordable rate.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I would like to respond.
In terms of the configuration of the property, there's no way to actually get into this lower level but for that front door.
There's no access through the interior of the building.
So it's not like we're trying to jam in a unit into the ground level, this lower level.
Secondly, and Mr. Fox can affirm this, we actually did talk about what would happen if the board would not agree to this.
We would have to reconfigure this lower -level space so there would be access for the lower -level space where we would create potentially bi -level units for that first floor, and the cost would be well in excess of $50 ,000.
So it would be rather expensive to completely change the configuration of a building that's been used in such a manner for the last 20 years.
And again, I think the gentleman stated that he was on Hazel Street. We do have 47 -46 Hazel, 46 -53 Hazel, 47 -52 Hazel. So those are just examples of similar type of units that are legal in this part of town.
Thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry, questions from the board, I think I asked already. Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
please raise your hand no more hands here thank you just uh to assure mr lewis this board
uh does not uh we take every case on an individual basis this was not going to set a precedent i can
assure you of that uh planning commission good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning
commission this property is indicated for multi -family residential in the comprehensive
of plan and has not yet been remapped. The building has previously been approved for six
units. We feel the addition of another unit represents an overuse of the property. Accordingly,
we object to the granting of the variance. Thank you. I think I would agree with you had it not
been an existing one. But having said that, MI -2020 -000765, 4815 Baltimore Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My -2020 -SEREM.
you got a confessor okay sorry about that no problem next one is 18th street right
You got it, Commissioner?
Sorry about that.
No problem.
Next one is 18.
yes it's 18th okay mi 2020 -000 774 3515 north 18th street
adam is that you oh it is oh okay so you still under oath you're agreeing uh to waive the reading
of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copied the refusal or
referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? We have. Also, have you met with the RCO
and have a letter? We are planning to meet with the RCO November 5th, so we're asking to present,
hold this matter under advisement and then have a supplemental hearing
simply for community input.
Good afternoon, members of the Board. My name is Alan Ockamson of Ockamson PC, 123 South Broad
Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19109. I'm sharing my screen.
and I handed you a packet of materials,
which include eight exhibits.
The first exhibit is the deed to the property
showing that Millennium Development LLC owns the property
at 3515 North 18th Street.
The second exhibit is showing that they are tax compliant
with the city of Philadelphia.
The third exhibit is the notice of refusal.
This isn't -
Excuse me, Kelsey, can you enlarge that?
You know what, let me see, hold on a second.
Let me see what I can do.
Is that better?
That's better.
This is the notice of refusal.
Even though this is an RSA 5 property, as you can see from the notes of the refusal, in 1962, the ZBA granted a variance allowing for it as a three -family dwelling.
So all we're asking for is actually to increase it by a fourth unit.
And really, it's a legalization of that fourth unit.
For the hearing, I'll also, for the supplemental hearing, I'll get photos of the electric meters and such.
It's not uncommon for this part of the Nicetown, Tioga area to have multifamily within this particular section of the city.
As you can see, the ZBA has granted numerous variances over the years regarding properties in the vicinity.
And then here's our application for appeal.
I'm going to make it a little bit smaller, just easier to maneuver, if you don't mind.
Can you still see it?
Here's our application for appeal that we filed with zoning board of adjustment.
And actually, it may be easier just to do this.
Here is a map showing where we are in the city.
As you can see, we're in North 18th Street
between Benango and Atlantic.
And then here are photographs of the property.
Here's the front of the property.
Again, and you'll see this from the floor plans, no basement living.
We're not changing the physical dimensions of the property.
And when it was sold to us, it was advertised as a four unit.
So we're not changing the physical dimensions at all of this property.
Here are pictures to the right of the property.
Here are pictures to the left of the property on North 18th Street.
uh here's a copy of the notice of the zoning poster
and then here are our floor plans and again these are site conditions we haven't made any
changes i'm just going to make this a little bit smaller just so it's easier to maneuver
but again
and there's a little typo this should be third floor but there's no basement living right
Again, you walk into the property. The first floor is unit number one. You walk up a flight of steps. The front is unit number two. The back is unit number three. And then the third floor is its own unit, number four. No roof deck. We're not trying to add any type of additional outdoor space because we have sufficient outdoor space in the rear of the property.
and again
access to the
access to the rear yard for trash uh so the trash is going to be my understanding and and i have
rear yard for trash
brian wise on the uh phone uh so and i did misstate that that the rear yard is for simply the first
floor unit um the the trash there is a receptacle area right here which is not shown when we took
the picture but he has a receptacle area that is covered uh where the trash will be stored
so thank you you're welcome Mr. Wise can you virtually raise your hand
while he's uh getting on do you have any photo uh photographs of the interior i will i will for
for the supplemental healing i'll make sure they have that i did also wanted to add a
a photograph of the meters as well but i'll get uh yeah i mean right now it's four yeah
i didn't see in the front view in its entirety the number of boxes yeah that's a good point
mr chair let me uh let's see um um i think another one that was a close -up of the door
and you can see a part of two or three mailboxes let me see hold on i think this is probably
right here yeah so you can see and again i'll get close for the hearing i'll make sure
there's close up but you can see this is one two a there's a two b and there's a three so i'll see
you know yeah we can't see we can't see the the three b or but all right just make sure you please
have those for the next uh next hearing i will um well given them you know the fact is we're
holding under advisement i'll have mr wise uh affirm my testimony uh at the supplemental hearing
okay we can do that mr wise is available okay we can get him now if he's on yes i'm here
please identify yourself for the record spell your first and last name please
yes bryant wise b -r -i -a -n w -i -s -e we're infirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes i do thank you mr mr wise you heard everything i stated today yes and is it true
correct yes it is and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes i would okay thank you
questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand no hands here thank you planning commission
this property is indicated for single family sorry this is peter bernard for the planning
commission this property is indicated for single family use in the comprehensive plan
we feel the addition of a fourth unit represents an overuse of the property additionally adjacent
development of multi -family in a single family zone has created a collective overuse of the block
accordingly we object to the granting of the variance okay thank you uh mi -2020 -000774
3515 North
18th Street
this hearing will be resumed I need a date
and time Jason
can we
the date that we
signed this morning on an earlier
case was December 9th at
same thing
this one will be at 2 p .m. right
yeah 2 p .m. sir
we've been trying to do them at 9 30 all of the add -ons okay so this case uh is this here will
be resumed on december the 9th at 9 30 a .m at which time we will consider any feedback
related to the rco's position and the council person's position for that district thank you
thank you very much thank you uh frank are we uh doing which one 28 10 frankfort avenue or
that continued? I think we're doing 3114 Frankfurt. That's right. 2018 continued. That was continued.
Thank you. Okay. MI 2020 -000 -037 -3114 Frankfurt Avenue.
I'm the applicant here, Avramasik.
I'm waiting for my lawyer to join.
Sir, please identify yourself.
Spell your first and last name.
Avram, A -V -R -A -M.
Last name, Oslik, O -S -L -I -C -K.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
The attorney in this case is Dorothy Hamill.
We're waiting for the attorney.
Oh, there she goes.
Ms. Hamill, please identify yourself with the record.
Spell your first and last name.
Dorothy Hamill, D -O -R -O -T -H -Y, Hamill, H -A -M -I -L -L,
Surlin, Lesser, and Benson, 123 South Broad Street,
suite 2100
philadelphia 19128
we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to
this hearing i have have you also met with the rco and have a letter uh we have they sent a letter
um just to clarify we had had the meeting with the rco uh and originally the application was to
was for seven units. The RCO had objected. We revised the plans to reduce the units to six,
which had been the building had previously been approved for six units. We sent the revised plans
to the Neighborhood Association and had requested whether they wanted to have another hearing
um based on the revised plans i had emailed them uh two or three times but i didn't hear back
so i don't know if that means they just were going to continue to object but
i didn't hear anything back from that
well let's proceed and then we'll figure this out let's proceed please
Ms. Hamilton, I'm about to make you a panelist where you have the access to share your screen.
Perfect.
You would just have to unmute yourself, Ms. Hamilton.
So this application is for 3414 Frankfurt Avenue.
So the request is to increase the number of units from the current five units to six units.
Originally, the plan was to have seven units.
We met with the association.
They had raised rejection.
we reduced the number of units to six in the package there was included the
sorry sorry for the interruption could you share any of your exhibits with us please
can you see that now i oh yes yes yes we do okay so the the first is the refusal this is an rm1
district. The refusal was for multifamily dwelling within seven units is not permitted.
Multi -family dwelling within seven units is not permitted, and the minimum lot area.
So attached is the application for the variance in which we've identified that we're not making any changes to the building at all, to the footprint remains the same.
There will be no impact on the surrounding area.
This property was, as you can see, the owner is in tax compliance.
The owner is Goldfish Holdings.
They are the owner of the property.
and the property was originally this property this is the attached are the plans this property
going back to the zoning file for this property at the earliest
information is from 1940 the property since 1940 has been used for multi -family
it was originally multifamily with commercial use which was a doctor's office
there were originally a doctor's office and three units then a doctor's office in four units
then there was the next miss miss miss could you shrink that a little bit because we're not
we're only getting a partial
let me see
let me go down
let me try 50
is that better?
can you move it to the right?
is that better?
if I go any
let me see
if I go 35
is that better?
I think you can see it all
um okay so
is that any better yes thank you okay so up through uh as i
said starting 1940, it's always been multifamily. In September of 2017, a permit was issued,
permit number 815350 for six units. Our client entered into an agreement of sale to purchase
the property. He subsequently, for some reason, the owner of the property decided to
get a permit before closing, permit number 1016456 for five units, even though he had been using it
for six units. So he had bought the property and had originally intended, as I said, for
seven units. We've reduced it down to six units, which was previously crude.
The owner of this property is a resident of this neighborhood, so he has a vested interest
in the neighborhood. This is next door to a vocational technical school. It is on a street
that is commercial, which has significant commercial on the first floor, residential
on the second floor. The proposed use is consistent with the neighborhood, and
as has come up in prior hearings, affordable housing within the city is an important issue.
And in this case, these units have, you know, our client has not raised the rates since he took over the property, despite the fact that, you know, he could get higher rents, but he doesn't have any intention of doing that.
and the rents are currently between $5 .25 and $6 .25
and adding an additional unit will continue to have the same economics
as the remaining units in the building
and is consistent with the neighborhood.
They also intend they'd like to do some work to upgrade some aspects.
They also intend they'd like to do some work to upgrade some aspects of the property that the prior owner had not.
So they are intending to invest in the building and they are invested.
They invested ownership in the neighborhood because they are.
Mr. Oslick is a resident of the neighborhood.
As I mentioned, this property was previously approved for six units.
just two and a half or so years ago.
So we would, and the prior owner was using it
for six units legally, we would like to be able
to return the building to six units
consistent with the proposed plans.
Excuse me, Councillor, do you have pictures?
Let me, this is the front posters.
Can you reduce, can you reduce the size?
Once I get down to the better pictures.
Okay, so the property is on the corner.
As you can see, the property next door is a multifamily property.
The school is across the vocational school, is across the street.
This is pictures of the block down the street. Many of these properties, 3112, 3110, 3111, I believe, are all apartments, commercial and first floor, just taking the very closest ones.
and apartments on the second floor.
There's an auto body repair down the street.
This is the interior of some of the apartments.
Obviously, they are occupied.
The five units are occupied currently.
We had intended to have one of the residents as a witness.
Unfortunately, he had to take a side job, so he could not be available.
But as I mentioned, the use, we don't believe this is an overuse of property, as it is consistent with prior approved uses in a multi -family district.
Counselor?
What is the trash removal plan?
i believe uh mr oslick you could um correct me if i'm wrong but there is uh trash in uh there's
a trash container in the backyard property that uh is fenced is that correct um there is a backyard
of the property where we could put a trash collecting uh a trash bin we're open to it and
there's a side where where's trash being stored now currently um i'm sorry you know what i need
to get your full name on the record please spell it it's avram oslik um and i want just want to
preface this last when we met spell your name your last name it's l -s -l -i -c -k you swear to
for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed okay
um when we bought this building the tenants take the trash out and there's two trash days on this
corner because of uh clementine street and frankfurt avenue um the when we went to the rco
the rco specifically said in the council person that was mr sakura's representative at the time
said that they don't want trash being stored outside in this neighborhood they want it stored
inside so in the plan modifications for this building we'll be adding a trash room on the
first floor right by the to hold it inside as the neighborhood wanted that was one of the changes
that we we made to the plans that appear on the plan yes it does okay can you show us the plan
again i'm going to scroll up to the plan let me
Make it a little bit bigger.
Can you highlight the first floor?
Can you highlight the first floor?
I'm looking at the first floor is in the middle.
Which one is the first floor?
It's the second one in from the left.
And if she scrolls up a bit, she's actually hiding the trash room right now.
I don't see the trash container. It's got to be scrawled up.
Right when you first come in, there's a trash room.
that accessible for all units yes it's right when you come in the front door
it'll be to the right of the building
that room that is on the left and the hallway it says trash room if you look
at the very top of the picture there's a doorway on the right hand side of the first floor plan
And then the door is open, and then it says trash room.
Is that a bedroom next to it?
Yes, but it's not connected.
It's part of the next unit over.
You know how wide that bedroom is?
One second.
I thought it was 12 by 10.
Thank you.
it's nine it's nine feet by 12 feet this property is it is larger than the
average row home in Philadelphia I believe it's 20 feet wide total thank
you you I'm sorry miss how have you concluded with your testimony I have I'll
just ask Mr. Oslick have you heard my testimony? Yes I have. Do you agree? Yes just one clarification
when we bought this building it was set up illegally as a seven unit building and we have
not um the units that were vacant we have not reoccupied them until we've come to a conclusion
we've respected everything we've let the tenants that were in there stay there and we hope to let
them stay there continually moving forward. Well how many units how many units is it now?
The building is set up as seven units currently.
How many tenants do you have?
Five tenants.
Thank you.
I understand that, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Hamilton, we're still waiting for some feedback from the RCO?
The RCO sent a letter when we were originally supposed to have this hearing and said that they oppose multifamily.
so they were uh objecting to the proposal of the seven units we provided them with plans
revised plans reducing the the units from seven to six and asked them to uh asked them if they
wanted to have reschedule another hearing to review the plans uh i emailed them a couple times
and i didn't hear back from them okay this this is sharon saletta we did have an email from
councilman squilla's office um indicating that they were expecting this to be continued for
further interactions with the community uh given that you might want to follow
that may have been the reason for the confusion this morning but if we could perhaps schedule a
follow -up hearing yeah all right uh any uh anyone any questions from the board no no anyone else
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission this
Good afternoon board, Peter Bernard for the planning commission.
This property is indicated for residential mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
The property has a long history of being used for multifamily.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you. But because the councilman's office, there was some confusion.
Am I, hold on please.
mi -2020 -0000373114 frankfort avenue this hearing will be resumed on wednesday december the 9th at
9 30 a .m at which time we will consider any feedback related to the rco and the councilman's
position that concludes the two o 'clock list i believe i apologize yes december 9th at two
o 'clock 9 30 9 30 okay thank you thank you okay um that concludes the two o 'clock list correct
yes all right um i guess the stenographer one let's yeah sharon um that's correct there is
only one case on the three three thirty list that is not being continued i know i don't know i was
going to say let's go forward but i don't know if the stenographer needs a break hello hi this is
a court reporter i'm good thank you yes i appreciate that thank you okay so give me a second
we'll get in we'll go into yeah that'd be great all right hold on
all right good afternoon again everyone my name is frank d chico i'm the chair of the zoning board
of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our board secretary mr
confessor plaza and board members mr thomas holloman and mr james snow for those of you
who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of
what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their
testimony. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys
and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google
267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that as well. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. With that said, we can begin, but before
we call our first case we like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or an appeal listed
for this afternoon's hearing i will read through a list of cases that have been requested to be
continued and if anyone objects when i complete reading that list please raise your hand and
state your objection uh mi -2020 -000869 2037 south 56th street mi -00 excuse me mi -2020
020 -000777, 2035 South 57th Street, MI -2020 -000314, 317 Spruce Street,
mi -2020 -00148648 -62 east penn street
mi -2020 -0008715536 pascal avenue
MI -2020 -0008725534 East Paschal.
five five three four east pascal i'm sorry pascal avenue pascal avenue east
mr chairman i read off my letter read off a list of of cases to be continued if there's any
objection to that mr chairman or two just for a clarification uh i think he said 2035 south
57th street if i'm not mistaken it's 56th street right uh yes if i misspoke i apologize so i'll
that into the record mi -2020 -0007772035 south 56th street thanks buddy okay anybody object
to any of those continuance requests no hands at this time chair okay so we'll go with number four
on our list mi -2020 -001266419 lighty or leidy street leidy avenue leidy avenue
uh good good afternoon mr chair allen occamson of knockamson pc
good afternoon um i see a notation this is reconsideration
You're still under oath, Mr. Atkinson. I only on my sheet, all I see is appeal grounds based on appeal of calendar number three, eight, one, seven, one.
uh yeah so what we're trying to do uh again alan knockum sim knockups npc 123 south broad street
suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109 uh what we're seeking to do is legalize a triplex
well someone has a phone ringing in the background could you either answer it or
That's me, Mr. Trey. I apologize.
I waived the reading and the refusal.
Thanks, buddy. I thought it was a consideration.
You can waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate his accuracy.
Also, thank you. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copies of refusal, or referral of folders and
plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Thank you. Also, have you met with the RCO and
have a letter? My client has, and we do have a letter of support. Thank you. Please proceed.
Hi. I'm here to present 4119 Leidy Avenue. Again, all we're trying to do is legalize this
three -unit structure. I'm going to try to keep it rather simple. It's been a long day,
i'm sure for the board um i'm just going to go to exhibit uh four um here's a refusal this is an
rsa5 property uh what it doesn't show in its history though of this notice of refusal
is a permit and i don't know why this is the case but there's a permit dated in 2008 to show that
this is a three -unit structure um the only thing i can say as to why there you know there was some
type of issue is that i looked at atlas .philo .gov and there seems to be a gap in the housing
license for this property although i did talk to my clients uh briefly today um and uh he did state
that they've always had a housing inspection license but i do know that lni has been uh
definitely stronger in the sense of when there's a gap of three years with your housing inspection
license, the zoning reverts back to the current designation, and I can only imagine that's why
we're here today. My clients did meet with the coordinating RCO, and I have that here,
a letter of support from Centennial Parkside Community Development Corporation. Pretty
straightforward, simple letter of support. I have with me today Gavin Rogers, the owner's
Representative, Mr. Rogers, can you virtually raise your hand?
I mean, as an officer of the court, I can attest to the fact that my testimony is true and accurate.
uh we'll stipulate to that thank you uh any questions from the board no no no anyone else
We'll stipulate to that. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i'm sorry chair we do have a uh mr rogers okay mr rogers please identify yourself with a record
first and last name spell your last name good afternoon my name is gavin rogers r -o -g -e -r -s
i represent um my father in this matter are you on the deed i am not well we'll we'll take mr out
mr knockinson's testimony uh because you have to be uh an owner okay my dad's 86 and no problem
okay we'll just move on all right anyone else would like to testify
no more hands at this time thank you planning commission
hi good afternoon this is ariel de liberto with the planning commission
ariel would you please identify yourself spell your first and last name yes a -r -i -e -l
last name is d as in dog i -l -i -d as in boy e -r -t as in tony oh thank you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed this property is
indicated for residential single family in the city's comprehensive plan uh it is clear from
materials presented that this property has a history being used for multi -family therefore
we have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you mi -2020 -001266
4 -1 -1 -9
Leidy Street
Leidy Avenue
I'm sorry Leidy Avenue
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
thank you I believe that concludes the
four o 'clock list
any unfinished business
no that's it
that's it everyone
tomorrow morning nine o 'clock executive session
you got it have a good one
All right, folks. Thank you. Good night, everyone.
Everyone, stay safe. Good night, everyone.
Good night. Good night, y 'all.
See ya.