Thank you.
Ms. Tenere, if Tanya agrees, I think we might be okay to go.
yes you can start thanks tanya good morning everyone first i'd like to apologize
for our tardiness we are having tremendous technical problems the reason i'm announcing
that now is in the event it occurs a little bit later I would ask for your patience so again I
apologize for the board. Good morning my name is Carol Tenere and today I'm the acting chair of
the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's hearing along with
Board Secretary Confessor Plaza and Board Members Tom Holloman and James Snell. Board Administrator
Fatina L. and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance with Ms. Tanya Sunkit.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of which you can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. This is available to the public on the web and otherwise. Third, for anyone
participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine,
then star six to unmute yourself. Again, that is star nine, then star six to unmute yourself.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
The number again is 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and address of the property at issue.
Fourth, the question and answer box is not for testimony.
Any comments are to be directed to Ms. Tanya Sunket and Ms. Fatina L.
Okay, here's where. Am I going right to the hearing summary?
We're calling and asking if there are any continuances.
The first read, excuse me, this is Sharon. Read out the continuances that are highlighted on the list and ask if anyone objects.
Got it. Calendar number MI2020-000841-1041 South 53rd Street. This case is continued. Attorney moving party. Is there anyone here who objects to that?
please let us know um madam chair if you could read out the entire list and then
thank you calendar number mi-2021-002671 1451 north broad street that case is continued
i'm sorry madam chair if i could just interject with this particular case um there was a lot of
people who were was planning to attend. I just want to announce on the record the date is October
13th at 9 30 a.m. Okay for 1451 North Broad Street that date is October 13th? Correct. At what time
Ms. Sunkit? 9 30 a.m. At 9 30 a.m. Thank you so much. Excuse me Ms. Sunkit I was actually taking
a call from Frank DiCicco. Could you repeat what was just said so that I can include it in my notes?
Frank DiCicco, could you repeat what was just said so that I can include it in my notes?
October 13th at 9.30 a.m. would be the 1451 North Broad Street attorney Carl Pimavera case.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Calendar number MI2020-001579201 West Johnson Street.
This case is continued.
Calendar number MI-2021-001113, 2000 South 12th Street, continuance requested by Attorney for Applicant.
And lastly, calendar number MI-2020-002759-6324, Newtown Avenue.
This continuance is requested by the attorney for applicant. Does anyone object
to any of these continuance requests? If so, please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Madam Chair.
calendar number excuse me madam chair can we ask if there are any additional
yeah yeah i was just going to do that are there any additional requests for continuances
if so please raise your hand
madam chair we have william kerr
mr kerr please unmute yourself and please wait for madam chair okay thank you
mr care can you hear me yes i can madam chair okay you are here
i'm here on the case you just continued mi 2020 um zero zero one five seven nine two
West Johnson. We originally filed this appeal with the board back in September of last year
and we've had a number of delays. The current delay is because in June, L&I notified us that
they had missed that CDR review was required. We're hopeful to have that completed by October
the 5th of this year at the latest. I just wanted to make the request that if at all possible,
if we could have a uh a new hearing date sometime between the middle of october and the end of the
year if that's at all possible just to given the the length of time we've been waiting for this
to move forward thank you miss miss sunkett i think you can speak to miss sunkett on that
okay um and madam chair can i respectfully request that we just um get him sworn in on the record
please sure name and address please uh yeah william kerr k-e-r-r uh 40 east airy street in
norristown uh one nine four oh one do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do thank you everything i just stated previously um was was the truth thank you okay
if and madam chair this is tanya if i could just mention to mr kerr as soon as you get
correspondence from CDR, you're completed. Please email me and I will schedule according to what we
have available before the end of the year. Okay, thank you, Ms. Sunkett. I appreciate that.
You're more than welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone else
in the virtual audience who would like to speak to a continuance that was read out?
I see no hands, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you.
So we'll move to number three, calendar number 0132, 1630 Fitzwater Street.
This is a pro se matter. We have a letter of support from Sazna on this case. We're waiting
for Justin Eltz. Hello. Good morning. Hi, good morning. Hi. Can you put your name and address
on the record, please, and spell your last name? Yes. First name Justin, last name Eltz,
E-L-T-Z. Address is 1630 Fitzwater Street, Philadelphia PA 19146. Do you swear or affirm
to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Okay, you may proceed.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt.
This is Tanya.
Could we please promote him to a panelist, please?
I was just about to text you, Ms. Sunkit. I was trying, and it looks like it just succeeded.
I was just about to note a text you Ms. Sunkit.
Okay? He's coming back in his panel. I just pressed the button. Perfect. Thank you. Yep.
Share screen. So, I'm going to share a document with everyone. Can you let me know if you see
this PowerPoint? Not yet. Did you hit the green share button at the bottom? Are you on a computer?
There we go. It's coming up now. How's that? Looks great. Okay, great. So I'm the homeowner
of 1630 Fitzwater Street, and I'm here to talk about a variance. I want to build a roof deck
on my property, but several years ago, the, I guess, original house here was basically demolished,
and the developer at that time wanted to put in a five-story structure with a roof deck
and a garage and things like that, but that was not approved from the board, and so what happened
was i guess they eventually settled on the current structure which is a three-story house
which is where i currently live i bought this house in 2017 and as part of that decision there
was no part of the remarks for no roof deck associated with i guess the plan they ultimately
decided to to agree on and so when i went to file for a roof deck which all of the i'm not asking
for a modification of the code it has this legacy issue attached to the property and you'll see the
decision by LNI there referencing this old zoning decision and so that's how I got into this process
to try to basically remove this this zoning provision associated with the the property
and so you can see my house here it's with the green arrows pointing to it it's a three story
structure the proposed plan for the roof deck is 31 feet 8 inches height from grade pilot house is
nine feet above the roof deck pilot house is set back 25 plus feet and the roof deck is set back
nine feet plus from the front face of the home i will note there's several roof decks that are
existing on this block including one that was built across the street last year
And my next-door neighbor, both these homes next to me were just recently constructed.
My next-door neighbor to the left of the first picture has a roof deck as well.
And so this was the plan submitted to L&I.
And I'll note my neighborhood association prefers that my roof deck be sloped,
but my next-door neighbor has a rectangular pothouse,
so I'd prefer not to slope it unless it's a requirement for approval.
and you've met with the rco yes we do have um a letter of approval from them just the board have
any questions no no planning is there anyone in the virtual audience who would like to speak
on this case i see no hands madam chair thank you planning commission
Good afternoon, Ian Litwin, Planning Commission staff.
I need to be sworn in.
I know you do. Can you spell your last name, please?
Yes, Litwin, L-I-T-W-I-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no changes to the residential multifamily zoning for this property.
Given the site's history, we recommend the Board remove the proviso to allow for the construction
of a code-compliant roof deck and pilot house.
Thank you. Calendar number 0132, 1630 Fitzwater Street, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
thank you and good luck calendar number 1421 1717 north 42nd street
the attorney is alan knockamson carol i believe number five they both together if i'm not mistaken
four and five okay and calendar number 1420 1715 north 42nd street the attorney also is alan
knockamson thank you um secretary plaza you're welcome
mr knockamson can you please put your name and address on the records
Mr. Nockamson, can you please put your name and address on the records by your last name?
He's coming back in as a panelist.
And I'm muted.
One of those days.
Good morning, Madam Vice Chair, members of the board.
My name is Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N.
Last name is Nochumson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N. Address 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA-19109.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with required documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we actually have two letters of support, one from the coordinating RCO and one from another affiliated RCO, both unanimously in support of our project, for both projects.
We see a support letter from Centennial Parkside Community Development Corporation by All Street Residents Association, East Parkside Residents Association, and another one from Centennial Parkside on both of these cases.
So you may proceed.
Thank you. May I share my screen?
Yes, you may.
so this project or projects at 1715 and 1717 north 42nd street is a great example
of being able to like work through a project with the community over multiple community meetings
we are we originally had a project and the unit count hasn't changed but it's really about the
look and feel of the project this is a neighborhood where porches are prevalent
And we really worked through a lot of the design issues with the community to make sure that our project and the design of our project fit within the fabric of this community.
So you'll see in my table of contents, you'll see the deeds to the property showing my client.
Raj Sohn is the, well, his corporate entity owns these properties.
Certificates of tax clearance showing that these entities are in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
You'll see correspondence from Tanya Sunkit. Again, because we had to change the design and set these buildings back a bit to create porches, we needed ZBA's approval to amend our zoning appeal and go back down to L&I and seek additional or different refusals.
You'll see in the packet of materials the original notices of refusal for each property, as well as the new notices of refusal dated June 19, 2021.
one exhibit four you'll see our applications for appeal to the zoning board of adjustment exhibit
five you'll see maps of the area exhibit exhibit six you'll see photographs of the property and
surround the area in particular even though multifamily use is technically not allowed
given the zoning classifications of these properties you'll see photographs of a multitude
of properties within close proximity with similar type of multifamily use that's basically the
reason why the community had no issue with it they just want to make sure that it was designed in a
way that respected you know what this community is about. Exhibit 7 is the original drawings uh that
you uh that we presented uh to the community and exhibit 8 is the new drawings with the setbacks
for the porches. In exhibit 9 I don't have all of the support letters I only have the ones that
were given to me but it sounds like there were even more. We have a letter of support from
Centennial Parkside Community Development Corporation and a letter of support from East
Parkside Residence Association. Again, 1715 N 42nd Street LLC is the owner of 1715 North 42nd
Street and 1717 N 42nd Street LLC is the owner of the other property. Both properties are owned by
Raj Son or the entity is. He will adopt my testimony after my presentation. You'll see our
a certificate of tax clearance. We paid all taxes in full.
Letter from Ms. Sunkit allowing us to amend the zoning appeal, go back down to the ZBA.
These are the current refusals. Six units were an RSA 5 property. But again, if you look at the
surrounding area with photographs, this is not an RSA 5 neighborhood with only single-family use.
there's a mix between multifamily and single-family. Second refusal has to do with the
occupied area. Because we push these properties back, we actually increase the refusal in that
respect, but at the behest of the community. And the same thing, the third refusal has to do with
the setback requirement of four feet, where setbacks are expressly prohibited. But again,
that refusal in some ways is self-inflicted, but it's self-inflicted because at the request of the
In some ways, it's self-inflicted, but it's self-inflicted because at the request of the community.
community.
Our application for appeal for both properties, according to the Project Information Form and the Notice of Refusal.
Maps of the area, as you can see, we're not far from the park.
you can see photographs this is a rather large uh vacant lot or vacant lots
um but you can see like even the inkling going to the right on north 42nd street this is a porch
neighborhood uh to the left of the property on 42nd street and then just you know multi-family
properties that are RSA 5 in this neighborhood, 1723, 25, and 27. On Memorial Avenue, not far
from our property, it's 1727 and 1731 Memorial Avenue, 1722 Memorial Avenue. As you can see,
this is, again, the porch neighborhood that they wanted to keep intact. 4144 North Leidy Avenue,
and then our plans and drawings.
Does anyone have any questions?
I know you probably have a rather long list,
so I'll keep, you know, you saw the,
I mean, you had the letters to support.
They were all unanimously in support.
So with that being said, I'm sorry.
This is Sharon Saleta.
Mr. Nalkamson, all of the changes
that you described from the original refusal
they were reviewed by L&I and are reflected in the amended refusal, is that correct?
That is correct. There's two refusals dated June 19, 2021, and they were given to your office as well, ZBA's office as well.
If they don't have it, well, it's in our packet of materials that we presented.
We do have it, but I would ask that the board, if they vote to approve this, that a proviso be added, stating that it is, as per refusal, dated 6-19-2021, so there is no confusion.
6-19, Sharon?
Yes, 6-19-2021.
I'm sorry, Sharon. This is Tanya. Can I respectfully request that we add the new number as well?
um yes let me check that thank you
the new number are you speaking at the new calendar number um the uh refusal number
and that way ellen and i will not be confused at all they request that we do that
okay i will do that the the reason that it that's what i've done in the past um there in a couple
of recent refusals there has not been a different number so i will check on this to be there
there is a different number i'm looking at it right now so do you want me to just read out
the number to you yes if you could do that please perfect thank you 715 north 42nd street the new
application number is ZP-2021-006799. 006799? Yes. And then the one for 1717 North 42nd Street
is dash 006798. Okay. What a morning this is. Did I ask if the board had any questions?
No, you did. No. You did ask and we have no questions. Thank you. Planning Commission.
good afternoon and litwin planning commission staff the comprehensive plan recommended the
change to single family residential zoning for this property this change was made in 2014 as
part of a comprehensive neighborhood wide remapping effort the proposal for six units is an overuse
of the parcel considering it would not meet the dimensional standards for multi-family lot
we support the community's goals of increasing home ownership opportunities but feel this is not
the minimum variance required
and recommend against granting the variances.
Calendar number ZP-2021-006799.
The address is 1715 North 42nd Street
and calendar number
ZP-2021-006798
the address is
1717 North 42nd Street
my vote is yes on both cases
my vote is yes on both cases confessor plaza excuse me madam chair
Professor Plaza my vote is yes
excuse me Madam
i think you have to read those individually with the proviso adding the um updated
the zp numbers that mr knockin can read out so you want me to read these individually with the
zp numbers and then add after each one as per refusal date 619. no if you are reading the
number it isn't necessary then to put the refusal date on it will just be the case and as per zp
number for each one okay i will do that again the address is 1715 north 42nd street
calendar number zp as per calendar number zp 2021-006799 my vote is yes
uh confessor plaza my vote is yes with proviso
james snell my vote is yes with proviso thomas holliman my vote is yes with proviso
Next, 1717 North 42nd Street, as per calendar number, ZP-2021-006798, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We are now on number eight.
Calendar number 1010-2608 West Dolphin Street.
The attorney is Jeffrey Young.
And with this case, there is no RCO letter from Strawberry Mansion CDC.
Madam Chair, Jeffrey Young doesn't have his hand raised.
Okay, do you know what I'll do?
If it's okay with Ms. Sunken, Ms. Saleta, I'll move on to number nine.
Excuse me, Madam Chair, that would be good.
I think this one may take some time.
um chairman chico um may be signing on now or within the next few minutes could we check to
see if he is here he is here ah okay thank you okay uh mr chair do you want me to call the case
out again? Yeah, if you don't mind, please. I'm sorry for the lateness ahead. Calendar number
MI-2020-001010, 2608 West Dolphin Street. The attorney is Jeffrey Young, and we have no RCO
letter but the exhibits were submitted. Mr. Young appears not to be here could we um
could you maybe move this one back and I will try to contact him. Sure um Mr. Chair do you want
to go to number nine or do you want me to? If you don't mind Carol would you continue and not at all
Calendar number 0336-4401 Ridge Avenue.
The attorneys are Sean Whalen and Paul Bonney.
Mr. Whalen is coming back in as a panelist.
Hi, Mr. Whalen.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Certainly. Good morning, Madam Chair.
Sean Whalen, S-E-A-N-W-H-A-L-E-N, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Is Mr. Bonney here? Yes, there you are.
Hi, Mr. Bonney, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
good morning good morning my name is paul bonnie b-o-n-i my address is 325 chestnut street suite
1109-19106 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
yes i do do do i do this together do both of you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy or do i have to do this individually miss uh no this would only be
Or do I have to do this individually, Ms. Saleta?
No, this would only be Mr. Whalen who would have to agree to waive the reading.
Okay. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do, and I will. However, I believe you need to swear me in as well.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
I do, and what I just stated was the truth, and I do waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy.
Wait, this is some warning, I'll tell you.
Have you emailed?
But it was pretty spectacular the way you asked if Chairman DiCicco was on and he appeared,
and you asked if Mr. Bonney was on and he appeared.
So you've got something going for you.
We have magical powers.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of
ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days
in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to everything except for the RCO letter. We met with, there are multiple RCOs here. We do have
an RCO letter from East Falls Forward, and although not an RCO, a community group,
East Falls Development Corporation. We also met multiple times with East Falls Community Council,
EFCC, which is whom the party that Paul Bonney represents, they, to my knowledge, have not
presented a letter, but the voting meeting was held back in February. Okay, and we do have the
first two that you mentioned, East Falls Forward and East Falls CDC. You may proceed. Can I just
mention, just to make sure we're on the same page, I thought that East Falls Community Council
submitted a letter uh maybe in in the past couple of days um
if they did this letter would have it okay uh could this could mr letter or or the others
see if they have it if not i can uh i will check right now mr bunny okay okay it's a short letter
sean um but uh i assume it says uh you oppose yes it does it does and i also want to mention
that i don't agree with the representation that there was some court of some sort of voting
meeting um official voting meeting back in february but maybe we'll get into that later
um we do have a letter that was submitted on monday afternoon from east falls community council
So I will forward that to the board
or perhaps you could pull it up on the screen
when you make your presentation, Mr. Bonney.
Okay, I'll do my best.
I'm not sure I have it,
but I apologize for it not being in Sean's hand,
but I'll multitask as we move forward.
I will email it to you too then.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Saleta.
all right madam chair would you like me to proceed yes i would okay thank you very much
sean whalen here from vintage law i am representing a tapco properties inc the equitable owner with
regard to 4401 ridge avenue and we'll start sharing my screen
no unfortunately i can't tell what you're seeing so uh can you just confirm for me that you're
seeing a rendering of what I will represent as our new proposed building. A very, very large
building. Yes. So this is the ultimate rendering. We began this process back in January, submitting
an original set of plans back to the RCO, EFCC at that time. You can see this is actually the
original rendering that was provided um our architect from umbra architects michael brawler
will go into the extent and numerous uh divisions that we've had to the project but but this is where
we're at as far as our latest meeting with the community um i have upwards of 10 to 12 meetings
with numerous other i would say dozens and dozens of calls and emails with the community so
So this, again, is a project that has resulted in significant benefit from extensive relations with the community and in working out, you know, details that they wanted.
And we'll get to that quickly.
We have, here's a copy of the refusal.
We have two refusals that you can see.
We have two refusals that you can see.
One is the steep slopes.
One is the steep slopes.
There are slopes.
They are man-made.
They were man-made, in fact, by PHA.
PHA is still the record owner of this property.
As I stated, Atapco Properties, Inc.
The applicant is the equitable owner.
And PHA tiered this site when it was developing three towers that have long since been demolished now.
So, our engineer will go through this deep slope issue.
We have a second refusal, which is for off-street loading.
That refusal has been cured in the revised plans that were submitted to the board.
We were required, because this is a CMX3 zoning district, we were required to have two loading
spaces and originally only showed one, so we added a second loading space and have cured
that refusal.
So again, just for everyone's understanding, today we have one refusal before the board, which is that we are disturbing slopes.
Although they were man-made, they still constitute slopes greater than 25% grade that have to be addressed in the development process.
So here's kind of an overview of the property.
You can see it highlighted here.
It is a CMX3 property.
This is Ridge Avenue, right at Merrick, just past Calumet and the Falls River Bridge.
To give you some understanding of the property location, right about here, where my cursor is, is the on-ramp sign to 76 that everyone I'm sure is familiar with.
So this is the very large vacant lot parcel on the right.
again this kind of gives you a better understanding right after you go on Kelly
Drive or Ridge right after you go under route one and you cross over past the bridge you get to
our property this gives you a good aerial view what you can see here is sort of outlined
this is all heavily wooded this is that property that kind of serpentine property behind us
Again, our property is just this trapezoidal shape right here.
It's about 82,000 square feet.
And it is the site of three former PHA towers, which have been long since demolished.
And we're looking to redevelop now.
and again you can see this is this this section right here is uh is us where we're closest um
what you'll hear from the owner and you'll see in other exhibits is that there are very large
developments taking place right here there's already a um an apartment building right across
the street. This is Merrick Road. This is Ridge Avenue. There's already Falls Ridge in existence
right across the street from us this way and another apartment building right across the
street this way. There's also basically all the vacant land that you see in between Kelly and
Ridge is already scheduled for and approved for significant development, which was supported by
all the RCOs in this process. So here are some general conditions. Obviously, this project has
been going on a long time. So my photos are from, you know, late winter. Again, you can see here,
this is along Ridge Avenue, you can see the 76 on-ramp. This is the property right to the right,
kind of a large vacant dead zone. Again, here it is on the left, just looking exactly down the
other direction from ridge um most of uh what's here is uh along the property is kind of weed
trees and early growth uh trees but just kind of general brush um so you kind of get the
understanding here's i'd like to make an objection uh mr whalen that i don't mind you showing photos
and going over the generalities but when it comes to you know what we think might be relevant facts
let's say the the contents of the property i i'd rather your witnesses uh speak to that um rather
than you as the lawyer uh that they will um he can bring them in we not concluded from doing so
in my introduction thank you very much mr bonnie well i'm just not gonna here's the falls bridge
Well, I'm just not going to.
Here's the Falls Bridge lofts right across the street that I was talking about in a newer apartment building.
lofts right across the street.
You can see just down Ridge Avenue there.
You can.
I'd like to interrupt, Mr. Pony, your objection is noted.
Go ahead, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is Falls Ridge, the existing apartment building across the street on the same side of Ridge, but across Merrick Road from us.
Sorry, I went the wrong way.
More general site conditions.
This is, right to the right here is the parking lot
and that's Falls Ridge, the existing building.
These are existing homes back here.
And this is Palisades, the road that comes off
kind of catty corner from us.
And I think, let me show a better.
so where i'm showing right now is right here so falls ridge is right here with its parking lot
and our property starts just past palisades and cuts this way
so this starts to give you an idea i'm walking up merrick these are the existing conditions
with the growth on our side, the existing building, the medians, and this starts to
show you the significant incline that goes back up from Ridge Avenue.
This is still all of our property. These are the homes at the top of the hill
that are existing and occupied, and again, just sort of working our way up the hill to see the
full site conditions. And here's the final property. I'm standing essentially to my right
is the exact property line where our property ends. And then you can see the elevation change
from ridge, which is down at the bottom. Now, it should be noted. It is not clear if you're looking
at the site individually, but there is this, again, the serpentine property that circles back
behind us. Our property, essentially right from our property going up, this is a significant
elevation change. The existing townhomes are built up here. That's what will be referred to
as the Westrom development. That was also developed in coordination with PHA, as were the houses over
here we are approximately 75 feet away up a hill from those properties at the nearest point
so moving along we have submitted a traffic and planning report which our traffic planner will
get into here are simply photos of the second posting this property was posted for the original
hearing back in June. This is a continued hearing and you can see it was posted twice
on both street frontages along Ridge and Merrick. So here again this is a slide here
which I'll leave as a placeholder for Ronald Glenn our engineer for the project. You can see again
here's the kind of trapezoidal shape of our property coming back here. These are the two
steep slopes that we're talking about. There's a band right through the middle here and a band
right here. And to jump to the final conclusion, this is a CMX3 property that because of the steep
slopes, any CMX3 development would require the disturbance of those steep slopes and therefore
create a hardship for the property. I would object to that. That's just attorney speaking.
I'm an attorney, too, so I don't say that figuratively, but I think that would really...
I'm sure Mr. Whalen will bring in an expert witness to testify to that.
Of course, Chairman Dejico, and I purposely prefaced my comment by stating that it would
be testified to and by my engineer for that purpose. I think it's important to note that
this property was previously zoned RM2, and actually in 2016, bill number 160328 actually
remapped this property. So you can see here, part of that bill, we had CMX 2.5, CMX 2.5 across the
street, and RM2. So this is Kelly Drive, and this is Ridge, RM2 property right here, and this whole
RM-2 property right here, and this whole large property, both the one we're talking about today
large property, both the one.
and that Serpentine property behind us, were RM-2. However, through the public process
and the adoption of this bill in 2016, you can see that the two properties across the street
from us, CMX3 and CMX3 up from CMX2.5. As I said, you'll hear testimony later that those two
properties are already approved for significant development. The Falls Bridge development that
is existing did get upzoned to CMX2.5. And most notably and significantly, our property
right here got up zoned from RM2 all the way to CMX3. You know, this was obviously done as a
public process to rezone large sections of the area. It's not just this area, it's significant
portions of East Falls and Maniunk. And, you know, obviously seeking a certain type of development
or allowing, rather, a certain type of development by upzoning it to CMX3.
That is done in follow-up to what you're looking at, I will represent, is page 86 of the Lower
Northwest 2035 plan that was created and adopted by the Planning Commission in 2014 through another
public process. And again, here's the property that we're talking about, 4401 Ridge. The dark
red is the color in the Philadelphia zoning code of CMX3. And you have the two CMX3 properties
next to us. And then this sort of lighter red pink color is CMX2.5. This is the Falls Ridge
property. So in line with all of this, I will now go back to what we proposed.
So our project originally started as, and I will say, suggest the density and massing. The massing
has changed but the density has not. This is a project for five stories along Ridge Avenue
which will actually be shorter in height than the existing Falls Ridge property or either of the two
new buildings that are already approved across the street and we did that purposely. What you
can see quite significantly is we have approximately 420 feet of street frontage along Ridge Avenue
and approximately 220 feet of street frontage along Merrick Road. Now the design that you see
here, and I'll get to a better rendering of it, leaves open a significant portion of the Ridge
avenue street frontage and that was done on purpose because what you could do is create a
large cavernous effect here as the board is aware in the cmx3 zoning district there's no height
restriction and the only limitation to development is really floor area ratio of 500 percent that
would allow on approximately the 82 000 square foot property that we have this extremely over
large property, over 400 apartment units by right. My client didn't think that that was an
appropriate development for this site. Is that considered the steep slopes requirement?
And back down from the totality of allowing it. Again, no development of any CMX3 commensurate
project can be built on this site without disturbing the steep slopes they actually
that banner that I showed that runs through the project is right about here right through the
middle and runs all the way down angling towards Ridge Avenue so this project is purposely tried
to be tiered like plates stacking on each other going back and what you can see here so this is
the first project design that EFCC and the community saw in January of this year.
They, at the zoning committee, they made some comments to us, requested us to make some changes.
We did so, and we came back for a second meeting, which was explained to me was our voting meeting
by EFCC Zoning Committee President Hillary Zank.
EFCC Zoning Committee President Hillary and Langer. I'm sorry, I said Zanger, didn't I?
I apologize, Hillary. Hillary Langer. And so we then went and we had actually a pretty good
meeting, both good turnouts. I would guess about 30 to 35 people at the second EFCC meeting that
we had. I understand and I don't want to misrepresent. The vote here, the official vote
comes from the committee itself, not from the general public. I know a lot of RCOs do it that
way. But there was a general public vote taken at that time. Not a vote, sort of a temperature of
the room taken at that time, which was 12 to 8 in favor, as is for support, with another 14
individuals who were on the Zoom meeting saying that they would support the project if certain
aesthetic changes were made, but they didn't like this aesthetic change. So what has happened
since then is, again, multiple meetings. EFCC thought it appropriate to have another meeting
with more neighbors that they thought might not have attended the first meeting.
We did that, got generally the same feedback that they wanted aesthetic changes
and had other density parking and traffic questions here.
We are doing 185 units with approximately one-to-one parking.
um we actually only have a parking requirement of 56 parking spaces basically one third of the
units it's a three to ten parking ratio required uh however we are providing um approximately a
one-to-one ratio and we're doing that specifically because we recognize that in east falls uh this
will be more of a commuter neighborhood than say something in south philly where more people may
be walking or fewer people using cars. We are working with the other new developments on a
kind of group system to shuttle people to the trains. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I have an
objection. Mr. Whelan has witnesses. We should get to those witnesses. I am not stipulating that he
can just give this case and then ask his witness, do you agree with everything I said? This is a
a hotly contested matter and I would like us to rely on the witnesses. I don't mind giving him a
little bit of leeway, but he's now discussing our processes and all sorts of things. I assume his
client is on the call and I would suggest that we move into the substance and that this opening
argument be wrapped up. I'll meet you halfway. I'd suggest to Mr. Willing that if you can summarize
because we will be hearing a lot of your testimony
or folks who are testifying in support.
Of course, and I've certainly been
trying to go as quickly as possible
in order to get to the witnesses.
Let me just see what else I can check off.
Oh, I do apologize.
I didn't show.
We do have the letter.
Madam Chair, I forget if you stated
that you saw this letter or not.
this is the EFF, East Falls Forward letter in support with 86% in favor. And we do have a
support letter from, granted, not an RCO, but the East Falls CDC that was resoundingly in support.
And my understanding, just for the chairs, is that both of those entities have representatives
who will be attending today to state whatever their positions are.
Mr. Whalen, I believe this is, correct me if I'm wrong,
Councilman Jones' district?
Yes, it is, actually.
Do we have any correspondence from the Councilman's office?
To my knowledge, there is no correspondence from the Councilman's office.
Maybe they'll weigh in verbally.
Yeah, my understanding was they would weigh in verbally if they had a position.
But that actually was that you bring me, Chairman, to the final point that I wanted to make, which was the councilman, Councilman Jones, actually seeing a bit of a logjam here and had a meeting.
Again, we're purchasing this property from PHA, and PHA is selling this at an open bid process and selected our bid.
But the councilman hosted a meeting between...
But the councilman hosted a meeting between ATAPCO Properties, EFCC, and PHA, at which I thought we really turned a corner and saw some of the movement you saw.
um this chart is relevant in that this is the indication asked for by pha and the councilman's
office for us to show as of the end of april all of our communications with the various community
organizations um just so that you can see the extent to which we were attempting to do this
um so with that i will uh call my first witness unless uh the board has any questions for me
any questions from the board at this time no no no no mr chairman uh in that case i would request
that i can call uh michael brawler from umbra mr chairman would would you rather i give my opening
now or at the beginning of my presentation i think we're maybe at the beginning of your presentation
thank you thank you
mr parlor you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
okay i unmuted myself good morning sir please identify yourself spell your full name and i'll
swear you in my name is michael brailler last name spelled b as in boy r a h l e r
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Mr. Whaler?
Yes, hello, Mr. Braylor.
You're associated with this project, correct?
That's correct.
And you are the project architect, is that correct?
That's correct.
Mr. Braylor?
Yes, that's correct.
I'm sorry, you're very quiet on my end.
I'll turn up my volume.
And just as a preliminary matter, did you hear all of the commentary and testimony that I already provided?
I did.
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
I object to this bootstrapping.
That's normal.
That's normal.
I mean, we do that with all witnesses.
Objection is overruled.
As long as it's noted for the record.
Thank you.
And Mr. Braylor, would you adopt the testimony as your own?
And thank you, Mr. Braylor.
Now, I'm showing, and I believe hopefully everyone can see a rendering showing Umbra Architects in the bottom left corner.
Do you see that?
And this is the rendering of the project that you designed, correct?
Yes, it is.
And now, as I was stating previously, you can see the first, this is the very first rendering that we presented to EFCC back in January of 2021, correct?
That's correct.
Mr. Breller, excuse me, you're breaking up. Do you have any other devices on?
I do not. I only have...
Now you're clear.
We can now hear you.
That was much better.
I did have my phone on my laptop, so maybe that was his. I apologize.
I think the chairs do have magic powers. You guys should start saying some things that you need.
Maybe if you wish me to, you know, stop talking, you can get that done, too.
So, Mr. Braylor, could you briefly describe for me the design process and number of revisions that you made to get from this project to this project?
Again, we'll leave individual details aside for now and ask the board if they have those specific questions, or Mr. Bonney may have those questions for you.
But just kind of in summary fashion for the board's edification, how we got from what I'm first showing here to what is now before the board.
If you can make that a brief response as possible, because I think, Mr. Whalen, you covered some of that when you said that the community had issues with the aesthetics, and you guys went back and redid some of it.
So if you can summarize that, that would be helpful.
I certainly agree, and Mr. Braylor, if you could, be as brief as possible.
And, Chairman, I do apologize for obviously belaboring this point, but I think Mr. Bonney made clear that, you know, if he appeals this case, he's going to be as brief as possible.
But I think Mr. Bonney made clear that, you know, if he appeals this case, he's going to appeal it on that issue of me testifying instead of Mr. Braylor.
Thank you.
That's correct. But if we win the case, I won't be appealing.
Okay. All right.
Let's move on and you guys will handle the appeals.
um just in in general i like you mentioned sean mentioned a lot of it and a lot of it's obvious
from this view compared to the the first view from back in january um but it was really about
kind of warming up the building and the the site or the building responding more to the site and
kind of the public realm so everything follows from that the stepping in the massing the warming
of the building with more uh more masonry materials the balconies adds more of a residential
feel to it as well some of the things that are not obvious that um from this view is we double
the size of the green roof in response to some sustainability uh concerns as well um we added a
pocket park along ridge ave as well which is kind of farther down that that area there i mean uh
further up um uh there you go thank you uh that's the pocket park um but there were some kind of
really smaller moves as far as how we um how we can steal the parking on merrick road
by extending the facade along there some more urbanistic moves that we tried to do as well
is moving the bike room closer to the corner of merrick and ridge um but again it was all about
kind of warming it up and making it more relatable we think and the massing kind of in smaller
chunks to what Sean stealing my thunder at the very beginning about stacking plates up the hill
but it was about not overwhelming the site it's kind of you know understanding the site
and and just responding and you know what the site offered us and not overwhelm it so we feel
we did that and still kind of delivered 185 units and um i mean thank you mr brailler i two points
that um i actually didn't steal your thunder on and didn't mention before at all is can you describe
how the parking is accessed from this property and why it was designed like that sure um the
parking is Merrick Road right there where Sean is circling the idea there would be is to not to
create which we you know as far as keep giving some buffer between cars moving in and out of
the site that they can you know almost you know stack along Merrick Road a little bit is the kind
of big breathing space to Ridge Ave a little bit and extend it up so essentially that's where we
put it. We also put the residential lobby up there as well. We just felt that was more appropriate
as opposed to a long ridge. So we have retail space on the corner to kind of activate that
zone and kind of connect it across to the east. Thank you, Mr. Braylor. And is there, in this
current design, is there any parking visible to the public or the kind of pedestrian or public
view should we don't think so we what we tried to do again was um in addition to kind of putting
the parking up the hill is also put the the mass of the building up the hill right so that the
screen along ridge kind of gives you that nice um kind of transition space between this and
the next property up which becomes on west on west ridge it becomes super steep and rocky
and we don't see any development happening there.
So we thought this was a nice way
of creating that cavern is provide a buffer,
but also set the building back off the street.
And Mr. Braylor,
would you agree that we maximized the parking allowable
in this, or not allowable,
but possible in this current configuration?
um i think we could have parked more but that would require some taller retaining walls
along ridge ave which nobody wants so we thought it was kind of a nice um balance of providing the
parking for one-to-one to keep cars off the street but also not bringing it towards the street and
kind of sending it back in the woods a little bit or what we consider a woods which would be a
heavily screened um landscape element along ridge and to were you trying to prevent any type of
parking garage look or feel to the development
parking garage look or feel to the development definitely that's if beyond that not only is
there an elevational change right so from a pedestrian level and this view you're looking
at is actually the eye point is taken probably 15 feet of grade which is a little misleading
but being lower at more of a pedestrian level that is even going to make it feel even more
you know, less of a parking, a parking structure. There's one level of parking back there.
So it's not at all the parking structure. Okay. And is there any parking access or
vehicular access off of Ridge into the project? There is no. Okay. And then you can see it right
here. Could you describe for me one of the changes that you made to this project showing right here
and why you made that change? Sure, I apologize. It's one of the major changes we made
prior to the last RCO meeting was we added three townhomes there. And essentially to get,
we added three townhomes here and we added a few on Merrick Road, really to get eyes on the street
for you know more of a feeling of comfort for people walking around um it's east falls is a
great area but it's always feels you know people feel more comfortable when as opposed to the
retail and the cafe or whatever that ends up being being not so much a 24-7 thing is that
people feel like they can walk around there by having residential industry walk-ups
okay thank you and is there anything that i haven't covered do you feel
should be brought up to the board's attention in addition to what we've already described
uh the one clarification was when you were going through the site photos is when you were on merrick
road and you mentioned that it was you're sitting on an image and you said this is the end of our
site the end of our site was actually closer to a silver card there up up for there that but that
was really the only thing that i saw um but it was it was just a clarification i i appreciate
that clarification. And now, are you, Mr. Brailler, familiar with CMX3 zoning and CMX3
commensurate projects? I am. And in your design of this building and other design iterations that you
looked at for this project, was it possible to design a CMX3 commensurate project at this
property without disturbing the steep slopes in your opinion i think it's it's possible to and i
only say that but it's a completely different development we're talking about doing a tower
and i don't think anybody wants to do a tower on here there's no height limitation
in this right so the intent is to keep it mid-rise right so i can't say with certainty that
you couldn't do something but it looks a lot different and it's a lot taller so we think this
is a good good place to be and we did multiple multiple options on this and so in your opinion
would would you opine that this pro this project as proposed and as revised uh for the board today
meets the requirements for the issuance of a variance?
I do. Thank you. I have no further questions and would ask the board if they have any questions.
I have none. Questions from the board at this time?
Yes, yes. Where's the entrance to the loading dock?
Do you want me to take that? It's to the, actually if Sean could point to it there,
yeah that that larger opening there it's to the right of the residential lobby which is immediately
to the left of there right it's set back into the building thank you any other questions from the
board no okay let's proceed all right um i have some questions please mr chairman may i have some
questions? Yes, please. Okay, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Breller. In explaining how you got
from the first image to the current image, and by the first image, I mean the one that was sort
of darker with more gray materials, yes, to the current image which is the lighter material
with some other changes. Is it correct to say that both
Is it correct to say that both versions have 185 units?
And in fact, in your testimony, and I wrote this down, you said that you, quote, still delivered 185 units, close quote.
Was that a design requirement that the client gave you?
Yes, it was.
I want to, looking at the exhibit K4, which is currently on the screen,
you know, why couldn't you just have a building along Ridge?
Why does it have to go uphill on this site where the steep slopes are located?
And, Sean, maybe you can go back to the steep slope image, if you could, if you don't mind.
Yeah, let me remember what number that was.
right so at the bottom of the property um you know there are two bands of steep slopes one is
much bigger at the at the top of the property and one is relatively narrow at the at the bottom of
the pro towards the bottom of the property but there's still in my opinion a healthy amount of
uh land but below that uh original sheet and i scratched it off i don't want to make another
mistake all right no worries i just want to make sure you got it thank you thank you
mr chairman just so you know we can hear you having your conversation so if you want to
um but it was it was nothing interesting
uh so mr brawler um you know there's a healthy amount of uh property that's not steep slope
along ridge and mer and the intersection with merrick um you could put a building in there
right i mean it may not maximize your far under cmx3 but there's no requirement to
maximize your your uh your far well we're not even close to that far but we looked at multiple
options mr bonnie um and it may look like more space there but once you put a a conventional
marketable building there you don't have the width to make that happen and if you start
maneuver or manipulating the building and plan what you end up with is a taller building
so you lose floor area per floor so what would happen is a much taller building
and we think that is inappropriate for the site so i appreciate the idea but this is an idea that
we vetted and at we feel that what we're doing sticking the building the majority of it up the
hill is the best move for the site i understand i have a question mr bonnie excuse mr baller
on that subject about a taller building uh hypothetically i believe there's no height
restriction is that correct that's correct i'm sorry i didn't hear that that's correct
okay thank you mr bonnie i'm sorry okay thank you i understand that you're saying it's better but
you know we're talking about hardship here uh and you know whether there is sufficient hardship
demonstrated to um for a variance to impact the steep slopes let me ask you this question
um how about if you impact only the lower band if you impact only the lower band of steep slopes
then you have i'm just eyeballing this you know about two-thirds of the property
um that would be non that would be available for development but what would what it would mean
is in essence you you cannot either build or disturb a steep slope or park on it right what
what we're then talking about is a hybrid you know tall building with parking garage along ridge
avenue to us that is is not a sensitive move for the site well i understand what you're saying
but if you do not um impact those man-made slope areas
then you're talking about a taller building and you're talking about a parking structure on Ridge Avenue.
then you're talking about a taller building and you're talking
about a parking structure on ridge avenue
Well, that may be. I'm not sure you're correct, but that may be.
But I'm, you know, we're not here about preferences.
We're here talking about whether it can be done.
So I take your answer.
Uh, and, and, um, why do you say a parking garage?
I mean, uh, you could put, um, surf, you have surface parking, uh, shown in your, uh, design,
right?
And you also have, uh, some parking along, um, underneath the building.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
So, Chairman, I would simply object here.
there is no legal requirement for anything that we're presenting today to show that we could put
a conforming building or a by right building for any purpose. You know, so I would just
state that we're kind of going down a tangent at which I understand that Mr. Bonnie's sort of
getting involved in engineering issues about what could or could not be disturbed. And I'm happy to
call my engineer to discuss those issues um but i think we're getting a bit far afield well i was
merely pointing i was merely pointing out that i think the witness was um describing the worst
case scenario with a horrible garage and incredible height and i think that a much smaller project um
i don't understand why a much smaller project uh could not be fit could not fit at the bottom of
the site and not impact the steep slope at all, or with a lesser minimum variance, impact only the
lower, much more narrow band of steep slope. And, you know, I'll let the board make its decision,
but I haven't heard anything even close to anything except preferences.
Chairman, with all due respect, I mean, Mr. Bonney's making legal argument, and, you know,
If he wants to stipulate that I could put two townhouses or something here, of course we could.
But his opinion as to whether or not what is a CMX3 commensurate project and whether it would disturb or not disturb steep slopes is wholly irrelevant.
We have presented the board with a heavily revised project in line with the RCO's comments.
and you know our engineer will testify as to the steep slope disturbances and what's required
and the mitigation that we're doing from that i'm happy to call him yeah i think i'd like to get to
that that issue okay because you know the buy right we could sit here all day and come up with
all kinds of uh you know other ideas lower shorter less dense and all that but the buy right uh as
was stated could be significantly higher could be a tower there uh so i'd like to get into this
if if the client if the design requirement is 185 units that's correct
if that was relaxed you know i think the height would come down uh correspondingly so
i'll i have no further questions for the witness thank you excuse me this is sharon
the board may want to call the planning commission representative out of the usual order they
apparently have some concerns about how this uh the latest proposal differs from that that
was considered by cdr sure let's do that thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair members of the board um this project completed civic design
state your name please sorry ian litwin planning commission staff uh this project completed civic
design review uh with two visits to the civic design board um they made changes including
revisions to the loading dock layout however the drawings presented today differ from those
presented at cdr uh therefore we request the board hold their decision so that cdr staff
the executive director of planning commission and the civic design review chair can review these
changes with lni to see if this project needs to return to civic design review oh thank you um
well would that then sharon i'm i'm going back to you would that then require us to have a
new hearing i i think it would be at least a limited resumption hearing for um planning
Commission to report any objections by the CDR committee.
So we continue with this case and then continue the case or?
You should continue with the case and then schedule a result.
You should continue with the pace and then schedule a resumption hearing for the limited purpose of hearing from the CDR committee.
That works, Russ. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Whalen.
I appreciate that input. I think that there will be no issue found by the Planning Commission.
You know, the changes were made in line with CDR comments.
I would simply note that this matter has already been continued from April because we had to return to a CDR second meeting, and in June because the RCO wanted further meetings, which we abided by in both instances.
and now as I'm sure the chair is aware there are significant deadlines coming up with regard to
the end of the year and therefore would just request that we proceed with the case today
and the board can certainly hold its vote for a limited resumption limited only to the planning
commission doing what I would assume to be confirming that we don't need to return to CDR
But I have no issues with Mr. Litwin's proposal.
Excuse me.
This is Sharon again.
Mr. Litwin, can you give us an estimate of how much time you would need in order to report back?
So the design we see today has changes to the site plan.
So we would need to confirm with L&I that it doesn't need a return visit to CDR.
If it doesn't, then it would be quicker than if it does have to go to CDR.
But we're okay with a resumption hearing just for the CDR.
And if that were to be held in a week, could you manage, should you get back to us in that time?
If it doesn't need to go back to CDR, then yes.
Or maybe, can we have two weeks?
I mean, it would be for you to confirm whether or not...
Yes. Okay.
If I may, I know this is sort of out of order, but if I may ask Mr. Litwin just to describe for us what particular changes to the site plan he might be referring to.
I'm not sure what those are, and I want to address them as possible.
We're seeing these drawings for the first time right now.
So there's ground floor entry units that were not in the previous design, which would affect the public realm.
there's a pocket park shown on ridge avenue uh that would affect the public realm
i don't know if there was changes to the parking layout or not i can't i haven't seen the site
presented today so i usually after cdr we do not see this level of changes uh between cdr and
zoning board so and there's also changes to the building envelope itself that that that's fair
so the issue with uh maybe i can address these just for the chair uh the issue with the ground
floor entries in the pocket park sort of address all of the comments that Mr. Litwin has made.
We made those only with regard to considerations of EFCC requests following a fourth meeting with
EFCC on June 29th, I think it was, or late June. EFCC is obviously opposing us. So I mean,
And frankly, in order to proceed,
we'd be willing to even withdraw those comments
if EFCC is continuing to oppose us.
And, you know, clearly those didn't move the needle
for them regardless.
I don't see a problem with that.
Do you, Sharon?
So, Mr. Whelan, just to be clear,
you would not be requesting approval of revised plans in that case. Is that correct?
No, what we would be doing is going back to the first set of revised plans that we presented
to the board as exhibits in advance of the June 17th hearing that was continued. And those were
confirmed to me by you that those would not trigger any further reviews. Those were only
in line with what had been done at CDR, and we had actually just recently concluded CDR
at the time that we made those revisions in line with CDR's comments.
Okay, and Mr. Litman, would you be comfortable with that if he's returning to the plans
that were reviewed by CDR?
In that case, yes.
Thank you.
So can I make an objection, please?
There were some changes made as a result of dialogue with the community.
The Planning Commission has now indicated that upon seeing these changes, it might, and I emphasize the word might, require further review in going back to the CDR, going back to another CDR meeting.
Because EFCC is here challenging the project, the developer is now eliminating those changes for the sole purpose of getting the tax abatement by the end of this year.
That's what I heard Mr. Whelan say.
I object to any characterization by Mr. Bonney as to our reasoning for moving this forward.
Obviously, this has already been delayed six months. So the significant delays that have been ongoing in this process and the developer, frankly, bending over backwards to have numerous meetings, upwards of 10 to 12 public meetings and 50 plus communications outside of that with other individuals in the community,
I think makes clear that, you know, this project has reached a point where the community has its
position, and we have a lot of support, and obviously we have some opposition from EFCC.
And, you know, at this point in time, in order to move forward with the project,
the developer is willing to go back to what it had already revised. I will suggest that
the developer would still be willing to do the other aesthetic changes in line with what the
community wanted that would not affect CDR review. And that those, you know, we would be withdrawing
really only the issues related to zoning that Mr. Litwin just enumerated for us.
So that you'd be asking this board to approve a design scheme that you have not presented yet,
because it includes a little bit from the old one and a little bit from the new one but not
something that you've presented? No in essence we would be asking the board to approve what was
previously presented and that we would say in as a matter of good faith which I think my client
has shown throughout the entire process calling us to work with the community and would continue
to work with the community on design issues not related to the issues enumerated by Mr.
Litwin, and that could cause concern for CDR, but still would allow them to proceed.
And I think at this point in time, we've attempted to proceed for so long.
That won't necessarily preclude us from working with the community if they really want the
Pocket Park to including that at a later date. Obviously, we're presenting what we're presenting
today because we like that project and we hope that that project can go forward, but we just
simply can't sit back and have any further delay at which we could have and should have been done
with this months ago. Mr. Whalen and Mr. Bonney, would it be possible then to have a brief
presumption hearing in a week with the understanding that if Mr. Litwin confirms that no further review
by CDR is required, that you could go forward with the most recent revised plans. If indeed
they do require another CDR review, then the applicant is requesting that the prior revised
plans be approved is that making sense um uh it it is making sense and i appreciate the
attempt at this kind of resolution uh but my uh my client is adamant that we need to proceed
uh here today um and you know to to the extent that we need to proceed today i would submit that
we already have revised plans that have been you know looked at reviewed and you know set around
forever and you know if there were an agreement to be made um you know there were months to have
made it um and we're happy to continue working with the community as we have like i said we've
had you know 50 plus meetings and communications i don't think that's going to stop anytime soon
Everyone has each other's cell phone numbers and texting and whatnot, but this project really needs to go forward and keeps getting delayed and stalled time and again for a project that's been well-designed, well, well underneath what's allowed, and frankly just needs to move forward.
And, you know, frankly, just needs to move forward.
Understood.
Then, just to confirm, the request is that you are no longer proposing the most recently revised plans.
You are going forward with those that were reviewed by CDR and you were requesting a vote today.
Is that correct?
Yes, please.
Thank you.
But do we still, we would still, correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon, we would still need to wait for planning to look at the...
would not because they are no longer proposing the plans that include the changes planning was
concerned about. They're stood now. All right. Well, before we go any further, I apologize. I
got it on late. Are we still having hearings for item number 10, 11, and 13?
10, 11, and 13. Yes. Okay. The reason I say that, it is now 11, 15,
and we have three other cases
after this case
and we have to take our break
somewhere around 1215 I believe
Ms. Sunkit
1215 is that like the
the date we have
to make a break
I believe 12 o'clock Chairman
12 o'clock so
Mr. Chairman we still have
case number 8 Jeffrey Nums
four cases left all right all right gentlemen uh i'll proceed and try to be as brief as possible
we understand you want to get as much on the record sounds like there may be an appeal either
way um but we do have four other cases and we're bound by rules to break at 12 o'clock
completely understood uh chairman and i appreciate that i will move as quickly as possible
I would call Ronald Glenn from Ruggiero Plant, the project engineer.
Mr. Glenn, you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Please spell your last name.
Yes, my name is Ronald Glenn, last name Glenn, G-L-E-N-N.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Glenn, are you associated with this project at 4401 Ridge?
Yes, I am.
And you're the project engineer?
Yes, I am the civil engineer consultant.
And did you hear the testimony that's already been presented in this case?
I did.
And do you believe it true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability?
In front of the record, please.
and would you adopt it as your own yes i would i object for the record please thank you so uh
what's the objection the objection is that i i do not agree or stipulate that witnesses can
incorporate um things said by um others uh previously um especially by attorneys
uh mr chairman if you like if we were presenting in the counties i would be happy to stipulate
that mr bonnie is correct uh that is unfortunately not the law in philadelphia oh yeah you're right
we can i can fight that out later okay a lot of fighting going on later okay
well i shouldn't i shouldn't use the word fight i would say i would say debate all right um i'm
going to try to be as quick as possible. Mr. Glenn, you've heard we're under time constraints
here. And just to be clear, because I didn't hear it for the record, would you adopt all that prior
testimony as your own? Yes, I would. Okay. And Mr. Glenn, you've heard all of the issues that
have been made, so we'll kind of skip to the most significant ones. Can you see on your screen
an existing site survey steep slope area with three photos underneath? Yes, I do. Okay, can you
please summarize briefly for us the steep slope conditions at the site? Yes, so it's our
understanding that there once existed a PHA development that had a few larger buildings on
it and you're talking about the photo down in the bottom left yes correct correct and um you know
with the grading of that project it kind of remained once they demolished the buildings
they've kind of left over some various uh parking you can see in the upper right hand side of the
survey um so largely these stopes these slopes were left over from uh the previous development
uh, the previous development. Okay. And, uh, Mr. Glenn, uh, what is your understanding as to,
in. Okay. And Mr.
uh, let me backtrack. Uh, if steep slope area is disturbed, a, uh, planning commission review is
required and a variance is required, correct? Yes. A variance is required if, um, slopes greater than
25% or greater are disturbed. Okay. Now, is that only true if the slopes are disturbed for the
final building site, or is that also true for any construction activity? It is for any construction
activity. Okay. Thank you. So here we have man-made slopes to tier the property, and we are essentially
going to de-tier the property? Would that be a, if I'm making up a word? Sure, through various
retaining walls and the parking areas we have outlined, yes. Okay, and you submitted an earth
moving plan to L&I for Planning Commission review, correct? Correct. And did you have any
comments on that, anything that needs to be described to this board? I didn't receive any
comments from planning commission but um my comments would just be that um you know we will
be providing um various erosion control methods to make sure that the slopes during construction are
are protected and and don't um impede the the public realm at all okay and would it be fair
to say in your opinion that the primary issue with a disturbance of steep slopes is stormwater
management? Correct. It would be, yeah, erosive properties of soil that might be exposed within
these steep slopes and might track sediment into the public right-of-way or sewers.
Are there any current stormwater management or mitigation
methods in place at the property? No, there are not. Okay. And can you briefly describe for us
the stormwater management facilities or methods that will be used in order to when we construct
our building? Sure. I'll just first describe the stormwater capture methodology and all stormwater
on site with exception of a small bypass area, which the bypass area will be 100% pervious
surface and compliant with PWD regulations. All storm water that is captured will be
sumped and trapped to prevent sedimentation downstream of the sewer collection system.
And all impervious surface on site, all storm water that falls on the impervious surface on site,
will be captured and directed to a subsurface infiltration basin under the surface parking
area. And it is a fairly sizable stormwater system that will effectively
slow the rates of stormwater as it discharges back into the public sewer.
And for clarification, it will slow the rates, according to modeling and calculations,
to a rate less than current conditions.
Okay, so there's currently nothing
and we're installing stormwater management systems.
Do you believe that there will be any,
in your opinion,
do you believe that there will be any detrimental impacts
with regard to the steep slope disturbance
or stormwater management issues from our proposed use?
I don't think so.
Okay. And finally, we'll get to, are you familiar with CMX3 zoning and CMX3 commensurate projects?
And in your opinion, would any development of the property with regard to CMX3 zoning or in line with CMX3 zoning require the steep slope disturbance either in the development process or the final building?
placement yes i do think so um only because there's you know footers necessarily are necessary
to install buildings and you know ingress and egress of construction activities on site um
so yes okay and are you familiar with the requirements for a variance under
the uh philadelphia zoning code yes and in your opinion does the property uh with the project as
proposed meet the requirements for that uh data issuance of a variance yes
meet the requirements for that uh data issuance of a variance yes i do all right thank you
chairman i tried to be as brief as possible i would offer mr glenn up for any questions from
the board yeah questions from the board no no um no okay no okay thank you
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Glenn.
Have you received any approvals from the Planning Commission regarding the impacts to the steep
slopes?
I have not received any formal approval, but they signed off for L&I review after submission
of the earthmoothing plan.
For what purposes?
for purposes of impacting the steep slopes yes as related to the variance that's now being contested
you're saying that your position is that the planning commission is supportive of
the impacts of the steep slopes is that what you read into that signature
no no okay thank you i would object to the questioning as far as lead into i'm not sure
what that means well i'm asking whether the planning commission has has approved the impacts
to the steep slopes mr glenn indicated he submitted some materials about erosion and sedimentation and
uh uh why don't we ask the planning commission well but then he hasn't heard back any comments
and i'm and i'm asking correct i did not receive any comments from planning commission regarding
the earth moving plan but he did get a stamp from the planning commission to move forward to this
yes correct fine of course of course um will you are you um will the planning in your
experience will the planning commission be getting back to you on your um earth moving plan with an
approval or a rejection or something in between no normally they they sign at least in my experience
they sign off um a stamp as we just discussed and then it is reviewed by lni and subsequently
zoning board did they stamp your earth moving plan um i did not receive a stamped zone or
earth moving plan but they stamped the zoning plan when proceeding to zoning okay thank you very much
um you testified uh uh just now that um the steep slopes are i think in your attorney's
uh question man was described as man-made um do you have any you know there's there's nothing
would you agree with me that generally speaking this entire side of ridge avenue in this location
um goes up uh you know it is a hill it is a steep hill as you go up is that correct
I would just object because I think Mr. Bonney concluded with a fair question, but had two questions maybe at the beginning of that.
So I would just ask that Mr. Bonney state that.
I'll rephrase it. Would you agree with me, Mr. Glenn, that the topography in this area on this side of Ridge Avenue is a relatively steep topography going up?
Yes. Okay. And it's steep across Merrick Road, and it's steep on the other side of this property.
It's a locally regional ridge. I mean, it is called Ridge Avenue.
Mr. Bonnie, I would object. I don't disagree with your line of questioning. I simply, in the
case of time, we can stipulate there are steep slopes on the site. We trigger the variance,
and there's no dispute that the variance is properly required and the refusal was appropriately
issued. Whether there are other properties with steep slope, I don't think is relevant.
Well, you've said a few times this morning that it's man-made. Mr. Glenn has talked about
regrading, and I assume you've made those statements for a reason. And what I'm asking
mr glenn is if he has any um you know evidence i think he said it's quote unquote our understanding
you know, evidence. I think he said it's, quote unquote, our understanding that there was
regrading at this site. And I'd like to know whether he has any evidence of what type of
regrading and the extent of it, what the slopes were before and after. And I would ask him to
answer that please. Unfortunately I don't have topography of the development before
current conditions but I do know that currently on site there is a retaining wall along the
northern property that was built as part of the development and essentially they when they built
or when they removed the structures, the existing buildings, they graded it in a steep fashion
between the buildings down towards Ridge Avenue. Now, Mr. Glenn, just for clarification, you're
referring to the three buildings that you originally referenced built. Correct. Those
are the buildings that they removed. Yes. Let me see if I can, I might be able to zoom in on this.
oh sorry i want to keep going but but but just to confirm you're not aware of what the
um grade was uh previously not intimately no i i do not okay thank you um as as to another part
of your testimony um mr whalen asked you and i believe he asked another witness too and he used
the phrase CMX3 commensurate, a CMX3 commensurate design or project. What do you, I'm not familiar
with that term, what, how do you, how do you understand that term? And, you know, in your
answering of those questions, how did you understand that term? Well, I would understand
it as a project fitting for a CMX3 zoned property. I'm sorry, depending on a development fitting for
a cmx3 zoned property depending on the scope of the the or the size of the property as well
when you say fitting i don't understand i mean certainly smaller buildings can be built in a cmx3
property um you know buildings of all different sizes can be built would you agree with me about
that yes i would i would object that we're getting into the hypothetical and
He can state fitting as his opinion.
We've already been through that.
But now this is a new witness.
And so I need to ask, Mr. Whalen asked his questions, the same questions to this new witness.
And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I need to cross-examine this new witness on his testimony.
Thank you. I'm sorry.
When you said, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll paraphrase, that any CMX3 commensurate property would need to impact steep slopes, were you assuming the requirement, if you will, of 185 units?
um not necessarily but i was i was assuming the allowable um bulk requirements within the zoning
code okay so the far if you will sure yes is that what you mean by bulk requirements yes i mean yeah
that's the primary um restrictor yes okay so you were so so you would be seeking to to maximize um
the FAR in your... I would object. He said nothing about maximizing. He said simply with what the
requirements and allowances are. He said allowable. Well, let's ask him, because I thought he said
allowable. And allowable could be... That has nothing to do with maximizing. I understand
your point, Mr. Bonney, but it's legal argument, and I have to object in the cross-examination of
a witness. I'm asking him to explain himself, so let's have the witness explain himself what he was
thinking about what assumption assumption he was making for his for his position mr glenn um i
wasn't necessarily thinking maxing out but considering the area of the property um you know
what would be appropriate for it uh do you know how much uh how many um well the for instance
could you put a 30 unit um apartment house on this corner and we went through this
two or three times where we're talking about what is a lot of hypotheticals here
it's not a hypothetical it's well i guess it is hypothetical but it but i'm asking it we did
It's not a hypothetical. Well, I guess it is hypothetical, but I'm asking, we did not go through this. I'm asking him specifically now, could he put a 30-unit apartment building on the corner?
Mr. Chairman, I would object again. I did previously, and I understand Mr. Bonney needs to ask it again, but this is, A, both asked and answered, but B, not relevant to the legal issue in front of this board.
Whether or not, if something else could get built, is not relevant to the project in front of the board and this board's review of this project.
I totally agree. Your objection is sustained.
Look, Mr. Chair, let me say this just so that I'm very clear with our position.
We think that this project is a massive overbuild given the environmental constraints of the steep slopes.
And therefore, we think it's absolutely legally relevant as to whether a smaller project could be built.
We agree. I don't think there's been a disagreement to that.
well that would be we agree that something smaller could be built okay well then but that's not what
we're being asked to um approve or disapprove well i believe that we have a project in front of us
that meets as far as i know and correct me from wrong the cmx3 requirements and that's something
using your line of questioning we can reverse that and say something taller and larger could
be built than what is being proposed i agree and i think and i think in either case if you avoid
the steep slopes, then a variance would not be needed, at least on the steep slopes.
I would disagree with you with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that if something smaller that's
reasonable could be built on this site to avoid the steep slopes, I think that answers the question
and that the variance has to be denied. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bonney is getting well into his
oral argument here. But this was asked and answered in that Mr. Bonney would have this
board believe, and the Planning Commission can confirm that he's incorrect here, that the steep
slope disturbance relates to the building placement. And yes, could you build a smaller
building? Possibly. But Mr. Glenn, as an expert, testified that, and I'm sure Mr. Litwin on behalf
of the Planning Commission would agree, that any disturbance, whether you drive a single car across
it whether you put one foot on the steep slope during construction requires and triggers the
variance so it is not whether you could build a smaller building uh you know chairman you are
correct we could build smaller you could build larger we could build you know a 30-story tower
here um but that's not relevant to the matter in hand and frankly i think mr bonnie's trying
to stall long enough to get this continued well i'll tell you it's 20 of 12 and we have four other
cases and it's not that we don't take these cases seriously we're not trying to railroad these
things through either way but we have rules and regulations that we have to abide by so uh this
i mean if if if the objection object yeah if the uh if the game plan here is to delay this
it's not certainly going in that direction i'll tell you that mr chairman i'm not appreciative
of that either you know me i've never done it i don't play that game and i and i just hear you
i'm just saying okay i'm just saying we're getting into that time where we're going to have to
continue this case i think this is the i think what we're talking about is the heart of the case
and i'm i have no further questions for this witness in that case mr chairman i would call
uh dan spitson from topco properties i will be extremely brief with mr spitson so we can get
this moving forward to a vote today uh chair this is ian from planning commission i just wanted to
clarify something that was discussed earlier so we only stamped these plans for parking lot
landscaping um and primary street we cannot stamp on slopes over 25 percent um we can't
that requirement, that's why we're here.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you, Mr. Litwin.
Madam Administrator, do you see a Dan Spitson
with his hand raised?
Yes, he's been allowed to talk.
He will have to unmute himself to speak.
Thank you.
Mr. Spitson, are you there?
yes can you hear me yes mr chairman i'll give him to you please please spell your full name
and i'll swear you in uh daniel spitzan d-a-n-i-e-l last name spitzan s-p-i-t-z-e-n
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you uh yes mr spitzan
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Spitson, are you associated with the TAPCO properties?
Yes, I am.
And are you here today on behalf of the TAPCO properties as the applicant and equitable owner of this property?
Okay. Have you heard the testimony previously presented in this case?
Yes, I have.
Do you believe it true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability?
I make my objection.
Yes, I do.
I make my objection.
Yes, I do.
i'm not trying to talk over you i'm just trying to so noted your objection is so noted please
proceed mr whalen thank you mr spitson and would you adopt that testimony as your own
yes i yes i would same okay um mr spitson obviously you've heard that we are significantly
strapped for time here um can you please let me know just in summary fashion what you have
in addition to what's already been presented for the board's consideration?
I think that most of the relevant information has been presented. We have designed a building
relative to the expectation that we first entered into an agreement with the seller of this project.
We've taken into account the zoning requirements. We've designed a building that was well below
the zoning requirements, or the zoning allowances, I'm sorry, and we think we've designed a building
that is very relevant and appropriate for the site and the community. Thank you, Mr. Spitson,
and I would simply direct you to what's on the screen now, if you could just describe
these two projects extremely quickly and why it's relevant to the board's consideration.
Sure, these are two projects that are, have been approved for development directly across the
street from our site on Ridge Avenue. Both of them, you know, are, you know, our development
is well within the context of these developments that had the support of EFCC. They have comparable
density, lower parking ratios, and, you know, and just a similar overall aesthetic dynamic to our
project. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll offer Mr. Spitson to you for any questions.
questions from the board no
oh yes thank you um first of all could i have the addresses of both these properties
4300 ridge is what we're looking what's the other one
it's uh 4440-4442 ridge avenue uh i would suggest as it's been uh in the record in the
public record that EFCC, EFF, and EFDC all supported both these projects. We'll check on
that. Thank you. We'll check on these. We'll do our homework. Mr. Spitzing, good morning.
Good morning. You submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package. Sean, could you put that
letter up, please? The one that has the communications chart after it? Oh, yes. I was
just about to ask you what letter you meant. Go ahead. I'm pulling it up now. Well, while you're
doing that, I'll shift gears to make the best use of time. Mr. Spitson, why did the TAPCO give its
architect the requirement of 185 units? We designed a building that we thought was appropriate for
for the site given the zoning designation?
Well, would a building of fewer units
not be appropriate in your view?
I object to the relevance as being none here.
This is part of, Mr. Spinson,
and you wrote this letter, is that correct?
That's correct, yes.
This is exhibit L to the presentation.
And this is a letter from you to PHA, is that correct?
You can go to the first page, Sean, if you don't mind.
But just show the first couple of paragraphs.
Okay, thank you.
And in this letter, is it fair to say that you describe East Falls Community Council
as not being responsive to your requests in the early part of 2020?
I reached out to East Falls Community Council on several occasions and got limited to no
response from them in the early part of 2020.
Okay. And, you know, the early part of 2020,
You know, the early part of 2020, and some would say even today, is...
Prior to the outbreak of COVID, I just want to make sure it's clear that that's on the record.
Well, Sean, can you go to the communications chart, please?
Which is after this letter?
It starts February of 2020, about a month before the pandemic.
Thank you, Sean. You're very helpful. But this is my witness. So I was just asking you to put this up. So if you look at the emails to EFCC on the left-hand side beginning on April 22, it says no response. April 29 says fourth attempt. And even May and June.
Chairman, I have to object given the time constraints we have here and the considerations we've already set forth.
This document speaks for itself.
We can even agree that in 2020, you know, we got responses that we got and that there were extenuating circumstances, obviously, that the world was going through.
However, this process began with formal meetings with EFCC in January of 2021.
And that's public record.
So it's unclear to me why we're wasting time going back to whether an email was responded to in the first month of the pandemic.
Because, Sean, in this letter and in this exhibit, TAPCO is criticizing the RCO, East Falls Community Council, for not being responsive in large part from April to August of 2020.
And I would like to tell, I would like to ask Mr. Spitson if he's okay with everyone on this call, including the Planning Commission, any representatives of City Council, to understand that this city was shut down during this time.
This board did not open up until July.
There was, I'm not sure if you're aware, I think you are a Philadelphian, that RCOs were being told by the city that they didn't have to hold meetings and that the most important thing to do would be to take care of themselves and their loved ones.
And I think that this should be condemned, condemned from the top to the bottom, this type of slander, which I think it is.
and and i'll have other questions for you um but i i could i that that can this cannot happen
mr chair i don't know excuse me yes i i'm not sure if anyone can read it the print is very small
i don't know if there's slander in there i see it seems to me like a chronicle uh listing of
the attempts that were made and what transpired or did not transpire that is all it is uh chairman
This is simple grandstanding for the point of grandstanding.
There's no attempt to impugn.
It simply says, second attempt to connect with EFCC, no response.
The print is so small, I can't read if there's any.
I'm working on trying to zoom in, Your Honor.
Go to the letter.
Go to the letter, Sean.
10 of 12.
In one sentence or less, Mr. Bonney, what a slander is.
Go to the letter.
I'm asking you.
Okay, well, I think this letter, along with this chart, and a complete absence of reference to what was going on in the world, it amounts to this.
I'm not saying, Ms. Teneri, I hear what you're saying.
i'm not saying it's actionable slander and that we're accusing somebody of committing slander
i i apologize for using that word what i'm saying is thank you should not okay that's okay you don't
have to go any further okay that i think it should not be tolerated by this board by the planning
commission or by anybody that that reviews this case and i think what the city i think what the
city was doing excuse me was telling people to stay home and be safe and that's all i have to
say, and that should be all you have to say right now. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry for jumping in like
that. No, no, you're fine. I'm happy to move on. I'm happy to move on, but it had to be said.
Mr. Spitson, a lot of these emails have to do with a settlement agreement
between EFCC and the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
between EFCC and the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Is that correct?
At least some of them in the time period, some of them in the beginning of the chronology.
I'm not familiar enough with the details of every one of these emails to say that that is
the correct statement. As a separate matter, I would again object to relevance here and delay.
any agreement between PHA and EFCC is a private party agreement that has no bearing on this case.
If either party wants to enforce any agreement that exists or doesn't exist,
they have a court system that does that, not this board.
I am referring to information contained in the exhibit provided by the applicant,
And I have the opportunity, I have the right to ask questions about that exhibit.
On 5-19, that's May 19, it says, focused on history and settlement agreement.
Can you slide it to the right a little bit?
Requested copies of all documents they had in their possession related to the settlement agreement.
Do you see that, Mr. Spitson?
yes i see that but i would not categorize as most of the correspondence is relating to that that was
mentioned on one phone call i understand but then you have the following entry that says
requesting status of documents and then the following entry after that regarding status
of documents so would it be fair to say that you are asking east falls community council for
copies of that agreement and any related correspondence? I was requesting information
from East Falls Community Council. Okay. Did you have a copy of the settlement agreement
at that time? I did not receive the copy from East Falls Community Council.
I would object. I'm happy to let this move on because it's going nowhere, but we need to move
it forward, obviously, as quickly as possible. There's no establishment of what the settlement
agreement is, quote unquote, why he would have it, why it's relevant. It is not relevant. It is at
best a private party agreement between two third parties, neither of which are relevant to this
application. Would you agree with me, Mr. Spitson, that at the time that you were asking East Falls
Community Council for a copy of the settlement agreement that you had a copy in your possession
since the year prior, courtesy of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, that you already had a copy of
it, as well as various pieces of correspondence between EFCC and the Housing Authority. Would
you agree to that? Again, Chairman, I have to object as to why we're going down this path,
what its relevance is other than to stall this case to a continuance.
That's a good, that's your opinion.
My question is, when you are asked, this is a document where you said that East Falls
Community Council was being non-responsive.
We're talking about your request of a settlement agreement and correspondence related there
When I asked you whether you had a copy, you told me just a minute ago that you did not
have a copy provided to you by East Falls Community Council and I'm now asking you whether in fact you
had a copy provided to you by the Philadelphia Housing Authority as of August 2019 when you
signed the agreement of sale with them many many many months before this car's but these emails
and requests. Objection chairman what is the relevance of that? Well first of all is there
something in that letter that you keep referencing that yes the board's decision today it there is
and we're going to get into that when we get to our case but my point is i mean i'm entitled to
cross-examine this witness i'm not saying you're not entitled to what the relevance on issues of
credibility and when he is presenting a letter and a document that says that we've not been
responsive and provided him with certain information, if it is in fact the case, and I believe it is,
and I believe I can prove it, that he had that information all along, I would say that that's
important for the board to hear for purposes of his credibility, for how they are presenting
their view of how this East Falls Community Council has acted. And we've heard a lot of that
from Mr. Whalen this morning, and my question stands.
I have to object here, and I'm sorry to interrupt again.
Madam Vice Chair already, you know, brought this to a head with Mr. Bonney.
brought this to a head with Mr. Bonnie. The document says what it says. The document doesn't
The document says what it says.
The document does.
say requested settlement agreement that didn't have. It just says requested copies of all the
documents they had in their possession. That's it. Again, reading and facilitating a, you know,
a vehement reading of this that has nothing to do with the factual case in front of this board.
then why did you put this why did you put this exhibit in front of the board's face
why did you submit this document tron i'm entitled to cross-examine it all right all
right all right here we go you know what we have two minutes this case will have to be resumed
there's no no way we can finish our morning list uh and and uh abide with the rules and regulations
that we have where we're bound by so uh mr bonnie just finish with this witness please and we're
to give we're going to have to resume this hearing that's fine i have a number of questions and i'm
going to now um well it's 11 58 and we have two minutes i i'm going to continue unless told
otherwise um uh can i share my screen there i didn't hear what you said i didn't hear what you
Okay, I see it.
Share.
Is this the first page of your, I'm showing you an agreement, a document titled The Top
Agreement of Sale, dated August 12, 2019, between the Philadelphia Housing Authority
and your company at TAPCO.
Would you agree that this is the first page?
That question for?
Mr. Spitson, do you agree that this is your agreement of sale?
I mean, that it looks like.
I know you can't, I don't want you to read the entire page right now,
but I'm just trying to move forward.
Chairman, I'll object.
I mean, to the extent that Mr. Bonney wants to make this document obvious
as to why we're discussing it,
I don't know as the attorney whether this is or is not the first page. It could be without doing a confirmation and reading every word. So just trying to move on as to what the relevant question is, we can maybe do a cart before the horse as to, you know, establishing the document.
Okay. Well, I'm showing page 8 of 18 of this PDF. The pages aren't numbered, but it's page 8 on the PDF, where there's a paragraph 13C, as in Charlie, representations and warranties, where the seller is representing.
um and again i'm going to have to object i understand what mr bonnie is discussing but
this document is relevant to these proceedings only to the extent that it creates an equitable
ownership interest in atapco properties such that it may apply and appear before this board
the inner workings of this document have nothing to do with this board's analysis
If Mr. Bonney, which I believe he's trying to do, is tee up a legal case, he's trying to shoehorn testimony from this matter to tee up some kind of legal case that EFCC may have or may not have with PHA.
But that's wholly irrelevant and a judicial determination as to this document. The legal analysis of this document for this board's purpose is solely limited to whether it creates or does not create an entitlement by Atapco Properties to proceed as the Ecuador owner, which it clearly does.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I'm sorry for the interruption.
Please stop describing my motives.
Mr. Bonney, we're going to have a result. This case will have to be resumed. Do we have a date, Tanya?
September 8th at 3.30.
okay so mi 2021 that's 000336 4401 ridge avenue this hearing will be resumed
on september the 8th at 3 30 p.m i i i i assume i am incorrect and it is futile to ask but i must
uh miss sunkett is there any earlier date i presume not but
no okay and and if there is no other date can i just have the board confirm that i do not need to
Okay. And if there is no other date, can I just have the board confirm that I do not need to repost or re-notice for that September 8th hearing?
We okay on those grounds, Sir Tanya?
No, resolution hearings do not need posting.
Can I mention my client is telling me that that is the date of Rosh Hashanah?
I think September 7th is.
Well, I'm just going by what my client says.
And if it's...
I know, and I'm not Jewish, so I don't know.
I'm looking at my calendar.
September 7th is Rosh Hashanah.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Oh, and that...
Well, we would object to that date.
What grounds?
That it's a holiday for me and some of my, at least one of my witnesses, one of my witnesses who just texted me.
The 7th?
The 7th, are you talking about, like, it starts at 6 o'clock, it's sundown, and then it goes into the following day, and that's the real holiday?
That's how we work, yes.
well my suggestion is why don't we leave this i'll submit i'll confirm with my client
and i will submit a letter um if if and we can do it that way i don't know if we um excuse me
this is sharon no we cannot do it that way the date has to be announced now in order for everyone
who is now present to have notice? I obviously, you know, I already asked and was told no. I need
to obviously push this matter forward as quickly as possible. I guess if we're having any kind of
resumption, you know, the Planning Commission was only going to be, you know, they were going to
bend over backwards and give us a week to do their analysis and do a resumption. You know, I'm happy
to do next week. I'll do the week after. I'll do literally any day that we can get this done. But
this has been, I mean, literally months and months of delay at this point.
Is there another date in the same general vicinity, either before or after?
September 21st.
That's even further out.
So the Rosh Hashanah is on the 7th, correct?
That's correct.
So why is the 8th not appropriate?
It's not appropriate for one of my main witnesses.
If it was up to me, I would do it.
For the purpose of the holiday?
That's what I'm being told.
So two comments here, Chairman.
um a mr bonnie represent you know i've just been told that it's okay it's okay okay thank you
thank you very much all right see you gentlemen on the september the 8th at 3 30
with no reposting and no re-noticing correct correct tanya
that's correct chair thank you so carol i'm not again uh which you'll call the case because i
wasn't here initially called the next case okay yes calendar number 2790 4515 east thompson street
uh this case is uh per se by carrie and robert robert hunter there are also no exhibits the
applicant has previously requested a continuous continuance and she stated she was not sure that
variance is what was needed. No further correspondence has been received. So are
Carrie and Robert Hunter in the virtual audience?
And this is Sharon. This is either the second or third listing.
No one in but no one's responding. Ms. Carrie or Robert Hunter?
No, Chair. No, Madam Chair.
Thank you. MI 2020-002790-4515 East Thompson Street. Dismissed.
Dismissed. Professor Plaza, Dismissed. Thomas Holloman, Dismissed.
Calendar number, Jim, are you here? Okay, I'm moving on to number 11.
Okay, I'm moving on to number 11.
Calendar number is 05815966 Elsinore Street.
Calendar number is 0581.
Radamez Francisco is also handling this per se.
The RCO Longcrest Community Association
has submitted a letter of opposition.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Good afternoon. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name to the
chair, please? My name is Chris Francisco. My father is Radames Francisco, who has English as
his second language, so I'll be assisting him here. Okay, can you spell your name,
your first and second name? Yes. Excuse me, this is Sharon. There is a problem with this.
We are only able to, for an un-English speaking applicant, we are only able to use a court-certified interpreter.
We'll have to continue this case, correct?
um this is tanya hi um could we verify that uh the father cannot present this case going forward
if not it will have to be continued and a court um interpreter have to be present
so can we verify that to be certain can i can i ask him if he feels comfortable um yes okay sure
Is it possible he can make an attempt to proceed now?
Chair, it's your call. If he can do it himself. If not, I was trying to prevent this from being scheduled late in the year. So it's your call, Chair.
Yeah. Let's try and see if we can get through this hearing.
So is he Radames?
And can he spell his name?
R-A-D-H-A-M-E-S
And your last name, Francisco?
Francisco. Francisco, like San Francisco.
Just like it. Go ahead.
F-R-A-M-C-I-S-C-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral,
photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes. We do have a letter of opposition from the RCO.
Yes. You may proceed. Yes. Okay, you can go. Okay.
Okay, I'm on the house in the corner of the 659, and I like to push another unit in the
ground floor. When I buy the property, the property was the way that it is now. The only thing we do
was refinish with Chirac and all the stuff. And I like to put somebody in the...
Excuse me, Mr. Francesco. Do you have any photographs or plans that you can share with us?
yes yes we do i'm sorry um hi this is tanya again um i would um state if it's okay with
the counselor saletta that it's okay for your son to assist with the slide presentation if that
would help i was just about to say the same thing thank you we always on the same page
thank you
Thank you.
Sir, if you hover along the bottom of your screen, do you see the share screen button that's green?
Yes, I did. Okay. So after your document is open,
you can hit the share screen button and then click on the document and it will share. Okay.
I believe Ms. Paulos is also on this call and she has a plans that she can share with the board.
She's an architect that we used.
I'm sorry. What's her name? Ms. Paulus? Cheryl? Sherry?
Hello? Please promote her to panelists so she can share her screen.
Yes, she's coming back in now as a panelist. Thank you.
hello i'm going to share my screen can you put your name and address on the record please yes
it's cheryl pulos uh last name is p-o-u-l-o-s
your address my address sorry is 1014 county line road philadelphia pa 19116
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You may proceed.
Sorry. Here's the plans. Chris, you can talk about it if you'd like.
so this is um the first i'm sorry i'm sorry chris i apologize for interrupting again this is tanya
but because miss polos is the architect you can discuss the plans and the presentation again must
be done by the dad sorry for the inconvenience okay no problem okay the first that's the ground
floor and the number two is our second floor and the first floor and the third is that second floor.
We have a ground floor, first floor and second floor.
Do you understand? So far. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the
Amy okay oh you're doing your best you're doing great yeah I try yeah
and Miss Polos you can always jump in if you need you are sworn in and you are the architect
if that is correct sure um so this is the way the property was already set up this is how the owner
purchased it um and i believe he's just trying to legalize it he's not doing any new work to it
correct yes go right there so it's already set up it has a unit i think he was saying in the
basement he just added drywall but it was already set up to have a basement unit a first floor unit
and a second floor unit.
So he's just trying.
Excuse me.
Is that a corner property?
Is that a corner property?
Yes, a corner property, yeah.
So the ground level has a door to the outside?
Thank you.
They have two doors.
One in the side and one in the back.
if i could madam chair i believe you requested pictures do you all have pictures i'm sorry to
push this along but we have a couple more cases to go press do you have pictures i do have pictures
of the exterior yes yes um i mean this is this is the back and the side of the property right here
this is the back where you can see there's a door here
uh this is a the door for the first unit and there's also a back door as well
That's good.
that's good
does the board have any questions
you've met with the RCO
and the RCO has submitted
a letter of opposition
can I hear from planning commission
madam chair
I hate to interrupt. I apologize, Mr. Litwin, but we do have witnesses. Yes, we have Ms. Emerson from the council person's office, if she can be allowed to speak. Okay, sure. Hillary. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you, Tanya.
Name more address, please.
Good morning, Madam Vice Chair.
Hillary Emerson, E-M-E-R-S-O-N, room 577, City Hall.
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
And I apologize.
I believe I forgot to note that I'm from Councilwoman Sherelle Parker's office.
I did attend the RCO meeting from which the letter originated.
Just a little bit of history with this property. Based on what's available from L&I, this property had been a single family dwelling with a commercial use in the basement, which is why the basement is separate.
There doesn't appear to be any stairs connecting it to the rest of the property.
There's no history indicating that the upper two floors were legally converted to a duplex at some point.
So that is, we're not sure exactly when that happened.
um given that it is a corner property with an above grade um ground floor and that it had a
separate commercial use the councilwoman is not opposed to a maximum of two units
um at this property the community um even when presented with this information felt that a
single family dwelling was appropriate given that this is a small block um one-way street
so it's you don't necessarily see duplexes on the corners here as much on these small streets as you
would in other locations. I just a couple notes for the board if the board decided to grant the
request for a triplex obviously we would ask for a certificate of occupancy to be obtained
If the board felt that a duplex was appropriate, we feel that a variance would still need to be
granted because this, as far as we can tell, is still recognized as a single family home
based on the city's records. So even for a duplex, it would require a variance.
So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions from the board.
What would occur with the first floor? Would that be retail?
the the first the ground floor was like uh i believe it was an arcade um with pinball
machines in the past for it seemed like it was for multiple decades it was um yeah like an arcade
amusement parlor
just the board of any questions i'm concerned because he purchased it like that
i'm comfortable i'm comfortable with it because there's two means
of uh egress from the level
it's the upper the upper two there's no history indicating the upper two units being um two units
that's that was um the i think so i there's no this is a single family this was a single
family dwelling with commercial before so even recognizing it as a duplex would require a
variance because there's no multi-family history at this property so that's what i'm saying
okay thank you hillary planning commission
good afternoon uh ian litwin planning commission staff um this property is indicated for single
family residential use on the city plan however given the building's history planning commission
recommends the board approve the variance with proviso for a maximum of two units
thank you calendar number 05815966 elsinore street my vote is yes the max
5966 Elsinore Street. My vote is yes, with a maximum of two units.
Yes, with proviso. Thomas Holloman, proviso.
Can I comment something? Can I say something?
Um, actually, Mr. Francisco, you are done.
But you did a good job.
okay next case is calendar number 1091915 south 18th street the attorney is michael phillips
excuse me this is sharon madam chair before we get to that could you call to see go back to um
Mr. Young's case and see if he has, if he is now signed on or if it should be continued.
Sure. Mr. Phillips, give me a minute. Calendar number 1010, 2608 West Dauphin Street. The
attorney is Jeffrey Young. And it's indicated that exhibits have been submitted since January
and there is no RCO letter
from Strawberry Mansion CDC.
So Mr. Young, are you there?
No, Madam Chair.
Okay, this case is continued.
Mr. Phillips, I'll call your case again.
Calendar number 1091-915 South 18th Street.
All right. Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair, members of the board, Michael Phillips, Claire Harrison, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Do you swear on the tale of the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading. I do not stipulate as to its accuracy. We believe that the refusal should not have been issued.
Okay. Have you emailed your exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and do you have an RCO letter? Also, have you met with the RCO?
Yes to all, and there is the RCO's letter of deferral.
We see that from South to South Neighbors Association. You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share my screen, but again, Michael Phillips here on behalf of 1422
Front GP LLC, which is the owner of 915 South 18th Street. I have with me here Alon Bentolila,
who is a representative of the owner. I'll be brief because I know we've had a long day
so far today. This property was purchased as a triplex in 2016 with an existing parking space
at the rear. Here's a present day photo. It is a triplex at the southwest corner of
19th and Montrose. Here is an aerial. So here's 18th Street, here's Montrose, and here's the
parking space. This parking space was here when my client purchased the property in 2016.
moreover the parking space has been in existence we can date it as far back as
2004 so over 17 years this parking space has existed here's an area from 1996 we
cannot tell due to the black and white nature whether there's a car park there
but the property was actually a six-family dwelling back then I was
converted in 1999 to a triplex once again you see the parking spaces this is
photo from 2018 and I'm just going to make it so that I'm trying to make it so it only comes up as
one but that won't happen so regardless here's a photo from 2008 I'll zoom in once again you see
a parking a car park there 2010 there's a car park there and 2012 there's a car park there so
So there has been parking at this location continuously since at least 2004, photographs
of the posting.
Here is the plan.
This should be a better view.
Again, this is just the plan showing the parking space.
And if I can zoom in, you'd see there is a six foot, three inch setback between the property.
There is a six-foot, three-inch setback between the property and the parking space.
And that's significant because it is our position that this is a pre-existing nonconformity
that has existed since at least 2004 and that should be permitted under Section 14305 of
the zoning code, which provides that where the location of off-street parking does not
meet the requirements of the zoning code, the nonconformity may remain and be used not
Notwithstanding, once again, looking back at the zoning file, we know that as of at least 1999, when this property was decreased from a six family dwelling to a three family dwelling, it was in the R10 zoning district.
We can further glean that it was the R10B zoning district, which is the equivalent to today's RM1, which is what this property was, is currently zoned.
I'm pulling up the prior zoning code that was in effect as of 2004, and you can see
that I've highlighted the area about multifamily dwellings, and when open-air parking is provided
to the rear of the building, it shall be located behind the minimum depth and area required
for the rear yard, and here we have the minimum rear yard depth was five feet, which again,
we comply with.
So, again, that's all there really is to this case is we're looking to legalize the pre-existing nonconformity.
We believe that this is something that is permitted by right under the code.
And we have photographs showing this condition has existed since at least 2004.
My client purchased the property with the condition intact in 2016.
and it was not until they received a letter from LNI of a violation that necessitated
this appeal and request for a variance. Again, we do not believe a variance is necessary as this is
a pre-existing non-conforming condition that has been in effect for over 17 years. With that,
I'd like to ask my client, Ilan Bentolila, if he can press the raised hand function.
Ilan, are you there?
what's your client's name alon a-l-o-n last name is bentolila b-e-n-t-o-l-i-l-a
okay he's been he's been able to speak please unmute yourselves
okay alon if you can unmute yourself
and then once you've done so please state and spell your last name for the uh for the court
Hi, my name is Alon Bentolila. It's A-L-O-N. And Bentolila, it's B-E-N-T-O-L-I-L-A.
Okay. Alon, you are...
This address, Mr. Phillips, this address as well.
And Alon, if you could state your address for the record.
The Tioga.
If you could just give your address.
Sure, sure. 2701 East Tioga Street.
philadelphia pennsylvania 19134 thank you sir do you agree to wait no strike that
sir do you swear to affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do okay you may proceed thank you alan uh you heard uh my testimony uh and everything that
i stated a moment ago did you not i approve it yeah okay do you agree that uh everything that
i stated is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge information and belief yes okay and do
you agree to adopt my testimony as your own yes i do i have no further questions does the board
have any questions no no no is there anyone in the virtual audience who needs to testify
madam chair we have richard please unmute yourself and please wait for madam chair
Richard Gliniak, G-L-I-N-I-A-K, address is 1918 Carpenter Street, Philadelphia, PA-19146.
Philadelphia PA 19146. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do, madam. Okay. You may proceed. May I be allowed to be bumped up to panelists? I do
have, I would like to share my screen if possible. Your screen? Tanya? I'm sorry. Mr. Richard,
What is it that you need to share, just to be certain first?
He's coming back in as a panelist, Ms. Sunken.
He's coming back in as a panelist, Ms. Sunken.
Mr. Richard, can you unmute yourself, please?
And just advise the board, please advise the board what you will be sharing at this time.
It's the document that I submitted yesterday.
Perhaps you do all have it with you in hand, but there are some pictures on there that I'm going to refer to.
And I just thought it would be easier if I share the document as well here now, in case you didn't have it.
Okay, Mr. Phillips, if you can unshare.
Thank you very kindly.
you can go forward Mr. Richard. And excuse me this is Sharon of the board if you are able to
access your email I did email those photos and letter. Okay thank you so much. And just for the
record I know I have not yet received a copy of anything but again I don't have any objection per
say. Just wanted to note that for the record. Thank you, Michael.
Okay, I don't, can you see, it says at the top, good morning, vice chair, members of the board.
Can everyone see that? Yes. Okay, thank you. And I guess now it's good afternoon,
vice chair, members of the board. You can skip that sentence. I've come before you today
with a number of hats on near neighbor who has lived in the affected community for 21 years
since 2001 sasna zoning committee member and elected democratic committee person
representing the affected 10th division that is adjacent to this 915 south 18th street property
in addition to these hats i also come before you wearing a back brace and suffering from a mild
brain injury to being hit by a car while bicycling. So please excuse me if I might sound a little
off today. You sound fine. You can continue. Thank you so much, Vice Chair. What I have here
in this appear, I'm sorry, what you have here in this appear appeal is a three-unit Cornell
rental LLC wanting to make their backyard a parking space where the driveway to this space
would go through a busy pedestrian walkway a pedestrian walkway sidewalk that is next door to
the historic and very busy christian street ymca on the drawings that were submitted they have that
ymca labeled as a commercial structure i guess that's what a ymca is but to me i don't feel that
it is a commercial structure anyway that christian street ymc daycare excuse me that sidewalk and
walkway is used, a pedestrian walkway sidewalk, that Christian Street YMCA daycare children use
multiple times a day during recess, getting to and from their YMCA playground just across the
street. If you look at this drawing here, the aerial view, there's 915 South 18th Street.
The kids come out of the back door of the Y, walk down to the crosswalk, and then walk over to the
YMC playground. The sidewalk is also used that other children use to and from Stanton Elementary
School and the Carpenter Green Park, both just down the block. This is Montrose Street. Just down
the block at the corner of 17th and Montrose are Stanton Elementary School and also Carpenter Green
Park. That is complete. The sidewalk and driveway is completely opposite to the principles and
efforts of the Susana's walkability plan and its safe pathways to our school initiative.
Some links there you can check on it. Part of that initiative at the crosswalks at Stanton
Elementary School, so that would be 17th and Christian and 17th and Montrose. We're going
to be painting the crosswalks where they are more visible to the vehicles that are passing
to vehicles that are passing through they're also doing that at the chester arthur elementary school
through. They're also doing that at the Chester Arthur Elementary School.
um here you see our councilman
also the sidewalk and driveway is opposite in principle to the city's vision zero action plan
2025 to reduce and prevent vehicle fatalities and and primarily it does that by just saying
And, you know, when pedestrians and vehicles, you want to reduce their interaction as much as possible.
Also, the sidewalk and driveway that's proposed here are used by many voters from four divisions used on election day to enter the YMCA polling place and vote.
The polling place right now goes through the back door, the same door that the children exit to go to their playground.
My division is over here, the 10th division, and so are all the other three divisions or the two of the divisions that I speak of.
So they all travel down this road, down this sidewalk, past this proposed parking space to enter to vote here in the YMCA.
And that if approved, as I stated above or as I'm about to state, would mean the permanent loss of one to two parking spaces for Montrose Street.
relative to the claim by the appellant last month at the sasna zoning committee meeting
that there already exists a curb cut that is not an accurate statement the appellant
strawlings also make that claim this is the curb cut or what i guess quote unquote what is claimed
to be a curb cut um for the 915 south 18 property this is montrose street this is the um what you
have here is not a curve cut this is just a worn down 130 year old blue granite stone curve and
it's actually similar to the stone curve that i have on my block it's just a worn down so you know
if that's a curve cut then my whole block is a curve cut okay and so and you see here in the
drawing that he just uh displayed it's claiming existing curve cut i i don't agree with that
Also in this drawing, and I guess you could say it might be a minor point, the drawing has the property at 18 feet.
The property actually should have been labeled 17 feet.
You can check that out.
Objection.
Objection.
Noted.
So noted.
In fact, you know, you might seem to be trivial, but if you use that parking space for a 20-foot pickup truck,
then it's certainly going to be extending out into the sidewalk and that might be an important
issue to consider. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I hate to interrupt. This is Tanya and I just would like
to respectfully note that we're closing in on our hard stop time. I'll be finishing up shortly.
Shortly within a couple of minutes because we really do have to end the hearing. Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
One thing, too, I also want to bring up is fact.
Yesterday, I reached out to the YMCA, and they were unaware of this appeal.
Objection to hearsay.
Well, I do have the email.
I can share that with you on this.
Still objection is hearsay.
All right.
All right.
All right. But I will say that, as she said, we are in support of opposing the zoning for this parking space.
How unfortunate it would be after hearing my testimony that you grant this appeal, even though the Sassana Zoning Committee voted no, and all near neighbors I have spoken to are against this backyard parking spot, which I said, if granted, would eliminate one to two parking spaces, as well as endanger the lives of pedestrians, especially the little ones.
objection to this uh this photograph which has nothing to do with it
no but it would be a similar photograph as what you're proposing if you're successful
that would occur for hundreds of children i'm sorry i'm sorry mr richard if i could
i hate to interrupt again but please note you are just testifying and you will not
enter a back and forth discussion with the attorney thank you very kindly oh my apologies
um so in in closing i will say i hope and pray for the safety of our children that you oppose
this backyard uh space being turned into a parking space and uh uh and as far as conformity
um i moved into the neighborhood and i just want to say i moved into the neighborhood in 2001 he
mentions about this has been a parking space since 2004 a lot of things went on in the neighborhood
in 2001 you know there wasn't and just because some
in 2001 you know there wasn't and just because something has existed for all long but I guess
what I'm trying to say when I moved into the neighborhood it was kind of like uh anything
goes kind of a neighborhood and so you know we had drug dealing in the corner and shooting and
all that kind of stuff just because we had all that for a long time doesn't make it legal so
I don't think this parking space should be legal as I said I was a person recently hit by an
automobile and i'm certainly passionate about that i don't think we in any way wherever we can
we should not have vehicles interrupting pedestrian walkways especially when these walkways
are being used by the ymc the historic ymca christian street right next door thank you so
much richard so what you're basically saying is you're opposed to this i am definitely opposed
okay thank you uh does anybody have any questions no is there anyone is there anyone in the virtual
audience madam chair we have france pierre please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
Hello, Frantz Pierre, Council Member Johnson's office.
That's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, P-I-E-R-R-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Frantz?
I certainly do, and good afternoon, Madam Chair and fellow board members.
Thank you. You may proceed.
yes uh due to the near neighbor opposition as well as the uh community at large the council
member does join the community in their opposition to the appeal thank you planning commission
good afternoon ian litwin planning commission staff comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing residential multi-family zoning at this location the code states that residential
parking shall be permitted in the required rear yard of an attached building when the parking is
accessed by a rear alley or shared driveway this parking space does not meet these standards
therefore the city planning commission recommends the board deny the variance
thank you and once again the board has no questions correct calendar number 1091
Madam Vice Chair, if I could just respond. Oh, there you are. Yeah. I forgot about you. I apologize. If I could just make one quick reply because I do respect the Planning Commission's position and it is not our position that under the current code that this would be permitted as this does not reflect a rear street.
However, I think it's important to note that this was a permitted condition under the prior code, which only required one family, existing one family properties and duplexes to obtain certificates from the zoning board in order to provide off-street parking.
All other properties, including multifamily and triplexes, as this is, were permitted to have the off-street parking provided there was the rear yard.
It was behind the rear yard requirement.
We have shown that this was behind the rear yard requirement, and we've shown that this condition has existed since 2004 and has been utilized that way continuously.
Therefore, it is our position that this is a pre-existing non-conforming condition that is permitted under the zoning code, and it does not require a variance.
And I also lastly want to note that SASNA did not submit a letter of opposition.
they submitted a letter of deferral noting that there were various uh positions taken
at the community meeting including uh numerous people who are in support and who also empathized
with my client who purchased this property with this condition in 2016. i have nothing further
thank you calendar number 1091915 south 18th street my vote is no
professor plaza my vote is no james snell my vote is no thomas holliman my vote is no
thank you board this concludes the um i'm sorry madam chair this is tanya sunkett
if i may make a request yes i know i know the previous case that was continued um for attorney
Young has been listed numerous times. If I could request that we have that as a must be heard,
I would appreciate it. Certainly. Calendar number 1010-2608 West Dauphin Street.
This case is continued and it must be heard. Thank you very kindly. That concludes my business.
Thank you very kindly. That concludes my business.
Sure, and I think this concludes.
Sure, and I think this concludes our business.
Yes, Chair.
Thank you. Everyone, thank you so much.
Today was a technologically crazy day.
See you guys that too, okay?
Okay, thanks, Professor.
Take care.
Bye, everyone.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Ms. Doyle, we'll...
Thank you. And before we begin, do we have a court reporter?
Yes, Chair.
I'm here. Thank you.
And just let us know if we run over and you need a break. Just let us know you need a break, please.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Okay. We're ready to go, Tanya?
Yes, Chair. We're ready. You can begin.
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. 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 Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator, Ms. Fatina L., and our board attorney, Ms. Sharon Saletta,
are also in attendance, as is the zoning board's administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett.
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, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, 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 will repeat that.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
And I would like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any comments or concerns should be directed to Ms. Fatina L., our court administrator.
With that, I will read off a list of the cases that have been requested to be continued on our two o'clock list.
number two MI 2021-001108-2500 Wilmot, WILMOT Street, Attorney Moving Party. Case number four
MI 2020-002583-3959 Lancaster Avenue. I understand there was an agreement between the
attorney for the applicant and I believe the attorney for the protestants to continue this
case. So it was a joint agreement between both sides. Number five on our list. Is anyone here
for MI 2020-000299-4363 Main Street? We have no exhibits and this is the fourth listing.
I see no hands chair. Okay well I'll wait till we get down to that one just in case they're
getting on late. Having said that is there anyone who would like to request a continuance or
withdrawal at this time? If so please raise your hand. Chair we have Shoshana Bricklin.
Good afternoon Miss Bricklin please identify yourself with a record spell your full name
and i'll swear you in it's shoshana bricklin s-h-o-s-h-a-n-a the last name is b-r-i-c-k-l-i-n
i am the attorney for the um applicant in this case 7037 old ounce oh you want to swear me in
never mind chair this is number eight on your list okay do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I see there are no exhibits.
Are you requesting a continuance?
Yes, and by way of explanation,
the parties, the applicant and the community
have another meeting scheduled for this Thursday.
I am optimistic, cautiously optimistic,
that they will work out the final details so we can resolve this uh case so that is why there is
that they will work out the final details
so we can resolve this.
no packet and that is why we are asking for continuance thank you so without any objection
mi 2021-001115 7037 ogons avenue is continued thank you very much enough of that i will leave
you thank you anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand
chair we have paul curtis please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good afternoon mr curtis please identify yourself with a record and i'll swear you in
hi this is paul curtis i'm the uh applicant for 4363 the attorney for the applicant i mean i mean
i am the attorney for the applicant for 4363 pain street last name please
Curtis C-U-R-T-I-S
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
This is the fourth listing sir
What is the problem we're having here
I apologize
This has basically just been an issue
and I will be forthright
it's been mostly on my end
as far as just coordinating things
though I do have a better handle on it
And I do under think, I am very cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to handle things for the next listing.
I don't anticipate any other continuances if I get this one, sir.
This is rather unusual.
We'll continue this case as a must be heard.
MI 2020-000299, 436 Street, Main Street is continued.
Must be heard.
Thank you, sir.
Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
I see no handshare.
Thank you.
First case, number one, MI 2021-000979.
2003 North 9th Street.
Daniel Auerbach is the attorney of record.
we have not at least as of yet i believe not received a letter from the rco
he's not in attendance at least not under his name chair and there's no hands
Oh, hands are up. MI 2021-000979-2003 North 9th Street Street. Continued. Must be heard.
Number three on our calendar. MI 2020-0002957-2442 North 20th Street.
ms pritzker is the attorney of record
and according to our notes we've not yet received a letter from the rco
ms pritzker i'm sure will explain that to us
good afternoon hi ms pritzker please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19103.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Confessor?
Rachel, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral of photos and plans five days prior to
this, Harry? Yes. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We did meet with the RCO. I
don't know if they ever issued us a letter. Okay, thank you. Proceed. Thanks. I want to share my
screen. If also Jeff Owen could be promoted and Brandon Saverin. Jeff is the architect and
Brandon is my colleague who's worked with me on this matter. So basically this is 2442 North 20th
Street. It's an existing structure and basically what we're here for is a refusal just for
multifamily use for three units in an existing structure. I'll go into it in more detail but
this property is 2700 square feet with an existing structure of almost 2200 square feet according to
the Office of Property Assessment. It's also directly adjacent to multi-family uses at 2240
and 2438 North 20th Street. There's also about 15 vacant lots
38 North 20th Street. There's also about 15 vacant lots on this block. So
the most of the community that we spoke to after two RCO meetings that we had,
we're happy to see something done. This property was zoned RM1 up until 2014. As you can see on
your screen. This is an extremely large, deep property that's oddly shaped in the back.
As I mentioned, this is an existing structure. There was a fire in 2014 that damaged a significant
amount of the interior of this property, as you can see from the photos. My client purchased
this property in 2020 in an effort to rehab this existing structure, add on to the back
of it as it again doesn't take up even close to anywhere near the lot coverage ability
for even RSA 5 and to restore this existing structure to its former glory as again it
had operated and is laid out as a three unit building since at least 1961.
one. The only reason that the permit lapsed or that it's we can't do this by right is because
given the fire that occurred, I believe a vacant structure license was put on the building and that
the use was not, you know, rehabbed or renovated up until we our client purchased it in 2020.
So again, the proposal is to restore this existing fire, fire damaged building and put three units.
Again, it's almost a 2,200-square-foot building on an almost 3,000-square-foot lot.
And as you can see, the existing structure is quite large.
The comprehensive plan for this area had this zoned as multifamily up until 2014.
So had that remained in place, we would not be in front of the board today.
Again, I had mentioned there's 15 vacant lots on the block.
and the comprehensive plan highlights the fact that there is scarcity of new rental units in
this area. I just want to show the history I'd mentioned to the board that the building had
been utilized since 1961 as three-family, and that's the zoning permit that you have in front
of you here. We met with the North Central Philadelphia Susquehanna Community Development
Corporation at actually two meetings. The first meeting was March 1st, in which we had a pretty
good conversation with the community. There were a lot of folks that were concerned about
crime and trash and blight and really wanting to see something done with this property.
Most of the conversation subsequent to that was really about construction and whether our GC had
had experience doing renovations and additions, so much so that our GC met with the head of
the community group to show her projects that he had done. And then ultimately we got, we
were told that we didn't have support for the project. We had another meeting that I
believe my colleague and I split up attending each of them. And then we had tried to reach
out to Ms. Tina Marie a number of times as evidenced in the packet and on the screen
to try to set up another meeting to try to obtain, you know, a more, I guess, favorable vote
insofar as when we had actually talked to those who lived on the block, you know, they were
concerned about having this property cleaned up and were excited to see something being done with
it. And obviously knew from its history that it had been multifamily. A lot of what we received
from Tina Marie, which I believe is here, which is the letter she provided, was two in support,
one on the committee opposed nine, five were affected, not affected. And again, like only 12
people had showed up for the meeting. And a lot of the conversations and concerns, as you can see,
was related to the addition of the building, which is completely by right as we go through
the plans we're not asking for any dimensional refusals we're not asking to add on to height
we're just asking for three units and the addition of the building in order to make it
a little bit more conducive to how large the lot is and for some modern living space for
some more affordable or price conscious housing again basically a lot of the conversation was
around the addition of the property, which is why we sent out our GC. So I appreciate that,
you know, they want to have single family housing. I don't know that there was a lot
I don't know that there was a lot of consideration to the fact that this was a triplex for decades and also that other concerns related to parking.
of consideration to the fact that this is what
If you do a, you know, 2200 square foot single family home with five or six bedrooms, there's no guarantee that you're going to have any less issues with parking.
I also don't think that that's really even viable in this neighborhood.
As you can see, there's 15 vacant properties in the block.
I just also want to bring to the board's attention that when you request the variance,
obviously we're not required to establish the property is useless without the variance.
Basically, we are asking the board to consider the prohibitive costs of redeveloping the
property, the configuration of the property, the surrounding uses, the state of disrepair,
the length of vacancy again this property has been vacant since at least 2014 when there was a fire
there's significant costs associated with bringing it up instead of just demolishing it trying to
keep this structure in place and also again it was formerly three units so trying to utilize
some of that existing structure on the inside and the layout of it as well so that's what we're
we're here asking the board for is just a use variance for three families so it can continue
the same use that it's had since at least 1961. I have Jeff Owen here who is our architect or
sorry I think it's Alex Deller on this project I apologize. Alex Deller is the architect here who
can quickly go through the the plans and then I believe there are some folks from the community
to speak on this project as well.
Mr. Dollar has been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Dollar, please spell your full name
and I'll square you in.
Alex Dollar, A-L-E-X, D as in David, U-L-L-E-R.
And FUSA Designs, 622 North 3rd Street,
philadelphia pa 19123 do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you miss pritchard alex if you want to share your screen i just want you to go through
the plans with the board and specifically the unit sizes um i obviously had mentioned this is a
20 120 square foot lot which obviously can hold way more than three units um but just want to
show what we're proposing and um you know the sizes of the units that we're providing which
I believe are very generous um given how large the property is yes so so Rachel kind of went
through all of the that fun stuff um when we met with the owner Byron he he wanted to make
actual livable units. He had another architect do some plans based on utilizing the existing
building, but the existing building is kind of hatched out here in gray, and the new addition
is kind of with the triangle pattern. But the existing building, you would wind up with very
small units um very minimal living space minimal just minimal everything um it was very very tight
and he wanted to actually wind up having units that would be rentable and usable and you know
access to the outdoors so we had us put decks on the rear things things along them those lines um
i think rachel already showed this lot is unusually large it's pretty much twice the size of
any of the largest lots in the neighborhood so putting on this addition isn't really
yeah it once again it is not a dimensional you know variance um little shots of the street that
we showed to the neighborhood here excuse me mr dollar could you go back to that other there's
other photographs uh yeah where the empty lot is that's where you're proposing to
no it's directly adjacent to it it's the uh chairman it's the existing structure directly
to the left that vacant lot um is is just a vacant lot it's actually owned by our client as well but
it's not uh it's not relevant to this um appeal thank you but do you the existing building that
you're looking to uh renovate into a triplex how does that compare in terms of square footage to
the adjacent properties in its existing state um it's it's of similar size to the existing
it's of similar size to the existing properties there are a few i think if we
properties there are a few i think if we
rachel earlier pulled up like the uh google shot there are a few buildings that are larger than
our building and there's ones that are basically the same size as our building all right thank you
um across the street you can see there those are two-story structures but this entire block
It was all three-story structures, bigger buildings, pretty much completely consistent.
Some other shots, you can see the building is not in good shape at all.
Basically we're only able to keep the brick walls, which Byron wanted to do.
So here are the plans themselves.
the idea is basically to utilize the existing building so we come in long hallway and then
provide a nice large unit here on the first floor with kind of some office space in the basement
kind of playing off of the demands currently with COVID and things like that a lot of people
working from home we have direct access of that space to the backyard go up a floor and
we have a nice two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit with a nice-sized living room. If we zoom in here,
basically 193 square feet, 13 feet long, 14 feet wide, all of which, like, basically wouldn't be
old existing building. It was a very, it was a tight one-bedroom. The kitchen was on top of
the living room and we didn't wind up with like a delineation of space um so each unit
is over a thousand square feet um you know oftentimes i've had clients with units of this
size try to squeeze the third bedroom in that is not our intention like we have nice nice two bedroom
two bath units so third floor is identical pretty much identical to the second floor
sections elevations nothing and then back to how big how big is our rear yard just so the
board can understand how far away we even are from the rear property line with with the addition
so so our rear yard on the shallow end is almost 68 feet deep
um the actual coverage of this lot is proposed building footprint we're only covering 46.8
percent of the lot so we have 53.2 as our open space so the addition that we're proposing isn't
even as large of an addition or it's large of a building as the lot of this size would allow
We just basically want to rehab this building, put it back to its former use with a modern, you know, usable apartment on each floor.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. Can I ask one question?
Mr. Deller, the revised plans that you submitted include the addition of rear decks at two levels.
Do you have an opinion as to whether those would generate any additional variances?
those would not because the they are by right you're allowed to have a deck in the rear yard
um as long as it isn't within the nine foot setback minimum setback of the rear yard
we obviously are in that case 62 feet from the rear yard and that updated
So we have a four foot a four by ten roughly deck on the second and third floors. Four foot by nine
foot seven and that's because the first floor unit obviously can walk out into this backyard
the upper floors do not have direct access to the backyard. And one more question if the board
should approve um should grant the variances the revised plans are two pages is that correct
um should only be this one page okay thank you
thank you
mr dollar do you have you uh concluded yes um i think i've gone through if you guys have any
questions i can flip to any of those pages and get to that miss pritzker you have anyone else
Yeah, I have the client on, Byron Watson, and I believe there are members of the community.
um i just wanted to go ahead let's get your client to adopt your testimony then we'll move on but
I just wanted to hear.
Go ahead.
Let's get your client to adopt your test.
finish what you were about to say yeah i was just going to say i know there were some emails sent
around to the board about the rco meeting that we didn't have one and we do obviously have proof of
that so i just wanted to uh make that clear and uh we submitted the rco's letter and we had two
meetings um that we included in the packet so just wanted to clear up the any of that confusion
Good notice. Thank you. And your client? Byron Watson. Yes. My name is Byron Watson.
Mr. Watson, please spell your first and last name. Sure. First name Byron, B-Y-R-O-N. Last name Watson, W-A-T-S-O-N.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir. Thank you. Ms. Pritzker.
Byron, have you heard my testimony today and do you believe it to be true and accurate and do you
adopt it as your own? Yes ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board? No. No. Thank you.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Yeah, we have North Central Philadelphia CDC. Okay, whoever was representing that RCO,
please identify yourself. Spell your full name. Tina Marie Russell, T-I-N-A-M-I-R-I-E-R-U-S-S-E-L-L.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
I do. I said please proceed. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to clear up some things here,
some comments that were made. One, it was said in the beginning that no one received this letter
or the summary. The letter and the summary was sent out in March when we had our first RCO meeting,
I mean ZBA hearing. So I didn't know I needed to send it again because I thought it would already
be in the files. So the first letter we sent and the only letter that we sent to the ZBA and all
parties involved, including the applicant, was sent in March prior to the ZBA hearing, which was
continued. And then we had a second continuance. And now we're here today. I then also stated that
there was an active activity to reach the RCO. I received an email about a week ago,
which I did not know was in there. I was actually, someone went to my attention. I did not
see that email. And I received, I was told that I received one phone call. So I just want to
clarify that. And obviously, it was also said that no letter was sent, but yet, as you can see in the
packet from the attorney, she does have the letter and the summary. So I wanted to clarify that as
well for the record. So all parties involved did receive a letter from the RCO and a summary from
the RCO. And I'd like to get the other activity that was stated that was not sent. I'd like to
that scratch from the record because that is not true. Also, I'd like to say that no one from the
RCO ever said that there was no board, no R-community meetings. All communities have
been documented, and we actively engaged in hosting these meetings with the applicant to
ensure that those meetings were held because we are fully engaged in our community and make sure
that our community has a voice. So we had the meeting and one of the rationales for the denial
was not that we're denying, what we're denying is the way the variance is requested is stated
because most of the people at the meeting were not clear about what the applicant was asking for
because if they're looking to, somebody determined that this is what was determined,
They do not mind having the existing building being used as apartments, but that wasn't a request on the variance change.
The variance change said they want to do an addition.
And this is the part that the community had did not, most of the community did not agree to.
They did not agree to the variance change for the following, for the extension, I should say, for the following reasons.
One, the size and length of the extension will cause shade and wind changes to the other properties.
And I needed a study done to see whether or not, you know, what that shading would mean to those existing, you know, to the house to the left of the property, because they're going to be going further out with their extension, as well as height.
So that also will cause some type of an issue as far as the wind and the movement of the shading from that particular extension.
They also wanted the community said that they don't mind.
They also wanted the community said that they don't mind the existing property being used as apartments, but they'd rather have, and if they want to do the extension, they'd much rather keep it as a single family unit as opposed to, because that's the variance.
So Varian says that the applicant has to show hardship.
And so far, everything the applicant has stated is not really showing a hardship.
Because when they bought the property, he knew what it was there for.
And I'm still trying to figure out where that hardship comes in at.
Remodeling that house as is is not a hardship.
It's no different than anyone else.
And in our community, hundreds of people are really renovating existing houses as is.
They're not putting extensions on it.
We also, they also talked about the pilot roof, and they wanted to make sure that if
they don't, they rather, it has to, well, so many different pieces to this.
So we want to say there's different components that the community would like to agree to
if, or at least have a word in if this variance is passed as is.
But right now, we just want to tackle one situation at a time, and that is whether or
not you want to take this single existing property and make it into a triplex or make it into a
duplex so the community is saying they would grant a duplex or a single family that's pretty much
what they're saying as far as the existing and the applicant is saying that they have a buy right to
make an extension so the question on the table from what and this is why they were so confused
us which way to go, which was, if the question on the table is, do we make a triplex or a duplex
or a single family? So they're saying, listen, we'd rather have a single family. However,
if it gets to get granted, we will okay a duplex. And that's the way the community
read the variance request as it was stated. So it was kind of convoluted. We have a lot
seniors on that block and they really just couldn't put a firm nail to that. And I'm at
loss myself because it is stated differently. So is the situation about the extension or is it about
the change in the variance, which is a duplex, a triplex, or a single family? And that's pretty
much where we stand at with this. I don't know if it sounds confusing, that's because we're still
confused by it so summary single family if it still gets passed we rather do a duplex
and the rationale is as i stated they didn't show hardship and the size and dimension of the
of the existing is conformed with the existing historical nature of that neighborhood
and if you add on to it it needs to be some type of study done to see how
that that extension will affect the surrounding community
what i heard you is say mentioned in your testimony something if it were to be approved
as a triplex there was i'm paraphrasing there was were there provisos you were the community
what are those provisos well if it's it depends on what it is that it gets approved by see that's
the whole thing let me finish if it were approved as a triplex which is what the application is
asking for are there provisos that the community wants you'd like to have implemented as a triplex
and if so what what are those provisors um now that i know about the buy right i'm not sure how
to even perform this but i would say that they they did not want the extension right they were
okay with the apartments as is and not with an extension on it if it's and again these are these
ifs if it has an extension then they don't want to pile it they don't want to have all the um
balconies etc they want definitely want a trash plan they want to make sure that there's no one
living in the basement the basement all right slow down one second when you say they don't
want a pilot are you referring to a pilot house for a roof deck exactly i don't think and correct
me if i'm wrong rachel there's no roof deck proposing this is there no so there's no roof
deck being proposed i remember okay so um all we're proposing are you looking at the are you
looking at the current plans i'm asking i'm asking the attorney for the applicant and she's stating
on the record the proposal is not to include a roof deck which would would necessitate a pilot
a pilot house okay great so that goes away no roof okay great and no living in the basement
house okay great so that goes away no roof okay great and no live
that's fine we don't have living space proposed in the basement we just have an office down there
well that's same excuse me chair can i interrupt for one minute yes ms pritzker i believe in the
proviso plans form the request for the decks was represented having been made at the request of the
the community. Is that correct? The rear the rear decks not the roof deck yes. Right for purpose of
trash storage or whatever correct? And open space correct chairman. Right you're right with that.
So that would address the that would address Ms. Russell the trash issue. Right because we
suggested that because there was the applicant had no other recourse for the trash for the second
the third floor okay we understand that well if we put some type of outside porch there would that
be a place where they could hold their trash that is in the that is part of the proposal
right but then but then we also said that if there's no decks then they can actually keep
all their trash in the lower in the basement level so they want to actually extend the basement as
well um on the if they pull out they also want to pull out the basement and actually dig out a new
basement for the for the accommodations of a quote-unquote office space but the community
doesn't like that idea they want to keep the basement as is and keep the um the um
the building as is they really don't want an extension on it um but again we're kind of like
at odds now because we don't understand you know we didn't understand the whole point of the buy
right part that was not disclosed so now we didn't have any discussion on that so i'm trying to
improvise the best i can with this type of information so we can't do trash for all the
units in the basement because only the bottom has access so it's a safety issue and um so that's why
we you know put the decks on the back to be able to sort of solve that issue and not have to have
other people go into the right so the other proviso then would be not to extend out that
basement level i don't know again what we can do with that all of that by right so like right
exactly basement is a buy right and all and all and just to just to shed a little light um one of
the things we tried to do it as the our architect provided was really be considerate with a minimal
addition you know we have a 67 foot rear yard so to you know we could have gone back all the way
to nine feet of a rear yard and we haven't so we really have a quite a modest addition and the
reason for it which we tried to explain was given the fire and the damage done to the building the
way that it is it's a very odd layout um even if it was to be a single family it's an incredibly
odd layout given the damage and that was part of the hardship there was actually a fire at this
property which the board can clearly see from the photos this is not just a pretty good shaped shell
with an open box i mean this building is in terrible condition for almost eight years now
um so the and there's no height uh insofar as an addition that extends from the roof it's just all
in the rear um and all and i don't believe that it would really affect wind conditions um given
again it's it's all the additions are viral and i respect your opinion on that but we need a study
i'm sorry miss russell i'm sorry okay if you look at the picture right here just showing you
you can see that the neighboring house
will be affected by that extension.
They're going to definitely have some type
of an issue with that. I just think that it's
not fair to that neighboring property
for you to extend out and be so
different than everyone else on the block.
I need one more time, please.
Thank you. I apologize.
I can comment
along the lines of
property to
the south, the sun
rises and it basically always shines to the south so our building would shadow to the north
the property to the north is owned by byron so the only property where that would really gain
additional shadow would be the vacant lot directly to the north of this building
thank you all right is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand there's a couple members in the community that are having trouble figuring
out how to raise their hand from their phone um is it star six is it star nine i'm just i don't
typically dial in so i'm not it's star nine it's uh star nine and then uh and then star six thank
you chair we have byron watson you may unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
Mr. Watson, please spell your full name
Mr. Watson, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
and I'll swear you in.
That's the owner.
He was already.
Oh, yeah.
I thought there was another one.
I apologize.
I'm sorry.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Yes, we have Heather Logan.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chat.
Thank you, Ms. Logan.
Hello.
Spell your full name and I will swear you in.
heather h-e-a-t-h-e-r logan l-o-g-a-n your address
two zero two two west glenwood avenue you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth yes i do and how far away is that where you're at how far is it from where
you reside to this property it's directly behind me oh behind you thank you please proceed
So we, I am a concerned resident. I was in on the RCO meetings that we had with the community.
The majority of the people on our block are okay with having, and I can also speak for the block
captain because she's my aunt. With all due respect, you have to testify on your behalf.
not a problem i can i can do that um i don't have an issue with the building as a whole or with the
um additions that the applicant is trying to do for the property this building has been an eyesore
in the community um to have him come in and beautify the building would be a blessing for
the community as well. We've also asked Mr. Watson to work with the community as a whole,
and he has agreed to all of those concerns. The meetings that we had, we did bring up the
basement easement and things of that nature. His architect did explain what those, why he needed
the basement easement, and the office space in the basement. All of those things are absolutely
fine. I can state for myself, I don't have an issue with anything that this project is going
through at this time thank you chairman i think you're on mute
thank you i apologize anyone else to testify in this case
yes chair we have crystal merit please unmute yourself and please wait for the
good afternoon ma'am or please please spell your full name i'll swear you in
yes my full name is crystal c-r-y-s-t-a-l merit m-e-r-r-i-t-t and your address
2433 north 20th street thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes sir thank you man please proceed um i've been on this block and i'm not
quite sure um if i don't you know i don't remember well i've been on this block for maybe five years
i have never no one has never come i don't even know who who's supposed to be representing our
block but i am the assistant block captain on 20th street um mr byron um came and and we welcome
now i went around and and and the community on our block because that's where the uh
the property will be rebuilt on our block and we are so excited to have that building redone
and and and he also is contributing to the community by helping us fix up um these lots
pick gates around them um um and we welcome that um i don't know who miss tina marie is
because she already spoke so i'm sure i can you know kind of say i never met her i don't know her
I don't know why she's saying our community here on 20th Street, because we don't know who she is.
We don't know her.
We don't.
And if we did, I mean, you know, with...
I'm sorry, Chair.
This is Tanya Sunkett.
I apologize for the interruption.
Ma'am, but could I ask that you please testify about the project and not about someone else's testimony?
Okay, yes ma'am. Thank you, Tony. Thank you. I apologize for that. So, we welcome the property is going to be an asset to this block. It's been vacant, you know, animals in and out.
Okay, yes, ma'am.
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you.
I apologize for that.
So, you're in support of this project? Yes, very much.
All right, thank you ma'am. Appreciate your testimony. Anyone else?
something new and different yes chair we have serena please unmute yourself and please wait for
the chair
unmute what she said unmute and then please wait for the chair please identify yourself ma'am spell
your full name serena s-e-r-e-n-a coindexter p-o-i-n-d-e-x-t-e-r
your address is 2025 west haggard street my block excuse me go ahead finish my my block meets the
it adjourns with the back of the house that he's trying to get okay do you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir please proceed okay just like miss
crystal said i'm the block captain of haggard street and yes he has walked around a couple of
times and we met with him he told us what he wanted to do and nobody objected to his idea
just like Ms. Crystal said we are we really needs that another you know make it look nice
around there because that house has been down for many many years
we don't we're not opposed to that at all well thank you very much for your testimony
me. Anyone else? Something new and different? That's all, Chair. Thank you very much. Planning
Commission? Good afternoon, Chair. This is Mason Austin, representing the Planning Commission.
Please spell your full name. Sure. Mason, M-A-S-O-N, Austin, A-U-S-T-I-N. Do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you sir please
proceed thank you um the property is designated for single family residential use in the comprehensive
plan and 2014 was rezoned from rm1 to rsa5 in accordance with that recommendation however the
proposed use is consistent with documented previous uses of the property and consequently staff of the
city planning commission has no objection to the granting of the requested variance thank you very
much. MI 2020-002957, 2442 North 20th Street. My vote is yes with the proviso, no roof deck.
And plans? Oh, I'm sorry. And proviso, revised plan one page.
One page approved today. Confessor Plaza, yes with proviso. James Snell, yes with proviso. Thomas
Ms. Holloman, yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Number six on our list, MI 2021-002584-6115 Osceola Street, O-S-C-E-O-L-A Street.
Mr. Clinton is the attorney of record.
There's a letter of support from the Chew and Belfield Neighbors Club or Corporation.
I can't make that out.
and also a letter of non-opposition from Councilwoman Bass.
Mr. Clinton is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. Clinton, I'm not sure if you were sworn in yet this morning,
so please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Sure. Henry Clinton, Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street,
Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Where from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Can I share my screen?
Have you agreed to wait to read in of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. And 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 end?
Mr. Confessor, I sent everything within five days except for the tax certification,
which we just got today
and a letter from the community group support
which we just got yesterday
but they're all included in my package.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Henry, we lost you.
I'm still here, I think.
Yeah, after you said
You have it in your packet. I don't know if you started speaking, but we did.
you have it in your packet
I don't know if you started speaking
but we didn't.
Can you see my screen? You can see your screen now. Yes. Okay.
All right. So I'll start at the beginning. This is a, is that large enough for everyone to say?
I believe it is. All right. This is a presentation for 615 Osceola Street.
This is my cover sheet. These are the table of contents for our exhibits,
appearance statement AA through A10. I'll walk through each of the documents as the presentation
proceeds. This is my appearance statement. This is the refusal. I'll dwell a little bit on this
for a minute. So it's a zoning district RSA 5, and our proposal was for 12 single-family houses.
But because they are attached, as most single-family houses are, the zoning examiner
interpreted that as a one building and therefore said multifamily is not permitted in the RSA 5
district. But when you see the project and we lay it out for you'll see that it is a single family
project. The only difference is we will have a homeowners association that will take care of
trash, snow plowing, and other common items. This is a letter from the Chew and Belfield
Neighbors Club, Inc. It's a letter of support. And just for the record, we did discuss a number
of things with the community group that we would try to address together. Some of the things in
this proviso list have to do with changing the direction of the street, installing lighting in
the four corners by PICO, removing a wall from a surrounding house, installing new sidewalks.
All of these items really need the cooperation of neighbors that are adjacent to the property.
And we've agreed to approach those neighbors and see if we can get some of these things done.
That's why I believe the letter indicates at the top that these items were discussed, but not necessarily agreed to by everybody.
So it is a letter of support.
This is just some communication.
One of the unique things that happened in this project and working through the neighborhood group was we actually sent out two notices to the neighbors, one which was typical and required by planning, but also wanted the request of the neighborhood group because the RCO wanted to make sure that all the neighbors were absolutely contacted.
So we took the extra burden of sending out two zoning notices, which I can show you at the very end.
So just to give you a perspective, the vacant lot is where the project will be located. Over to the left is Topohockin Street, and this is Herman Street.
The project will not be facing Osceola Street, but we will have a drive aisle down this side where my cursor is with parking for each of the homes.
And then there will be a walkway leading to the front of each of the homes off of Osceola Street.
So the project itself is really perpendicular to Osceola Street, not parallel to it.
Again, this is another shot of the vacant lot.
And this wall here is one of the things we talked to the community group about.
There used to be, back in the 50s, 60s, up until 1992, according to the zoning records, a four-story tool and dive plant right here on the face of Osceola Street.
And we believe this is the remaining party wall from part of that building.
And we have agreed with the community group that we will get an engineer to come out and take a look at this wall and also contact the homeowner to see if there's a way we can stabilize and or remove that wall.
But it is still standing as of today.
This is our zoning posters.
This is a rendering of the front of the homes.
The rear is where my cursor is.
Osceola Street is right here.
And as I said, the project itself is perpendicular to Osceola Street.
Here's a better perspective.
Again, Osceola Street here is to the left.
There's a 24-foot-wide drive aisle, so cars can come into the rear of the property and park.
It's not a garage.
It's an open-air parking space, but it is parking one-to-one for each of the properties, so it takes cars off the street.
um here's the front of the buildings uh there will be rooftop decks three stories and again
i'll show you more renderings as we work our way through and and again the reason for the refusal
is the examiner sees this 12 unit homes as as one building when in reality it will be individual
homes deeded it's fee simple and we'll have a homeowners association to take care of all the
and we'll have a homeowners association to take care of all the common elements again some more
common elements against
photographs this is a perspective of the front rendering with porches trying to mimicking what
some of the other homes in the neighborhood are this is a rendering of the rear again you can see
the outdoor parking spaces one-to-one for each property as you go away from osceola street
again just another rendering this is a cutaway section showing you that it is a three-story
there will be a finished basement a nice covered porch with a walkway leading up to the front of
the property the floor plan will have a finished basement a half bath kitchen dining room living
room two bedrooms on the second floor and one bedroom on the third floor with access to a
rooftop deck. So we don't have any issues with open space, rear yard, height dimensions or
anything like that. It's simply because even though it's RSA 5, it is interpreted as a
multifamily. In terms of the tax certification, my clients are the equitable owners. The seller
had not paid the real estate taxes. And today, actually, my clients stepped up and they paid
real estate taxes. So the taxes are up to date and we're in good standing. And this is confirmation
and proof of payment for each of the tax certifications. I mean, excuse me, for each of
the payments for the real estate taxes. One of the things I just wanted to show the board
was a zoning map. This is a clear shot of the parcel that's involved. And you can see the
hallway area is zoned RSA 5. This is a face page of the agreement of sale indicating my owner,
excuse me, my client is the equitable owner on the call. I have the owner as well as the architect,
and I just wanted to show the panel that these are the zoning notices that we did send out
in conformance with the Planning Commission requirements and our notification to 140
neighbors, and then at the request of the RCO, we did send out a second zoning notice, again,
to the same 140 individuals.
So we believe this project has been thoroughly communicated to the neighbors,
and I guess that's why we were able to get a letter of support from the RCO.
So I just think that we have a unique situation here where the ground has been empty.
According to the records, I've been able to establish infemarial photographs.
that tool and die machine shop
has been demolished
somewhere between 1996 and 2000.
It's been a vacant lot since.
We believe that this project
is in harmony with the code
because it is an RSA 5 zone.
It's also in harmony
with what the community group wants.
And I think it'll be a nice project
for the neighborhood.
So I have my client, Mr. Chairman,
on the phone.
to adopt a testimony or if there are any questions from the board or members of the community we'll
certainly entertain them let's get your client to adopt your testimony and then we'll see if
there's any questions okay uh can you unmute greg stanvenden s-t-a-n-d-v-e-n
he's been unmuted he has to unmute himself now good afternoon sir please spell your full name
and i'll swear you in sure my name is greg g-r-e-g last name is standeven s-t-a-n-d-e-v-e-n
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
yes sir thank you mr steven then good afternoon uh did you uh hear my testimony as i presented
the project at 6115 osceola street i did yes okay and are you a principal of the llc which
the applicant yes and if you had the opportunity to testify would you adopt my testimony as your
own and that's true and correct yes thank you thank you any questions from the board no no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
chair we have stephen jones please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
Thank you, Mr. Jones. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon.
First, giving honor to Almighty God, Yahweh, King, Yeshua, Jesus Christ, the Lord, folks, and Holy Ghost, I am.
Good afternoon.
Stephen, S-T-E-P-H-E-N, Jones, J-O-N-E-S.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Absolutely.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Okay. I live around the corner from the proposed project, and I have some concerns, and some people I've spoken to
I have some concerns, and some people I've spoken to, even though I can't speak for them, they voiced to me.
I won't say what they said.
Please speak, yes, testify on your behalf.
Thank you.
This is, well, the project, the housing that they show you is not commensurate with the other properties in the neighborhood.
how so how so sir do you talk about aesthetics well that's one and you have two
okay two stories to three story housing it is in germantown which is a historical
green space in the city is one of the five or six green spaces in the city the lots the front yard
the backyard the other houses in the neighborhood the yards are bigger and the fronts are also
bigger there's a issue I believe I could be wrong about stormwater runoff right now it's a green
open space and it hasn't been addressed yet but the city is going around in neighborhoods
trying to make sure that the city enhances the green spaces.
We live in an underserved community as far as commerce, schooling, and it wasn't always that way.
Could you speak directly to this development and what your opposition is?
Oh, okay.
The aesthetics? Oh, okay. I apologize for that. Um, it's, it's a nice looking development.
it. It doesn't have the pricing within this area. It seems to be this project is another
attempt at gentrification, which, when it's described, it changes the face of this community.
I heard you say it's a nice-looking project. Now you're saying it's changing the face of
the community. I'm not clear. Right, because the definition that I heard
from Pew is that it takes it from a from a present income level to a significantly higher
income level so people who are living in the community at this moment there's a good chance
that property taxes will definitely increase.
There's no place for these people to go
if they cannot afford this increase in their neighborhood.
The cost is what it's going to cost, I believe.
That's not an issue for this board.
at least i don't believe it is okay thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case
please raise your hand i see no more hands chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon uh chair members of the board um this is mason austin representing the planning
Commission. The property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan
and is zoned for that use. It is a very large lot that would theoretically permit 14 buy-write units
if subdivided according to RSA 5-dimensional standards. However, the depth of the lot presents
a hardship as it would require the introduction of a new city street to comply with the street
frontage requirements. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance be granted but a
request that any dry vials meet street department standards.
Now the number MI 2021, excuse me, MI 2021-002584, 6115 Osceola Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. Professor Plaza.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Here we go to item number seven, MI 2021-001574, 6425 Woodbine Avenue.
There's a letter of support, I believe, from Councilman Jones,
and there's a letter from the Overbrook Farms Club,
um which i've been reading
anyway uh mr ward available
he's coming back in as a panelist now thank you and mr ward i'm not sure if you were on this
morning because i didn't was not here for the full uh set of hearings so would you mind
identifying yourself and i'll square you in i'm sorry chair this is tanya sunkett
Maybe I respectfully ask, too, if you could ask if there are other attorneys representing this address as well.
Self-noted. Are there any other attorneys who will be representing 6425 Woodbine Avenue?
If so, raise your hand. In the meantime, Mr. Ward, identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant as co-counsel.
where from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i most certainly do
good afternoon mr chairman how are you i'm welcome we're we're a call counsel mr ward
on this matter oh you guys agree to wait to read in if it's all over confessor confessor
wait please spell your last name and i swear you in steve bertill b-e-r-t-i-l uh claire harrison
harvey and bransburg 1835 market street philadelphia pa 19103 and do you swear from
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do excuse me this is sharon
i believe there may be one more attorney mr shirmer shirmer uh yes sir uh hal shirmer s-c-h-i-r-m-e-r
like the Piano Music Company for Overbrook Farms,
I will turn it over to Sean and Steve.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Okay, Sean, whoever is leading off.
You guys agree to wait through reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack?
We do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal,
order for photos and planes five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I have. And you have you met
with the RCO and have a letter? Both I and Mr. Bertil have had meetings and conversations with
the RCO. Thanks, please, for seeing. And I believe there should be a letter they circulated this
morning. I don't know if we've reached the board. Yes, we have it. That's signed by
uh faddeus squire that's correct okay please proceed okay um thank you so uh good afternoon
uh mr chairman and members of the board um as was just stated my name is steve vertel i
along with our co-counsel mr sean ward um represent the sisters of mercy in the zoning
appeal before you for 6425 woodbine avenue um with us we have representatives from the sisters
of Mercy, who I will call on later to affirm in our testimony. But first, just as a procedural
issue, we'd like to ask the board. Actually, I just realized I'm not sharing my screen. Let me do
that first.
First, we'd like the board to ask the board that all the exhibits submitted by Mr. Ward previously
in the supplementary record submitted by our office be accepted as part of one record under
this MI number and calendar number. Any objection? Mr. Ward, everything? Okay.
I'm fine with that. I submitted my original exhibit packet at the last listing in June,
and Mr. Bertil has supplemented that submission with additional exhibits.
Thank you. So noted. Thank you.
we all agree they just had to figure out a way of getting there
we'll try to be helpful wonderful um i'm afraid it is it is strange though i'm looking at my
exhibit packet and i can't i can't move it
no problem thanks john um the border allow i'll continue
please do so please go okay awesome so we're here seeking relief um from the board to memorialize
So we're here seeking relief from the board to memorialize the sisters' existing use and occupancy of 6425 Woodbine Avenue, living as a religious family pursuant to their religious vows for over 10 years at this location.
the sisters
On the screen, you'll see a zoning area that shows the existing location of the property,
shows that it's designated as the zoning district is RSD1, and the property is on the 6400 block of
Woodbine between 64th Street and North 66th Street. By the end of our presentation, excuse me, by the
end of our presentation, the record and the evidence will show the board seven very important
things. One, that literal interpretation of the code creates a clear hardship due to the
infringement of the sisters' free exercise of religion. Two, a variance is currently the only
relief available to the sisters considering the time-sensitive nature of their acquisition
of the property or their pending acquisition. Three, that state law provides the zoning board
and the chairman and the board with power to interpret the code in a way to support granting
this variance. Four, there's literally no negative impact on the community upon granting this
variance, and that the agreed-upon deed restrictions and provisals that I'll discuss more specifically
prevents the property from ever being utilized in any other manner than what's granted here today.
Lastly, that there is widespread community support for granting the variance, and that
denial of this variance would quite literally kick the sisters out of their community and
their home of 10 years. So to understand why the sisters have a hardship here and why the
specific relief that's being sought is necessary and what their actual impact is, you have to have
a sense of who they are and what their intended use consists of. So for the sake of just brief
background, the Sisters of Mercy is a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church. All of the
Sisters of Mercy take a lifelong vow of prayer, service, advocacy for justice, and systemic change
on behalf of marginalized people and the people in need. The Sisters of Mercy have been providing
services to Philadelphia since 1861. Throughout these years, they've served the people of the
City and providing health care, serving in schools, and working in many social service agencies.
Some of the organizations they have created or been part of serving under are organizations
such as Women of Hope, Project Home, and Our Lady of Lourdes School. They're also guided by what
they call their five critical concerns, which is care for the earth, immigration, nonviolence,
racism, and the rights and needs of women and children. The sisters' vows require
a communal lifestyle to allow them to live with their vow of poverty by sharing resources with
other sisters and provides the support for performing their ministries that I just
outlined. In the past, when their numbers were larger, parish convents provided an appropriate
setting for this lifestyle, but due to the closing of parishes and the diminishing numbers of the
sisters, it has been difficult for them to be able to obtain proper housing to meet these vows.
Additionally, zoning ordinances like the one we're going to discuss today that prevent more than
three unrelated adults living together has significantly furthered that limitation on
their options for communal religious family living. The Sisters of Mercy have been a part of
the Overbook Farms community, specifically the community in question today, for over 30 years.
Some living in this community as a communal religious family lifestyle at 6369 Woodbine
Avenue, which is essentially a block away from the property in question. Because their religious
mission requires it, four sisters have been living in the property in question 6425 Woodbine Avenue
for over 10 years without objection or complaint as tenants or neighbors. But now the owners which
have been their landlords and which have been their landlords over these 10 years are selling
the house and the sisters intend and need to purchase it to be able to remain in their
community and in their home.
So just to get a sense of the property we're talking about, Mr. Ward was kindly enough
to put together a great presentation of photographs of the existing property that shows the existing
that shows the existing conditions of the property and shows the specifics of it. As I stated,
conditions of the property um and shows
it's on the 6400 block of Woodbine Avenue. It's zoned as RSD1. The sisters currently,
their current use is residential and will continue to be so if the salt relief is granted. There are
no public services or activities or ministries proposed at this site. So as you can see, the
property, not unlike many properties in the Overburne Farms community, is a single-family home.
The property consists of six bedrooms and three bathrooms and is on a lot of over 10,000 square
feet. So here are some shots of the exterior. Excuse me, I don't know why that's zoomed in like that.
The property, as you can see, it's well-maintained and
here's some shots of the interior
you can see the property is maintained in very good conditions um no complaints from
the landlord from neighbors no nuisance no uh neighborhood nuisance issues no history
of violations with lni these are the individual rooms of this the sisters
as i stated there are three bathrooms
and here excuse me
and here's a driveway into the property just to get a sense of the layout of the property
you'll see here that they're on the ground floor there's you know existing kitchen dining room
living room and a prayer room. On the upper levels, there are the bedrooms and the bathrooms.
As I stated, there are six bedrooms. So the sisters, as I stated, keep the house in
an amazing condition and has never had any issues. The house has all the regular attributes of a
home, bedrooms, bath, kitchen, living room, and dining room. And so if the sisters are living
is what we believe is a religious family and what it is under their vows, the question
may be, well, why are we here for virgins?
So as you can see by the refusal here, the refusal was issued by LNI for the proposed
use of group living in an existing structure.
Release is necessary, relief is necessary because according to LNI, no more than three
people unrelated by blood or marriage may reside as occupants in a single family dwelling.
So essentially, a married couple, three teenage kids, a grandparent or so, may reside in a house,
but under the literal interpretation of the code, four religious sisters living as a family cannot.
It is for this very reason that the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act was passed.
The act recognizes that facially neutral local ordinances may have the effect of substantially burdening the free exercise of religion and goes on to state that local ordinances shall, quote, be construed so as to avoid the imposition of substantial burden upon the free exercise of religion.
Said another way, this act provides zoning boards and administrative agencies the ability, and in fact goes on to say they shall, interpret code definitions such as family to include religious family to accommodate a lifestyle that is required by the religion.
It's clear that the state law provides this board and yourself, Mr. Chair, the clear authority to grant a variance should you choose to interpret the code this way.
And it allows their continued use.
And so let's talk a little bit about neighborhood context.
Here, the longstanding existence of the sisters' residence has demonstrated that there's absolutely no negative impact from this use, which is in all respects the same type of use as a family under the literal definition of the code living in this property.
And frankly, we'd like to propose to the board that it's actually far less if you consider what a growing household of multiple children, the kind of impact that would have on the community.
You know, picture a house with three or four teenagers, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying.
The sisters have done their best to engage with the community regarding their pending appeal.
We've had multiple meetings initially with Mr. Ward and the Oberbrook Farms Clubs, had multiple correspondence with the Oberbrook Farms Club, has spoken to multiple near neighbors.
And I'm happy to report that the sisters have been met with support by an overwhelming amount of individuals.
that the sisters have been met with support by an overwhelming amount of individual community
members. You'll see in our supplemental documents that there has been many letters of support
submitted directly to the board. You'll also see that the OFC recently, Overbrook Farms Club,
excuse me, recently circulated a survey to the community where 61 households
responded to. Of those 61 households, 74% of the respondents voted yes to granting
the variance with the proposed deeds restrictions that I'm going to discuss in a second.
In addition to the 74%, 7%, as you can see, were either neutral, undecided, leaving 20%
to say no. Essentially, four households out of the 61 households that responded
have said no. Earlier in the process of engagement with the community and the RCO,
there were concerns regarding the blanket approval of what the refusal calls
communal living, group living. As such, the RCO expressed concerns regarding what would happen
if the Sisters of Mercy ever vacated the property or disposed and sold of the property,
and what kind of uses would be allowable under the variance that would be granted today.
In response to that, the sisters agreed to multiple deed restrictions and provisos that
were negotiated by Mr. Ward to essentially eliminate any possibility of that happening.
They agreed to provisos.
Excuse me, Mr. Bertil, this is Sharon Saleta.
I did review those provisos.
You understand that the board cannot add a proviso making the approval contingent on
ownership, neither can they add a proviso requiring a deed restriction.
law. That's correct. I certainly understand that, which is why the sisters agreed to both the
provisals, understanding that some of them the board may not be able to include, and the deed
restrictions exclusively with the property to run with the land. And as such, the intention is
anything that would have to be procedurally stricken out because the board doesn't have
authority to do so would be included in the deed restrictions as well. And therefore, they're
protected, OFC is protected, and the community is protected from any nefarious use if there's
some chance of the sisters no longer having this property. And Mr. Bertil, just let me clarify that
I didn't mean to suggest that this could not be a condition of a private agreement. It simply
couldn't be part of the zoning board's decision understood i was i was going to ask and obviously
you guys are the lawyers and sharon i'm not what what is it again that is uh causing this to come
in front of the board could not this just remain quiet because they've been there for 10 years or
whatever what why is it again is because there's a pending sale i can't answer that i can answer
that question. The sisters want to confirm that they can reside there in excess of three people
unrelated by blood or marriage in accordance with the definition provided under the Philadelphia
Code prior to expending the funds to purchase the property. Otherwise, they might go ahead
and purchase it and then be hit with a code violation for zoning violations for occupying
the home in excess of three people. That's right. So basically, essentially, the literal
interpretation of the code puts them at constant risk of that happening, unless they, unless one
of two things happen. One, either the city changes their definition of family in the timeline that
we need them to, which they've been pretty clear that they can't do or won't do, or they avail
themselves to the only relief available to them which is a variance um allowing that use subject
to whatever provisals the board can put on there and the private um deed restrictions
and steve i think it's also important to point out to the board that under the prior code
uh you'll see it at page 43 of my exhibit packet churches chapels convents monasteries and other
places of worship and their adjunct residential dwellings were permitted by right under the
old code and unfortunately that provision was left out intentionally or unintentionally
uh intentionally or unintentionally in the nuclear so if it was just three sisters we
in the new code.
So if it was just three.
wouldn't be having this conversation that's correct so if three sisters have a guest
come in for a month or two who's to know i'm not trying to skirt the law here i just
it seems like a whole lot of nothing something for nothing i could be wrong it just no you're
right i think your sentiment here we all agree this makes no sense these are the sisters of mercy
for the purpose of the court reporter identify yourself i'm sorry mr shirmer speaking yes we
agree that the sisters of mercy are for all intensive purposes sisters related by vows
which are the exact same as marriage vows because they're all married to the church
That's why you call them sisters.
Unfortunately, the code can't be interpreted that way.
I think this is something we may have discussed before,
but is there a possibility of adding a proviso
that states approved use is limited to convent?
Well, six religious sisters are effectively sisters.
They're not unrelated individuals.
rules, they've all taken a vow, and there's no reason we can go through this.
I know, I understand that, but that may be true under church rules. Unfortunately, they do not.
It isn't the same interpretation given to the zoning code provisions.
Well, I know. I will just pipe up one more time and request that the email that I sent to Ms. Saleta and Mr. Reuter back on June 24th, going through case law in other locations, going, yeah, religious brothers should be considered as brothers.
Religious sisters should be considered as sisters.
And the fact that there's a convent means they're all sisters.
They're all brothers.
There's no need to worry about whether or not this is a multi-person dwelling.
They're all related by formal vows.
Would not a proviso stating that the use is limited to convent have the same effect?
uh no because that would defeat the entire purpose of saying that this property is unique
because whichever property the sisters rented if they rented the place beside it
on the left on the right behind it behind it behind it in the back in the front and the other
side they'd still have the same situation and the issue here is that the property is not unique
unique the property is the same as all the other properties the issue is that l and i doesn't
treat the the issue is that l and i does not treat religious sisters as a family and the property
isn't unique it's the exact same thing as the other property and if somebody else would put
their house up for rent we'd have this conversation claiming that this property is unique the property
next door is unique we all agree that the first that the first question should not this be an
appeal against ellen i what we have before if i believe it's a request for a variance
well that's why we everyone hold on mr hold on everyone we're starting to talk over each other
and i apologize mr patel for interrupting you i was just trying to see if there was a quicker way
of getting to an answer because it just seems to me again it seems like a whole lot of something
over nothing, but I'm not the lawyer here. I mean, it's...
And while I may agree with that, and I also believe that while Mr. Shermer's, I believe
he's well-intentioned here, and I'm frankly inclined to agree with some of his interpretation
of family, for the purposes of this application, what we're seeking is variance relief because
Because, one, right now, that is the only available relief available to the sisters, one. And two, for the, you know, I'm happy to sit down and go and work with the city about changing the language of the code, but I know how much time that takes because I used to work for the law department, and that's not something that happens overnight.
And so right now, what we're seeking is the variance to allow this with the deed restrictions and the provisals that the board can place on this.
And that proposal, the variance that we're seeking, has overwhelming support from the community, from the council member, my understanding, not in opposition from the planning department.
And the Overbrook Farms Club has submitted a letter stating, we want the sisters to stay physically in this property, but as a matter of principle, we can't support this variance request.
we can't support this variance request. And I'd like to, you know, suggest to the board
that while that may be well-intentioned, those two things are currently mutually exclusive.
Opposition and denial of this variance will take the sisters out this house and the community
because the property is being sold. The question is whether the sisters can buy it. And this
granting of this variance would allow them to buy it and stay in the property um that's what this
that's sort of the situation as it stands today um again i'm happy to sort of outside of this
appeal discuss sort of the merits of you know family and things of that nature and again i i
think i agree with almost everything that was said thus far about that um but for the purposes
of this appeal i don't want to get that so i don't want to get lost in the sauce um and lose the fat
lose sight of the fact that if they're denied this appeal, they will have to vacate this
premises. That's what we're trying to stop. Okay, again, I apologize for the interruption. I just
thought that there might be a quicker way of getting to resolve this. And I should mention
we do have a representative from the Sisters of Mercy that I do need to adopt and affirm
our testimony before unless the board has any questions for me i'll ask that any questions
from the board no no uh mr ward no way in at this time or anything or no
we lost sean uh no i'm here i had to unmute myself uh i agree with uh mr bertill uh however i would
add that we did add um this as an appeal against l and i uh in the unlikely event that uh we could
present evidence to the contrary that the sisters are in fact uh a family uh in in the intent and
spirit of the code and if the board was of a mind to adopt that or make a finding and conclusion
that they are no different than the family as defined in the code uh you know that would be
a possible resolution to this case but excuse me i defer i defer to mr bertill because he's
he's lead counsel at this point and i'm just co-counsel excuse me mr board i can't recall
but i know that mr reuter was here for a prior hearing but again if we are going to treat this
is an appeal against lni there would have to be a specific ruling on that and we would need the
law department here to argue well they were they were notified of this hearing i don't know why
they're not here i didn't have any conversations with them maybe steve did but uh my understanding
i i thought i i thought i saw him in the crowd but um maybe i'm uh mr reuter but uh i may be
mistaken um mr bertiel then would you like this also to be considered as an appeal against lni
in which case we can, I suppose, schedule another hearing.
If so, only in the alternative. At this point, for the purposes of what's in the
best interest in the Sisters of Mercy, we would like the variance considered and the support for
this variance considered. And frankly, just what is the most expedient result of approval for them.
And I believe it's the variance. I don't know if that's not the case. But my understanding is that's because that's what was originally filed. That's probably the quickest resolution. But I'm happy to also present this, the same facts, the same record in the alternative as an appeal against LNI. But I don't want to negate the variance as well.
you can do it in the alternative but if we're also if the board is also going to vote on whether
it's an appeal whether it is approved as an appeal against lni we would need mr reuter here
right and if he's not here then i would just want to proceed
okay did i hear someone say uh that there was someone representing the sisters
right we have um because we're still we're actually still on our um presenting the case
we have to have our representative affirm and adopt our testimony.
Well, finish with your testimony and then we'll get to that.
Okay, so in short, I think in summary, I should say, the Sisters of Mercy, what we're looking
at here is a pre-existing use on the property for over 10 years. They're an integral part
of this community. Their neighbors love them. Their landlord loves them. There's been no
issues with them being in the community um they're here essentially on a technicality
um that they're forced to come here um and as such i where our our hope is that
um that they're forced to come here um and as such i where our our hope is that the board will see
that this is such um i don't know if there's a more de minimis um of variance requests considering
um that literally nothing is changing um outside of main outside of the memorialization of their
views um and in that fact i would also like the board to to recognize all the overwhelming support
from both the community and the council member,
individual community members as well.
I understand that the Overbrook Farms Club board
has decided to go a different way,
but I just want the record to reflect that their decision
is not reflective of community desires,
which is evidenced by the letters of support
and the overwhelming majority supporting this variance.
And as such, I'd like to call Maureen McGinnis, who's a representative of Sisters of Mercy, to raise her hand so she can affirm and adopt my testimony.
Ms. McGinnis, you may unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Yes, and Ms. McGinnis, please spell your full name and then I'll swear you in.
M-C-G-I-N-N-E-S-S. McGinnis?
First name?
Maureen, M-A-U-R-E-E-N.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Bertil.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. McGinnis, did you hear the testimony that I provided to the board this afternoon?
I did.
Do you affirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own as a representative of Sisters of Mercy?
And is there anything that you would like to add to the board?
Sure. I would like to take a moment to expand on the comments that you and Sean had given by giving some background about the Sisters of Mercy and why living in community is so important to them.
As Steve had said, the Sisters of Mercy is a religious order who have taken the traditional vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, but they've also taken a fourth vow to care for the poor, the sick, and the uneducated.
They've been working within Philadelphia since 1861 with ministries focused on education,
health care, and social justice.
It might be helpful to understand the difference between nuns and sisters.
Both fulfill essential tasks in the church.
Nuns are focused on a contemplative life of prayer, often living together, but apart from
the world.
Sisters, however, are dedicated to an active life of work sustained by prayer.
Sisters live together within the communities they are serving.
Community is so important to the sisters in every sense of the word.
Community with the world in which they live and community with each other.
The sisters live in small groups for practical and spiritual reasons.
Practically, it supports their vow of poverty.
They share the costs of common living space and they eat together each day.
They support each other in the various ministries that each sister participates.
They begin and end each day in prayer together.
The community of Overbrook Farms is very important to the sisters.
They have lived peacefully within the community for many years.
The house is located in convenient distances to their various works within the Philadelphia community.
the house is a size that allows them space to live together and to support each other
we are in support of the proviso and have agreed to a deed restriction that would transfer the
property to a single family owner when we no longer need it thank you for the opportunity
to explain more about the sisters of mercy and why living in the overbrook farms community is
important to them if you have any questions or concerns i would be happy to address them
any questions from the board no no okay uh i meant uh let's see uh mr shirmer
uh my job is to find a way of getting the sisters into the house and having them stay there uh the
house isn't unique if it takes everybody looking to the side and saying yeah the house is unique
and then we're going to put in a proviso dealing with the fact that the house isn't unique.
Okay, but it seems like it makes more sense for the zoning board to actually tackle the problem,
which is the Sisters of Mercy are actually sisters.
Disclosure, I went to Gwena Mercy under Sister Mary Edward from 1975 to 83, so I'm quite familiar with this.
Disclosure, I went to Gwen and Mercy under Sister Mary Edward from 1974.
And even the Code of Canon Law says that the sisters live as a family.
It'll be a lot easier and cleaner to just say, yeah, Catholic sisters are a family.
We can go through all the machinations of, okay, we're going to pretend that this property is unique
because of the three tests for a variance no they aren't causing any harm no the proper this is the
minimum you know if this was the Waltons you'd have six bedrooms you have three kids in each
bedroom you got 18 kids plus two parents but the problem is that this will follow the sisters
around because the problem is not with the property the problem is with the ownership by
the sisters and we think that it makes more sense to fix that rather than to not fix it and pretend
that we fixed it and then put in a proviso so that we can unfix it later on when we undo everything
but what my job is to make sure that the sisters get in and find a way of doing it which is legal
and enforceable and that makes everybody not unhappy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm not clear
on Mr. Sherman's position. Is he in opposition to the variance?
My client's position is we don't need a variance. The problem is that L&I
incorrectly classifies Catholic nuns as unrelated individuals when, by definition, Catholic nuns
have taken, Catholic sisters, sorry, have taken a lifelong vow, which is comparable to a marriage
vow. And they are dedicated to their life living together. I believe everyone understands your
argument. However, L&I is not bound by canon law.
It is bound by the zoning code. This could be done
maybe through a legislative change, or there could be an appeal against L&I
or an accommodation request. What is before the board at this point is the zoning
variance request. I agree, but there is
case law out there from Missouri and I think Nebraska
and California, which is the email
going back to June 24th
that, yeah, other locations
have found that, well, yes, religious
vows are the equivalent of
marriage vows, so
you can consider all of the
sisters to be married to the church
and then we get rid of this
entire problem instead
of creating a much more complicated
way of fixing
a problem that we shouldn't have.
But again, this is not the board
the board right one at a time one at a time Sharon I'm sorry it's just that this is not before the
board right now what is before the board is a variance request I am not suggesting these aren't
persuasive arguments just that they are not before the board and is it correct am I correct in saying
that the concern uh that is I guess somewhat raised by Mr. Shermer is that if the board grants
this variance and sometime down in the in the future the nuns for whatever reason vacate or
put the property up for sale that this variance will apply uh not now you're shaking your head
mr brittell uh because it won't the sisters have agreed i'm not saying it will i'm wondering if
that's a concern.
That concern, I believe chair was,
is going to be addressed by the deed restriction.
And I had suggested the possibility of a proviso
stating that the use is limited to convent use,
which I believe that would mean
that it would not just be a group living approval.
Any group living to replace the Sisters of Mercy
would be sisters, would be nuns.
That's right. And just to provide additional context, the property I referenced earlier in my initial presentation that the Sisters of Mercy have been a part of this community for over 30 years.
And that's because another property up on Woodbine Avenue did receive approval as a convent under the previous zoning code that Mr. Ward referenced earlier.
then the in 2012 as we all know the zoning code was updated with new categories and that was left
off and that's why we have to go through this variance process i just want to i know this
sounds complicated but but but it's actually not the board constantly routinely
but but but it's actually not the board constantly routinely utilizes provisos to limit
certain things that they can limit for uses that may not that may be um appropriate for the the
potential end user or landowner um and that's subject to community concerns in this case the
community supports this. The proposed use is simply and easily restricted by deed restriction
and the proviso. And so that part of it is not complicated. I understand that once we start
talking about the underlying legal definitions of the zoning code and the problems or limitations
of them, I understand that can get complicated and I know religion is a touchy area. But what
What we're essentially asking here is there's a proposed use.
The community is okay with the current occupant using it in that specific manner.
They don't want anyone else to use it in that manner.
And we have established deed restrictions and provisos that clearly stops that from
happening.
And in that case, that's what's before the board today.
And that's what we really need the board to be able to vote on because the alternative, if we, you know, try to continue this to explore this further or, you know, try to go down the legislative path, that is essentially, that's denying the variance and those sisters will no longer be able to live there.
That's the immediate effect of that.
So there's no objection to the recommendation by Ms. Soweto that we put a provisor that says limited to convent use?
Not from the applicant, there isn't.
No, not from my side.
It's simply that we know that the property isn't unique.
The problem is ownership by a religious organization.
Do we deal with it now or do we kick the can down the alley?
i guess all i'm saying is i don't want to deal with it at the expense of the sisters
that's what will happen i i think we all understand that and tom i know you had a
question on my it was a fully answered tom it's more clear to me now that the he's opposing it
the variance we don't thank you we he's not really don't oppose it but we think that it's
kind of stupid to grant a variance and then put on a proviso, which amplifies the fact that the
property isn't unique because we're going to take the variance away when the sisters no longer own
it, which shows that the only reason that you're granting a variance is because it's owned by the
sisters. Why don't we just fix the flat tire instead of driving down I-95 on the shoulder
for 12 miles. Okay. Thank you. One more thing. I believe the adjoining neighbor Diane Falcone
may be present. I want to make sure. Does the board have any more questions? No. Okay. Anyone
else would like to testify? Please raise your hand. Diane Falcone, if you're in the room,
There you go. Thank you.
Ms. Falcone, you may unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Hello?
Hi. Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your full name.
Yes, my name is John Falcone. That's J-O-H-N, F as in Frank, A-L-C-O-N-E.
diane falcone is my wife um she did write a letter um hold on sir hold on do you swear
for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed
and you have to tell you need to testify on your behalf
yes uh so uh i live directly next door to the neighbor i am one house to the west of them at
6435 Woodbine. I just wanted to testify on the character of the, you know, the applicants and
the quality they bring to the community. Thank you. You know, the nuns, the sisters, they've always
been, you know, very warm and inviting. They were the first people to greet my wife and my daughter
and i when we moved into our house they've hosted us for christmas parties um you know we talk daily
you know they're very um you know very pleasant people um they've been pleasant with all of the
neighbors at the christmas parties in which you know we've been together for and um
we've uh been together for and um you know they definitely bring um they are an asset to the
community and john for the record you and your wife support the uh the grant of this
relief requested today yes that's correct thank you thank you anyone else to testify
well if i might uh not to be the skunk at the picnic but uh mr falcone is your house any
different or is the house that the sisters are in any different from the other ones
i think we can all stipulate mr shirmer that there's no difference in the houses on either
side or down the block or whatever i gotta make a record i'm not trying to be a nasty
Okay, make your record.
Mr. Falcone?
Is my house different?
That's what you're asking?
Would it make a difference if the sisters were in the house next door, the other side, the opposite side?
Would they all be the same good neighbors no matter where they were?
That's the only place for them to be our neighbors.
all the other houses are occupied
well said
anyone else to testify
i see no handshare
you planning commission
i'm mr chair and members of the of the board
mason austin representing the planning commission
the property is indicated for single family use
and comprehensive plan is zoned for that use. However, the application would legalize a use
that has existed at this location for over a decade and is supported by neighbors. Accordingly,
PCPC staff recommends that the requested variance be granted. Thank you. Two things. Before I call
the vote, please everyone hang around. We may have to go back to case number one, which we
said would be continued earlier. And secondly, I just want to make sure Mr. Ward and Mr. Patel,
if we include that proviso
limited to convent use
only, would that be appropriate or not?
We're not
opposed to the proviso being
worded that way. Thank you.
We all agree. Okay.
Thank you. MI 2021.
That's 001-574-
6425 Woodbine Avenue.
My vote is yes with the
proviso
variance limited to the use
of convent use only.
Confessor Plaza yes with proviso. James Snell yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman yes with proviso.
Thank you. So earlier we continued case number one. Ms. Sunkett I think informed us or maybe
Sharon did that the attorney who was representing that applicant was in court. We can hear the case
But my guess is, since we continued it, that if there are any witnesses who were here at the time that case was called, we informed them that the case was continued.
They will not be available to testify.
So is Mr. Auerbach there?
I am, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last two sentences.
I was just joining as a panelist and the audio cut out.
First things first, spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
uh it's daniel auerbach d-a-n-i-e-l auerbach a-u-e-r-b-a-c-h what i was referencing is
that since we continue this earlier today unbeknownst to us that you were in court there
was no one here to represent the applicant we continue the case my guess is that anyone who
may have been on the call earlier to testify in this case has since left because excuse me chair
I believe Ms. Sunkett has confirmed that there was no one registered to speak on this case.
Oh okay. Oh I'm sorry no I didn't. I apologize. May I ask a question Chair? Sure. Would it be
appropriate to allow the case to go forward and then a resumption to allow the testimony of all
parties and we can do a short continuance for the resumption hearing if appropriate. Yep that's kind
of where i was going i'm actually i'm not certain that that we can do that um since we don't know
who those people are it would require another whole posting there's no way of notifying them
notice is going out yeah so if you want to go forward with this i guess if there was anyone
signed on who needed to um testify or wanted to testify they could always request reconsideration
And I'm sorry to interject the thought again. I could give posters for the new date for all involved as well.
I could give posters for the new date for all involved, as well as notify all parties who
were registered for this hearing, for that address. Yeah, I would be more comfortable
if we can put some notification out there. Yes, what do you think, Counselor Saleta?
I'm not sure. Mr. Arba, do you have a letter from the RCO? Do you have any
any idea of whether there was opposition to this proposal we've made a great deal of outreach to
them they they we do not have a formal letter from them despite my repeated follow-ups after
the meeting they had raised some concerns about trash management we i thought we resolved it but
i don't despite my best efforts have a formal uh letter from from the rco okay yes then in that case
I would agree with Ms. Sunkit. If we can do a reposting and a brief resumption hearing
that would just allow anyone who is not here, it would give the public another opportunity.
Understood. Yeah, we'd have to notify the public.
thank you chair we will do make all efforts to notify everyone who actually registered here
as well as the other people that we have um the rco and so forth as well as the council office
we will take up that to notify them and the request would be that mr hourback notify any and
all persons who discussed or appeared with him for this case if that's okay it's up to the chair to
move forward yeah well thank you we will move forward and we'll take your recommendation as
to how to notify the public do we have a date i i'll ask this at the end but i guess i can ask
it now do we have a date sure i'll have a date available for you at the end of the hearing
thank you okay uh mr aurebeck please proceed oh with the uh i wasn't sure i understood the
resolution here so what what are we we're going to hear the case we're going to hold it we're
going to put out a new posting for a resumption hearing specifically to get feedback from anyone
from the community who may have been on earlier or may not have been on but we need to make sure
the public is aware that this case is being heard because we announced earlier it was continued
right understood your honest want to make sure i wasn't today i now understand that i am um is
Is there a way for me to make sure that my client is on the call so that he can adopt my testimony?
It would be Salim Payne.
Well, you can start with your testimony and then we'll bring in Mr. Salim Payne.
Well, I just want to make sure that he's on the call.
Mr. Allabek, yes, he is on the call.
We will promote him forward once you're ready.
Understood.
Thank you very much.
So, Your Honors, we're here.
I'm sorry, not Your Honors.
so chairman of the board and other board members we're here seeking a variance to build a triplex
at 2003 uh north 9th street it's just currently an abandoned lot it's been an abandoned lot since
at least 2007 which is as far back as as google maps uh goes i just want to share the screen to
show you the site. So I should have that up here. So this is the site. It's the abandoned
lot. The building to the right is a list, a group of five separate triplexes. Those approved
recently were proposing a similar use for this property. So I'm just going to go through
the other exhibits. So here we have the refusal, which has a issue with the lot area, which is the
most substantial issue, I believe, which is that we have an 851 square foot lot when we would need
a 1080 square foot lot under the code for a triplex. We also have some small issues with
the rear yard not being sufficiently large. There's three different issues there, but they're
all essentially uh the same as the rear yard size so those are the issues we would like a variance
as to we um i'm sorry mr chairman what is the proposed i i didn't the rear yard spaces what
rear yard the required open area is uh 25 we're at 22 okay we're um the rear yard area uh is at
83 square feet when the code would require 144 square feet uh and the depth is um to be nine
feet when we're proposing six feet and and essentially the issue here is the size of the
lot we're zoned rm1 the triplex use is authorized by the code in r1 of course and it's simply the
essentially the depth of the lot is uh preventing a uh triplex use as we believe is
is preventing a triplex use as we believe is the only economically viable plan for this for this parcel.
So to pull up the plans.
So the building we're proposing is it would be a four story building.
there's three units. The first two floors are one-bedroom units. The third and fourth floor
are a two-bedroom unit with a pilot house and roof deck. There's no issue with the height of
the building. That conforms with the code. Again, it's simply the dimensions of the lot that are
an issue. So this is what we have to show what the building would look like. I'm going to turn
to the interior plans. So let me just rotate it appropriately. So this outlines what I just
mentioned. So there's a basement with no living space just for utilities. We have a first floor
unit with one bedroom, a kitchen, and a living area. A similar unit on the second floor and the
third and fourth floors, as I mentioned, would be a two-bedroom unit with the roof deck.
and this this is the plan that we believe is the only viable development we given what my client
paid for a lot which was over a hundred thousand dollars in the economic detriment of not being
able to build a triplex where that use is authorized we believe there's a hardship that
justifies a variance uh in this case and to support that i want to show a little bit about
what the rest of the the neighborhood looks like to show you how it's been uh developed because
this part of the city has been undergoing a number of changes recently and if we pull up the
photographs i'm going to show this picture which is looking essentially the um the property here
is where the viewer is sort of where the property is we're looking down the street south towards any
number of new sizable developments so it's not only the adjacent property with uh five triplexes
the same use we're asking for. It's also throughout the neighborhood we are seeing larger structures
that have been necessary to rehabilitate what was once a blighted neighborhood. We see vacant lots
on the satellite picture still remaining throughout this area including not only our lot but other
lots as well. So that's what we've seen from other developers what they're doing to rehabilitate a
blighted portion of the city. I also have a few other pictures to that end that are included in
my packet that the board, of course, can review. This is a satellite picture. If I zoom in, you can
see some vacant lots surrounding the area down between A Street and 9th Street with the property
being highlighted on the red location arrow. So that's sort of the essentials of this very
request here as to why it's necessary. As I mentioned earlier, we have had repeated discussion
with the RCO. They had no opposition to the concept of a triplex, to any dimensional issues
with the structure, or to anything else relating to the actual variance request that we are making.
Instead, their concern was trash management. We had gone back and forth about it. We proposed a
rear yard trash shed. I was trying to get confirmation from them that that solved it.
never heard that there was any problem with our proposal so to the best of our knowledge there is
not uh opposition from the rco um as to this project and just to um highlight the zoning
here is another important factor we're in rm1 we're adjacent to an i3 industrial district and
an i2 industrial district so this is not you know we're not proposing a triplex in in some of the
low density area of the city, we're proposing it in fairly, you know, commercial or industrial
zoning, industrial zoning, I should say, is adjacent. So we believe that the variance is
not going to change the character of the neighborhood and is an appropriate way to
allow us to develop this parcel. We also don't have any issue in terms of the grounds that would
deny a variance so if i turn back to the um to the picture of the lot one concern that people
may have um is that we're building adjacent to this apartment building but given that that or
these triplexes rather given that we're building within essentially the dimensions that would be
allowed for a duplex usage there's no additional impairment to light or any of the other factors
that would justify denying a variance on that ground.
Any injury to light available to these windows we're looking at here
would arise solely from the fact that there's a building here
to replace this vacant lot, not from the variance request.
replace this vacant lot not from the variance request so as we're looking at it the variance
So as we're looking at it,
request uh does not impose any of the harms we would worry about for for denying it and we
haven't heard from neighbors we haven't heard from community members any concerns uh in this regard
uh as to the reasons for granting the variance and so uh i mean i'd be happy to answer any
questions the board has, I think that that covers the primary issues here that we have
before I ask my client to adopt my testimony. Well, let's get your client to adopt and then
I'll find out if there's any questions. Can we promote Mr. Payne to the panel?
Mr. Payne, you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chat.
Mr. Payne, please spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
S-A-L-E-E-M, Payne, P-A-Y-N-E.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Auerbach.
Mr. Payne, were you here and listening to what I said for the last few minutes?
And are you a member of the applicants of Urban Real Estate LLC?
and would you adopt my testimony as your own
if you had testified here today?
Repeat that again, please.
Would you adopt testimony as your own
as to the application for 2003 North 9th Street?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Would anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
I see no handshake. Thank you, Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. This is Mason Austin representing
the Planning Commission. This property is indicated for multifamily residential in the
comprehensive plan and a zone for that use. However, the lot is only 851 square feet and
And so only two units are permitted by right.
There is no unique circumstance of this lot that would prevent it from being used as single
family residence or two family residence in accordance with the zoning code.
Consequently, staff recommends that the Board deny the requested use variance.
However, the requested dimensional variances are de minimis in reflection of the undersized
lot unless the Planning Commission has no objection to the granting of those dimensional
variances.
Thank you.
As we said earlier, Mr. Auerbach will be notifying the community.
Tanya, I would also ask, I think you may have said it, but I would make sure that the councilwoman, I believe it's Councilwoman Sanchez's district, or whoever the councilperson is, that their office be notified as well.
Yes, Chairman.
The new date is September 8th at 9.30 a.m.
Okay, MI 2021-000979-2003 North 9th Street is continued to September the 23rd at 9.30 a.m.
No, Chair, I'm sorry.
Resumption hearing, I'm sorry.
No, September the 8th at 9.30.
September the 8th at 9.30. It will be a resumption hearing, at which time we will consider any feedback from the RCO or the district council person's office.
Thank you, Chair.
One brief question. If I were to speak with Mr. Austin to discuss his objections and the possibility of modifying the plan, would I submit a revised plan or is that not possible with a resumption hearing?
We can do that, can't we, Sharon, at the resumption hearing?
I think we may have lost her.
I believe we can.
Okay, I can ask Sharon.
Yes, you can.
Okay, excellent.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone who was looking to testify and we've not called you at this time, please raise your hand.
Not in this matter or on any matter for that.
I see no hands, Chair.
Any other, any unfinished business?
Not on my end, Chair.
Okay, Madam Administrator, we'll take your word at it and thank everybody.
And we'll see you all tomorrow morning.
Thank you all.
Have a great night.
Good night, everyone.
See you later.
Good night.
Good night, Ms. Lunkett and everyone else.
Good night, everyone.
Good night, Jay.