Chair, we have 42 attendees, and we can start as you wish.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
present Mr. Chairman and our board member James Snell present Mr. Chairman also present is Hillary
Emerson our attorney and also our executive director Tanya Sunkett here's our virtual
format be advised proceedings are being recorded video will be available by contacting Tanya
Sunkett at phila.gov for the benefit of our court stenographer we ask attorneys and witnesses to
identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call
267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is now for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sumpik.
Let's take a look at our continuances for today or the morning list.
Number, hold on one minute here.
number 14 mi 2022 003 336 1140 south 54 street that case is continued
and number 16 mr chair this is hillary can we just see if anyone is here for that case
we can. 1140 South 54th Street. Is there a representative here? Roland Tolbert is the
listed owner. Good morning, Chair. This is Doreen Blakey, and I will be your co-host today.
Thank you. You're welcome. I see no hands. Okay. So MI 2022-003-336-1140 South 54th Street.
That case is continued. Mark must be tried. And number 16, MI 2022-003-365-1216 West Lycoming Street.
Continue. Mark must be tried. Are there any comments relative to the two cases we've continued?
you? I see no handshare. Are there any other requests for continuances?
Vern Anastasio just put his hand up. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Anastasio. Could you state your name,
please, and spell for the court reporter? Good morning, Mr. Chair. Vern Anastasio. It's V-E-R-N,
last name a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o 2016 spruce in philadelphia you swear for him to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do is it number one sir uh 37 30 north 18th
is that right no no i had 2409 17th let me see yeah i'm ready to prepare i'm ready to present
that one but the 3730 north 18th 3730 that's number five mr chair okay thank you thank you
miss emerson okay uh okay so you want to continue it's on this one i do i need it because uh we
haven't met with the rco yet okay fine mi 2022 007 252 3730 north 18 street this case is continued
you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for continuances?
I see no handshare. I have several cases with no exhibits. MI number seven. MI
I have several cases with no exhibits.
MI number 7, MI 2022, 006-997-1101 Anchor Street.
Khan Rashi Yasmin is the owner applicant.
No exhibits, first listing.
I have Rasha Khan with a hand up.
Okay. Please unmute yourself. I'm going to wait for the chair.
Good morning. Hi, good morning. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court
reporter? Yes, my name is Rochelle Kahn. All right. Could you spell, please, for the court
reporter yes definitely as r-o-c-h-i-l-e-k-h-a-n do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes could you turn your video on please
i don't see that option okay all right so let me ask we this is your first listing
we have no exhibits that were sent in
Chair, she's coming in now and as a panelist.
Good morning.
Unmute yourself.
Good morning.
So this is your first listing and we don't have any of your exhibits.
Okay. All right. So we're going to continue this case, but you must be ready for the next case. Okay. The next time we list it. All right.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I also want to note that Council Member Lozada's office has no record of the required RCO meeting occurring. So if there has not been an RCO meeting, that needs to occur as well as exhibit submission.
Have you heard that, ma'am? Okay. So you need to have your RCO meeting too before you come back,
okay? Okay. All right. So MI 2022-006-997-1101 Anchor Street. This case is continued. Mark
must be tried okay thank you number eight MI 2022 003 397 3034 Titan Street
no exhibit second listing Joseph Bernardino is the attorney
Mr. Bernardino if you're in the audience raise your hand please
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
So MI 2022-003-397-3034 Titan Street.
This is the second listing.
We still have no exhibits.
I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Hellman, my vote is to dismiss.
James Snell, my vote is to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Number 12, MI-2022-007-304-1901 Chestnut Street. Kim Sung Ho is the listed
owner. This is the first listing. We do not have any exhibits.
um no hands up chair thank you mi2022 007 304 1901 Chesson street this case is continued mark must be
tried okay and we're gonna i have two cases
number four MI 2022 001 010 6800 North 16th Street this case has been withdrawn
and number nine MI 2021 003 715 414 East Roosevelt Boulevard this case has been withdrawn
I'm going to go to our add-on list
The first add-on is MI-2022-005-268-4226 Ogden Street.
Our vice chair will handle this add-on case.
yes mr chair uh my vote my vote is yes it's this much i hate my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman
excuse me
let's go back we have some
we have provisos
I didn't see no provisos
okay so am I right
Hillary
yes there this
case Ogden Street there's a proviso
for an amended refusal and a requested
proviso for commercial trash pickup
from the RCO
might be on the wrong one
hold on one second
the first add-on on the 930 list
okay that's it
I was on the wrong one actually
all right uh my vote is yes with proviso per amendment refusal dated
222 23 23 and commercial trash pickup requested of rco
thomas holloman my vote is yes with provisos james snell my vote is yes with provisos
Number two, MI-2022-006-297. This is a request for free consideration. I vote no. Thomas Holloman and Ish are also voting on this one.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is no.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, can you just read the address for that one to the record?
Sure. 436 South 54th Street.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2022-006-999-436-40 Mitchell Street. I vote no.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Thank you. We're going to go to our regular list, and we're going to start with number 11.
MI 2022-003-335-5215, Horrock Street. Jose Perez is the owner. We also, well, let's see. Jose Perez.
this is a pro se case
Jose Perez can you raise your hand
if you're in the audience please
or Padad Duran
I see no hands share
I see Ms. Duran in the audience
Okay, Mr. Duran is in the audience, I will promote the panelists.
Good morning, Mr. Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Piedad Duran, P-I-E-D-A-D-D-U-R-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
This application is for a daycare center for not more than 24 consecutive hours of successory preparation and serving of food in an existing structure.
No sign with this application.
Our vice chair has a few questions, okay?
Good morning.
Have you emailed all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Mr. Ram why don't you tell us what why don't you tell us what you want to do
okay um I have a group child care already um and I'm trying to I moved already from my
from the property. I live at 439 Kismar Road right now. I'm trying to do a center
to get more kids because I have a waiting list for more parents and I have the space for the kids.
attached you will find all the information the approval the tax clearance the rco letter to
support pictures um the tax clearance i've been uh on business since 2008 okay um i have never
but I haven't had any problem with the neighbor.
I get along with everybody.
All the parents are very happy with my service.
I have the space for more kids right now.
you already have approval for 12 children right yes and how many are you looking to put in there
um i'm trying for the second floor at least 10 more kids
you have an rco letter yes and i um i have the plans picture
that's another
that's the tax clearance we see your tax clearance yes and the rc are still there
that's the letter
we see the RCO letter too
and that's your plans
and what's your how you're gonna
you're gonna take the whole second floor
and make it part of the
the daycare
or the childcare
right now you just operate on the first floor
first floor and the basement
all right
questions from the board
no mr chairman no chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
thank you very much wait a minute wait a minute questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands chair okay planning commission good morning chair david facto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with
the city planning commission you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth? Yes, sir, I do. Proceed. Thank you, sir. Chairman and members of the board, the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location. The
applicant received a use permit in 2018 for a daycare with 12 children. A daycare center in
the zoning code is defined as a business for 13 or more children. The applicant has not shown why
the approved 12-child facility is not the minimum needed to afford relief, and so the staff believes
that a daycare center would be an overuse of the property the city planning commission recommends
the board deny the variance for a child care center thank you mi 2022 003 335 5216 horrocks
street i vote no thomas holliman my vote is no james snell my vote is no ishmael shaheed my vote
thank you thank you okay yeah okay so we're gonna go back to
number one mi 2022 003 293 2409 your 17th street vernon anastasio is the attorney
we do not have
a letter yet
from the RCO
at least we don't have it
in our hand
Mr. Anastasio is being promoted
Mr. Anastasio is being promoted to panelist.
to panelists
Good morning, counsel.
Could you just state your name?
You've already been sworn.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Vern Anastasio.
On behalf of Georges Vegney,
the owner of the property in question.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning, Councilor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required
to proceed with this case? Five days in advance of this hearing.
I have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
just one moment mr chair i'm weeding through
something that shouldn't be up but is up okay let's try now
that didn't work
there it is hiding
mr chair 2409 north 17th street is on a block of a considerable amount of disinvestment uh with
more than a half a dozen vacant lots my client purchased the property it was a complete shell
Well, he ended up building it out as a duplex, thinking that he could, because the property next to him is a duplex, and the property on the other side is a vacant lot, and properties across the street are triplexes.
He thought it was a multifamily block, and so he did build it out.
Here's the first-floor apartment.
As you can see, it's two ample-sized bedrooms and a large backyard, and here's the second-floor apartment.
English is not his first language, and he did not understand the permitting process,
but this is the finished product.
It is empty because he learned when he was attempting to fill the space that it in fact
was not zoned properly.
It does have separate meters.
It was properly posted.
We did meet with Uptown, and 222 individual pieces of mail did go out.
We met with them last week, have not heard from them yet on this case.
But, as I said, 2415 is a duplex.
2413 and 2403 are vacant lots.
We've got 2345 all the way through 51 is vacant.
And then we've got 2429 vacant.
And then triplexes across the street at 2418 and 2416.
As I said, there's lots of disinvestment on the block.
This property was a shell.
A brand new rehab single-family home on this block would be beyond any price point that anyone in the immediate area could occupy.
And given the similarly situated uses on the block, and given the fact that my client inadvertently believed that this could be, in fact, a duplex as a matter of right,
I am asking for forgiveness on this one and to have the appeal granted for the two-family dwelling.
With that, I do have Mr. Wegner here, if he could raise his hand, to be identified.
Mr. Vignette, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Vignette, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hey, hello, my name is George Vignette.
Could you spell your name, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Vegney?
Yeah, I'm here.
I'm here.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is George Vegney.
First name G-E-O-R-G-E-S.
First name G-E-O-R-G-E-S.
Last name B-E-G-E-S.
Last name B-E-G-N-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Vigni, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a person with the last name Wendley.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Kizwana Wendley.
It's K-Y-Z-W-A-H-N-A.
Last name is W-I-N-D-L-E-Y.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I'm actually a tenant.
Okay, proceed.
I was just trying to figure out exactly what the process will be here, because I do live on the second floor.
So I'm just trying to figure out exactly, you know, what I would need to do for if there's anything I need to do for this, in this process.
Mr. Chair, I could explain after the hearing to the one tenant in the building.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well, we, we will, we will follow up and see what's going on with
that. Okay. In a short period of time, but thank you for calling in. We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair.
Before I go to planning commission, uh, counsel, could you respond to that?
Respond to what, Mr. Mr. Chairman? The tenant. What the tenant? Oh, sure. Uh,
yes again uh when my client went through the process of legalizing the two family for two
units he learned that it was not legally zoned for such so that it is vacant uh with respect to
the second unit uh the client can stay there and until the disposition of this case okay thank you
Planning Commissioner Chair. Yes. Mr. Kelly. I'm sorry, Chair. I had an unstable Internet connection. Okay. If I could ask Mr. Anastasio to go back to. No, certainly. He will gladly do that.
The last thing I heard was he learned that.
Yeah, he learned that he could not occupy both units and rent them as such.
And therefore, the one tenant in the building can remain there until the disposition of this case.
Okay, John.
Yes, Chair, thank you.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and board members.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission. In 2014, the zoning map was amended from
residential multifamily to residential single-family at this location in accord with
recommendations from the comprehensive plan. There is no unique physical condition or circumstance
of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the use variance for two dwelling units.
Thank you. Just for the record, the practical uses on the block still reflect 2014.
multifamily. Thank you. Hillary, we don't have a letter and do we have an issue with taxes too?
Yes, we do not have a letter outstanding taxes owed from 2022. Mr. Anastasio, I emailed you
about that yesterday. So we can't, we need to, okay, we need to, we have to hold our vote to
the taxes are resolved and we should, we can also hold for the RCO letter. Mr. Trey, I recommend
two weeks? That's fine with me. We'll try to give you a date in two weeks, Vern, okay? That'll be
fine. I believe Uptown will be forthcoming. It just was, we met with them late, so. All right,
good. Thank you very much. So, Mr. Chero, at this time, we'll plan to vote on this. Actually, I
believe, would it be, Lakeisha, next, in two weeks, actually, we don't have hearings. Would it be
june 7th there'll be our next hearing date after that yes june 7th okay so we'll vote on this at
june 7th at 9 30 it's closed except for the letter am i right hillary and the taxes yes thank you
thank you number two mi 2022 006 996 1400 south a street zen jin is the attorney
letter of non-opposition from passion square civic association based on revised plans letter
Square Civic Association, based on revised plans.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Mr. Jin has been promoted to panelists.
Good morning.
Good morning, Council.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia, PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Great. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly. My client is Mr. Man K. Wong and his wife, NGHI, THI Lam. Mr. Wong should be here
today with us.
Okay, thank you. And our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted on this application.
There's one supplement which we made by email to Ms. Emerson, which is the change on the plans for stamping purposes.
There's a specific form we forgot to attach with the original submission.
So the application here is a refusal based on a RSA 5 zoning district.
My client actually wants to use the property as a two-family dwelling above a commercial space.
The refusals include both dimensional and use refusal.
However, after meeting with the RCO, my client has made changes to the dimensional requirements,
thus essentially eliminating the 80% requirement refusal from the 100%.
We reduced the upper floors back to the 80%, which now would make this refusal a moot refusal.
the rear wall minimum yard depth, because we are now keeping what is in the existing
condition, so this additional rear wall refusal would also not apply.
So really what we're here for is for the use refusals where more than one principal
use is being requested and a two-family household living.
The RCO requested that the six foot seven from the upper floor would be placed into our plans of making the changes to the building, which was agreed to and plans were adjusted accordingly.
This is a three-story corner structure. And one thing I want to jump to to kind of give a little better history of the property is that for as long as my client has owned the property, he's a former postal worker who has invested in this property as kind of his nest egg.
for as long as he's owned it, it's always been billed to him and shown to him as a multifamily
property. In fact, his trash collection, his property notices has always been multifamily.
At some point, he believed because he wanted, he was having problems with finances, he went to the
city and asked for less reduction in the rental license. And I believe that's possibly what
triggered the RSA 5, which eventually led to this refusal. Essentially, the property is not set up
as a single family property. It has been used as a multifamily for as long as he's owned it.
What he wants to do, though, is to clean up the property structures with this proposal and this
investment that he plans to make. What my client would like to do is to do a reduced addition on
the second and third floor, which keeps the required open space on the upper floors.
And basically, I'm going to zoom in to make it easier for the board to see what my client is
requesting. And essentially, adding a residential, having the residential entry now would be able to
have a stairway that leads directly up. As it sits now, the property's stairs come in through the
front and goes up through the building. By doing this, he essentially gives the upper floors,
apartments, a nicer layout space and allows it to be used as a more open apartment. Plus,
he's had inquiries regarding commercial use as a nail salon on the first floor.
because he's on the corner and the diagonally across both streets,
Diagonally across both streets, across the street corners are also used in a commercial format.
across the street corners are also.
He thought that it would make sense to have the property set up with the commercial space on the first floor.
When we met with the RCO, originally, this would have been 100% coverage.
This extension would have came all the way to here.
And because of that, the RCO said that is too much additional coverage.
please set it back to the six foot seven that would be required. And we agreed to do that.
Due to that, the interior layout has a little bit of a change in the look. However, the interior
layout essentially is the same. The real goal of the extension here is for the staircase. This is
what really helps make the space much more usable and is laid out much better. The existing first
floor rear is going to be used for trash storage room, allowing all three units to have trash
storage in the back with two storages for the commercial because they probably will
have a little more trash. And the rest would be essentially two apartments above. They're
essentially one-bedroom units with an increased and better setup for the living area. Before,
because of the staircase running up this way, it will make it very difficult for him to have
a nicer layout for the upper floor apartment. So these are all the changes. Essentially,
for zoning purposes, the site, we're asking the board to review and stamp the site plan
and the addition plan for the elevation and side view.
But my client is seeking basically use changes at this point
based on the prior existing use and prior knowledge,
as far as he knows, as multifamily property
and the fact that it would, in essence,
match what is already on the other corners of this area.
So that is why we're asking for the board's favorable review of this particular application and request for change of use.
I'm happy to show the board any specific part of the exhibits, and I believe my client is here to verify my testimony.
Let me bring your client on.
Mr. Wong, can you please raise your hand virtually to be identified?
do you see your hand raised yes he's there okay thank you sir could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter yes my name is manki wong my first name is m-a-n my last name
is w-o-n-g right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Wang, were you present during my presentation to the zoning board?
Did you hear and see my presentation to the board, and can you verify that it is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, that's all true.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission thank you chair bergman and good morning david effecto with
the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single family zoning at this location the applicant has shown that the property has a
history of multi-family use however the applicant has not shown why ground floor commercial is
required to permit the applicant to derive value from this property the city planning commission
recommends the board grant the variance for two dwelling units but deny the variance for ground
floor commercial use thank you hillary your uh your your variance needed for personal services
uses you yes so mr chair i was i was a little unclear because it there was a variant from what
i could tell previously requested for personal services and it was denied according to the
refusal. So it appears that there should have been a variance listed for personal services
on the refusal in this case, but it was not listed. So I think we can safely assume that
was an error and that a variance is needed in this case for personal services. Mr. Jin, do you agree?
Yes. In fact, personal services is mentioned on the application part of the refusal,
but it's and it was refused as one of the principal additional principal use uh so yeah
so we do that was part of the request from the original application yes
yeah so we do that was part of the request from the original application thank you yes
mi 2022 006 996 1400 south a street i vote yes revised plans two pages stamped by zba may 17 2023
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
All right.
Number four, MI 2022-005-910-4340 by Burry Road.
Carrie Nash
passed as the attorney
no RCO meeting held
the coordinating RCO
Millbrook Civic
Associations was unresponsive
to a request for meeting
case was continued on
2-20-23
Councilman O'Neill's office became involved
applicant sent a second mailing on 517 for for the 517 hearing
counsel mr naspas has mr or mrs naspas has been promoted all right good morning
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter yes good morning my name is
Carrie Nase, N-A-S-E, PAUST, P-O-U-S-T, attorney with the law firm of Fox Rothschild,
here this morning on behalf of the owner and applicant of the property.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify the applicant and their relationship to the property?
Uh, yes, the applicant is, um, sorry, I have the name here. It's a single purpose entity.
Right. Safe store Byberry LLC. They are the owner of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions. Sure.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Can you see my screen?
We can.
Sorry, here, let me.
There. You can see the exhibits?
Okay, great. Thank you. As you indicated, this property is located at 4340 Byberry Road.
It is bounded by Woodhaven Road and Byberry Road.
We have submitted our exhibits. We have here a copy of our notice of refusal.
which is here we have a copy of the application of appeal the project information form deed to
the property showing the owner of the property having standing we were unable to secure the tax
clearance certificate but we did provide a printout from the tax center showing that
that taxes are paid in full. As indicated previously, this hearing was scheduled for
February 22, 2023, and we had reached out to the RCO to try to schedule a meeting. Those
requests went unresponded. The day of the hearing, back in February, we did receive
a call and email from the RCO from Millbrook requesting information regarding the proposed
signs. We provided that information to them, agreed to continue the hearing until today.
We still had not had a meeting scheduled with the RCO. We did send out the proper notices. We've
included a copy of the certificate of mailing, but we were not able to secure a letter from the
RCO since the public meeting was not held. I will advise this property previously was subject to
a use variance and received zoning approval last year. During that time, we did meet with the RCO,
so they are familiar with the property, the project, the self-storage facility,
and at that time, we did receive a letter of non-opposition from them.
And at that time, we did receive a letter of non-opposition from them.
We also have here as Exhibit 6 a copy of our zoning notice.
Let's see.
Our notices to surrounding neighbors.
We have a photograph of the zoning notice confirming that the property was properly posted.
Also here, you'll see these are photographs of the property and the existing self-storage
building.
As I indicated, we received zoning approval last year.
The building has been constructed and is open and operating here on Byberry.
This view here you'll see is looking down Byberry Road from the corner of Woodhaven
and Byberry.
Here's an aerial.
as you'll see, the property is kind of tucked in here. It's bounded by Woodhaven Road. You would
then come off into Franklin Mill Circle, and it's down along Byberry. This part of Byberry Road is
actually not through, so people would come in here. What's being proposed today is an application
for the signage on the building. So, the prior zoning approval did not include signage. This is
the approved zoning plan. You can see here the self-storage facility. This is Byberry Road. This
is Woodhaven Road. There's stormwater management, and then you have two parking lots.
This plan here, a rendered copy of the plan, will show we have a freestanding sign that's in this
location. This is important to properly identify the location of the property given its location
and the limited traffic that comes down by very. Also included as exhibit is the sign plans.
This plan here just identifies the various plans. So D is where the freestanding sign would be and
then we do have wall signs that are being proposed on the building. This is an elevation of the
building, again, showing where the wall signs would be located. So we received a notice of
refusal due to the fact that this property is actually zoned residential. It's zoned RSA 1.
However, it is surrounded by commercially zoned and commercially used properties.
It was also, as I indicated, approved for a commercial use.
However, the signage does not comply with the residential standards since those standards are lesser in order to minimize impacts of surrounding residential neighbors.
However, the proposed signage does in fact comply with the ICMX zoning district.
Here we're proposing a wall sign that is approximately 183 square feet in size.
Under the RSA district, we are only allowed to have 15 square feet per lot frontage.
so we did receive a refusal for those signs. We also received a refusal due to the maximum
allowable wall sign height. Under the RSA district, your wall site is not permitted to exceed
the second floor windowsill. As you can see here, it actually is at the third floor windowsill.
Again, it's important to have this size of a wall sign and the height of the wall sign
so that people traveling down Woodhaven Road have the ability to identify and properly recognize
the building and then make the proper traffic maneuvers in order to get off the ramp and come
into the property. This is just a larger scale of what the wall sign will look like.
this is a copy of the uh what the freestanding sign will look like as i indicated this would
be on the corner um up by uh byberry road this uh sign is proposed to be 20 feet in height
this is actually consistent with what the surrounding properties currently have uh there
is a NTB tire store next to us, and this is actually the same height as their freestanding
sign. However, in the RSA district, freestanding signs are limited to seven feet, and we're
proposing 20, so we did receive the refusal for that, as well as the allowable sign area
as well as the allowable sign area for freestanding sign we're limited to 15 square feet
for freestanding sign.
and this is proposed to be approximately 82.25 square feet again we have some hardship here just
due to the unique location of this property the fact that it is bounded by woodhaven road we don't
have access from woodhaven so we do need to ensure that proper signage is on the building so
that users can identify and come out and then going down Byberry Road it is a it is not a
through road it's limited traffic and we need to make sure we have a pylon that's out there
that can identify the building and the business itself. So we are requesting variances to exceed
the freestanding sign area the freestanding sign height the wall sign area and the wall sign height
I do have Jim Burt here. He is the engineer that was working on the project, as well as Shaq Hassan, who is the signed vendor.
Why don't you bring the owner on and adopt your testimony?
Great. If you could let Jim Burt in.
Mr. Burt? There he is.
Here I am.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
My real name is James Burt, J-A-M-E-S-B-U-R-T-T.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Burt, were you here during the testimony that I've just stated?
And do you agree with the statements that I made?
Yes. And had you testified yourself, would you agree to adopt my statements as your own testimony?
I would. I have no further questions for Mr. Rupert at this time.
Well, this is surrounded by oil commercial? Correct. Okay. Questions from the board?
Yeah. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair. Yeah, I have a quick question. I know the area well.
Well, I think you have, do you still have, is there a homeless problem there along the side of your building where the trees are, the woods right there?
In this area here?
Well, between Woodhaven Road and your building.
Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Burt. Are you aware of any homeless issues along the property?
i know it garnered some attention uh of late over the last few months
i just saw one i saw one of your pictures you had some real nice uh landscaping on that side
of the building i've yet to see that it's it's um we are towards the end of the construction
process and the landscaping should be installed per the plans that were approved. The homeless
issue, though, was not near where the building is. It was down at the very end of Byberry along
Creek. It's along Woodhaven Road in the woods between your building and some other properties
along there, too. Just asking if you were aware of it. I am aware of it. We've actually contacted
the um the local police department there is a actually a person who's involved with that
for that purpose and uh we've been in contact with in the past with them to see if there's
anything we could do they actually we've had people go down there and look and uh it's been
somewhat elusive um we've not been able to make contact with anybody on there um but we're aware
OF IT AND WE'D LIKE TO KEEP BEING AWARE OF IT AND RESOLVE IT IF POSSIBLE, BUT IT MAY,
IT'S JUST ALONG THE STREAM AND ALONG THAT SEWER LINE THAT'S DOWN THERE IS A CLEARED
AREA AND IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO BE LOOKING AT AS TIME GOES
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have Alice Udovic with a hand up.
Morning, Alice. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Alice Udovich, U-D-O-V-I-C-H, on behalf of Councilman Brian O'Neill.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
On behalf of Councilman Brian O'Neill, he has no objection to the granting of the variance.
And I did want to mention that our office has been working on that homeless issue
almost on a daily basis with the 8th District and with individual property owners,
and will continue to do so.
Thank you very much for your comments, and thank you for calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and board members and good
morning david vecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
a change to residential multi-family zoning at this location the applicant requests dimensional
variances for signs on a self-storage warehouse the applicant has shown that the location of this
facility on a dead-end road abutting an expressway warrants signs that are visible to potential
customers the city planning commission recommends the board grant the dimensional variances thank
you MI 2022-005-910-4340 Byberry Road I vote yes Thomas Holliman my vote is yes
James Snell my vote is yes Ishmael Shahid my vote is yes
thank you counsel thank you have a nice day okay um
number six mi 2022 007 137 454 delmar street sam elliott is the owner
we do not see anything from an RCO here
yeah this is
Hillary yes we
are waiting
if Mr. Elias is here
we do need to see proof of posting
that a meeting was held in order to
proceed today
Mr. Elias
Mr. Elias, if you're in the audience, please raise your hand.
I do not see Mr. Elias.
Thank you.
Hello, Chair, we have Javier Dennis with this hand up.
Please, bring him on.
Good morning, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hello?
Sir, can you unmute yourself?
good morning
mr javier dennis can you please unmute yourself
hello hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
hi my name is sam elias okay uh spell it for the court reporter please e-l-i-a-s right do you
swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do um mr alias we
do not have proof from you that you posted the property and we do not have information
or whether or not you had an rco meeting uh we did have an rco meeting and as well as i have the
i have the post uh i did not know if i needed a picture of it and it's still up there in the
front window you're saying you did post it yes sir and you had an rco meeting yes sir
you have a letter from them uh let them know
okay uh mr elias do you have a copy of the letter that you sent to the neighbors advising them of
meeting yes sir yes ma'am i sent about uh i think around 80 either 83 or 85 according to the
instructions from the rco and the city mr chair um can i just suggest that we um push this case
um back because i would like um mr elias to be able to show a photo of the property being posted
um as well as being able to show that um there was he submitted uh circulated a letter to the
as well as being able to show that there was he circulated a lot.
near neighbors letting them know about the meeting skip over this and come back yes all right okay
so what do you want me to do exactly i'm sorry um yes mr elias um in addition to the other
documents that you submitted please be prepared to show us the letter that you sent to the neighbors
as well as a photo showing that your property is posted yes ma'am not a problem at all okay thank
you thank you so what time when when are we coming back for uh are you gonna set up another meeting
we're gonna try to do this today right hillary yes yes i mean if if possible
mr elias we can we can come back to you in 10 15 minutes okay uh you said i you wanted a proof of
mail that i sent but uh like uh the kind of letter that i sent them yes the letter if you're okay
sounds good and then a photo yes and a photo of the posting okay i will do that all right thank
you mr chair um i suggest that um we we can we do um number 10 yeah and then um number 13 and
then come back to this one okay good thank you number 10 mi 2022 003 390 6142 calahilla street
Jennifer Basdillo is the attorney.
Letter of support from HMC Squared with an unenforceable proviso.
Ms. Jennifer has been promoted to panelists.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning.
Let me just get my video started here.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. It's Jennifer Bazitlow, B-A-Z-Y, D as in dog, L as in Larry, O as in Oscar.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Michael Williams through his LLC, ML Project Restoration LLC,
and they are the owners of the property.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
No problem.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Here we go.
All right, so we're here today for 6142 Callow Hill Street. A packet was submitted with a refusal, deed, proof of tax compliance, a letter of unanimous support from the RCO, some aerial views of the property, zoning maps, a current use map of how the properties are being actually used, photographs and plans.
I'm just going to scroll through them quickly for you. The only refusal is for two-family housing, deed, proof of ownership.
Her tax compliance, I just wanted to show this year's taxes have been paid and the other are in a payment agreement with GRBA and is current with them.
I also submitted that payment plan in my letter.
Here we have a unanimous letter of support from the community association with the provisos.
I think I heard they're unenforceable, but we fully agree and plan on doing them anyway to put the language in the lease and the garbage disposals, because that's just good practice anyway.
Aerial views of the area.
I'm going to come back to some of these photos, too.
So zoning map, I apologize, I couldn't get this to fully load over a course of a week.
I don't know what's happening.
What's being currently used on the block, some photographs of the property, including
the posting.
This is the block that we're talking about, and I'm just going to bring up the plans right
So my client purchased this property.
It was already divided into two units at the time, but also in need of some significant
repairs, if you saw the photos.
And the plans are for the first floor to be, it's an existing three-story building. It's about 1,129 square feet, the parcel with the existing three-story building.
The first floor will be a two-bedroom, one-bath with a laundry and access to the rear yard.
And then the second and third floors are going to be the second unit,
and that's going to be a three-bedroom, two-full bath unit. And the basement has two storage
And there's basement has two storage compartments for each of the units. So there's no living in the basement. It's just storage.
compartments for each.
So I wanted to go back to the zoning map. Like I said, this this property was already divided into two units and it is zoned RSA five.
However, you can see that it's adjacent to RM1 multifamily housing, but more importantly, when we go to how these properties are currently being used, this little map, 12 of the properties on this block are already multifamily housing between two and four units.
And we also have two mixed-use properties at the corners with two residential units over a commercial space.
So this is all zoned RSA 5, but it is clearly a mixed neighborhood of multifamilies and single-family housing.
And this is also backed up by the RCO letter, if you go back here, where they specifically
state that they acknowledge these existing uses and feel like this would be a use that
is in character with the neighborhood, given that we do have a street that is a mix of
multifamily, mixed use, and single-family homes. I think it's also worth noting here,
uh when we look at this map that there are currently six vacant lots on this block including
right next to this building um there has been some disinvestment in this neighborhood um and this
uh having this as a two-family house really gives the economic viability to fully restore this
property um and also provide housing at an accessible price point for the current
residents of this neighborhood. So I did want to go back. I was not personally at this RCO meeting,
but the property owner and his architect were. And it was, as you can see in the vote count,
it was unanimous support with these two provisors, again, which we have no objection to,
because we want good tenants and we want them to be happy in their apartments. So
So in summary, I just want to say that I think this is pretty straightforward. We have a block that is zoned RSA 5. However, it's basically a mix of multifamilies and single family homes, mixed use commercial.
it's adjacent to an RM1 zoning where there could actually be three units by right on this size
parcel. The neighborhood's in support and they want to see this building restored and renovated
and we can get that done with this with this zoning variance. So I think it's appropriate
based on the surrounding uses and the support of the community. So can I bring my client Michael
Williams on? You can. Raise your hand, Michael, if you're here. Yes, I'm here. Great. So could
you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter? Michael Williams, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Did you hear my testimony here today and believe it to be truthful and accurate?
And would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
See no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning. David Vecto with the City
Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location. The applicant has shown that
the property was divided into two dwelling units without benefit of permit before they purchased
the building. The use of two dwelling units matches the character of the block. The City
Planning Commission recommends the board grant the use variance for two dwelling units. Thank
Thank you. MI 2022-003-390-6142 Cal Hill Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you so much.
Do we want to go to 13?
yes I believe Mr. McElhenney is here so we can go to Mr. 13. MI 2022-007-254-1812
1812 North Van Pelt Street. Michael McElhenney is the attorney.
North Van Pelt Street Michael McElhenney is the attorney
Recommendation of non-opposition from the 32nd Ward RCO.
Good morning, counsel. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Michael McElhenney, M-C-I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
My client is Parrish Condominiums LLC, and it's member, Arion, E-R-I-O-N, Tomalari, T-O-M-A-L-L-A-R-I, the representative member.
Our vice chair has just issued a letter.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, members of the board.
On the screen is my pre-marked exhibit packet that has been presented to the board.
As you'll see, the prerequisites that have been sent over include, at Exhibit 8, the appeal that's been filed to the board.
At Exhibit 9, just photographs that the vacant lot, the subject property, has been posted at 1812 Van Pelt.
Exhibit 10 is our meeting notice with the neighbors.
The 32nd Democratic Ward conducted the meeting, along with the refusal and certificate of mailing.
our deed my client's deed is attached at exhibit 11 the parish condominiums llc having taken title
on november 3rd 2022 and proof of tax compliance at exhibit 12 showing no balance due on the
property the rco 32nd wards position letter has been attached at exhibit one stating no opposition
to the relief requested.
Exhibit two is our refusal.
My client is seeking to erect
a dimensionally compliant attached structure
for use as a three-family dwelling unit.
The property is zoned RSA 5,
and it generated one use refusal
for the multifamily use.
And this is the same refusal and use
that my client has recently,
the board has granted at the neighboring properties,
1814 and 1816 Van Pelt, and this is a request. We didn't own both at the same time, so we had
to go through separately for the same request. At Exhibit 3 is the aerial map of the property
and zoning map, the first page just showing the property zoned RCA5, with properties to the south
as RM1, and immediately to the south, a special purpose area, which is a park and athletic fields.
Page two of exhibit three is important for the board for the hardship here.
The characteristics of this block, as you can see, there's about 58 partials on this block,
and 32 of those are vacant properties on which buildings had to be demolished through various
means, neighborhood transformation initiative, and other mechanisms over the years.
And of the existing housing stock, there's multiple properties that are blighted and
abandoned and not occupied or occupiable.
So with the characteristics of this block and the other multifamily uses on this block that I'll go through in a second, the relief requested here, there is a hardship that necessitates the multifamily variance.
The third page of this exhibit is just showing the properties 16 by 0.5 feet wide by 75 feet deep.
and turning to exhibit four which is a satellite view this again is just to show the board
the aerial view of the i'll call it the sawtooth existence of a bunch of vacant lots a few houses
a bunch of vacant lots throughout this 1800 block in north van pelt and specifically exhibit five
goes through the site photos of this block the property at issue is the vacant lot in the middle
the screen. My client also owns 1814 Van Pelt, which is the red building to the right to the
north, on which we have been approved for this exact variance recently before the board at zoning
permit ZP 2022-001765. My client also at that same hearing had approved 1816 Van Pelt for the
same triplex use request. And the plan is to develop three properties to bring new residents
to this block where it is marked with blight abandonment and vacant land.
Looking at the next photo it's photos to the south just there's four vacant lots
and then farther to the south there's one house and then two vacant lots when you get to the corner.
And then farther to the south, there's one house and then two vacant lots when you get to the corner at Montgomery.
And this is a photo at page three, just showing the open parking on Montgomery Ave.
And the second photo is just showing other three single family houses to the north of the subject property and also the open on street parking on this block.
Farther to the north, it's another vacant lot, then three houses.
and then we have a series of five vacant lots, a single house, another series of two vacant lots
and then when we get the 1850 Van Pelt heading to the north at Burke's, that's approved for a
triplex and next to that are two structures to the north and then two vacant lots on the corner.
On the east side of the block, the opposite side of the street, at the corner of Burke's and Van
pelt we have a commercial store with apartments above next that at 1857 van pelt is again one of
those vacant abandoned buildings um on the block 1855 van pelt also sealed up abandoned and then
next to that are two properties 1853 50 and 51 that are uh existing houses to the south of that
we have a series of four or five vacant lots and then when we get to 1843 van pelt we have an
existing triplex similar to what my client's requesting here uh two existing houses next to
that to the south um several vacant lots and then we get to one one uh single family house that was
new constructed in the past couple years and at the previous meeting the planning commission
indicated that's evidence of viability of single family housing and i'd submit to the board in
advance that based on the characteristics of this block and the current interest rate environment
that the multifamily nature and the blatant abandonment does create a hardship on this block.
Farther to the south at 1823 Van Pelt, again, is a property approved for a duplex.
And farther to the south at 1813 Van Pelt is another abandoned building and the property at 1809, another partially sealed building.
And then in the background, going to the east, there's another abandoned building the next block over to the east.
The last photo at photo 10 is just showing the plethora of parking available in this block due to the blatant abandonment.
The Exhibit 6 is the zoning plan for the subject property.
The first page is just showing the meets and bounds of the existing lot.
It's 16 feet 6 wide. There's a 4-foot shared alley at the rear of all these properties on Van Pelt, and its width is 75 feet in depth.
Looking at the actual page two of exhibit six, on the top right is the rendering.
My client's looking to fill in the blight on this block in the vacancy with three residential properties that would have the similar cornice line in keeping with the property that exists at 1814 that they're going to rehabilitate into a triplex.
So we're looking to do a row of three properties at this location at one time.
And as I mentioned, those variances were previously approved two months ago.
The zoning map, zoning plan, I should say, allows for we'd be matching the front steps of the property at 1814 for access to the structure for all the residential units.
We have the option of adding trash storage to the front if necessary.
The floor plans have interior trash storage, I'll just show you.
So that should be unnecessary, but it's there if the neighbors, if the community needs it
and the owner needs additional storage.
The rear of the property is pulled off the property line on the south side to create
a court, I'll call it, a side yard to allow for ingress and egress to the backyard for
the first floor unit.
And it is a full, it's a dimensionally compliant building with an 11 foot, nine foot rear yard.
So it's a sizable structure with a sizable rear yard.
The floor plans were requesting three units.
The first unit is the first floor and basement area.
The basement is mainly utilities and storage.
There's small living space down there,
but the first floor unit is a two-bedroom, one-bath unit
with full kitchen, living room, dining room.
And as I note on the side of the property where there's a court,
we created a deck to create access to the rear yard for the first floor unit.
That also allowed us on the second and third floor units
to create a deck for the second floor unit, which is a two-bedroom, one-bath unit, to allow for
outdoor space for the second floor unit, along with an outdoor trash storage closet. And this
is a design that we worked with the community, Strawberry Mansion community, and the 32nd Ward
on our previous project, that they wanted trash storage for each unit, and ideally outside the
property in a secured environment. And this is the design that they like, and my client
is a fan of as well. It's a good compromise. The third floor unit, again, it's two bedroom,
one bath. We have a smaller deck at the third floor for that outdoor trash storage. And then
at the rear, there's an additional deck space for the upper unit. So all units have outdoor space
for the upper unit. So all units have outdoor space as part of the design. And the ground
as part of the.
floor unit ends up approximately 1,175 square feet. And the upper two units are about 700
square feet each. So we create a good quality, sizable living space on a block that desperately
needs investment. And in support of my references to the existing conditions at Exhibit 7, I've
just included the zoning archives for the other multifamily uses on the block, including 1814 Van
Pelt that was recently granted and 1816 Van Pelt that was recently granted by way of variance.
And as I mentioned, the other properties, 1832 Van Pelt, 1823, 1843, 1850 are all multifamily
properties on the block. With that, I'd submit to the board that the hardship is the existing
conditions of the property and the block, it's blatant abandonment. And under the Valley View
case law, this would and does constitute a hardship that justifies the grant of the variance.
And with that, members of the board, I would request that Ariane Tamalari, if he's on to
raise his hand, if he could adopt my testimony and ask him some questions.
Mr. Ariane, if you're in the audience, please raise your hand.
And I see no hands, Chair.
Counselor, you're also the court.
We will take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair Bergman.
David Fechtow with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and board members,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this
location. There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code. Planning staff are aware of
eight buildings on this block that have permission for multiple units dating from between the 1930s
and the 1950s, in addition to several newer developments. The rest of the block contains
single-family homes and vacant lots. The Planning Commission recommends the board deny the use
variance for three dwelling units. MI-2022-007-254-1812 North Van Pelt Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. We have your three votes.
Hillary, we ready to go on the other one?
We can try, Mr. Chair.
He indicated he emailed his information in, but I have not seen it.
But if you can show it on the screen, that would be sufficient.
Let's go back to number six, MI 2022-007-137-454 Delmar Street.
Sam Elias, please come back on.
Mr. Elias, can you please raise your virtual hand?
Mr. Elias?
I will promote Mr. Elias coming back in as a panelist.
please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
mr elias
mute yes sir you you've already been sworn could you please turn on your video so we can see you
uh i'm trying my chair i'm not sure how to do that here on my phone
on your phone yes because it was uh
Mr. Elias
Hi we see
I'm mute
Mr. Elias is that you?
Yes sir
Okay all right
You've already been sworn
This application is for a multifamily household living
Three dwelling units on the same lot
With all other uses as previously approved
And there's no signs on this
The proposed multifamily household living is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir. Yes, sir.
Good morning, sir. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits
needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Share my screen.
Can I...
This is the letter that I sent to the neighbors.
I'm sorry, I'm just using my phone
because the app was not opening on my...
And this is the letter that I posted on the property.
And these are the documents that I just sent,
like about five minutes ago.
Is there anything else that I need to?
Yeah, well, why don't you tell us what are you trying to do?
Tell us what you're trying to do.
Well, the property was zoned as three family dwellings.
And I learned that the previous owner before he passed away,
he turned it to single family because he was going through hardship.
And when we bought it, we just wanted to put it back.
two three family uh dwelling uh we didn't change anything into the structure we didn't put anything
photos of the property uh i uh just a second
this is the like a view from the outside
and this was originally zoned for three yes sir and and he he lost the uh the zoning and
reverted back to an RSA. Is that right?
Correct. He was going through hardship
and going through cancer and he lost the other house.
He didn't want to lose this one. That's why he put it just on paper.
Does the property, are the utilities
separated? Yes, sir. Do you have pictures
of the meters in the back? I don't.
But they are, it is separated? Yes, except
for the water is not. All right. Yeah, I understand.
and the property is already separated inside
with separate three units?
Separated three units
and there is no access from one to another
and they have their own entry.
And do you have a picture of the entries?
I don't.
Well, show us the property again.
So this is the property.
Right.
And how do you get in the front?
You go there, right?
This is the first apartment.
Right.
Right. And this is the other house, the other door. Right. That's why you're there.
Right. Go to the second and third. Right. And is that an addition back there? Is that what that is?
That's here? Yeah. What's that? Yeah. That's an additional room that was there.
That was already put on the property. Yes. Right.
okay um tell me what the rest of the block looks like uh well next door is um um uh three families
how many what is it sir uh the next door the house next door is a three-family house
right and plus the street is three-family house uh like two more uh maybe three down the block
Okay. All right. Why don't you move your hand a minute. All right. Questions from the board?
No, Chair. No, Chair.
All right. And what's the name of the RCO you went to?
I'm sorry, I said it again.
The name of the RCO you met with?
It was the Ruxborough RCO. I forgot her name. I cannot recall her name.
all right and hillary we have the letter um we don't we don't have a letter uh mr mr elias when
did you meet with the rco it was uh back in january okay january all right we do have a hand
raised i don't know if this might be someone from the rco mr chair um but mr mr elias we have not
um received we see i see the posting photo in the letter um please make sure you email those
to the emails provided to you in the Q&A
because we did not receive them the first time.
I'm sorry.
You're saying she needs the letters
and she needs everything sent to her, okay?
Yes, we didn't receive your first email.
You had indicated in the Q&A
that you had emailed the posting notice
and a copy of your mailing,
but we didn't receive them.
So we're asking you to resend them
to make sure you sent them to the correct addresses.
And those are in the Q&A on Zoom.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
We have a person, last name Wilkes.
Good morning.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi there. My name is Dan Wilkes.
D-A-N-W-I-L-K-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor, sir?
Yes, I am.
Okay. Proceed.
I do not object to the proposal of the three-family dwelling.
Okay. And do you live on the block?
Are you active in the RCO?
I'm sorry.
Are you active in the community group?
Not so active, but yeah, I attend some of the meetings.
All right.
And you're in favor of this?
Yes, I am.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have Alex G in the audience.
hello hi good morning could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes my name is Moana Delias
spelled please m-o-h-a-n-a-d-e-l-i-a-s all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir are you a relative yes okay uh proceed with your testimony
Yes, I do not object.
Okay, and you live on the block?
All right, thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
David Fechter with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
this property has a documented history of use as three dwelling units the city planning commission
recommends the board grant the use variance for three dwelling units okay hillary why don't why
don't we hold this until we go over everything we'll vote on it next week is is that okay
that's fine mr chair all right so so we're going to continue this to uh next wednesday at 9 30 we're
going to vote it'll just give us some time to go everything that you sent in to make sure we have
everything okay yes sir um i just want you just want to be sure is that the two things that i just
sent i resend them again okay good good good good well we'll vote on it next tuesday okay
all right all right thank you thank you sir all right okay um all right number 15 mi 2022
22-007-127-606 Pine Street. Alan Nockamson is the attorney. Also, Paul Bonnig is involved as
representing Society Hill Civic Association. There's a letter of opposition from Society
Hill Civic, and there's also a letter of opposition from Council Member Squilla. Mr. Nockamson?
Yes, good morning, Mr. Chair. Could you state your name for the record
and spell it, please? Yes, Alan, A-L-A-N, last name
N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N. Do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do.
Just about Bonnie on the phone, please, Bonnie.
Yes, good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Counsel. Could you just
state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter? Yes, Paul Bonney,
b-o-n-i right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you and i'm here representing society okay mr knockamson could you identify your client
and their relationship to the property yeah my clients are dale frank and elizabeth hexner
they're the owners of the property they've owned the property since 2004
okay our vice chair has just a few questions
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to a
diagnosis? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
to proceed with this case in advance of this hearing? Yes, we have. Thank you. Please proceed
to share your screen. Thank you. So I'm here to present 606 Pine Street. This
This matter was actually presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment almost 20 years ago.
So what we're seeking to do here is exactly what was proposed 20 years ago and approved
by the CBA and also supported by the Society Hill Group, as well as the City Council member
at the time, the Chico.
the Chico. We're going to go through our presentation materials. We're going to go over
We're going to go through our presentation materials.
So we're going to go over the neurodistrictions.
the notice of refusal, the participants we received this time from the Society Health Association,
letters of support from nearby neighbors. We also included some of the materials that Mr. Bonney
provided the board to kind of go through some of the opposition that some of the nearby neighbors
have um and to explain you know why we think their opposition uh should not be considered
a notice a decision from almost 20 years ago where this same board granted uh the same variance
requests um and also uh supporting materials to that as well to get kind of get flavors while
we're seeking um what we're offering is not out of character uh to the nearby neighborhoods in
terms of off-street parking. So we did a candidacy on the neighborhoods nearby, and we have pictures
of nearby RSA-5 off-street parking, which is the request that's being requested today of this board.
Maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area. Our plans and drawings,
including the turning radius specific to our compact car, which is a Volkswagen Golf.
Our RCO meeting notice, I will say that we did meet with the community, but we met in the early afternoon.
I don't know how, if that skewed, you know, the vote in any way, you know, which is not common to meet, you know, until after five o'clock.
Our application for appeal, our deeds for the property, and our certificate of tax plans.
At the conclusion of my presentation, either Elizabeth or Dale will virtually raise their hand
and adopt my testimony as their own, and we will take any questions from the board.
So this is a refusal. We're not trying to increase the density in any way.
All we're trying to do is have off-street parking, and you'll see from our photographs
of the surrounding area. It's not uncommon. And also you'll see that from maps that we are on
Pine Street, 606 Pine Street, our property goes from Pine to Waverly Street. And we're asking
to allow for a curb cut that was previously approved by the CBA, which was never effectuated
after that hearing. But we're not trying to propose where we're putting a curb cut,
where we're taking a parking spot off of the street.
So it's not a zero-sum game.
It's exactly what you would think of what this board has approved in the past,
where there's no public parking allowed on that side of the street.
We're in Society Hill, and like most areas of Philadelphia, parking is at a premium.
So we're taking a parking spot off the street and no negative detriment to the public as a whole.
And, you know, our refusals are essentially just because of the off-street parking.
Now, we did meet with the Society Hill Civic Association.
Again, our meeting was at 3 o'clock, I believe 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
So the only thing I would say, I guess, they didn't take a vote of the individuals who attended the meeting, but the board itself opposed it.
There were, I think, at least one supporter of ours who lived on Pine Street, but there were, you know, some individuals who signed the petition who were, you know, against, you know, just providing this type of parking.
And, you know, in their letter, the Society Health Civic Association referenced the fact that, you know, I guess referenced that there was some type of approval 19 years ago.
And, you know, there's a difference now.
I don't know what the difference is.
There was reference in the community meeting that, you know, that that block is different.
It's kept up better.
You know, we have one picture from Google Earth.
you know there's not many pictures of that block but one picture google it looks like the same
it's it doesn't look like it's changed in any way so um i don't know what the difference would be
so now and we also have levels of support from nearby neighbors right so we have 608 pine
streets 610 pine streets 604 pine street all in support of this project now i always try to be
forthright honest and and forthcoming you know if there's support and also if there's opposition
And there is opposition from some neighbors, and this was the, you know, this is included in Mr. Bonney's packet of people who signed a letter in opposition.
And this is where they live in, in, in, oops, sorry, with regards to that.
And, oops, sorry, with regards to that, some of those individuals don't touch Waverly Street, so I don't know how they're impacted.
Some of those in.
But worse, the people who are against the off-street parking have off-street parking, and I would say more dangerous off-street parking than we have.
So the individuals that signed at 406, 408, 410 South 6th Street, each of those individuals have off-street parking.
and what they have is parallel parking along the side of one home and they actually have to
drive on to a sidewalk in order to access that parking now i think there was some indication
you know during the meeting well this is not actually a sidewalk this is owned by one of the
you know unit owners of these three townhomes again if i was walking down the street i would
see that as a sidewalk i don't care if you know it's not partitioned off and you know again someone's
driving a car that to me is increasingly more dangerous than anything that we're proposing
uh there was a discussion during the meeting well you know waverly street is is a is a is a small
street where our kids play well these same individuals have parking along the side of
their street where while Waverly is partitioned off maybe to Society Hill where you wouldn't
typically expect cars although cars do come by and during the community meeting it was indicated
I believe that like maybe Amazon trucks or other service vehicles have gone down that street which
is much bigger than Volkswagen Golf this is prime territory where people are walking down the street
and they have off-street parking
and they're against our off-street parking.
So, you know, do as I say, not as I do.
So that's all I can say is that.
Same thing here.
This is Waverly Street, you can see.
And again, we have something that was reviewed
by the streets department.
We showed attorney radius.
But this person, these are the three townhomes here.
They're against it where you saw the off-street parking.
This town home too at 404 South 6th Street
is also against this project.
And again, you see they have a front-loading garage. Again, the thing is, it's like this board has, and the Planning Commission has an inclination not to support projects with front-loading garages. And one of the reasons is just because of the fact that you're taking a parking spot off of the street. And, you know, the other thing is, you know, taking your eyes off the street, which is not the case here.
um the next one is 604 Waverly which is the property across the street from us
our understanding is that 604 Waverly also has access in the rear to 601 Addison where they
have off-street parking non-accessory off-street parking which again according to the public
records there is no actual zoning permit for this non-accessory public private parking so again
And the individual who's against our project most strongly has off-street parking as well.
And then finally, 606 Waverly, which is not a picture here.
You know, one of the things was during our community meeting, we stated what we're offering is out of character, which is not.
And you've seen through these pictures, there's off-street parking, which I believe is more responsible than the off-street parking that currently exists.
and you'll see more off-street parking in the vicinity.
But also we're talking about taking away the character of Society Hill
by putting off-street parking on Waverly.
At 606 Waverly, and again, individuals who are against our project,
they're in a two-unit condominium for a single-family zoning classification.
They did not create that situation,
but the reason why that condominium exists
is because of the same process
that we are availing ourselves of today.
They got a variance at 606 Waverly.
606 Waverly was you're changing the character.
You're getting a variance.
That's not what our neighborhood's about.
Well, this is a single family neighborhood.
And the reason why their living arrangement exists
is because of this board.
So, and again, I think that,
and I can't be 100%,
I think we own the property
at the time that variance request was made we do not have any objection to that variance request
we're just asking as residents who've been here for over 20 years who intend to do some substantial
renovations to our house and at the same time seeking off-street parking in the rear responsibly
which this board has granted before we ask that the board consider all of these factors when
So after you listen to Mr. Bonney, and I'm sure there's other individuals, the people who are against this project have many of the same things we're asking for.
after you listen to Mr. Bonnie
and I'm sure there's other individuals
Our notice of decision. So this board granted under calendar number 03-1711, the off-street parking that we're requesting.
my clients purchased the property soon thereafter they never pursued the off-street parking at that
time they were not in the financial position to do the work that was needed to convert the rear
their rear yard and their fence to off-street parking probably the big mistake knowing you know
that they had to go through this whole process again they didn't think that they were doing
anything horrible by like revisiting a situation of most a generation later. They've lived here
for over 20 years. Their goal is to completely renovate their house. And they thought this is
a good opportunity to revisit this off-street parking situation. So again, I provided, this is
all of public record too. So anyone who purchased nearby would know that this property has been
approved for off street parking in the past so including the neighbors on waverly street but if
you look here's the notice of refusal doesn't really differ in in much respects to what you
saw today with today's refusal you know the society hill civic association provided a letter
of support i will give the caveat of this that the neighbor that was directly across the street from
us on Waverly Street was in support of this project with the condition that bollards would
be put in place in front of their house such that there would be less likely that a car would jump
the curb. We would be more than happy to do that, to put bollards in place, which is not uncommon
because if you saw that picture at the beginning of Waverly Street, there are bollards on the other
side of the street so not uncommon to have bollards there but you know the individuals who live
across the street now from us on waverly don't want bollards and you know and they're against
this project even though they have off street parking themselves from a non-accessory point
of view which again i don't know if that's legal or not um but anyway the society health civic
association supported this project and i do believe that they supported it partly um because
of the support of the people across the street from us and then council member Frank DiCicco
who was the council member at this time and who was the former chairman of this board as well
who is very was very sophisticated in terms of zoning requests like this also was in support of
it did reference the fact about like the fact that that the neighbor across the street was
supportive of this as well. But his office wrote a letter of support for the support that got us
the variance approval in 2004. Now, to look at the surrounding neighborhoods, we want to say,
okay, are we asking for something that's out of character, just conceptually off-street parking?
And I looked at properties in close proximity here. So 601 Pine Street is an RSA5 property with off-street parking. 604 Addison Street has off-street parking. 406-10 South 6th Street has off-street parking.
And again, the way they access their parking, it's a sidewalk.
And they have people, they have to drive their cars through a sidewalk or parallel their cars, parallel park their cars on the sidewalk, which, again, is a much dangerous, more dangerous situation than anything we're off.
Just going down the street, make your right-hand turn.
We're going to show you the turning radius that, you know, we want to do things the right way.
606-10 Addison Street is off-street parking.
609 Addison Street is off-street parking.
1613-19 Addison Street is off-street parking.
612-14 and 616-18 Addison Street is off-street parking.
628 Pine Street is off-street parking.
629-31 Addison Street is off-street parking.
634 Pine Street is off-street parking.
And then finally, there's a parking lot off of Addison that we saw as well. Again, not uncommon. It's kind of tight down there in Society Hill, especially from a parking situation. So what we're trying to do is leverage a situation where this board, first of all, has approved and reviewed this and accepted that this is a reasonable use of the property, but we're not taking any parking spots off of the street. We're actually taking one car off of the street, by the way we're proposing this.
off of the street.
We're actually taking one car off of the street,
by the way we're proposing this.
And then the maps of the area,
again, we're on Sixth Street and Waverly is right here.
We're between Addison and Pine.
And then just a Google map of the neighborhood as well.
And then photographs of the property,
this is 606 Pine Street from the front of the property,
606 Pine Street from the rear of the property on Waverly.
606 Pine Street, the zoning hearing notice poster. And then, you know, zoning hearing notice poster on the Waverly Street side. And then it's Pine Street to the right of the property, Pine Street to the left of the property. And then this is just Waverly Street as well.
And then I just got a photo offline. This is the only one I could find or actually I didn't find this.
I found this not on Google Earth. I found this on the city's website.
When the last time this was presented, this was the picture, I guess, where they had proof of orange notice posting.
So nothing has really changed. You can also see the bollards that were there across the street.
So it's not uncommon to have bollards, but the street hasn't changed in any respects in the past 20 years.
in a material fashion. And then this is just our site plan. As you can see, this is up from Pine
Street. We're not changing the building structure from an exterior standpoint. We propose a compact
parking space. We're not trying to put a Ford 150 pickup truck down the street, although my
understanding is that there are service vehicles that do drive down the street. We just want to
do a compact car. My clients own a Volkswagen Golf. I think that's a reasonable use of that
property where we're not going to damage like, you know, the sidewalk where service vehicles
drive down there. And this is just, again, more of drawings showing from a site plan perspective
how we're going to fit in there. A particular note, my client's trying to really restore the
back of that property too right now it's a stucco uh facade in the rear which is out of character
to this what you would consider in the historic society hill neighborhood you know they're going
to put a brick facade uh wood door uh for the uh garage that's going to slide back and forth
much more handsome than anything that's that currently exists and then this is just the
turning radius you know if you go down waverly street you're going to turn and you're going to
make it right into there it's pop it's it's not just possible it's doable and then when you come
out you just back up and then you go forward it's you know again this is not meant for a humongous
car to go through we know that and someone who buys this house after my clients buy this house
So it's not going to try to do this because it wouldn't make sense, but you couldn't fit in it.
So we have a Volkswagen Golf.
That's our intention.
My clients have lived there over 20 years.
They know this neighborhood very well, and they respect this neighborhood.
And then our hearing, our RCO meeting notice, we met with the community April 24th at 3 p.m.
115 addresses were notified of that meeting.
the list of the addresses
we're here
I feel like you guys froze for a second
no we're here
proof of mailing to those addresses
our application for appeal
our notice of refusal or project information form our deeds of property showing that dale
frank and elizabeth hexner are the owners and they've owned it since july 23rd of 2004
and our certificate of tax clearance with that being said i would ask that elizabeth or dale
virtually raise their hands they can adopt my testimony as their own and then i'm sure
We'll have an opportunity to respond to any questions from this board, and we would ask for an opportunity to respond to Mr. Bonney's presentation.
Do we see a hand in the audience?
Yes, Ms. Hexner, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
hi there can you hear me hi good morning could you state your name and spell please for the
hi there can you hear me hi good morning could you
court reporter it's elizabeth e-l-i-z-a-b-e-t-h last name hexner h-e-x like x-ray and like nancy
e-r right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed counsel oh yes elizabeth you heard everything i had to state today about
your zoning matter yes and is uh was it true and correct yes and do you adopt as your own testimony
yes thank you um is council going to have cross
no okay all right are there any questions for the board from for uh no chair
no mr chairman okay all right why don't we let mr uh a council also put on his case all right
okay sir proceed thank you uh mr chair and members of the board um i'm happy to be here
representing the societal civic association we also have a few neighbors that i'll call as
witnesses to chime in. I would just make some general comments up front. We as a civic association
are not dead set against off-street parking in the neighborhood. Of course there's houses
and other things in the neighborhood with off-street parking on other streets and each
situation is unique and we do our best to accommodate people when we can, if there's
no harm to others. And, you know, I think that pointing to examples on other streets
is not really relevant, nor do I think it's relevant to talk about the neighbors who are
here in opposition today or who have signed the petition and to look at whether they have parking
or not. They certainly all do not have parking. The ones that do have parking, they have them for
their own, because of their own unique reasons. I'm guessing that almost all of them, that's the
way their house was when they bought it. They were not original owners to these houses. So we do try
and accommodate people as much as possible and support them with their vision of how they
want to have their house and if they can have a parking spot. And in fact, 19 years ago, when this
case came first before us and also the board, we looked at the situation here on this little dead
end block of Waverly Street at that time the conditions were different than they were today
and you'll hear evidence of that today it was really a sort of more of a sort of run down
dingy little little alley street and the neighbors who showed up at that time two neighbors showed
up, one of whom was in a house that you'll see is a Trinity called 604 Waverly. That person did not
reach an agreement with the applicant. And when the parties are, when the neighbors are in
agreement with each other, we try and support that. That agreement was that bollards would be
put up in front of this person's Trinity at 604 Waverly. So we supported it with
that proviso. The councilman De Chico supported it with that proviso. And in fact, the board's
decision granting the variance included that proviso, that it be done in accordance with the
agreement. Well, over the past, you know, that variance was never followed through with,
and it expired and the law has variances that are unused. They expire for a reason
and the reason that variances expire if they're unused is because they're based on the conditions
that existed at the time the board reviewed the situation and now 19 years later the situation
is different then the street is much more improved and beautiful and all the property owners
but many of the property owners that the ones you'll hear from today
have changed over and it's it's a new neighbors with new investment
have changed over and it's it's a new neighbors with new investment in their properties and there
is no agreement in fact there's strong opposition to this there's strong opposition to the parking
spot there's strong opposition from the from the current owner at 604 Waverly who under no
circumstances wants bollards in front of their house and you'll see photos of their house
And so that's why in this case now, 20 years later, we've reached a different result.
And it's because of the changed circumstances.
I'm going to show you a few things.
If I can share my screen.
Let's see here.
Here it is. Sorry for the delay. Okay. So I think just to finish my opening remarks,
there's a lot that's been discussed, which I think is really a distraction from the issue.
The issue is, is there a hardship? No, there's clearly no hardship. The subject property 606
fine can be used extremely well as a single family house without a parking spot. We have
hundreds of properties in the neighborhood that use successfully without a parking spot.
And in fact, this applicant whom we respect has used this house fine for the past 20 years
without a parking spot. So there's certainly no hardship. Let me just jump really quickly to the
uh this is the petition of eight uh property owners eight different households opposed to
the project and here is the map showing so you're going to hear today from the owner of this
property who immediately has access to waverly through a door you're going to hear 604 who
fronts on Waverly. You're going to hear from 606A who fronts on Waverly, and you're going to hear
from 606B whose front door leads out to Waverly. That's their only path is to the front doors on
the side, and they walk this way to get out into the world through Waverly. These other people
above Waverly have signed the petition in opposition. There's really only two or three
other properties here. And I think one person is in favor of it. Someone who's somewhat similarly
situated to the applicant. Here's the applicant with the blue thumbtack. And let me show you,
So I'm going to, so this is 6th Street on the right.
The top is north, the bottom of south is south.
And I'm going to show you photos coming down 6th Street and taking a walking right into Waverly and sort of giving you a turnaround in Waverly with my camera.
So here we are coming down 6th Street, and there is Waverly on the right-hand side.
This is our first witness has this house with this beautiful ivy wall, which is somewhat of an attraction in our neighborhood.
People stop and take photos of it.
Now you turn the corner, and now we're looking straight down this little dead-end stretch of Waverly.
you'll see that this corner house has a backyard door right here where my cursor is,
and then you get to the two trinities. There's the end of the dead end, and then you'll see a
fire plug, and this is the stretch of Waverly that we're talking about. You'll also see that
the city has installed no parking signs on it says no parking in this street and I think there's
at least two signs that we can see so going down Waverly we're getting closer to this
backyard of the first house with their door directly accessing Waverly and then you see
the two trinities um later on in the photo and now um we're looking straight on at these two
trinities um the one on the left is the owner well the owner of 20 years ago of the one on the left
20 years ago of the one on the left is the one that reached an agreement because they're pretty much
is the one that reached an agreement because
opposite where the parking spot would be. The one on the right is the condo and there's actually
two units here. The first unit accesses right here through this black door. The second unit,
you have to, he walks down this little path on the right hand side which I'm going to show you.
this is the path you can see his welcome mat um right here so i we think they you know these are
all folks that are directly affected uh then you get to the end of the alley and then you have um
the north side of the street you can see the subject property on the right with the zoning
poster i believe one of the supporters is this house on the left um behind the uh behind the
hydrant and then going further up the street you see this house was beautifully renovated
recently and they also have a door here they've signed in opposition um so uh i'd like to um
uh call the witnesses in very brief order and i'd like to um you know go through them as quickly as
possible so uh with the board's permission um if lisa millhauser can be recognized
we see a hand yes miss millhauser has been allowed to speak hi good morning could you
state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter. Sure. My name is Lisa Millhauser,
L-I-S-A-M-I-L-L-H-A-U-S-E-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Millhauser, did you hear
everything that I said earlier, and do you agree that it's accurate, and would you adopt it as
your own testimony. Yes. And you live, for the board's information, Ms. Millhauser and her family
live here at 406 South 6th Street, which I'm showing on the screen, and they are the ones
with this backyard that has the door that opens directly onto Waverly Street. Is that correct?
Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. And isn't it also correct that over the past 15 years or so,
your house has changed hands twice and most recently in 2015 was sold to you and your
husband. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And you're there with not just your husband,
two children aged four and six. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So now I'm just going to
give you an open question and ask you to explain briefly to the board why you are opposed to this
variance. Okay. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Bonney. So putting a parking spot on Waverly
would be detrimental to both my households as well as I think many of the neighbors in Society
Hill. I think the first point is that Waverly is a beautiful street with, you know, especially this
time of year, the ivy wall, the multiple, you know, mature trees, the two trinities that have
been so beautifully restored in the last decade. It almost harkens back to another era. I think the
photos that have been shown are good, but I would also say that anyone who walks over there would
immediately conclude that this is no place for a car. It is a tiny, tiny street. It also happens
to be one of the few car-free streets in the area, and I'm very aware of this because I have young
children. And my children play on Waverly Street because there are no cars. As mentioned, our
backyard has a door that opens on to Waverly. And over time, you know, other kids in the neighborhood
come over and they play together on Waverly Street. Both my kids learn to ride scooters and
bikes on Waverly Street. So, you know, the neighbors behind us on Waverly Street, ourselves, and
actually our neighbor Frost 604 Pines, everyone has invested meaningfully in the last like a
decade or so in keeping this street, you know, to be beautiful, but also kind of a peaceful, safe area.
the neighborhood so what i would say in summary is that there's two reasons why i'd oppose putting
parking on waverly no one is the character of the neighborhood and the historic homes and
you know the neighborhood overall and then two the safety considerations um for what it has
historically been a non-vehicular street i don't have any further questions thank you does that
mr knockamson do you have any questions uh yeah may i share my screen now okay
oh i have to stop sorry that's okay thank you
Thank you.
um miss
Miss, you are one of the owners of these properties, is that correct?
Yes, the third one on the right, literally.
And one of these parking spots is your parking spot that you have access to?
Yes, that's correct. It came with the house when we bought it.
Okay. And so the way you, which one are you? The front one, the middle one, or the end one? Closest to six.
We're closest to six.
You're closest to six, right? So the only way you can access this parking spot is to literally drive on a sidewalk. Is that correct?
That's correct. With a car pop in there.
All right. No further questions.
witness? I have a next witness unless the board. No, we're fine. Thank you, Ms. Milhauser. I'd
next like to call Lori Olivia. Ms. Olivia has been allowed to speak. Good morning. Could you please
state your name and spell for the court reporter? My name is Lori Olivia. L-A-U-R-I-E-O-L-I-V-I-A.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed counsel thank you uh miss olivia um uh you and your let me share my screen again
if i could uh mr knockamson um okay um
you and your husband live at 604 Waverly, which is right here on this map. Is that correct?
Yes. Okay. And this is what we refer to as the first Trinity, um, uh, right here. Um,
you're a member of the civic association. Is that correct? Yes. Over the past 15 years or so,
your house has changed hands twice, most recently being sold to you and your husband in 2021. Is
that correct? Yes. And after you purchased, you made substantial investments in the home. Is that
correct? Yes, we did. And of course, you front directly onto Waverly. Yes. Well, as is my
practice, I'd like to just give you the floor and ask you to explain as briefly as you can
why you were opposed to the variance. Okay, thank you. First, I just want to say that
Waverly is a unique street. You do not see streets like this, which is one of the reasons
that we purchased it. It's really pretty. And even though the properties have changed over
multiple times, people have, you know, obviously spent some money to improve their properties on
the street. It's a little gem. You don't see places like that. It's almost like stepping back
in time when you walk down the street, especially at night with the lights. And second, there are
just no cars on the street. There's no parking. There's not a car driving down the street. And
that's part of what makes it a safe place and what makes it unique. And I think just the charm
of the street, the fact that it's safe, and the size of it, it just doesn't make it a place
for parking. So let me interject for a moment and just point out and remind the board that
the person who lived in your house 20 years ago, who owned your house 20 years ago, 19 years ago,
So they were okay with this parking spot and they, you know, would require, they required a condition of that, that bollards be installed in front of your house. Can you comment on that?
Yeah, we really do not want bollards in front of our house. It kind of is more like a loading dock look with two bollards in front of it.
um and i just i don't think that trying to maneuver in the street that's so small
um it would be really difficult not to have to come up on our part of the sidewalk to do it
uh everyone you know unless you get right in at the right angle
um you and your husband circulated that petition that we've shown yes okay and um
I think that's all I have.
Mr. Nockmson, do you have any questions?
You're muted.
Alan, you're muted.
Paul, can you answer your screen, please?
You're muted.
Thank you.
Sorry about that.
Ma'am, you stated that you did substantial renovations on the property since 2021?
Ma'am, you stated that you did substantial renovations on the property since 2020.
Can you tell me what you did?
We redid all the fireplaces in the house.
We put new countertops in the kitchen.
We redid all the floors and had them resurfaced and re-varnished.
We painted the entire house.
We've added a new hot water heater, tankless water heater.
Have you done any electrical or plumbing work?
Aside from the water heater, no.
And you personally don't actually own the property, right?
We own it through an LLC, but we are the owners of the LLC, my husband and I.
Yeah. So but you own it through an LLC. Right. And this is not your primary residence, right?
It is our primary residence.
Okay. Now you also, your LLC also owns, let's see, also owns
601 Addison Street right? Correct. And you purchased that property at the same time as
604 Waverly Street? Yes. Okay I'm going to share my screen.
So you have non-accessory parking out of 601 Addison Street right? Yes.
I'm going to stop sharing my screen and I'm going to re-share 601 Addison.
Now, I went on 601 Addison Street. There's no permit for non-accessory parking, at least according to Atlas. Does that surprise you?
I'm going to object to this, Mr. Chairman. I just don't know how the parking works.
So I think we'll allow the question.
Okay, thank you.
I really I I we purchased the home as it is we purchased the lot it was shown together that's
the way we bought it and I'm really hasn't been an issue and so I really don't have a comment on it
I know further questions thank you my next witness is thank you very much
My next witness is John Kiesker.
I hope I'm pronouncing him correctly.
Good morning.
Kiesker, can you please raise your hand?
I'm sorry.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Apologies.
The unmute just came up.
My name is John Kiesker.
the first name J-O-H-N, last name K-E-I-S-K-E-R. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. Sir, did you hear
everything I said earlier, and do you agree that it's accurate and that you adopt the testimony
as your own? I did, and I do. Thank you. You're associated over the years with two properties on
Waverly. Basically, these two properties we're calling Trinity's. So let's first talk about 604
Waverly, which we know Ms. Olivia, who just testified, currently lives there. But you had
actually purchased that property back in 2012. Is that correct? That is correct. And what was
the condition of that property, 604 Waverly, at that time in 2012? It was pretty much not
habitable. The entire first floor was gutted and the rear flooring was missing. It was in repair
that was so poor that conversations with the Historic Association actually were completely
permissive of demolishing the structure. But I am a preservationist and absolutely purchased it to
do the opposite. So what did you do? How did you improve the property? The property was gutted
The property was gutted all the way down to the joists.
all the way down to the joists. In fact, the first floor joists.
In fact, the first floor joists needed to be removed.
There were absolutely no walls or systems in the home.
When we did our complete demolition, it was shored up and completely recreated from the interior out,
including all of the structural shoring that the License and Inspection Division of Philadelphia required.
Okay, so did you do any repointing here on the facade that we're looking at?
Yes, both the front and the rear of the property had to be repointed from significant damage and holes throughout, as well as those star bolts that are in the foreground all had to be established to properly shore up the building.
Okay. Tell us about the condition, just to shift gears a little bit, tell us about the condition of Waverly Street itself at that time.
So in 2012, when we first looked at the property, approximately a third to a half of Waverly Street, the end of the street, so the end that is west, not the end towards 6th Street, was covered in debris, certainly dirt, and looked a bit like a pasture, high grasses, weeds, unkempt, completely unkempt.
Okay, tell us what you did.
So when we moved in, I have a great deal of pride in the city and in properties that I've owned.
And I took it upon myself to hand shovel all of that away.
It was 31 bags, contractor bags filled with dirt and debris of such.
And thankfully, the streets department picked that up and took it.
OK. And at a later time, there was a water main break and the city did work on Waverly.
Tell us about that.
Yeah, it's a very impactful water main break for 604-606-ANB. And it was quite catastrophic. It was about five months without proper water service. And during that time, there was quite a bit of back and forth of how the work would be done and how the alley would be put back together.
And I was a huge advocate with streets and they were very kind to generously delay the project by an additional week or two to get some support to have the granite curbs repinned and restored and replaced back in place so that the alley would look as historic and aesthetically pleasing as possible for the neighborhood.
Their original plan was to put concrete all throughout, which would have not been quite as charming as that street is today.
Okay, and now the city has remade the surface to this beautiful surface.
Yes, we did ask for cobblestone, I will admit, but the only option that we were given was the cement, which is a far cry, cleaner, neater, and easier to maintain than what was there in 2012, for certain.
But at some point, I don't know if this is ancient cobblestone.
yeah that's always just been there yeah that was untouched by the project okay thank you and so
you've lived there in 604 for um a number of years is that correct just shy of 10 years yes
all right at some point you purchased 606 a the the condo on the front of the building next to you
um and that was um uh when did you buy when did you buy it 2015 we purchased that i think it was
February. Okay. And did you make renovations to that property too? Yes, we certainly did. We've
restored systems in that house, like hot water furnace. We also completely gutted the bathroom
and the kitchen in that house to complete restoration. We did some work replacing doors,
doors um entry doors um and just yeah thank you um so just to be clear you currently live
elsewhere um society hill but you still own 606a and rent it out to a tenant i do a very good
tenant yes okay um thank you um so i'm going to give you the floor like we did with the other
neighbors? Just to explain extremely briefly why you are opposed to the parking spot that would be
opposite. Of course. I do think it would detract from the aesthetic and the charm. I think that
alley is a gift to Society Hill as a neighborhood. Secondly, I would really state that I do believe
there is a safety issue. Turning into Waverly Street with any vehicle is a blind turn. So I do
just fear for anything coming down that street towards sixth street as a pedestrian a pet a child
um you know somebody clipping a person coming around the corner in a car um and then finally
just i believe um from living there for so long i think there would just be a constant annoying
I think there would just be a constant annoyance of the noise that would be created by the vehicle entering and exiting and the operation of the garage door.
annoyance of the noise that would be created by the
Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Yes. Thank you.
Let me share my screen here.
Sure. So before I do, sir, you stated in your testimony, I believe, that you said you made some substantial renovations to your property at 606 Waverly Street in 2015. Is that correct?
They've been ongoing since 2015, somewhere in 2015, somewhere in 2019.
Yeah. And that you did electrical and plumbing work, right?
No, we just did the hot water heater.
Oh, you said you gutted out your kitchen completely.
The kitchen and the bathroom were redone, yes, but there was no rough plumbing work done.
I mean, there were new faucets and fixtures attached when, you know, the tiling was completed.
Would you also say you rent out this property?
We do rent that property.
Let me just share my screen with regards to that.
So I'm looking at 606 Waverly Street.
unit at um particularly the license and inspections uh page it looks like there's no rental license
for this property would that surprise you it would surprise me that the record would uh depict that
because it's not the case okay all right and i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt yeah i mean the
taxes and all of that that are associated with renting are all paid on an annual basis
okay well there's not just taxes there's a housing inspection line since you have to pay
on an yearly basis
um and then i also wanted to go to 601 uh
now you're frozen
council
I can hear you.
He should be coming back in, hopefully.
Okay, sounds good.
thank you thank you sorry about that
um so we're looking at 601 you said yeah 601 as in straight uh
sir you own that property too right i owned it from 12 to 21. okay so from 12 to 21
um and you sold that to the individuals that know now own 604
i'm sorry you appear frozen to me yeah he yeah he froze again
Thank you.
one more time
i'm ready oh sorry um technical difficulties are you there i am he is okay i didn't see mr
bonnie move i was like oh my god did i get frozen one more time uh 601 addison street you owned
You said from 12 until you sold to the individuals or to the actually corporate entity in 2021.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
All right.
Now, would it surprise you that there was a vacant lot like since 4601 Addison Street prior to you owning the property?
I'm sorry.
I'm not familiar with that term.
What would that mean?
Okay. Well, what was, how did you use 601 Addison Street?
We used it for parking.
Okay. So I looked at the city's record. There's no permit of record.
All right. So I looked at the city's record. There's no permit of record for non-accessory parking for 601 Addison Street. Would that surprise you?
It was used for parking prior to me purchasing, so I assume the precedent was there to use it. No neighbor ever made comment about us using it for parking.
I have no further questions.
Thank you.
You have anybody else? Yeah, alas, very brief witness. So his name is James Bonney, and I want to say it's no relation. It's spelled differently. But if he can be called, it's B-O-N-N-E-Y. And I may even be mispronouncing it.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Hi, yes.
James Bonney, B-O-N-N-E-Y.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
You see, counsel.
Thank you.
And I'm going to call you James so as not to confuse with any last name.
So did you hear everything I said earlier?
Do you agree it's accurate?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Okay. 606B is the second condo in the 606 address. And I'm showing it on the screen. You walk down this little footpath and there's your welcome mat on the west side of this building. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay. And you signed the petition in opposition to the variance. Is that correct?
Correct.
and in your over the past 15 years your house has changed hands multiple times and finally in 2019
you purchased it is that correct yes okay so I'll just give you the floor um James and please
explain to the board and you know why you're opposed to this variance okay great thanks Paul
um so I'm in opposition because I think this would change the nature of the street it's currently
pedestrian only there are signs for no parking um i think it would be um a negative change for
one residential unit to have um i guess access as priority over general neighborhood and public
pedestrian use on the street i think it would be um i guess a poor decision to change the
the use and the priority of who this street is for in that regard. It's also a very narrow
street. I think it could pose some safety risks if a vehicle is regularly driving up and down
Waverly. For structures in proximity, it's a concern because of the very narrow carriage
with of the street um and also i think as a vehicle enters and exits it's hard to see them
coming because of how narrow this is for pedestrians on sixth street as they're crossing
waverly i don't think they would expect to see a vehicle coming from such a narrow street um
so there may be uh some some opportunities for risk in that regard um
let's see. I think also Alan mentioned it wouldn't make sense for the current owner or
a future owner to try to park a larger vehicle that this street could only accommodate turning
radius for a compact vehicle. But I think we all know people love to do things that don't make
sense. So I think those are my points. Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you.
You're muted.
You're muted.
Sorry.
Sir, you own 606 Waverly Street, Unit B.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And that's part of a two-unit condominium, correct?
Yes, in a dwelling that's historically in two units.
And did you know that when this condominium was formed,
it was by way of a variance request to take this RSA buy property into a two-unit condominium?
I did not know that, but this building has historically been two dwellings.
No further questions. Thank you. I have one more question, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair.
James, is it correct that you don't have any parking? That's correct. I have no parking. I
street park okay and same thing with um the condo in front of you that's correct as well okay thank
OK, thank you very much. Are you done, Mr. Pony? Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
you very much are you done mr yes i am
All right. If you if you have like statements you want to make at the end here, I have a 1230 turnaround so I can take one minute.
Mr. Knocklinson. Yeah, I can take I can do very quickly.
All right. Why don't we start with you, Mr. Knocklinson?
Yeah, so what my client is trying to do is legalize or have a legal parking spot at the rear that was approved by the zoning board almost 19 years ago.
They're not changing the character of this neighborhood because there's often parking throughout the neighborhood.
But the individuals who are against this project, each one of them have some serious issues, you know, that go beyond their opposition to this project.
It's almost do what they say, not as I do for most of them, where they don't want off-street parking.
They think it's dangerous, but they have a dangerous off-street parking, which is much more dangerous.
You have individuals who are illegally using off-street parking and other parts in the neighborhood.
What we're proposing is reasonable under the circumstances, has been approved by this board over 19 years ago.
So we hope that this board, especially as my clients age out, they need this parking.
you know when you know 2007 when that condominium increased the density from one unit to units they
had no objections when they lived there they're asking for a reasonable use of their property in
the rear and we would hope that the board sees that thank you thank you mr chair um very briefly
first really and foremost there's absolutely no hardship um demonstrated and that could and
should be the end of the case. But second, the board approved the variance 19 years ago because
of conditions very different than today. What was once a dingy street with a rear neighbor who
reached an agreement with the applicant. Now we have a really gorgeous street with a whole new
set of owners who've really improved the properties dramatically. And they're all
very much opposed to this. So, you know, we don't come to this lightly, but given all of the harm
and damage or impact, negative impact, that's why we've, you know, pretty firmly come out in
opposition to this. I will say, and especially as someone who represents neighbors a lot,
I think it's inappropriate to dig into each of their backgrounds and find out whether they have
a variance on their house or not, that the law doesn't look at any of those things. This is
about 606 fine, whether there's a hardship and whether there's impact. I can tell you that all
the neighbors and the applicant are all fine, upstanding, law-abiding people. They're all just
trying to do what they think is right. And I do say that not just for the applicant, but for the
neighbors also. So thank you for the board. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?
No, Chair. No, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have Alex Goldberg with his hand up. Proceed, Mr. Goldberg.
That was actually... Okay, good. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, right. Thank you.
anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon mr chairman and thank you david effecto with the city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning of this location to residential multifamily
the proposal is to modify the rear yard and wall to allow for a single parking space
all refusals are related to this parking space the provision for an undersized parking space
access by Waverly Street is not a common condition on this block. The applicant has not shown that
an economic detriment will accrue to the property if these variances are not granted. There is also
no guarantee that a future owner will have a compact vehicle, and a full-size vehicle would
likely block the right-of-way. So the City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed
variances. Thank you. What I want to do is take this to next week to the executive session.
I really want to make sure that the board members have a chance to look at all the issues that were raised today before we make a decision.
So we will vote on this next Wednesday at 930.
next wednesday at 9 30 and thank both of you for your for your presentations okay thank you for
And thank both of you for your presentation.
your time thank you thank you right is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 9 30 case has not
been heard i see no hands here okay my hand just went up sorry pardon me my hand just went up um
it's the rochelle khan who was that
do we hear earlier we we continued her case earlier mr chair because we had received no
exhibits and um the council office had indicated that no rco meeting had occurred okay good all
right i just want more information about what the next steps would be i did reach out to my rco um
The two different ones that were listed, and then I hadn't received any information back since.
All right, so you'll have to have the meeting and then get all your paperwork together and make sure you can always call the office to ask where you stand, okay?
All right, thank you.
Is there anyone else?
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, thank you, everyone.
See everyone at 2 p.m.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's meeting.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismael Shaheed.
Ismael Shaheed.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and also our Executive Director, Tanya Sumter.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, these proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
to an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property
in question. And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sung. Let's look at it,
the continuances we have for this afternoon number 13 mi 2022 007 643 1872 conlin street
that case is being continued so anyone has any comments relative to that case it's being continued
good afternoon i see no hands chair are there any other requests for continuance
yes chair i have a stan smith jr with a hand up okay
mr smith please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
i could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
my name is stanford smith jr um right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
Your case is
6016 Bingham Street?
So we have
an incomplete exhibit
package that was submitted.
Correct.
And also we're waiting for a letter from the
Longcrest Community Association.
Right?
The one that
I mail out?
No, we're waiting for a letter
from the RCO.
Oh, OK. So we're going to continue this case, right?
Yes. Yes. But but the next listing, it's going to be marked must be tried.
I understand. OK, that's fine. Thank you, sir. So am I 20, 22, 004, 487, 6016 Bingham Street.
The case is continued. Mark must be tried. And Mr. Smith, thank you for calling in. We appreciate it.
all right thank you i appreciate all right we're going to go to add ones
excuse me mr chair um we also had a request on number give me one second a number 11 um
from council for the applicant um that's um mi-2023 i'm sorry yeah yeah that's okay
MI 2023-000358, 1845-47 East Latterley Street. That case is continued. Is there anyone has comments relative to that case?
Is there anyone who has comments relative to that case?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hillary.
We have one more, Mr. Chair, that came in late.
I don't know.
It looks like they may be here.
Strawberry Mansion Community Concern submitted a request for continuance for 90 Rochelle Avenue.
I don't know if it's on the list.
that's number nine okay um if we just bring on council for that as well as strawberry mansion
briefly discussed that would be great okay thank you mr knockamson
uh and also mr toner
that's uh
that's not strawberry mansion is it hillary it should have been 1830 diamond street i'm sorry
yes it's 1830 diamond street my apologies all right but still alan knockamson just not
sorry i see it that's number 14 okay number 14 mi 2022 007642 1830 diamond street alan
knockamson is the um attorney mr knockamson and also is the 32nd ward here
or or i'm sorry strawberry strawberry mansion yes
they give alan one minute yeah he just lost his internet connection just uh
We're fine. We're fine. We're good. Yes. And if we need to, we can come back to this request.
Should I promote Strawberry Mansion Community?
Sure. Okay. Thank you.
They would just need to be allowed to speak. You don't have to promote them to panelists.
Okay. They're allowed to speak now. Thank you.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman.
My name is Bonita Cummings, and that is B-O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
We're waiting for Mr. Knockerson to come on.
Before you testify, I'm not going to try to get him on first.
He's having a hard time with his internet.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hey, Hillary, Alan's got quite a few cases today, too.
Yeah, he's coming.
Okay, good.
I see Alex Goldberg raising his hand.
Okay, let's bring him on.
Oh, wait a minute.
Maybe it's Alan using his line.
uh there he is okay um um mr cole i mean i'm sorry mr knockinson um we have uh strawberry
mansions on the line they'd like to continue 1830 diamond street yeah uh we object to that
um we met with the community we actually have a letter i believe either in non-opposition or
support of our project i believe you have a letter of non-opposition the 32nd ward yeah so
And I think the rationale between, you know, I looked at the letter, but I talked to Mr. Goldberg, who did look at the letter.
We got it pretty late within the past hour.
The rationale is that they, I guess, councils having hearings about Airbnbs and they want to, the Strawberry Mansion community concerned wants to hold off this hearing until they hear from council about this matter.
Even if council passed the law, it would not apply to our application.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD ASK THAT THE BOARD ALLOW THIS TO BE HEARD.
STORMERE MANCHIN?
HELLO?
CUMMINGS?
YES, PLEASE.
STATE YOUR...
GO ON.
I'M BONITA CUMMINGS.
Right, um, Mr. Nackam, I did want to apologize for being late with the election and just other community projects, you know, it got away from me to be able to submit the letter, so I do apologize for that.
All right, all right, all right, all right.
Ms. Anatham.
But I have been, I was asking for continuance because the council member at large, Isaiah Thomas, is holding hearings on this matter of visitor accommodation licenses.
There are many already multifamily units in and around the Philadelphia community that the RCOs have already gone before the zoning board, which we now are being brought back before the zoning board for these same locations to give visitor accommodation license acceptance to.
So it's a broad matter, and it's a matter that would turn our neighborhoods into hotels and very transient blocks.
So we're trying to at least get some cooperation to be able to get a comprehensive conversation and decision around the bill that's created this visitor accommodation license so that our blocks are not turned into transient blocks or blocks that will experience lots of nuisance.
We're not L&I, and these locations will, in many cases, put residents in a position of heaven to micromanage conduct of these types of locations.
So we just were hoping to get the cooperation of the attorney and this board so that the mayor and for Doolin, all of the people involved in this, could actually really make sure that we're making the best decisions for this license.
this license right now would in my opinion put the board in a position where you'd have to
approve them because it'll be one and the attorney's positions will be well one is already
in the block then it's two then it's three so the community has no they have no ability to to win
or to to uh defend themselves in the situation of not being opposed to having too many of these be
in one block so so we're just asking for a little bit of time i mean yeah so miss coming this is
what i think we're we want to do i i noticed that the 32nd ward is approved with it they're
recommended a proviso that it'll only be a temporary variance so i'm going to go on with
the hearing and then we'll call you as a witness when i call for the community you can you can talk
then and listen the board will listen to your comments then okay but we're going to go on with
this today. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your time. Okay. That's it, right, Hillary?
Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay, let's go here. So let's go to our add-ons. MI 2022-007-565-472-74
of Roxburgh Avenue. I vote no. Thomas Holland, my vote is no. James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no. Mr. Snell, can you please certify that you watched the video for this one?
Sorry about that, Hillary. Yes, I watched the video and I'm well in tune with what is going on with this case. Thank you.
Number two, MI 2022, 004582, 1712 North Taney Street.
I vote yes.
Jim, you're going to have to certify on this one too.
Thomas Holland, my vote.
Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, May 17, 2023.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell. I certify that I watched the video, May 10, 2023 hearing, and my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Number three, MI 2022, 004-589-1825 North Taney Street. I vote yes. Proviso, revised plan, one-page stamp by ZBA, May 17, 2023. And Jim, that's another certification for you.
Thomas Holloway, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell. I certify that I watched this video of the May 10th, 2023 hearing, and my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
And the last one for the Adelands. MI 2022-004-583-1730 North Taney Street. I vote yes with proviso. Revised plan, one page, stamped by ZBA, May 17, 2023.
And the last one for the Adelands. MI 2022-004-583.
My vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell. I certify that I watched this hearing by way of video. My vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
We're going to go on to the regular list. We're going to hear number one, number two,
number three, number four, number six, and number eight all at one time. I'm going to read
the case numbers into the record. Number one, MI 2022-004-694-1929 Ridge Avenue.
Number two, MI 2022-006-983-1901 Ridge Avenue. Number three, MI 2022-004-680-1248
North 19th Street. Number four, MI 2023-000821-1907-15 Ridge Avenue. Number six, MI 2022-004-679-1917 Ridge Avenue.
And number eight, MI-2023-000359-1306 North 19th Street.
Alan Nockleson is the attorney.
Mr. Nockleson, for the record, could you state your name?
Mr. Nockleson should be coming back in as a panelist.
Yes. Good afternoon. Alan Ockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Ockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N. My client is Rich Point LLC. And the in the virtual audience is Jack Asran, its member.
And our vice chair just has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, councilman. I mean, good afternoon, councilman.
Oh, here you go.
I got a promotion.
I'm still thinking it's election day or maybe it's a demotion I don't know yeah do you agree
do you agree to waive the reason of the refusal and stipulate towards accuracy uh yes have you
emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing uh yes thank you please proceed I understand talking with Hillary that
you're going to do an opening statement
Give us a general idea of all of them. Then we'll go one by one.
Yes. So we'll just start with just the I know we did combine materials and then I went after talking to Ms. Emerson.
It made more sense to show them individually because this is one comprehensive project.
It's a scatter site project of over 50 units.
And this is a project that has a combination of properties that were owned by the city of Philadelphia and individually as well.
And through, you know, through an ordinance, we acquired these properties and we're here to just present them as the ordinance was passed, knowing that this would be by way of variance.
And this is one of those projects that I'm extremely proud of.
I don't live far from here.
And I really think it's going to help redefine this area.
It's a mix between workforce housing and market-based housing.
All of the single-family houses in this project are workforce housing.
And that was really important when we acquired this property, as well as for the community.
So, you know, we're hoping that people who live in this community will be able to purchase and remain in this community.
And just so you understand, none of the variances have to do with the increase in density.
They're really dimensional in nature.
I think there's two parking refusals, and we'll go through that.
But you can see just in general, like the lots that we're talking about are a regular shape in nature.
So it was really hard to conform to the Philadelphia Zoning Code in that respect.
So we'll go through each project, and then my understanding is I'll present the project.
So we'll go through each project. And then my understanding is I'll present a project,
the board will vote, we'll go to the next one, and the board will vote, and so on and so on.
And hopefully my internet doesn't conk out like it has today so far.
So and, you know, I usually have my whole like, hey, we'll go through everything.
Given the length of this presentation, you know, in our materials is the RCO meeting notice. So we
had one meeting but we sent notices out for each of these these these projects separately so you'll
see in your presentation materials or community notice with proof of mailing and what addresses
they went to you'll have the deeds to each of these properties showing that you know you know
the corporate entity that owns it and again at the conclusion of each of my presentations
or for each project i'll ask jack asram to virtually raise his hand adopt my testimony as his
own. So, and so on and so on. Each of the presentations include our application for
appeal for the particular project and their certificate of tax clearance. So let's go first
to 1901 Ridge Avenue. Okay. So this is an R-M-1 property. And what we're trying to do is a two
family dwelling. We're not getting refused because of the amount of units. It's just an irregular
shaped lot. And even because it's a regular shaped lot, we were still able to conform to
the dimensional requirements of the Philadelphia Center. We have two refusals. One is a roof deck,
and I would say it's a roof deck in name only. We'll look at it. You'll see the illustration.
It's just like a triangle shaped portion, an exterior portion of one of the units. It's just
a place for people to sit and grab a cup of coffee, but it's not a roof deck by any means.
The second refusal has to do with the accessory parking. This property has a curb cut already of substantial size. This was, my understanding, a commercial property at one point. Now there's only one. But we're moving over the curb cut a little bit and reducing the size.
so we're repurposing a curb cut and you know we think that that makes sense under the circumstances
to at least provide one parking spot here and you know we're providing more on-street parking
because we're reducing the size of curb cut so this has this property has a history of off-street
parking so we had a letter so we met with the community and they were very supportive of that
so you'll see that there are some provisos that they requested about parking they wanted to
provide this is one of the few ones where we did provide the parking which we ran about the
philadelphia zoning code because of it um but we also told them that again we're trying to create
a sense of community the only way we can create parking for this type of project is to make a
massive apartment building which no one wanted they wanted single family affordable housing which
we were able to create um so if we would have created off-street parking all that would have
happened is we would have had to do front loading parking or taking eyes off the street which makes
no sense we're on there's public transit that goes up and down ridge avenue makes no sense this so
that was the first proviso overall for this project the the scattered site project the second one
was about affordable housing which we're providing and then they wanted space for a local business
again this is basically a pre-packaged project we met you know we met and gained the approval
of not only the land bank but city council in trying to create the amount of density needed
to help support the commercial quarter on the commercial aspects of ridge avenue so we want
to help support the commercial quarter where there is commercial zoning we don't want to create
commercial uh product on our project because we would have to go back to city council
the land bank and i don't think that would make sense and take a long time to do
um so they understood that too and we're entering into a separate community benefits agreement as
to that uh and then they asked for reduction of the units again we're not asking for variances
for density with the exception of one project which we did a lot created as a right which you'll
see next is the apartment building where originally we asked for 13 units where 10 units were allowed
as a right in rm1 property so as an accommodation and a compromise we reduced that so none of our
project is asking for any uh dense density uh variances so that was a combination we made as
a compromise. And then just again, you'll see this is just a project in a nutshell. This is
where we are at 1901 Ridge Avenue. We're at the tip of Ridge and 19th Street. Very interesting
part of town. Maps of the area. So this is common throughout all of our presentations. We did a map
from a zoning perspective, but we did a key so the board would know where we are. So
from a zoning perspective but we did a key so the board would know where we are so again we're number
21 here that's uh that's 19 old ridge right here and then the architect janice woodcock who is in
the or audio virtual audience and she can answer any technical questions the board may have also
labels all of the properties that we're doing work on some of these properties have already been built
because they were as a bright.
So all these properties on West Thompson Street,
anything in blue has been built
or it's under construction and as a bright.
We're just seeking to vary.
It's part of this project as well.
And then photographs of the property.
So we're in the tip right here.
As you can see, it's a regular shaped lot.
The whole block is essentially, you know, vacant.
These are other photos.
This is the hearing notice posters.
you know showing proof of posting from 19th enbridge avenues and then this is just our
plans and again this is the rendering where you see here the you know the the landscaping up top
there's like a little area that could accommodate basically a chair and a cafe table and that's
what that's our roof deck and it's a roof deck in name only just we just want some
the ability for someone to sit and have a cup of coffee and it would create eyes in the street for
this corner. And then right here, you can't see it here, but this is where the Austria parking
spot is. Oops. And then I'm just trying to decrease the size of this. I mean, it's just
a two unit. I mean, and they actually go side by side. So there's one entrance or both entrances
are Ridge Avenue. And, you know, it's, you know, first, you know, first floor, second floor, third
Third floor, first floor, second floor, third floor for unit one, same thing for unit two.
And then here's what's considered our roof deck, which is really not a roof deck, but technically under the code it is.
And then this is just our parking space right here.
And again, the curb cut is a proposed 10 foot wide curb cut, which is a lot less than what is currently existing right there.
So we're decreasing the actual field conditions in terms of our variance from the Philadelphia Zoning Care.
We met with the community at a well-attended meeting on April 12th at 6pm.
71 addresses were notified of that meeting.
These are the addresses. Well, we don't need to go through it. I mean, I can, but I'm trying to streamline it.
If there's nothing else, I would ask that Mr. Azran virtually raise his hands.
Mr. Azran, can you unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Jack Azran.
Could you spell it, please, for the court reporter?
J-A-C-K-A-Z-R-A-N, like Nancy.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Azran, you heard everything I had to state today about 1901.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
The question is from the board.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
This relates to all the projects that are in front of us today.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location.
Side art variance is supportable in the context of multiple row homes.
However, the other variances are largely self-created.
The open area variances for proposed parcel C through parcel J could be remedied by revising plans to build duplexes instead of triplexes.
And the applicants reconfigurated lots A1 through A2 to bring them closer into clients with their required lot.
to bring them closer into compliance with their requirement required lot size by using parts of
the backyard of the current proposed parcel b therefore we recommend the request advantage not
be granted um i would just comment that i believe that ron's comments have to do with another matter
not this one 1901 which i will obviously address all those concerns but this does not apply to 1901
It applies to, I think it was in 1929.
Yes, 1929.
Ron, were you touched the vinyl, Ron?
We are proposed to, I can do that?
Hold on.
The proposed, the properties indicated for residential use on our adopted district plan,
no change to existing residential zoning at this location,
the applicant's hardship not supported
with evidence of unique physical circumstances
in addition to the property
that would prevent it from being used
formally with the code.
Therefore, we recommend request for granted
to stop the grant.
Mr. Nockms, do you want to respond?
Yeah, I mean, the two refusals
has to do with parking
where there's a curb of the cut
that exists already on the lot
and we're decreasing the size of the curb cut.
We're moving it over a little,
but we're decreasing the size of the curb cut
so it's an existing condition.
that's just that's been historically recognized over time and then the second curb cut with the
roof deck it's not really a roof deck it's just like this little balcony area which again um we
think it's appropriate under circumstances it's going to actually provide eyes on the street
and it's an amenity i think the neighborhood was very appreciative of it mi 2022 004-694-1929
Ridge Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas
Holloman, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell,
my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Go to two.
All right, so this will be 1907-15
Ridge Avenue.
I have this one
as 1901, Ridge.
Oh, I did 1901.
I didn't mean to go out of order.
I apologize. I just went down the numbers.
So if you want me to do
1929 next I can do that
because that was
it sounds like number one on the list
you tell me
do number one
I'll do 1929
Mr. Chair with the last vote
I didn't catch did you read
the MI number and address
so the last vote would have been
MI 2022
983 1901 Ridge Avenue
I voted yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
All right, so this one here we're doing is MI 2022-004-694-1929, Ridge Avenue.
Ishmael Street.
all right so same thing here as we discussed you know previously in terms of just the site
plan from an illustrative point of view it's it's these properties here and i believe also
these two properties here on thompson street so we'll go over the notice refusal we saw the
letter of support from from the community uh we'll go over the site plan and project description
again just to confirm where we are uh our zoning map to show again you know reaffirming where we
are photographs of these properties uh and we'll go through the architectural plans and drawings
we already went through the rco meeting notice i'll skip down to the deed to the property if
if you need it and we also have the certificate of tax clearance and again in the virtual audience
is Mr. Asker. All right, so notice the refusal. Again, no density, you know, requests in terms
of variances. These are RM1 properties. We're taking 12 parcels and making 14. And we are
making such that they will be two single family parcels on A1 and A2, which is on Thompson Street.
And then the remaining parcels are going to be triplexes, which is on Ridge Avenue.
Again, this density that we're creating by way of all these properties within the code is going to allow us to help support the commercial order that currently exists on Ridge Avenue.
So we're right.
What I'm reading is it's 14 existing lots to build 12 attached structures.
to build 12 attached structures that's right i'm sorry i inverse that it's 14 existing lots
That's right.
I'm sorry.
I inverse that.
we're creating 12 so we're actually decreasing the density in here because we're creating less
lots here so yes i did mistake that so we have three refusals right we're the a1 and a2 the
single family houses we're workforce houses the lot size that we're requesting is 542.78
and 1129.17, which again runs afoul technically the Philadelphia zoning code, but it's not out
of character. And the properties we did build on Thompson Street, and these are going to be on
Thompson Street too, are even smaller than what we're proposing for this one. So this is not out
of character to have lot sizes of this size. The open area, because we're basically taking a city
block, which has a corner, and we're subdividing it, we're asking for 25, the Philadelphia zoning
code, technical reading saying 25% open area, really should be 20% open area. But either way,
we have significant backyards for all of these properties. So even though it's less than the 25%,
we're at 20%. These backyards are humongous. And then the third one about the side yard,
we created identical building structures. So one lot's a little wider than the other lot.
So to keep in conformity with the buildings, we created the same width of the building structures
on each lot, which creates a breezeway or a secondary alley of over three feet, which is,
you know, again, from a life safety perspective, it's only more helpful in that respect. So none
of them are unreasonable, out of character, and again, have been vetted through, you know,
the land bank acquisition process, city council ordinance, and the community. So again, the same
lender support. They did it for all the properties. The site plan, as you can, you'll see where these
triplexes here, and then these two single families here. And you'll see that from probably this is
an easier one to see. But again, these, these two single families, and then these triplexes right
here. So again, you'll see is 1913 and 1909, which is technically has a Ridge Avenue address.
It's really West Thompson Street. And you can see just generally, these properties are the lot
sizes proposed are much larger than what's already been built on West Thompson Street for single
family structures so and then you also see that it's tough to meet some of these dimensional
requirements because of the irregular shape of these lots
so um and these from a photograph perspective the this is 1929 street or ridge avenue i'm sorry
and then this will be the other side where the two that's where the triplexes are and this is
where the two single families are and then this is just our hearing notice poster um and then here
are our plans so you're looking from west thompson street this is stuff we already built so all we're
trying to build is exactly what was built before but you see these are single family traditional
original nice brick facade row homes. And then on the other side is you have all these triplexes
here, again, to help support the commercial corridor. And what the community really appreciated
was, you know, the uniformity with some variants of like the materials being used. So again,
we have some brick facades, we have some stucco facades, you know, even the bay windows were
done tastefully and then they want to see a night vision again we're going to activate this corner
by not just building these properties in these buildings or developing these properties but also
having a lot of light you know on this block through these you know building structures
you know again landscaping through tree installation throughout so the community
was very appreciative of that because these properties have been vacant for so long
and then you can just see from the workforce housing these are single-family structures
so you can see that you know we haven't even though we're not meeting the 1440 square foot
block requirements we have an ample rear yard for both of them and then again
We have an ample rear yard for both of them. And then again, it's just a simple floor plan of a living room, kitchen, and dining room. You have three bedrooms, two on the second floor, and then you have the master suite on the third floor.
and the same thing applies
for 1913 West Thompson Street.
Living room, kitchen, dining room,
two bedrooms with a bathroom on the second floor
and then a master suite.
And then these are the properties on Ridge Avenue.
Again, you can even see in 1929 how regular shape that is.
it was very difficult you know again we have 14 lots and we're creating 12 lots so we tried when
we could to consolidate it we didn't go 12 to 14 as i mistakenly stated or even go 14 to 14 we
really try to responsibly fit these triplexes into the neighborhood and then this is just for each one
And then you can see just the rear yards from a site plan perspective for 1913 and 1919 Thompson Street.
We have ample space in the back.
That's Parcelet 1 and Parcelet 2.
And then this is Ridge Avenue.
this is where that we have the open area issues but you can see our rear yard is 1185 square feet
for 1929 for example for um which i don't believe is one of the ones that runs or follow philadelphia
zoning codes it's but even the ones that do our rear yard is 262 square feet where we also have
a four-point alley as well which can't be accounted for for you know open area but just
shows that there's a lot of light and air available to the surrounding properties
now and so everybody so everybody's clear the city council ordinance was for the purchase
of these parcels that's correct okay yeah and then again for parcel e is again 262
in terms of lot size parcel f is also 262 i want to make sure and i think so on and so on
they're basically the same size so i can go through it but like ultimately there are three variances
two single family homes we don't have 440 square feet we have not 942.78 and 1129.17
which which are consistent with the surrounding area the open area again is is ample and well
within the reasonable uh limits uh that the community accepted and then the side yard is
just because we have two building structures that we wanted to have the same built size building
structure. Unfortunately, one of our lots is wider than the other. So we have a little side
dirt of three feet rather than they've required five feet. So with that being said, I would ask
that Mr. Azran virtually raise his hand again. Mr. Azran, you've already been sworn, just state your
name. Jack Azran. That's right. Proceed, Alan. Yes. Mr. Azran, you heard everything I had to
state about your project for 1929 Ridge Avenue. Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you
doubt this? Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair. No, Chair. Questions or
comments from the virtual audience i think that they're not i see no hands here planning commission
got ron bednar city planning again this is for 1929 ridge avenue right comprehensive plan
recommends no change the residential multi-family zoning at this location the side yard variances
is supportable in the context of multiple row houses however the other variances are largely
self-created. The open area variance for proposed parcel C through J could be remedied by revising
plans to build duplexes instead of triplexes, and the applicant could reconfigure lots A1 and A2 to
bring them in closer conformity with the required lot size by using parts of the backyard of the
currently proposed parcel B. Therefore, in this case, we recommended the requested variance not
In all these, in this case, we recommend that the requested variants not be granted.
be granted.
All right, so MI 2022-004-694-1929 Ridge Avenue, I vote yes.
My vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
All right. So we're going next to number three, our number three is MI 2022 004-680-1248 North 19th Street.
It's a single family home.
Yeah, let me let me just get to the heart of that matter.
So open up and see what happened there.
I'm going to share my screen.
Insufficient rear yard depth.
Yeah, let me just go to the heart of the matter.
Let's just cut to the chase.
It's saying, you know, we're required to have seven feet,
and it's saying we have basically a half a foot.
This is the half a foot they're counting.
We really have like nine feet.
It's just an irregular shaped lot.
I mean, that's literally in a nutshell.
I can give a full presentation,
but I just want to get started the matter.
I know you have a long list.
Why don't we have your owner, your client.
Mr. Asman?
Yeah, adopt your testimony.
Mr. Azran, just state your name, please.
Mr. Azran, can you raise your hand?
He's been allowed to speak.
State your name, please.
Jack Azran.
Okay, proceed.
Sorry.
Oh, yes.
You heard everything I had to say today.
about this zoning marriage act, correct?
And is it true and correct what I stated?
And you adopted your own testimony.
Thank you.
So, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No answer.
Planning Commission.
This is Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
This is for 1248 North 19th Street.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing zoning at this location.
The proposed property is existing residential zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstance or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code.
the lots with the pedestrian walkways out of 19th street will create new flag lots which are
illegal in the code therefore we recommend the request of variance not be granted
um mr chair i i object i believe that uh miss uh mr bednar is talking about 1306-10
north 19th street not 1248 north 19th street yes this is brian from city planning i'm sorry
Right. Ron, I think you read the wrong one. For this particular one, we support the granting of the dimensional variance.
Okay. So let me read that into the record.
Number three here, Ron. MI-2022-004-530-1248-North 19th.
Okay. Here we go. Ready?
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the residential zoning multifamily dislocation.
We would argue that the size and shape of this 552-square-foot lot creates a clear hardship for its reuse,
and therefore the strict compliance of the zoning code would render it unusable.
Therefore, we recommend the request to grant the dimensional variance.
Thank you.
MI-2022-004-680-1248 North 19th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
So, thank you. We're moving to MI2023-000821-1907-1915 Ridge Avenue.
ridge avenue all right thank you and alan just to start i notice this is a different owner am i
Thank you. May I share?
correct um let me see hold on a second i will tell you they're all all owned by mr azran but
let me take a look at the deeds this one says tarkin r-e-i-l-l-c yeah i believe you're correct
i didn't go through it but yes i'll yes and i believe that mr as mr azran is the member of that
as well okay appreciate okay all right so this is the only um matter let me just get to my notes
here where we did originally ask for variants in terms of density again all these properties are
on one so um what we asked for for this one was 13 units where 10 units would be allowed as a
bright so when we talked to the group when we talked to the community that it was really important
for them for us to not ask for any density variances.
So we willingly stated, okay, we'll provide 10 units.
And by the way, the other thing that was important
was for this apartment building
is to have ADA compliance units on the first floor.
So by reconfiguring our project,
we were able to do that as well.
We do have a proviso plan form that we completed.
So if this board is so inclined to grant this variance,
we ask that they do it by way of proviso.
and i provided that uh revised uh provisal plan form to miss emerson prior to the hearing
um we'll just go and the two variances are these we got rid of the first one
so i have a 13 unit apartment buildings 10 which is allowed as a right and we fall into this overlay
if this was base level rm1 we wouldn't need parking because we're in this overlay
what happens is there's no parking requirement for three units or less.
Once you go beyond three units, it's a three to 10 ratio.
So I would object that the refusal here is incorrect because even under its current configuration of refusal,
it should have been three parking spaces required where zero was approved or proposed.
And here, because we reduced it to 10 units, it still would be technically three parking spaces.
But then, you know, we're on Ridge Avenue where there's mass transit.
Creating curb cuts, we only take away public parking, which makes no sense.
So, again, the community was just supportive of that by the reducing of the density.
So, you know, again, another one of these irregular shaped locks where, you know, we provide ample space.
This property is right here. So you, the board just approved 1901 on the Ridge Avenue.
Here is a 1907-15 Ridge Avenue.
And again, we're across Street and Girard College as well, just as a marker.
and then you can see here
we're number 20 here on this
key that we created for you
as well plus you can see it here
this is 1907
as well
and then if you can think about it
this was 1901
this is 1907-15
this is private land that we
owned that we're including
as part of this project so just
support those as well
and then just proof of notice about today's hearing.
And then just our revised plans,
like literally is just to change it
from 13 units to 10 units on the site plan.
And then there are COVD notice.
So with that being said,
I would ask that Mr. Azran virtually raise his hand again.
I did. Mr. Azran, you're allowed to speak? Just state your name, please. Alan, could you handle the issue of the different name?
Oh, yeah. Mr. Azran, you're the owner of Tarkin. R-E-I. R-E-I, I'll speak? Correct. Yes.
And you're its member? Correct. Okay. And Mr. Azran, you heard everything I had to state about 1907-15 Ridge Avenue, correct?
And everything I stated was true, correct?
And do you adopt that as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning. This is for 1907 to 15 Ridge Avenue?
Okay. Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopt the district plan and recommends no change in existing zoning at this location. The applicant proposes to build three dwelling units more than allowed. No parking spaces where four are allowed. There's no unique physical circumstances or condition of the property would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code. Ten units are allowed by right. Therefore, we recommend the inquest of any stop be granted.
Okay. Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan or not the district plan.
Mr. Chair, we did reduce it by way of proviso.
Reduced to 10, Ron, right?
So the only variance we're looking for here is parking.
Am I right?
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Ron, is that right?
All right.
I understand.
But okay.
In that case, then again, we're sort of, you know, going to go with the required parking
on this location.
All right. Thank you. MI 2023-000821-1907-15 Ridge Avenue. I vote yes. Revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, May 17, 2023.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, we'll provide them.
Number six, MI 2022-004-679-1917 Ridge Avenue.
Allen, 1917 Ridge.
Yep, I just want to make sure I have the right version of it.
All right.
Let me share my screen.
is a duplex and two single family homes. The duplex is market rate condominium and the
two single family homes are workforce like every other part of this project. All the
single families are affordable housing. And we'll review the notice of refusal. We'll go to the site
description and the zoning map so you can see where we are in the neighborhood and our plans
and drawings. So again, we are taking, we're creating three lots from three lots. We're just
reconfiguring, excuse me, from four lots, three lots, three to three. And we're reconfiguring
them such that we'll have two single family homes that would you know be 1919 and 1921 the ridge
but in all actuality they're really on thompson street and you'll see that so what we're proposing
similar to what the zoning board granted previously the single family homes the lot sizes tend to be
a little bit smaller on thompson street so what we're asking for is not out of character and then
And in terms of the duplex at 1917, you'll see that what we're proposing is also not
out of character.
All right.
So you'll see here, this is 1917, which is actually Onridge.
And then this is 1921 and 1919.
Technically, L&I has referenced them as Ridge Avenue addresses, but they're clearly on West Thompson Street.
And again, if you look at the sizes of these lots on 1919, 1921 Ridge Avenue, they fall in line with what was built in 1905, 1901, 1845, 1843, 1841, and 1839 Thompson Street.
And this board just approved, based on 1929 Ridge Avenue project, 1913 and 1909.
um and then photographs of the property um basically uh we're let's see we're on the
other side you can't really see it but one of the back ends of this uh interesting shaped city uh
streets and then this is our proof of posting uh for uh this project
and then you can see here where we are so the corner property is the duplex and then you can
see on the west thompson street these are the single families and they want to see a night
these are the single families and they want to see a night perspective as well
perspective as well.
and then this is west thompson street again these are the single families and then this
is the basically the rear yard of 1917 ridge so i just wanted to take a look about the let's see
okay so for the rear yard issue or um just want to take a look for lot a which is the duplex
it says that we have an where we have a rear yard uh setback requirement of 90 feet we're
three and a half feet but you can see that um it's because of our irregular shaped lot here
that if you look at it, really, we have a substantial side yard here.
But because there's a regular shape lot, they're counting this three and a half feet here as our rear yard depth,
where you can see on either angle, we far exceed the nine foot rear yard.
And then the other part is, again, for 1919 and 1921.
they also counting this little sliver here as part of for 1919 and for 1921 they count this
sliver as well over here technically under the code but as you can see because of this irregular
shape if you look at this part of the rear yard or this part of the rear yard we fall well within
the seven foot rear yard setback requirement so that's basically our case in nutshell on mr azran
hello how could you state your name please jack azran proceed counsel mr azran you heard everything
i had to state about this zoning matter today yes and it's true and correct yes and do you adopt
if you're going to pass money.
All right.
So this grouping here
is two single homes
and a duplex.
Am I right?
That's correct.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments
from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
The Ron Bednar City Planning
and Comprehensive Plan
recommends no change
to the residential zoning
at this location.
the applicant's proposal to replat three existing lots to make two more code compliant
that they are now. The shape of these lots presents a clear hardship and that the applicant
replatting would bring two of the three lots closer to conformity with the zoning code. Therefore,
we recommend that the board grant a dimensional variance. Thank you. MI 2022-004-679-1917
ridge avenue i vote yes thomas holloman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes
israel shaheed my vote is yes now we move to our our last number eight mi2023 000
1306 North
19th Street.
Let me just make sure
I have a most recent version.
This is for
single household living?
For single families
on the R&M box.
Again, we can have more units
if we combined it into an apartment building.
But again, what was asked of us
is to provide affordable housing
of a single family nature.
And that's what we did at 1306-10 North 19th Street.
So quickly the notice of refusal,
they're all technical in nature.
What we did was create almost like a little community
in itself where there'll be two homes in the front
and two homes in the rear.
There's all these like easements
where there are walkways,
where there's ample space.
And it's just going to create a sense of community instead of having like a five unit apartment building, which, you know, you know, the city didn't want, they wanted single family homes, we found a unique way of creating that.
So all these refusals about like, we don't provide minimum, you know, the minimum street frontage, and things like that are all technical in nature.
I'm just going to go through the plans really quickly, but this is, you know, again, 19th Street.
It's going to go through the plans really quickly, but this is
This is 1306-10, so we'll go through that.
And again, what we're offering is single-family homes.
So again, you can see these are the two front single-family homes.
There are two single homes in the rear.
we have this beautiful gate with a little like short brick planters and there'll be a little
garden area in the middle and a pathway that will benefit all four homeowners who will be able to
purchase property under affordable rates. Again, all great facades, nice stone bases, and they're
all single family in nature so and then the lot sizes are characteristic of what you would expect
on 19th street similar to what the board just granted in terms of reverence so with that being
said i would ask that mr uh azran virtually raise his hand one last time jack azran
hi jack you heard everything i had to say about this project
is that correct yes it's true is it true and correct what i said yes and do you adopt it as
your own testimony yes all right thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no chair chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission from bednar city planning the prop the comprehensive
to plan recommends no change the existing residential multifamily zoning dislocation.
The applicant proposes building a quad, two buildings with frontage on 19th Street and
two buildings behind. First, two whose only access would be a pedestrian easement out of the street.
This raises a public safety concern. A lot of pedestrian walkways out of the 19th Street would
be new flag lots, which are prohibited by the code. It's exactly the condition that we would
highlight when requesting a blight certification from our commissioners. Therefore, we recommend
the request for variance not be granted. Mr. Natham, does he want to respond to that?
Yeah. I mean, so again, it was asked of us to provide single family homes for this property.
So in order to do that, we actually lessened the amount of units that were allowed as a bright
by RM1 so this is something that was requested of us that was blessed by the city by you know by the
land bank or RDA as well as city council so all we're proposing is a variance that has already
been blessed previously okay thank you MI 2023 000 359 1306 north 19 street I vote yes
Thomas
Hallman
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
that's three votes
you have three votes
thank you
thank you Mr.
that's it
that's that's your
that's all six
okay we're gonna go
here let's see
I was one, two, three, four, number five, MI 2023, 000064, 513 High Street, Barlene Treat is the attorney, no letter from the RCO as of yet, letter of support from Faith CDC,
letter of support from councilwoman bass
miss read has been promoted to panelists
good afternoon could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter
unmute please
thank you commissioners uh darlene three on behalf of the applicant crinnell properties llc
just for the record could you spell your name for the court reporter darlene d-a-r-l-e-n-e
three t as in thomas h-r-e-a-t-t as in thomas 45 east city avenue number 496 balacanwood pa
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have to follow up with Ms. Emerson on some tax information.
I'll just please proceed and share the screen.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Can you see my screen?
We can.
Great.
Okay. Commissioners, I filed an application for 513 East High Street on behalf of Crinell Properties to legalize an existing auto body fender repair and paint shop.
I'd like to give you a little background history on this property.
First, I'm just going to go over my little syllabus that I prepared for you today.
I do have documents which consist of approximately 43 pages.
I've submitted the permit application, the refusal, the appeal, the property information form, deed, tax information, property history, plans, pictures, community flyer, certificate of mailing, letter of support from Faith CDC, letter of non-support from Bellfield and Chew neighbors.
And I also have a letter of support from Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
Commissioners, this property is an RSA 5 property.
I'm going to show you the refusal here.
It's been an RSA 5 for some time, but it has been used in a commercial fashion since approximately 1941.
I'm going to show you the zoning history of this property,
which will reveal that it's been a commercial garage
at least since 1941.
And it's been used as an auto body paint and repair shop
at least since 1948.
I'm going to scan down to those documents right now.
Just give me a moment.
So here's the first document I'd like to show you.
You'll see here that this zoning document is dated 1941, and it'll show you that this
property was used as a garage in 1941.
The second document here I would like to show you is an additional L&I document, and you'll
see here 10-7-48 that it was a one-family dwelling.
it was an auto body and fender shop. You'll see here in 1960, again, it was auto body,
fender, and a paint shop at that time. Commissioner, this case actually came before you
in 2019. Faith CDC, the community organization, heard it and gave it a lot of support.
You actually did grant our use, but there was a proviso that we weren't able to keep up with at
the time. You'll see this is the zoning use permit, but the proviso indicated that we must
obtain our certificate of occupancy within nine months. Commissioners, this approval was late in
2019. And of course, we all know that in 2020, COVID hit and most things stopped. We really
weren't able to put the correct information in and get the certificate of occupancy. And frankly,
the applicant had several unfortunate experiences, deaths with his daughter and his father, which
waylaid his process. But here you can see we actually did get the zoning permit in 2019 as
for the same exact use that we are requesting today. I'm going to scroll down now and I just
want to show you an old plan that was also in the zoning file. This property has always been used
this way, residential in the front, and there's a big commercial building in the back of this
building, which I'll show you pictures of a little later. I'm going to scroll down now to the plans.
I'm going to go to the picture first. Here's a picture of the posting, and here's a picture of
the front of the property, and here you can see there's a driveway which leads back to the
commercial facility in the back. I'm going to scan it down a little bit more and give you a better
to look at the pictures of the property. Here's the other side of the property and you can see
Here's the other side of the property. And you can see the houses in the front, which is a residential property. And there's a large commercial facility in the back. Again, I'm just going to give you another view of this property. And you can see this is the driveway up into the property. We do park cars along the driveway and in the back here. And there's a big commercial space in the back of this property.
the houses in the front which is
Also, just while we have this picture up front, we do have our own dumpster that we roll down to the bottom of the street on trash day and it's rolled up back to behind the property when the time is right.
I'm going to scroll down now, Commissioner, to the plans for the property.
Here is the plan that we have for you here today.
And as you can see, it's a pretty big commercial property here.
Just move this a little bit here.
here we go so as you can see this is in the this is just the floor plan for the commercial space
of the property this was the driveway you would drive up here and you can go into the commercial
property we do the auto repair back here there's a big open garage here area here and we have the
we have a state-of-the-art paint booth in the back plus one eight three three three
we have a state-of-the-art paint booth in the back of this property there's also another way
to get in the property here through a roll down door and up front here we just have two commercial
offices for administrative purposes as well as a restroom on the side over here now I'm going to
scroll down and show you a couple pictures of the inside of this property I'll just show you a
close-up of the roll-down garage doors in the back this is where the administrative offices
are and this is an outside view of the offices
Here is the first picture of the
inside of the facility. It's a very
large facility. These are the
paint storage tanks in the
facility there.
Here's a picture of the
actual paint booth that's located
inside of the facility. On the
right-hand side of the paint booth is
where we do the auto repair.
and here is a look at pretty much um half of the uh facility again this is the paint booth
we roll the cars in the paint booth here and this is a waiting area over on the side
and this is the other half of the garage where we do the auto body repair uh for the patrons
of the shop commissioners this shop is uh open approximately five days a week only from 8 30 to
6 p.m we did schedule a meeting with the community association
here's the notice of the meeting the meeting actually took place on may 3rd 2023
commissioners i noticed 157 properties of the meeting i believe there were only six individuals
in attendance at the meeting there was two cdc's present belfield and chew was the lead rco faith
cdc was another rco that did attend the meeting as you can see the faith cdc which is the same cdc
that vetted the property last time they gave us a letter of support and wrote some things in
regard to what happened at the meeting and how we tried to alleviate any concerns anyone may have had
we also got a letter from bellfield and chew which is very interesting they indicate that
there was one person at the meeting and there was one vote and it was in opposition i would
disagree totally with that. There were six people at the meeting and frankly, no one really objected
or had any opposition to this meeting or to the use that we're proposing in front of the board
today. And lastly, I have a letter that I just got this morning. And this letter is on behalf
of Councilman Bass and written by her aide, Mr. Charles Richardson. And he is supporting and
Ms. Bass, Councilman Bass, is supporting our project today.
And with that, I'm willing to answer any questions that anyone may have about this.
And with that, I'm willing to answer any questions that anyone may have about the use of this facility.
Is your client here?
Yes, he is.
Why don't we have your client come on and adopt your testimony?
Mr. Collins, are you on the line?
Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins, can you please raise your virtual hand?
I see no hands here.
Counsel, you're an officer of the court.
We'll take your testimony, accept your testimony.
How long has he been in business there?
The actual shop that's there now has only been there for three years.
And what was it before?
It's always been used as an auto body garage since 1948.
Questions or comments from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I just see someone that's using Zoom user.
I'm not sure if it's Mr. Collins or someone who...
Okay, let them on, please.
Zoom user, please unmute yourself and wait for the Chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, this is Mr. Collins, Gary Collins.
Hi, Mr. Collins.
How are you?
State your name and spell it for us, please.
My name is Gary Collins, G-A-R-Y, Gary Collins, C-O-L-L-I-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, sir?
Yes, I do.
Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Collins, are you a principal of Cromwell Properties, LLC?
Yes, I am.
And you own 513 East High Street?
And have you heard my presentation today in regard to the facts concerning the operation of Germantown Collision?
yes and if you were to testify today would you adopt my testimony as true and correct
yes that's all i have commission is there anyone else in the virtual audience
no hands chair planning commission
this is uh ron bednarcy planning the district plan recommends no change existing zoning
I think this location, the painting and body shop use is incompatible with the adjacent residential uses presents presently creates a health hazard for the area.
Therefore, we recommend the request of variance not be granted.
Kelsey, have any comments?
Commissioner, this is a commercial space that has always been used commercially.
It has a distance from the main property. Therefore, there are no ill effects that would affect the main property where residential use is in effect.
Additionally, we have the state-of-the-art paint booth with the proper filtering systems whereby no noxious gases or paint fumes are submitted into the air that would be harmful to the breathing of any individuals in close proximity to the business.
MI 2023, 0000, 64513 High Street.
I vote yes.
Mr. Chair?
I vote yes.
Mr. Chair, hold on.
We can't vote it yet because we have tax issues that we have to resolve.
All right.
All right.
We will wait for the taxes to be cleared up and then we'll get back to you.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
All right.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
Number nine.
No, that's last.
Number 10.
MI 2023-001-110-1739 Point Breeze Avenue.
Steve Masters is the attorney.
Letter of support from Point Breeze CDC.
Mr. Masters has been promoted.
Hi, Mr. Masters, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E-M-A-S-T-E-R-S,
from the law firm of JustLaws.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
My client is the mosque, Masjid Abdullah bin Baz, which is the owner of both 1739 and 1741 Point Braves.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
All of the required documents have been emailed in, but they were not all received five days in advance.
I was retained by the client less than five days ago and discovered that some documents were submitted five days in advance and some were not.
And I've been working closely with board counsel, Ms. Emerson, and she has received all of the documents that are now complete and has indicated that we can move forward despite the fact that we did not put all of them in five days in advance.
Understood, please proceed and share your screen. Thank you.
So this is the second time that I'm before the board on this property. The first time was quite
a long time ago, back in around 2017, when I was asked to assist the mosque in stopping a developer
from purchasing 1739 Point Breeze and building multifamily dwellings there. We were successful
thanks to the adjudications, the decisions of this board, and the mosque then was able to
purchase that property, and has now completed the drawings and the plans for extending,
basically enlarging the existing mosque, which is at 1741, to include portions of this lot on 1739.
So the refusal is a very technical refusal. The refusal states that the religious
disassembly use, which is what a mosque is, has to be in a completely enclosed, detached building.
But since the addition is going to be extending the current use at 1741, and 1741 is not a
detached building, it has a common wall with 1743, that's the only reason that there is a refusal
here. The mosque is a by-right use, and it's a by-right use both in 1739 and in 1741, but it's
just the technicalities of the code that, since the mosque itself doesn't have any side yards on
each side of it, it does on 1739, but on 1741, that's why we're here for this variance. In exhibit
two. We have a letter of support from the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition. There was
a RCO meeting back in April, and there were 18 votes in support and only one in opposition,
and so the RCO voted to issue a letter of support. There were 23 total folks, 19 who voted,
And as I said, it was virtually unanimous.
In Exhibit 3, we have some of the drawings here.
So this is the site plan.
This is the existing two-story masonry building that's 1741.
You'll see it has an adjoining row house.
That's why it doesn't have a, it can't be detached.
And here is the area that we're expanding the mosque into.
This is another view of the site plan showing that when the expansion is constructed, there will be an additional story put onto the 1741 parcel, and there will be three, also three stories that will be newly constructed on the 1739 parcel.
Here's some elevation drawings. So from Point Breeze, this is the existing 1741 structure.
We're going to have this new addition on the top of it and then a whole new construction on the 1739 side.
In terms of the rear, this would be looking towards Point Breeze Avenue. This is the 1741.
Looking towards Point Breeze Avenue, this is the 1741, the same addition, plus we have a ramp here and an egress point in the rear.
1941, the
And then on Pierce Street, which is where the corner is, where 1739 is located at the corner of Point Breeze and Pierce Street, and this is what the elevation would look like from that corner.
In terms of floor plans, we have utilities to be located on the basement of both of these parcels. On the first floor, we have a library and an office, a multipurpose area, and a prayer area that's existing in the current mosque at 1741.
On the second floor, we have expanded prayer areas in the 1739 portion and an existing prayer area in the 1741.
And then for the third floor, this will now be a new prayer area on the 1741 parcel and a new prayer area on the 1739 parcel.
For Exhibit 4, we have some photos.
So here we have the existing mosque at 1741, and you see it is attached to another structure on the other side that's unrelated.
And this is the empty lot that we are expanding into 1739.
This is another view of the lot we can see a little bit further down on Pierce Street.
this is off of this is uh with with on pier street facing the 1741 wall of the existing mosque so this
is uh this is that perspective of of the site and a more uh up close version of the of the
the empty lot itself. Here we have a zoning poster with the refusal. We posted it on both
the Pierce Street side and the Point Breeze side. So this is on the Pierce Street side,
and this is on the Point Breeze side. In Exhibit 5, we have a tax clearance for the mosque.
Exhibit 6 is the deed that conveyed the property from the developer who had purchased it
and was going to put some multifamilies there, and it conveys it to the mosque.
In Exhibit 7, we have the application for appeal.
Exhibit 8 is the project information form.
Exhibit 9 is the notice that was sent to the community.
uh it included the date and the time and the zoom settings for the for the community rco meeting
um and then here's a receipt for postage that was paid these are all the addresses 185 provided by
the planning commission and then we have an affidavit of service um for the proof of mailing
This affidavit indicates that when Mr. Richardson from the mosque went to the post office and asked for a proof of mailing, he was told he would have to handwrite his return address for the mosque on 185 envelopes, which he found that overly burdensome.
So the post office person said, well, you can just use the stamps that you buy here, put them on, and then just put them in the drop box, but I can't give you an actual proof of mailing receipt.
So we executed an affidavit showing that he did, in fact, mail those letters at the post office on that date.
And that is the conclusion of going through the exhibits here.
So, at this point, I would like to call my client to adopt my testimony.
Which client?
Demetrius Richardson, are you, if you are in the Zoom, could you raise your hand?
Mr. Richardson, please unmute yourself, wait for the chair.
Mr. Richardson, please unmute yourself. Wait for the chair.
Mr. Richardson, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Demetrius Richardson, D-E-M-E-T-R-I-U-S.
Last name is Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right. Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Richardson, you've heard my testimony this afternoon. Do you confirm that it is true and correct, and do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Do you have anything further you wanted to say to the zoning board at this time?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
no chair okay questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission uh ron bednar city planning uh wireless properties
currently uh indicated for residential use on the city plan given the physical conditions of
the site and the documented use history recommend request for variance be granted
Thank you. MI 2023-001-110-1739, Point Breeze Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Tolman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Masters.
Thank you so much.
Okay, number 12, MI-2023-000254-9122 Dewey Street.
Al Nockmson is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Northeast Community Civic Association.
Project also had required civic design review.
Mr. Nockmson, you've already been sworn. Could you just state your name for the record, please?
Alan Nockmson.
And could you also identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Checkmate Real Estate LLC, BM2430 Holdings LLC, as well as 9115-21 Donaldson Street LLC. And then the virtual audience is Eugene Buk, its member.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that
are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes we have thank you
So this is another one of these impactful projects, and, you know, I think, you know, we talked about Rich Point.
This is another one which is going to really redefine a lot that's been vacant and unused for generations.
So we're proposing to put a 78-unit garden-style apartment complex in northeast Philadelphia.
So we'll review the notice of refusal.
We did make some changes to our drawings, which is reflected in the revised proviso form plans.
So if this board is inclined to grant our zoning appeal, we ask they grant it by way of proviso as well.
We did receive today a correspondence from the Northeast Community Civic Alliance, where they are in support of this project. This went through CDR.
So in that comments to that CDR made, they stated that not only was the coordinating RCO in support of the project on behalf of the community, but as well as the district council members.
So I don't know if the district council members zoniate is in the virtual audience, but it is reflected in the record that the district council member is also in support of this project.
Go through maps of the area, photographs of the property. We have our old plans versus the new ones. Nothing dramatic. All of our changes were really made at the behest of the community surrounding us to the surrounding property owner and the CDR.
the community surrounding us to the surrounding property owner and the cdr we have our rco meeting
notice our application for appeal all those deeds to the property plus an agreement of sale
which is contingent on you know this project being uh supported by the zba by way of variance and
our certificates of tax clearance at the conclusion my presentation i'll ask mr buk
to virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and then he can adopt my testimony as his own.
We also have in the virtual audience, Eric Quick from Harmon Deutsch, if the board has any technical
questions. So our notice of refusal is this. We're taking six lots, and we're making them into two.
But really, what you're going to see is comprehensively, it's 78 units, 69 parking
spots. And we have a few variances. So the first one is, this is technically an RSA3 property,
but you're going to see we're on the island. We're the only RSA3 property that's in close
proximity. We're really surrounded by RM2. So if we have that zoning classification,
the density that we're creating here would not run afoul of the Philadelphia Zemite Code.
Same thing with the multiple principal residences. If we were an RM2 property, which everything around us would say, like, again, there's multiple apartment complexes nearby, what we're proposing is not out of character.
Then you'll see some technical dimensional refusals for side yard width.
You'll see that it's really technical in name only because we're required to have eight feet side yard width
while we're proposing six and a half feet for buildings one and four.
It's because there's a balcony that overhangs this side yard where we're really 10 feet,
but because of how the balconies overhang were being counted as six and a half feet and then the
other one for seven feet in building three again you'll you'll see from pictures um on the other
side of us is some mirror image of our neighbor plus there's a ton of trees you know between
the common uh property line where we won't take away anyone's light in there uh the next refusal
has to do with front yard depth where eight feet is required and zeros proposed along Corinthian
Carwithian well Carwithian is not a recognized street um in Philadelphia so I would object to
this refusal in the sense of this where there is no front yard depth because there's no public
street so there we shouldn't be we shouldn't have a refusal in that respect and then finally the
bicycle parking spaces for parcel a uh we're required to put six bicycle parking spaces there
um and originally we proposed zero but we have you know conformed to the code and that's one of our
uh revisions to our site plan so that refusal has been removed
and then if you look at the revised proviso plan these are our revisions we increased the sidewalk
on dewey street to 10 feet wide that was a request eliminated keynotes one through three which did
not apply to this project again that was more of a cleanup issue the permanent fence is is now a six
feet high metal fence instead of a wood fence uh we actually um have an apartment complex that we
border um and we actually had a call with uh their council carl primbearer who may be showing up
to this hearing, as well as his client who owned the nearby apartment complex, it was really
important for them to have fencing along the perimeter of the property. And they actually
pointed out that having this type of fencing was preferable. We revised the shape of the roof
dormer. Parcel A, we added the six class 1A bicycle stalls, which removed the refusal that
was in the notice refusal. Parcel A, we reduced the open area by 60 square feet, but did not
create a refusal as a result. Parcel A, we increased ground floor GFA by 60 square feet,
again, not creating any refusal. Parcel A, we added one parking stall. So now there's a change
from 15 to 16 stalls. And in parcel B, we reduced it. So we took from parcel, we got one from,
we increased one in parcel A, decreased one parking spot in parcel B. And then these are
our plans with the revisions. Again, just to quickly go through it, there's an 18-unit building
There's an 18-unit building here, which is building one.
There is building number two, which is a 12-unit building.
And then building three is another 12-unit building.
We really treat this as one building that's 24 units.
Building four, and this is all on parcel B, building four is 18 units.
And then Parcel A has an 18-unit building for a total of 60 units on Parcel B and 18 units on Parcel A.
How you get in there, there's a common driveway of 24 feet wide on Dewey Street.
There's parking to the left and the right along the perimeter of that driveway.
And the same goes with Parcel A.
There is parking here as well.
You'll see in our presentation, there's ample landscaping requests that we originally put in and actually improved even more based on community comments and CDR comments.
This is where the bicycle parking was provided, which eliminated that refusal.
If you look at it here, this is the refusals regarding the side yard width.
So you can see here, we're actually providing a side yard width of 10 feet, but because our balconies overhang slightly, we are receiving that refusal.
Same thing goes on this side, where we're providing the requisite 10 feet side yard with the building structure, but because of these balconies that overhang, that's eliminating a portion of our side yard requirement and technicality.
And then this is the seven foot wide yard on the side, which is also the side yard refusal, but there's tons of trees here. And, you know, we're just mirroring the property next door to us.
And then finally, the front setback requirements, this is Corinthian, and again, this is a closed street, it's not recognized as a public street, and again, we're not providing any setback here, but, you know, again, we think that none is required because it's a closed street.
So we met with the community and, you know, we were on March 7th and we received support from them.
And then this is civic design review comments. And I'll just read the first paragraph, kind of in a nutshell, talks about what civic design is.
of our project, the committee chair commended the development team for working closely with the
community and also supported the inclusion of family-sized units, mentioning that the
architectural design of the buildings was appealing because of features such as balconies,
which created two of the refusals, loft spaces, backyards, and shared amenities. In that comments
of civic design, it confirmed that not only was North Community Civic Alliance in support of this
project the it also stated the representative from the council district's office supported
the project and expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the playground and the addition
of solar panels as part of this development so i don't believe we received a formal letter
from the district council member's office but you know during the cdr presentation
patient, they verbally express their support. And then maps of the area. As you can see,
this is what I'm saying. We're in an island where we're RSA3. Everything surrounding us
is really RM2. There's a little slipper here as well, but, and then, or I1. And then what we're
proposing, it's not out of character. So we're here. This is our site. All of these are apartment
buildings that surround us. And then there's other commercial aspects, like there's a giant,
a Wawa, a Jefferson Apart Institute, a dollar store, all around here. But more importantly,
what's surrounding us is apartment complexes. And what we're trying to do is something that's
newer. And frankly, we believe nicer than what's surrounding there. And I think the community
appreciated that too, because there has been an issue with the quality of tenants in this part
of philadelphia and what we're proposing um they feel confident that you you will have more quality
based tenants here because of our project and then photographs of the property in the surrounding
area as you can see there's you know apartment complexes nearby uh proof of posting for today's
hearing and then these are the original plans
and these are our new plans which we go over again you can see very handsome
and these are our new plans which we go over again you can
garden style apartments from different angles ample parking
and we just showed you I went through the site plans I don't think I need to go through that
again and then again just you know just giving a context of what's around us you can see another
parking lot for another complex that's nearby and then this is just our landscaping plan where we
really try to have a diversity of different types of agriculture within our complex
and then just our floor plans which are pretty basic this is just an example of the 12 unit one
most of these units are two bedroom two baths there are some four bedrooms and again that was
appealing to the community as well because they want families to to actually be able to rent these
units where again instead of owning a property they have an ability to rent and that's the
intention here as well this is just a breakdown of the materials that we're using you know brick
composite panels wood
medals and then this is also our meeting notice we met march 7th 17 addresses were notified not
very uh dense because of you know we're surrounded by a lot of bigger complexes
and proof of mailing or application for appeal
and the deeds the property as well as the uh agreement of sale
showing our equitable and legal interest
in this property.
And then our certificates of tax clearance
for all these parcels.
So with that being said,
I would ask that Mr. Buk
virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Nockman, before he testifies,
could you go over the addresses for us?
What are the addresses there now?
Oh, yes.
So we have six addresses.
We have 9122 Deweese,
It's $91.35 Donaldson, $91.29 Donaldson, $91.21 Donaldson, $19.19 Donaldson, and $91.15 Donaldson.
Thank you.
What was your client's name again, Mr. Nakamura?
Eugene Buch.
Okay, there he is.
Mr. Buch, can you unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Good afternoon, sir. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Eugene Buch, E-U-G-E-N-E, last name B-U-K-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Yes, Mr. Buch, you heard everything I had to say today about your project in 19122 to Wee Street.
Correct. And is it true and correct what I stated? Yes, everything is true and correct.
Yes. And do you adopt it as your own testimony? I do. Thank you.
One question. Mr. Nockamson, is there any residential around there all?
Oh, my God. Yes. Yes. Besides the apartments? The complexes? Yeah. Besides the complexes? I would
ask Mr. Boog. He would be better able to answer that. I believe they're just all residential
complexes nearby and then surrounding those complexes um are i actually i do think there
may be some single families mr buke mr buke can you unmute yourself again please
got it yeah so
So 9122 Dewey Street and 9135 Donaldson Street, those are the two subject properties that have two single-family residents on them.
So they've been owned by the family since, I want to say, the 40s or 50s when they were built.
And over the years, the apartment buildings were built around them.
So those are the single-family residences that are there.
in proximity and everything else i think is just on the corner of um bluegrass and welsh
i think there's a handful of single families there but but most if not everything else is
either the apartment complexes or you have shopping centers that's correct yes thank you
questions on the board no chair mr chairman yes chair um so council um when you say corinthian
Yes, Chair. So, Council, when you say Corinthian Street was no longer existing street, was it struck or is it a blocked off street or is it no longer exists through the city of Philadelphia?
Street
It's stricken as a public street.
Okay, thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Thomas Novell.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, it's Thomas Neville, T-H-O-M-A-S-N-E-V-E-I-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
No, I'm the president of the coordinating RCO.
Okay, fine. Thank you, sir. Proceed.
Yeah, so I just wanted to hop on and reaffirm our support with this project. And then I could also attest to that question you were just asking about the property surrounding it. Most of that area is all, it's residential development, it's apartment complexes and of the like, similar to what they're going to be building.
so uh with that said you know the community uh after the meeting you know we had a overwhelming
support um i know that uh the councilman doesn't have anybody on for today it doesn't look like
but in the cdr meeting uh they were in full support and we've been working closely with them
and in my opinion they're in support of this as well um so i just wanted to reaffirm that uh for
them. I know you have our letter, but I just wanted to hop on and do that. Mr. Neville,
thanks for taking the time to hop on. We appreciate that. Of course. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
We believe the applicant's hardship with evidence of unique physical circumstances of the property does prevent it from being used conforming with the code.
However, CDR actually noted on this that there was concern about the overabundance of parking and a possible safety concern.
Therefore, we recommend actually that the proviso, that those concerns be addressed before going forward with the plan.
Go over the proviso again. What do you think it would be?
We would like to see more open space and less parking.
That would be their proviso.
So Mr. Nachamson, do you want to respond to that?
Yeah, I think we addressed this.
And if Mr. Quick is in the virtual audience, I would like him to address this.
I want to make sure it's accurately stated.
But I do believe we addressed some of the open area concerns.
We increased the width of the sidewalks.
What's his name?
What's his name?
Mr. Everquick.
Okay. Mr. Quick.
Hi, this is Rustin Oller. Eric's not on, I don't know.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Yeah, Rustin Oller. First name R-U-S-T-I-N. Last name Oller, O-H-L-E-R. Harmon Deutsch Oller Architecture.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
my understanding is that we we did address some of those concerns from cdr we did expand
the sidewalks did we not uh yeah i can go through the the city planning and cdr comments um the
why don't you go through the comments about what what was just raised sure yeah um so we have more
than enough open space on the site. We're not here seeking refusal for open space. As
part of the CDR comments, we were requested to increase the sidewalk width and also add
some additional outdoor amenities in addition to the parking. So we did add an on-site playground
so that there is yard space for all the ground floor units. There's balconies for all of
the upper units. So every unit has private outdoor space. And then there's also common
Upper units, so every unit has private outdoor space, and then there's also common outdoor space by way of a playground, which was added as part of the CDR comments.
outdoor
How about the question of parking?
So parking, when we went through the neighborhood group, was a concern that we addressed, and that's why we have the amount of parking on the site that we have.
um you know this is a highly it's not readily serviced by uh public transportation other than
a bus route um it's a highly car centric neighborhood as with the surrounding
developments some of the other developments park um on the street so we feel that the parking that
we're supplying is adequate and necessary all right thank you very much um i'm going to hold
this to next week next uh tuesday at two o'clock and it's closed for this and we're just going to
work on what what we can put in a proviso for this mr knockamson we'll vote for this next tuesday at
two o'clock and thank you very much and i think i think you're staying on
MI 2022-007-642-1830 Diamond Street is what we spoke about earlier.
Can we identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is SJC Real Estate and in the virtual audience is Shanti Cooks.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Council, do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
You there?
Yes, I do.
Sorry, I didn't hear you.
Have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
all right so this is a pretty straightforward project um 1830 diamond street um we're on the
heart of the temple university campus um and what we're proposing to do with this rm1 property is
have a two-unit visitor accommodation use we'll review the notice of refusal uh the letter of
non-opposition from the coordinating rco the 32nd democratic ward the nearby airbnb listings there
are a number of airbnb listings um nearby but you know we believe that the quality of what we're
offering is is more in line of what should be in the community again people you know we always
focus on the students at temple university and student housing but there's also parents and
and visitors who, you know, who need accommodations near the Temple University campus.
So we believe that this temp, this visitor accommodation use is reasonable under circumstances.
Maps of the area, photographs of the property, interior photographs.
You'll see how this property has already been furnished.
It hasn't been used ever, but it has been furnished.
Our plans and drawings just showing just roughly what you would expect from the floor plans.
our RCO meeting notice or application for appeal that we filed on behalf of SJC Real Estate and
the deed to property showing that SJC Real Estate is the owner of the property and a certificate of
tax clearance. Again, in the virtual audience is Shati Cooks. Its member will virtually raise his
hand, be sworn in, and adopt my testimony as his own. So a notice refusal is this. We're not trying
an increased density in any way. Instead of long-term occupancy, occupancy of an individual
more than 30 days, we're asking for short-term accommodations. So we have two units that's
right. We're allowed to do that as an RM1 property. We're just asking for the ability
to rent on a short-term basis. And again, the community was in support of this. Now,
they have to provide over temporary variance. I understand the reason for temporary variance.
This is a long, extensive process and expensive process.
We would ask the board that two years is too short a period of time to have to come all the ways back here and spend that time and money on this.
Right now, it's a six-month process from beginning to end if everything goes right.
So I would ask that we have a minimum of what we have a five year variance, a temporary variance, if the board feels so inclined to grant this proposal.
And then nearby Airbnb, we just went online and looked up, you know, Airbnb, and we said, okay, what's in close proximity? There's, it's not enough character to have Airbnb use, but, you know, people renting $24, $24, $71, $32, people are probably renting by the room.
And then nearby Airbnb, we just went online and looked up, you know, Airbnb.
I don't know how appropriate that is.
Maybe they're doing as limited lodging
and they live in the property themselves
and they're renting out a room.
We don't want to do that.
We want to provide nice accommodations.
There is really no hotel accommodations
nearby a temple.
You would have to go downtown
if you're visiting a student who goes to temple.
So we want something that's responsible
and we're not trying to go into the heart
of the residential portion of the neighborhood.
Diamond Street is one of those streets that everyone knows is, you know, an R-in-1 part of the neighborhood.
We can even, you know, this is a rather large-sized lot of 2,075 square feet.
We're not even trying to put more units than two.
We could.
We're not trying to.
We just want to responsibly use this as a two-unit visitor accommodation.
And then you'll see, again, we're on a strip of R-in-1 properties.
You know, again, Diamond Street is well known for their multifamily use.
And when, you know, here's a map of the area from a Google map perspective.
And then photographs of the property.
Again, my client really has cleaned up the property inside and out.
You know, they would prefer to have this as visitor accommodation.
Again, focusing more on, you know, parents that visit and things like that.
rather than, you know, having a student housing
where we can add a lot more units
than we're even proposing today.
And then these are the hearing notice posters
showing proof of posting for today's hearing.
It's really important to my client,
like he professionally manages these properties,
but also security.
So he makes sure that his cameras throughout
to make sure that, you know, from a security perspective,
not just from his client's perspective,
but also nearby neighbors to make sure that, you know, everyone's behaved.
Just like Airbnb rates landlords, Airbnb also rates tenants.
And his intention is to only rent to tenants who have excellent ratings and reviews.
So that's one of the benefits of Airbnb.
And his intention is not to be a nuisance in this neighborhood.
it. And based on each, you'll see not just the exterior, but the interior is to actually improve
the housing stock nearby. This is Diamond Street to the right of the property, Diamond Street to
the left of the property. Our interior photos, again, he has never used this, but he completely
gutted out this place and restored it with a minor look and feel.
and then our plans and drawings again uh there is you know he didn't create a roof deck he didn't
change the building uh dimensions in any way uh again just a comfortable floor plan um he's
looking to rent to families like who are visiting you know their loved ones who go to town
In our RCO meeting notice, we met on March 30th at 6 p.m., 137 addresses were notified to list the addresses prevailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal is showing that SJC real estate is the owner by way of this application.
D to property showing that they own their property.
And our certificate of tax plans.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Cooks virtually raise his hand.
Peace out, honey.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Shati Cooks, S-H-A-T-E-E, Cooks, C-O-O-K-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Cooks, you heard everything I had to state today about 1830 diamond strength.
Correct.
And is it true and correct what I stated?
Correct.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
Can I have strawberry mansion community with me on that?
I just for the record, could you state your name? You've already been sworn.
Bonita Cummings.
Bonita Cummings.
Proceed.
Proceed.
In April of 2023, recently, Resolution No. 230112 called to the city to come and testify regarding the visitor accommodation license process and how it would impact upon their residential blocks.
What we're saying is that for North Philadelphia, this particular location would just really increase the number of properties that would then come forward to want to be given this visitor accommodation license.
And what we're just asking for is the opportunity to let the city get this right so that we don't have a nuisance situation in our blocks, which are not situated to accommodate hotel states or hotels, because that transient living creates that.
1830 Diamond Street is also already situated in a part of the city where the living that is there, whether it's apartment, multifamily use, is terrorizing that community.
Trash, all of the residential blocks, Gratt Street, and other families that don't live transient are suffering from some of this type of living.
If we increase it without having a handle on it, we're asking for a burdensome situation for our blocks.
So we're just really asking them to just to continue this until such time as we can get it right.
And we are already in discussion with it.
And I don't think that that's, you know, unreasonable to not burden blocks who don't have the capacity to micromanage residents for L&I.
It's not fair to these blocks to have to become L&I inspectors or call L&I or try to make all of these complaints.
He's asking for five years.
That's a long time.
And if we get it right, we won't need five years because they won't be permitted in certain places. They will be permitted in certain places. And my concern on being a longtime person of doing these zoning matters is that the zoning board will also be compromised and that once one is in a block, the attorneys come with their statistics of, well, one is there.
Now you got to say, well, we approved two. And now we got a transient block, transient residential blocks, because one was permitted to go. So we're just asking this board to support at least allowing us to get this back before all of the people, the planning commission, L&I, and of course the zoning board, so that we can do this right.
Right. That property for my community, for North Philly, was set off an avalanche of these type of requests. And as far as Airbnb go, is Airbnb the company? Many of those things that you might have saw on that slide are just people saying, is Airbnb just using the terminology?
So we're just asking for the support, which is not harmful to anyone at this time to let
us get this right so that we don't have to suffer in our blocks with nuisances of these
transient hotel living rights.
All right.
Thank you for calling in.
We appreciate your input.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Excuse me, Mr.
I have a question for the council.
Has work been done already without zoning approval?
Just we restored the property, but we haven't used the property.
You converted into AB for an inverter?
No, it's just two units.
It was previously.
The duplex, Tom.
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else? What comments?
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on a city plan.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning dislocation.
Applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions that would prevent it from being used in conforming with the code.
Therefore, we recommend request for variance not be granted.
um mi 2020 and mr knockups and i heard what you said and i also see here
what the 32nd ward rco said so mi 2022 007 642 1830
MI 2022-007-642-1830 Diamond Street.
I vote yes, but with proviso.
Two-year proviso expires 5-18-25.
Thomas Hallman, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nakamura.
Mr. Chair, can you just have Tom restate his vote?
Tom, restate yours one more time.
You sort of fell off a little bit.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Thank you, Tom.
And we've got one more here in this.
So here I have Mr. Nachmson again.
MI 2023, 000259, 90 Rochelle Avenue.
Also, Paul Turner is Paul Toner represents a protestant.
Letter of support from Wissahick and Interested Citizens Association.
Applicant also provided a petition and support signed by 23 neighbors, along with seven form letters.
This is a request for an extension of a five year temporary variance.
mr knackerson just for the record state your name alan knackerson and could you identify
your client a relationship to the property yes my client is little white dog llc and
in the virtual audience is its member barbara burry all right and mr toner are you present
i'm mr toner hi could you state your name and spell please for the court reporter
yes paul toner t-o-n-e-r i'm with orphanese and toner i represent ms catherine barnard
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth sir
i do yes proceed um our vice chair has a few questions for you mr knockamson
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case, five days and events of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
all right um it's not often that i actually have like a personal experience with one of my clients
where i've actually used their services little white dog is a doggy daycare um that i personally
have used um so and this you know the story how it goes is that when we got our new dog
My wife was looking around for, you know, for different facilities where we can have him, you know, play.
And independent of me, she didn't even know I represented a little white dog in the past.
She said, oh, my God, there's this doggy daycare that has awesome reviews, has an outdoor area.
And, you know, it's well thought of online.
And so our dog, Knox, has been going there for some time.
So I'm very familiar, not just with the doggy daycare, but how they operate their business.
And almost five years ago, before I had my dog, we received a temporary variance to use 90 Rochelle Avenue, a portion of it, for a doggy daycare.
So the circumstances haven't changed after this board granted that temporary variance.
We're just asking for an extension of that variance.
So what we'll review is the notice of refusal, the correspondence we receive from WICCA in support of our request for an extended variance, a petition of nearby neighbors who use Little White Dog as well,
Learners to support from nearby neighbors as well.
Showing kennel license, showing that my client is acting, you know, within their right legally to operate as a doggy daycare and boarding service.
Reviews showing how, what, you know, what, you know, her customers think of her and her services.
A zoning map.
So right now the zoning is different than what you would expect.
I believe it's an RSA 3 property. But if you look at the 2035 plan, this is being proposed
that this property should be an ICMX property. And you'll see why just the way it looks and the
way it's configured. And based on that proposed zoning for the property, ICMX allows for a doggy
daycare as of right. The boarding services would be by way of variance, which we're also obviously
be by way of variance which will you know we're also obviously seeking but just putting into
seeking, but just putting it into context.
context what you know the city believes this property should be which runs adjacent uh to a
train station uh and talking about the train station um you know we just wanted to put in
context because i know that from the previous hearing um mr toner and his client stated well
we don't want a doggy daycare because it's too loud the dogs are too loud well we're going to
to look at the train schedule for the Wissahickon train station, which shows that on weekdays,
the train goes out, I think, 46 times a day. Excuse me, 44 times a day on weekdays. And on
weekends and major holidays, a train goes by 26 times a day. And then what will also show
is the what is the decibel level for a training generally and when it honks its horn which is way
above anything you would expect from a dog daycare photographs of the property uh interior photos
including again my understanding is there you know from the previous presentation um or the
new presentation there's complaints of the smell of of the animal waste um my client um you know
by way of proviso they will put like you know a different form of a way of garbage container that
would be sealed to alleviate any concerns which we don't believe there are any but we want to make
sure that we want to be a good neighbor as well um our plans and drawings our rco media notice
our application for appeal our lease and our certificate of tax clearance and at the conclusion
of my presentation, I'll ask Ms. Berman to virtually raise her hand, be sworn in, then she
can adopt my testimony as her own. All right, so the notice of refusal. So this is an RSA3 property.
I think it says CMX2. I'm not sure if that's correct. But what we're asking for is just an
extension of this temporary variance. And, you know, I don't even think that they, you know,
i don't think we received all the refusals last time that we received this time but again it's
an existing use this the history of this property is extensive uh you know we not rsa3 and you if
you look at the property the building structure on there you'll see that you know i think it had
passed as an office building and some other uses i think there was like a construction company on
there. They also had their offices on there as a government facility. So it has a long history of
not being RSA3 type of uses that you would expect. The letter of support from Wicca,
the near, what's it called? As you can see, it was a well-attended meeting. 55 people, 48 supported
it six people opposed one abstained um and it was also overwhelming uh with the people that were
living within 250 us you know square foot radius it was six to two and then this is the letter uh
from wicca and then again what we did was you know we did community outreach like we always try to do
I understand, yes, the neighbor adjacent to us is against it, but there are a lot of people who are in close proximity, very, very close proximity, who are in support of this project.
And then this is just the backup signatures and information.
And then letters of support as well.
And then just her canal license reviews, like 4.9.
I can't even see how many reviews there are, but 66 reviews.
So she's been in business some time
and having 4.9 rating is pretty impressive.
Maps of the area, again, this is an RSA3 property.
We border the train tracks as well.
So the train tracks are to the rear of us
or at least to the rear of the other property owners.
and then the lower excuse me the 2035 plan indicates that this property should be ICMX
and then the train schedule again in a vacuum if you're like hey I'm living next to a doggy daycare
like dogs are you know you know dogs could be a disturbance which they're not here
but they could be okay in a vacuum we'll look at that but if the client
Okay. In a vacuum, we'll look at that. But if the client, if the people who live nearby, they live, you know, the doggy daycare behind it is the train station.
Behind the neighboring properties, there's a train station. And again, we just follow the train schedule.
The trains start as early as 6.06 a.m. Monday through Friday, and the last train is 11.37 p.m. at this stop in the Wissahickon Station on the Manioc-Norristown line.
That goes by 22 times to Center City. And then it goes to Manionk-Norristown 22 times. The earliest the train stops by is 5.52 a.m. and goes as long as 11.34 p.m.
And then Saturday and Sundays and major holidays to Center City, there are 13 times that train stops as early as 6-11 a.m. and as late as 10-11 p.m.
And to Manningham, Norristown, the train stops there 13 times as early as 7-28 a.m. and as late as 10-28 p.m.
now when they were when they were deciding whether or not to extend uh the train service
to the king king of prussia they we took this from a report where they it was stated what the
decibel levels were in general for trains so we are a rail transit at great which goes 50 miles
an hour. We're at 78 decibels. Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt Mr. Nocklinson. I do have to
object to the introduction of this document. This document is not an evaluation of Nani Rochelle,
does not take into account that there is an approximately 100-foot drop-off between
Greed and Nani Rochelle on the train tracks, and it's not even a document that was prepared for
this case. So it's inadmissible. It's not a proper document for this zoning hearing.
So, Mr. Mnockinson, I agree.
I think this is another location, and I know the point you're trying to make,
but I think we ought to move on from this.
Okay, that's fair, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Photographs of the property, as you can see from the photos,
this is the doggy daycare, the building structure.
It's a one-story building structure.
there's there's a pretty wide driveway you know for that as well
and here is the front yard for that driveway as I'm assuming for the doggy daycare where
there's an outdoor facility which is further towards the train station and away from the
neighboring property which is still left of us and then this is just another angle from the back of
the building to show that driveway as well again the outdoor area the client who's uh who is not
in support of this project is would be to the right of us from this angle but you can see it's
a rather large drive with driveway and then you know what was important last time was to show that
the outdoor area was not anywhere near this area and it's far away from the neighboring property
so that's towards the front of the property which is way way beyond this is again the rear yard
you know for 90 rochelle and then this is just the notice poster being posted for today's hearing
from different angles and then this is just the driveway again garbage is stored in the rear back
here the parking is um from experience because i've taken my dog here i've never parked back
there um you know we quick unload load in the front um and it's it's a rather quick process
i don't know i would ask barbara if some of the residents that park back here temporarily
but it's a pretty quick and straightforward process.
And then this is Rochelle to the right of the property,
Rochelle to the left of the property.
This is the enclosed container my client proposes.
Again, she doesn't want to be a nuisance.
And I think she's been a responsible operator
for five years.
And if this board feels so inclined,
we would agree by proviso to have
this enclosed container placed on the premises.
And then interior photos, again, just different color rooms, different compared to the activity and sizes of the dogs.
end sizes of the dogs this is the front reception area uh that where you you know where pickup is
This is the front reception area.
generally when it's when it's uh wet outside um you know typically the the drop off is in the
front yard um but when there's you know when it's wet outside uh drop off is um in this little
reception area and more interior photos and then just our plans and drawings very simple
there is a first floor and lower level so let me orient myself
this would be the front yard up here this is the driveway up here this is the reception area here
There's different playrooms and nap rooms.
There's an office and there's a lower level with more playrooms and nap rooms.
Excuse me, for the dogs and the breakout room for the employees.
My understanding is also that Little White Dog also employs certain residents in this community as well.
And then the hearing, the community meeting notice, we met on March 2nd at 7 p.m.
36 addresses were notified of that meeting.
Those addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses or application for appeal that we filed.
And then our lease.
along with the amendment to the lease,
which makes our second term conditioned
on approval by this board.
And just so the board knows too,
my client actually has an option to purchase
a portion of this lot.
It's my understanding is that the developer
is trying to see if they can develop a rare portion of the lot.
And if that's the case,
that this property would turn into either a planned community
or a condominium where one of the units
would be the building structure that my client's operating in
where she would purchase that property,
that one unit for her own business.
And that's especially important for my client
because she also lives in the neighborhood nearby.
So with that being said,
I would ask that Ms. Berman
virtually raise her hand.
Could you state your name, please?
Spell for the court reporter.
Barbara Berman, B-A-R-B-A-R-A, B-E-R-M-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Ms. Berman, you heard everything I had to state today about this Zomni-Wad.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Toner.
Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
As Mr. Nockmson alluded to, my clients live immediately adjacent to this kennel facility.
They're about 35 feet from their bedroom windows, front living room windows, to where the dog kennels are.
My clients, when this application was first presented a little over four years ago, did appear in opposition.
And after the zoning board had granted a variance, my clients filed an appeal to the court of com pleas.
And I'm going to go through various items that Mr. Nocklinson did not address today, but I think first and foremost is Mr. Nocklinson did not address that Judge Wright of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has issued an order to remand his case back down to this board because, as Judge Wright indicated, at the first hearing, they failed to present evidence of an unnecessary hardship.
Just like they failed to present evidence of an unnecessary hardship at the first case, at the conclusion of Mr. Nockleson's testimony, it's clear that they've presented no evidence of an unnecessary hardship that would be sufficient for the grant of a variance.
This is a dog kennel application, and let's go through some of the evidence that was presented today or what was not presented.
First of all, for a kennel operation that's been in operation for over four years, it's telling that they have one image of a dog.
Now, we're going to go through their Facebook postings and my clients' pictures.
This is a dog that has a large, our facility has a large number of dogs.
This is a dog that has a large, our facility has a large number of dogs that operates seven days a week, that has drop-off, it has pick-off, pick-up, it has overnight kenneling, and this is not one dog facility.
This is a dog, and unfortunately, since they didn't provide any testimony, we don't even know exactly what their capacity is.
It's one of the more telling failures of evidence today.
They made this point about the train tracks. There's no pictures of the train tracks. There's no pictures of the embankment between the dog kennel facility and the train tracks and its proximity to my client's property.
There's no picture of the inside kennels. There's no picture of dogs in the outside dog run.
The trash issue that they claim that they want to address with a proviso, it's telling that they failed to present any evidence or pictures of the current trash situation at the property and what they're currently doing to store the waste.
There is no picture of my client's house showing how close it truly is to a kennel use, which, pursuant to Section 146023 of the zoning code, is only permitted in the city's I-1 and I-2 industrial zoning districts, and only by special exception.
That's the count. He gives passing glance to the significance of the external usages on my clients and their use of their property and their enjoyment of their property.
There's a reason why the Philadelphia zoning code only allows for the placement of boarding in our facilities in the most intense industrial zones because they have so many exterior collateral impacts on neighboring properties.
No, it's also telling that this this application is not supported by city council representative for this district.
No letter of support was received. None will be coming.
There's no picture or plans of the other development that Mr.
Notkinson alluded to. It's our understanding that there was a 50 unit application for this very same property submitted by
submitted by the owner of the property. For an application where they bear a burden of proof
to show how it will impact neighboring properties, part of that burden is showing how it interacts
with the other uses that are being proposed for this very same parcel. So with that, I'd like to
go through some of my exhibits. And before, within five days, we provided these documents to the
Board. And I'm not going to go through all of them extensively, but I would like to note for the
record that we have produced 16 exhibits, including the trial court order dated 11-13-2019,
remanding this case for proof of a hardship, which this hearing was never held by the Zoning Board.
We also included the transcript from the July 26, 2019 record hearing before the Zoning Hearing
Board on the prior application, as well as the Zoning Board's 2019 decision.
At Exhibit 5, and if I could share my screen, Mr. Chairman,
is a Google Aerial View. Now, in his presentation, it would be seen that this is not really part of
a residential community. The reality is, and this is clearly visible on this Google map,
where my cursor is right now is where the little doggy daycare operates. And up front,
you can see a fenced off dog play area. This is my client's property, and there's a driveway that
separates too. To the west of the doggy daycare, basically running parallel to the entire
Marcel at Nani Rochelle is the train tracks. And unfortunately, this picture doesn't give it true
justice, but the depth of the cliff between Nani Rochelle and the train tracks is significant,
and my client can testify to that. What's depicted
on the first page of what we marked as Exhibit 8 is my client's property.
The black fence encloses the dog run area. The dog daycare is right there in the foreground.
This is a use that's not enclosed within the building or even within the playground.
My clients, and this picture was taken by my clients from her bedroom window, shows that immediately outside her bedroom window.
My clients, and this picture was taken by my clients from her bedroom window, shows that
There's also dog training and a dog run in an area not in Rochelle that's proposed for development by originally the Western Group, but now the owners of the property.
And again, these pictures were taken over the period of the ownership and operations of the dog kennel.
This is an experience my clients have to deal with every day.
There's nonstop barking coming from this facility in the spring, winter, summer, fall.
Now, we did produce several videos that picked up the audio that my clients are constantly
dealing with. I'm not entirely sure how well the Zoom will pick up audio from the video
that's played on my screen, but I'm going to try one time. If it doesn't work, we'll
move on, but the board has these, and I encourage the board members to listen to what my clients
deal with.
well i'm going to object uh mr chair if it's just sound i don't know where where they are
in terms of the fencing and how close they are.
Are they on their property?
Where was this taken?
So I'm going to object.
My clients can't testify that this is an audio statement.
Let's just see if it works even.
can you hear that actually not
so this is
this is exhibit 13 okay I encourage the board to listen on their own we've provided
well in advance um well I'm going to object to admission of that because unless you can play at
the hearing. Well, I think
it's not working, Mr. Toner. I mean, I
couldn't hear anything. Well, I think this is part of the
problems with the Zoom technology, which is obviously nothing that my client
can control. Certainly, you can listen to the audio. So
I think it can be taken. You can weigh the credibility of the evidence
and the weight given to it and make your own determination for it.
So my clients aren't just suffering without having any attention. They're treating physician, submitted and drafted this letter to the board.
I'm going to object to the mission of this as well as hearsay.
So if I can respond, Mr. Bergman, first of all, the rules of evidence are relaxed at the zoning board, but this particular document, which is a letter from his treating neurologist at Jefferson, this is a rule 803.4B exception to hearsay as a statement on medical treatment.
well i'm going to object to this i mean i i uh i'm not i'm not going to agree with that
so why don't we move on well certainly my clients can testify to i understand
excuse me mr toner this is this is hillary um so when you initially introduced yourself
um you said that you were the attorney for katherine barnhart but there was a different
name on that letter and you're saying clients are you representing more than one individual
yes that's our husband andrew snyder okay thank you
and with that i'd like to call katherine barnhart okay
miss bonhart could you state your name and spell please for the court report
Yes, my name is Catherine Barnhart. That's Catherine, K-A-T-H-R-Y-N. Barnhart is spelled B-A-R-N-H-A-R-D-T.
Swear or for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes. Proceed, counsel.
Proceed, counsel.
Mrs. Barnhart, can you please explain to the board your daily interactions with the white dog daycare?
Mrs. Barnhart, can you please...
Sure. I mean, I will say that over the first of the past four years, this business has had a devastating negative impact on our health.
Counsel, is there ways she could take her volume up a little bit? We're having a hard time here.
Yeah, you just need to speak up.
Okay, sorry.
I was saying that over the course of the past four years that this business has been adjacent, directly adjacent to our home, we have, it has had a devastating negative impact on our health and well-being, as well as a tremendous diminishment of our enjoyment, peaceful use of our own property.
Ms. Barker.
Oh, can I?
Sorry.
um as i testified originally in 2019 um my husband suffers from a neurological condition
which presents as migraines vertigo uh and difficult i'm gonna i'm gonna object um because
she's giving medical opinions i don't know if he does or not but i just i if she's if she wants to
state one effect is heavy on her is one thing. She's married to Mr. Snyder. She deals with the
physical impact that he suffers from this dog daycare. So we'll let her testify as to what
she sees with her husband and then we'll move on it. We'll evaluate it. Proceed, Mr. Turner.
Thank you so much. I see my husband impacted by the noise and stress of the intermittent
explosive, percussive nature of dog barking, which can trigger his migraines. A short burst
of barking can trigger a multi-hour or multi-day migraine. There are short bursts of sound
repeated throughout the day. In the morning, I have lost count of the times we have been ripped
from our sleep at seven in the morning by arriving dogs. It may well be that 20 of them arrive
silently. It only takes one to decide it's going to bark aggressively. It's like having a firecracker
lit underneath your window. It is jarring and devastating to experience that. And it does not
happen every day, we admit, but it happens multiple times daily, weekly. There may be
intervals of days where it doesn't happen and we finally get to slightly relax. Then it happens
again and we are jolted again. And these interruptions happen throughout the day as
dogs arrive and depart. We also deal with the ongoing sound of barking that emanates from
within the building, even when dogs are not outside, the sound of their barking within the
building can be heard through the walls of their building across the, I'm not sure, approximately
30 to 50 feet that separates us. Their building is on an angle. Portions of it are much closer to
us than other portions of it, but we can hear that sound that emanates from within the building
across the space between us, that driveway, through our 18-inch thick stone walls and our
double pane windows. I can be sitting in my living room and hear the barking that happens
within that building. I can no longer sit out on my porch and enjoy my yard because of the
constant din of barking that comes from within that building. And I fully admit that to a casual
passerby, they might think, oh, that's not so bad. It just happens occasionally. But this is our home.
We live there. We endure this all day long when other people do not.
Ms. Barnhart, you heard Mr. Nockleson make a reference to the train noises. Do you hear the train noises on a regular basis like Mr. Nockleson would testify to?
we hear the gentle rumble of an electric train which is moving very slowly because it is coming
to a stop or moving out from a platform it is present but it is a little to no impact on our
lives this was true before this business game and it the trains are moving slowly they're electric
It's a gentle rumble of an approach and a departure.
And any of the, were you at public meetings where this application was presented to the local community?
I was at the public meeting that was presented, I believe, in April of this, perhaps it was March of this spring.
I don't have the exact date in front of me.
Um, we understand that people like the people who run a business, we understand that people
We understand that people...
derive value from the services provided by this business. And that's not the issue here. The issue
is whether this business is appropriately placed directly adjacent to our home.
And Ms. Barnhart, before the dog camel moved in next door to you, what type of business
operate next door there was a long-term tenants very stable tenant it was i don't know the exact
nature of it some sort of social services agency it was monday through friday nine to five very
low impact staff and clients would arrive go into the office building do office-y things
and then they would depart the weekends were quiet it was minimal impact and we had
no reason at the time that we purchased the property to believe that they would be vacating
the property but they had been in that location for i can't say specifically but our understanding
was well over a decade and miss barhart what what rooms in your house can you hear the dogs at
um from our front foyer from our living rooms from our kitchen from our bedroom from the
third floor attic bedroom and workshop room it's it it's more a question of where can the dogs not
be heard and that is nowhere they can be heard in all rooms in our house have you and your husband
been forced to take any action to try to dampen the sound that you experienced within your own home
well my husband frequently has to wear uh what would you call them uh earplugs or
the sound dampening earphones uh like that you use for hearing protection if you're doing
yard work or whatever it's
we have thought about whether we need to invest in soundproofing of our own home where our loathe
to invest thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars to defend ourselves from a use
that is a prohibited use and it should never have been approved in the first place.
And we are puzzled and disappointed and distressed that the burden of this is falling upon us.
And we don't think that there is any maliciousness or ill will on the part of the business owner.
We understand why it is convenient for neighbors to use this because it's close to them, but it is a prohibited use and prohibited for a reason because it has a negative, verifiable negative impact on our house, as all chronic noise situations do.
It's just incomprehensible to us that this was allowed to be in a strictly residential neighborhood.
but it was, it continues to cause us pain and distress
on a continual daily basis.
Thank you, Mrs. Barnhart.
I have no further questions for us, witness.
Mr. Nakamura, do you have any questions?
No, I do not.
I do, I would like to address some of,
I don't know if Mr. Toner is done with his presentation.
I would like the client.
Hold on, Mr. Toner, do you have any other witnesses?
No, I don't.
Okay, and Mr. Nakamura, are you going to respond to some?
Yes, I would like to have Ms. Berman address something.
How long do you think this takes you to respond?
Because we're really getting late.
Yeah, I know.
Maybe like five to 10 minutes.
Okay, you got five minutes, okay?
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Berman, in terms of hours of operation,
what are they for the doggy daycare?
And then why don't you explain the hours of operation
for the overnight services?
did she get off
there we go uh uh we're open seven to seven we do have drop off and pick up um drop off stops
around 10 uh pick up stops around seven uh during the day they play i'm not sure what you needed me
to do they play they they go outside um we have a standard routine i know that i have some their
Neighbors also that would like to speak about some of the issues that Catherine has that would probably be much more relevant than me defending myself.
No, I hear you.
I just wanted to both understand your hours of operation.
So they're 7 to 7, right?
And what days of the week is that?
Monday through Friday.
Saturdays, we're 8.30 to 5.30.
Sundays, we are closed for daycare.
We might have some dogs there that are spending the night and there's always a person.
Okay. In terms of how many dogs are in the facility, can you explain the capacity levels?
In terms of how many dogs are in the facility?
Sure. There's usually about 45 dogs. There's usually about 10 to 15, maybe in a room or so, maybe 20 at the most, but not usually. It's usually about 15, about 10 or so at a time.
okay and then in terms of the outdoor on this further away uh from um mr toner's client
um how many dogs are out there at once uh maybe 10 they're out there for about 20 minutes half
an hour and then they go back in and maybe another group comes out and they're all in
they don't go out before 11 and they're uh back in the property by one before one
so it's like it's a two-hour window
okay and then with regards to trash maybe the pictures didn't do it justice and
but you know where is the trash stored so it's one rolling trash bin that is closed
unless you are lifting the lid it doesn't smell but it is as far away from them as possible against
the uh the fence usually unless the trash can move it the trash men may move it when they
when they go empty it but then we put it back gotcha and that's commercial trash right now
yes three times a week gotcha and then um estimate how far that trash uh bin is from
the neighboring property
lord i'm 50 feet at least i i mean it's it's at the back so it's at the farthest point
yeah and in terms of the train volume um you work there right yes i mean the train
shakes the building it is pretty loud you can hear it um i mean you definitely hear it when
the horn blows at times um that's great that they don't but we definitely do okay and both
your property and chasing property do to directly border the train tracks yes and then you you've
invested since since moving into this property substantial sums of money uh yes building
structure yes substantial sums of money to get the building up the building was a bit of a mess when
moved in so yeah gotcha and how much how much would you estimate you spent uh in building
improvements probably 80 to 100 000 dollars um i don't think i have any further questions at this
time are you through i had no further questions okay thank you um questions from the board
no chair mr chairman um questions or comments from the virtual audience could
yes proceed yes chair i have uh three hands up now and the first one is sarah fluke
okay how many hands do you have up um three more after miss fluke miss fluke okay proceed
Hi there. Good afternoon, everybody.
Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. My name is Sarah Fluke, S-A-R-I-H-F-L-O-O-K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am. I live at 102 Rochelle Avenue, so I'm next door to Paul Toner's clients.
Okay. So are you in favor of this project or against it?
Yes, absolutely. In favor. And I'm here to represent the community. I just wanted to draw attention to the support that was facilitated that you have in front of you with, I think, 48 people in favor of the little white doggy daycare.
You know, just in summary, when I moved into the neighborhood, I bought my property a year and a half ago.
One of the main reasons I bought my property, which is a triplex, is because this is a massive dog loving community.
Every other house has a dog in it. My own house can have up to five dogs. I have a dog. My tenant has a dog. I foster dogs and my Airbnb can have up to one dog. So there are dogs all over the neighborhood.
The business has been running very successfully. There are no smells when you walk past. In fact, potentially any could come from my building or my noise. But, you know, I have great sympathy for Catherine and Andrew and the fact that they, you know, don't like dogs, but we are in a community with a facility that employs local people, is female owned and gives back to the community.
They also do voluntary work with ACT and they're very embedded in our community and they're very beloved.
So I just wanted to come on. I'll keep it brief, say the community are in support and we really hope that the variance is granted.
say the community are in support and we really hope that the variance is granted because it's
thank you thank you very much for your input who else is in the audience
do we have another hands up yes chair we have a caller phone number ending in 8793
okay i could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
please unmute yourself
caller phone number ending in
you state your name please
star six
mute yourself
hi could you state your name please
all right let's move on who's next
next we have Kenzie Black
Kenzie Black. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Could you spell your name, please, for the court reporter?
Yes, this is Kenzie Black, K-N-Z-I-E, last name Black, B-L-A-C-K. I'm also a neighbor.
Hold on, hold on, hold on. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I'm a neighbor, and I also work here at the daycare, as well as half of our staff here is in the neighborhood.
And you're in favor. Obviously, you're in favor of it.
Yeah, I just want to clarify some things.
Again, with the pictures that were shown, those people that are doing the dog training, those aren't daycare clients.
That's also not a regular thing.
I would also like to say that the yard that was shown we haven't used that side yard in probably
two years so that was a very old video um I just want to clarify that we only go outside
um between the hours of like 11 and 12 and for that brief hour and the dogs are mostly inside
um I did send Alan actually a bunch of videos um of what it's like being a near neighbor going in
out of the daycare and what it sounds like. Okay. If that is helpful at all. Okay. Well,
thank you very much. We have a couple other people want to try to get on and I, we understand
where you stand. Thank you. Thank you very much for calling. How many other hands do we have up?
Just one more chair, Mike Stoller. Okay. Hi, sir. Could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter oh he disappeared okay all right uh no other hands um yes another one just came up chair
uh candy mcdow okay could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes hi my name is candy mcdowell c-a-n-d-i-m-c-d-o-w-e-l-l okay do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes are you are you a neighbor and are you
in support or against i am in support i am not a neighbor i am a client of little white dog okay
all right and i just wanted to point out a couple of things i have been bringing my dog there for
she's not a neighbor she's a customer she doesn't have relevant testimony so so we understand
you're for it we i think we understand you don't have to testify any further okay but we we heard
what you said is there anyone else yes chair mike staller is back mr staller please state
your name and spell for the court reporter
Mr. Stoller.
OK, I'm going to go to the I'm going to the planning commission.
This is Ron Bednar, city planning
property.
Brian? One second. Got it. Okay. The property is currently split zone for both residential and commercial use on the city plan, given the physical conditions, documented use history, recommended request for variance be granted.
I'd like to ask Mr. Bednar a couple of questions.
Please try to make it quick. Ron, go ahead. Take a question.
okay uh mr bennard you've seen the refusal for this application correct yes
and you've reviewed
And you've reviewed the zoning map available on Atlas for this property, right?
Correct.
And the zoning map shows that this property is entirely zoned RSA 3, correct?
It is currently, yeah, there is a portion of it, though, that I believe is still in CMX 2.
And according to our maps, actually indicate that also.
So you say you believe, can you please show us what part on an official map is zoned, anything other than RSA3?
I would defer to, you know, what I've actually looked at actually on the file on this.
And actually what I've seen is, again, it splits on.
Yeah. So can you just show us on your screen?
can you share the screen? All the official documents that have been produced in this case
all show that this is an entirely zoned RSA 3 lot. Okay. I can't do that right now, but
I can get that information to you if you need that. Mr. Berman, can I share my screen?
Go ahead. We know what your screen says. And Mr. Bednar, the Planning Commission
opposed this application for a kennel use back in 2019, correct?
That's correct.
And you actually were the one who testified on a record that you were opposed to this.
That's right.
Has anything changed with the use?
Have they discontinued any part of the kennel use that would cause a change in your opinion?
It has not changed.
Basically, what has changed is a business has been established and has a record.
And, you know, the record so far has indicated that, you know, we have, you know, seen that this particular use has been dafted there, and that's basically it.
I mean, at that time, we were in opposition to it.
So, Mr. Bedard, you're very familiar with the zoning code.
What provision of the zoning code authorizes the grant of variance because the use is popular with some near neighbors?
I'm going to object because now it's going into a legal opinion.
I think he's testified. Mr. Turner, if you disagree, you disagree. I think we've got to end this line of questioning.
Mr. Bergman, I simply would like to know for a representative of the Planning Commission who's opposed almost every property and project that's been submitted today on the basis of a lack of an unnecessary hardship.
I would like to know what is unnecessary Harchman's case.
So I think what Ron testified to is that this is a property that's had a history that a majority of the people seem to be very happy with.
I think that's what changed his mind is what he's saying.
Not only that, but it's also been established.
There is a business already, and it is a daycare boarding and grooming, as was indicated and put on testimony.
So, again, you know, whether I was in opposition back then and the current situation is that.
And I would like to point out that Mr. Toner referenced there was an order to remand back down for the original application.
Mr. Toner had the opportunity to pursue that. And he and he decided for whatever reason not to do that, which created an established use for this property.
Absolutely. So, Mr. Turner, let me finish. So, if anything, his failure to object to that use over the course of years has created a situation where this planning commission has found that the established use has established the burden necessary.
Okay. Mr. Turner, do you want to respond?
Yes. The plain language of the November 2019 order says the matter is remanded to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment for the purpose of completing the record by allowing applicant Little Dog White Daycare to submit such additional evidence as deemed appropriate on the issue of unnecessary hardship.
the order was for applicant
Mr. Knockelson's client
to request and conduct
a meeting and provide
the evidence of record on the
unnecessary hardship which was not done in this
I'm going to
end the conversation right now
here's where we're going to be
we're going to take this under consideration
we're going to meet in an executive session
we'll go over every detail we can with it
We'll go over every detail we can with it, and we'll have an answer for both of you next week
and we'll have an answer for both of you next week
Thank you.
at the two o'clock meeting. We'll vote on next week in public at two o'clock.
Thank you, Mr. Warren.
And thank the both of you. Is there anyone whose case has not been called
on the 2 p.m. list in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break, then we're going to come back and
we're going to get through the 3.30 list. Thank you, everyone.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the GBA 3.30.
30. Here's our virtual format. With us is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman. And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Chair. Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney,
and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken. Here's our virtual format. Be advised the
proceedings are being recorded. The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at
philip.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to
testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement,
can call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony. All comments
should be directed to our executive director, Tonda Sumter. Let's look at our continuances
on the 330 list. Number two, MI 2022 007189 1225 South 45th Street. This case is continued
attorney moving party. Number four, MI 2022 007 225 6644 Linford Street. This is a request for
continuous. This case is continued. Number five, MI 2022 007 183 1220 South 45th Street. This case
is continued attorney moving party. Number six, MI 2022-007-188-1226 South 45th Street. This case
is continued attorney moving party. Number seven, MI 2022-007-191-1218 South 45th Street. This case
is a continued attorney moving party. Number eight, MI 2022-007-191-1218 South 40 Fish Street.
This is also a request for continuance, attorney moving party. Number eight, MI 2022-007-061-315
North Preston Street. This is a resumptive hearing in this matter has been rescheduled
to Wednesday, June 7th at 9 30 a.m. Number nine, MI 2022-007-037-431 North 41st Street.
The resumptive hearing in this matter has been scheduled, rescheduled to Wednesday, June 7th,
9.30 a.m. Number 10, MI 2022-007-180-1216 South 45th Street. This case is continued. Attorney
moving party. And number 12, MI 2022-007-186-1248 South 45th Street. This case is continued. Attorney
moving party. Are there any other requests for continuances? I see no hands, Chair. Okay,
we're going to go to our regular list. Number one, MI 2022-007-133-1330 Ellsworth Street.
General Basilio is the attorney. Letter of Opposition from Passion Square. Civic Association
letter of opposition from neighbors in the 1300 block of Ellsworth.
Applicant has provided 15 form letters for support from the neighbors.
Ms. Jennifer is coming back in as a panelist.
Okay. You've already been sworn in once today. Just state your name for the record, please.
Sure. Jennifer Vizitlo, B-A-Z-Y-D-L-O. Could you identify your client,
their relationship to the property? Sure. My client is the owner of the property,
Stephanie DeCleric. Okay. And our vice chair has a few questions. Great.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the documents and exotics that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
I have one other question before you start. How many units are currently approved in an existing structure?
It's zoned for single-family use, but the plans show four units.
Correct. It was approved for a two family dwelling in 83 and was refused three dwelling unit in 2007.
No indication if or that was a ZBA decision. How many units in the building?
So there's currently three units that are fully built out and there's a fourth unit that's like doesn't have a bathroom or anything like that.
And I think it was previously used as an artist studio.
It's zoned for single family dwelling?
Correct. But my client purchased it in the state that it's in. She did not subdivide any of the any of the units.
Okay. All right. Start your case.
Okay. All right. So, like I said, I'm here today on behalf of the owner, Stephanie Cleric.
I have submitted a packet and I'll just briefly go through some of the exhibits here.
We have the refusal, one refusal for visitor accommodation.
um the project information form deed showing ownership my client purchased this property
in 2021 um showing that taxes are paid this is the letter of opposition five to one
from the civic association i'll come back to that a little bit later support from near neighbors
including the adjacent property at 1328 Ellsworth. We'll come back to these as well.
The five-star reviews of my clients as an Airbnb host, financial evaluations, which we'll come back
to, the listing information of when she purchased the property, including showing that it was a
functional Airbnb when she purchased it. Um, a, the property records OPA, which shows that,
um, sorry, let me get to the right part that it was, it is being taxed as a multifamily property.
Um, zoning maps, uh, breakdown of the current, I'm going to come back to all this current uses
of the block, aerial photos, photographs of the posting of the front and rear of the property as
well as the side, staircases. This is the units within the building. We'll come back to some of
these as well. This is the street, Ellsworth, and the floor plans, which we will basically
how this is laid out. We'll come back to how it's laid out. But let me just go back to page 62.
All right. So 1330 Ellsworth is a about 1,330, excuse me, 1,363 square foot parcel.
And it runs street to street from Ellsworth to Anin Street. And it's the block immediately
adjacent to South Broad Street, just so that we orient everyone. This block, as you said,
this property and most of this block are in fact zoned RSA 5. If we look here, we see that we are
in RSA 5 zone. However, that is not how most of the properties on this block are actually used.
if we look here we have at least 12 properties that are multi-unit buildings with two to six
units in it there's also an approved airbnb on this block and several commercial mixed use and
another commercial property as well so why we are in a single family home zoned area we are not
on a single family exclusive block so i just wanted to go back and say that um
My client did purchase this property in 2021, and in the listing information and in the documents provided to her, it said that the property was being used as an Airbnb with three existing units, and that had been in existence since 2018.
And that had been in existence since 2018. She purchased the property in 2021 and continued to use it as three units in Airbnb. And there's this additional fourth unit that we're talking about that's kind of in question.
um right now that building consists of let's go to the floor plans um if we go to the the
basement's just storage there's no units in there um on the first floor um there is a one studio
unit um and then this is the first there's a the fourth floor fourth unit we'll come back to that's
a bi-level unit. On the second floor here, we have another unit here, and we have a one-bed,
one-bath unit. And then there is a unit on the third floor that is a two-bedroom, two-bathroom
unit. The fourth proposed unit would be a bi-level here on the second floor. It's the rear of the
second floor and a little bit in the rear of the first floor. I'll show you some photos of how that
looks right now. Let's get to those photos. This is the lower area of that proposed fourth unit
and this is the upper area of that proposed fourth unit. Right now it's not a fully functional space.
My client like hangs out there when she comes to manage the property and I think the previous owner
had been using it as their art studio when they were there um so that's the layout of the building
our proposal is to continue using the three units that are currently in airbnb
as an airbnb with the hope of adding that fourth unit um finishing it out with a bathroom
and adding that space as well um let me just go here one second um so my client has um she is
an outstanding airbnb host with over 25 star reviews from her guests um and this is she also
expects the same sort of behavior from her guests as well um no guest is allowed to stay if they
don't have at least five prior five star reviews um they there is a two-night minimum for a stay
which avoids people that are there to throw parties um hold on one second i'm sorry um
so i apologize there's actually over 70 70 reviews i just have 20 of them here in front of me
um but um so like i said you have to have prior good ratings um from airbnb you have to have a
minimum two nights day and typically um they're her typical guests are this is right by the rock
school a lot of the parents who have children training at the rock stool will stay um there
are traveling nurses who have, you know, an extended stay that's not quite long-term and
not quite short-term, have been frequent guests of the property. And also it's conveniently located
to several of the hospitals. And so a lot of family members visiting patients in the hospital
where they need some sort of more of a living space than just a hotel room while they might
be dealing with a loved one's illness tend to be the guests here. I know another big issue is
always trash. So we do have in this property, this rear garage, which I showed in the one picture,
but let's just come back to here. And so the professional cleaning staff comes and takes the
trash out and stores them in the trash cans in the rear garage. And there is another company
contracted to take that trash out the night before trash day, where the trash goes for these
properties on and in so that you never have trash hanging out in the street that, you know,
there's never a problem with uncollected trash showing up in between guests, because there are
several different professional management companies handling that and a place to store it.
So I know that, as I said, the neighbor directly adjacent at 1328 submitted a letter of support.
We've also talked to several other neighbors. I know there's some neighbors here in opposition,
um but uh several of the neighbors who expressed support have pointed out that there are no noise
issues no trash issues and none of the other typical issues that you might see with a poorly
managed airbnb um we did meet with the passing square civic association um let me just get to
the letter um uh none of the neighbors were in attendance we did send out 133 notification
letters. It was just the board members who voted five to one in opposition.
And the main concern that they expressed was that they didn't want
and the main concern that they expressed was that they didn't want additional housing stock added
that weren't for Philadelphia housing, but I just want to highlight that we have these three unit
Airbnb that are already in place and have been in place for five years, so nothing is being added
or taken away. We're just asking for the status quo of this property. That fourth unit would be
great, but we also understand if that's not possible. So I want to go back to the neighborhood
support letters. Stephanie was at the property fixing her flower boxes, doing other maintenance
on the property, and spoke to all of these people individually, explaining what, you know, who she
was, what was going on with the property. And so we have letters of support on Ellsworth Street,
1328 Ellsworth, the immediate adjacent. We have 1334, which is two properties down. 1338, again,
really close. We also have 1331, which is across the street. 1343. And then we also have 1314,
which is on an in street behind. So that's in the rear of this property. There's some properties
that don't fully go street to street and we also have 1349 and in street and then the rest of the
support letters are from like a block or two away um but i just wanted to highlight these ones that
are very very close on this block um so while we did have that that letter of opposition from
the board um i don't believe any of those members were adjacent neighbors and we do have these
letters of support from the adjacent neighbors um and i think that that just um and the fact that
Stephanie went out and obtained it herself talking about what she does um says a lot along with the
fact that there haven't been complaints um from those neighbors and they're willing to have this
use continue now I do want to go and talk a little bit about the financial hardship um if this building
was uh if this use was not allowed so let me go to here so as I said um my client purchased this
property in 2021 as an airbnb it was represented to her as a fully um operating ready to go airbnb
with three units um so so um i just also wanted to add in too before i get there um part of the
appeal for um that fourth unit is that stephanie would eventually like to she's in the process of
moving to philadelphia and would like to move into this building and live in one of the units
and continue the airbnb usage um so that was one of the other things that the neighbors
like that this person's involved with the community involved with the neighbors
um but let me just go back to the expenses um one second i'm so sorry so um this is expenses
per year her mortgage payments uh total um 36 408 taxes owed are about 10 000 property insurance
$4,400. She also pays for security cameras, security services. So her total expenses are
over $50,000 a year. Stephanie herself is an experienced landlord. She has properties outside
of Philadelphia that she rents long-term. She's also a licensed realtor, but consulted with a
realtor, Emily Ho, who specializes in South Philly properties. And we came up with that if we were to
rent this property long-term, um, the estimated rental income would only be about 45, $45,000 a
year, which doesn't even hit the level of the reoccurring expenses and doesn't factor in any
costs for improvements and maintenance. Um, we know right now that there needs to be skylights
replaced on the building, uh, which are going to cost $7,000 this year. Uh, if we go over here,
I know that Stephanie's also put on a new roof, repaired the HVAC system, repaired the garage, and done a lot of other upgrades to the property to make sure that it's up to standard and the building is well-maintained.
Again, because this is a building that she loves and cares about.
So, you know, if we, if she was forced to convert this to either long term rental, and even, you know, especially if it was only two units, that would be an even lower income this that that 45,000 was based on three units, which we understand we would probably have to come back here for, but this is just not financially viable for her in order to rent this property long term if she wasn't able to do it as an Airbnb.
I do want to go back and talk a little bit, a little bit about more about the neighborhood
and the character of the neighborhood. So I know that I showed this map that shows,
you know, we have multi-families, we have another Airbnb, just
You know, we have multi-families, we have another Airbnb just on this block, but I want to go and look at the zoning map a little bit further out from this block because it's important to look at the context of where this block is.
We are right, you know, less than half a block outside of Broad Street, and we are a block away from Washington Avenue.
notably on washington avenue we have a development coming here with 649 units all of which can be
airbnb by right we also have over here with 322 units again in the zoning district where that is
allowed by right but um if you just look at these scales of projects and you look at my client she's
an individual owner we have a situation where the airbnb that's allowed are on these massive
plots and expensive parcels that are really not financially available to the average property
owner. Whereas here we have a property that's not in an oasis of single family homes, that's adjacent
to commercial zoning, that's nearby public transportation, that services some of these
like medium term guests that are, you know, visiting students, patients, serve, you know,
as visiting nurses in the hospital, that, you know, we have this ability for Stephanie to have
this financially viable business that helps support her and her family. But, you know,
without really altering the character of this block of this neighborhood. And so that's why
I don't think that this is out of character. And I think that that's part of why a good number of
the neighbors were also in support of granting this variance. So just in summary, again, this
Airbnb has existed since 2018. My client took it over in 2021. It's on a mixed use block near
public transportation, near high intensity commercial zoning. She's an invested property
owner who's at the property regularly and is hoping to actually reside in one of these units
going forward in the near future, who thoroughly screens her guests and has made arrangements so
that the property is properly maintained to not be any of creating the nuisance that we might see
with poorly managed Airbnbs. Do you want to bring your client on and have your testimony adopted?
Absolutely. Stephanie, can you raise your hand so that they can unmute you or call you?
do we see a hand raised yeah she's there okay hi could you state your name please and spell
for the court reporter certainly stephanie de clerk uh s-t-e-f-a-n-i-d-e-c-l-e-r-c-q
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes proceed counsel um stephanie did you hear my testimony here today and believe it to be
truthful and accurate? Yes. And would you adapt it as your own? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Questions
from the board? No, Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission. Sir Ron Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for
residential use on the city plan or adopted. District plan recommends no change to existing
residential single family at this location, the applicant's hardship, not supported with evidence
of any physical circumstances, a condition of the property that would prevent it from being
used in conforming with the code, but we recommend a request for variance stomping, Randy.
We're going to take this under consideration.
Sorry, this is Hillary. There was someone who raised their hand to speak in the public.
Thank you.
All right. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
yes my name is mark schultz m-a-r-c-s-c-h-u-l-t-z right do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am i can see the
building outside my window right now oh that's great thank you thank you my first time here
okay i'm happy to be here all right proceed okay so i just wanted to um summarize my interaction
i actually submitted uh testimony okay days ago but i'll summarize what i submitted um i want to
summarize my interaction with with the landlord um the property owner mr clark uh because the
counselor seems to point quite a bit to the neighbor's level of support um i had a i had a
nice interaction with mr clark she came up to me i never met her before um and i can't speak to the
the rest of the other interactions
interactions with uh that Ms. Clark had with other neighbors but when Mr. Clark approached me last
that Ms. Clark had with other neighbors.
But when Mr. Clark approached me,
week to get my support as I was uh in front of my building sort of just cleaning up the sidewalk
she told me that her daughter lives on the first floor that she is moving into the second floor and
that she'd like to rent out the third floor but that the city is forcing her to get a variance
to convert her building um when she told me this she said that she needed support uh to she needed
me to sign a letter of support and i said sure because i think that it's reasonable if you know
she wants to have another unit oh sorry she wants to get a variance to move her single family
building to a three-unit building uh one unit for her daughter one unit for herself one unit
to rent out and i said sure i support that wholly and um she gave me the letter to sign
and when i saw the the letter which is the letters that the counselor presented i saw that the
letter said four Airbnb rental units. And I asked Mr. Clark why the letter did not reflect what she
had told me. And she said, Mr. Clark said that they were four units because her attorney told her
to put down four units because then they could successfully negotiate down to three if they need
to. And as for the Airbnb, I could cross that out and just write rental units if I wanted to.
I said that it sounds like she has an attorney and I don't feel comfortable with more Airbnbs
on our block because I already pay pretty high rent right now. I live with three roommates in
order to afford my rent. And there's plenty of research out there that shows that Airbnbs
construct the housing supply, which ultimately raises rent, housing prices, etc. But if they
want to change the letter, she can come knock on my door. And if it reflects what she had told me
about the situation, then I'd sign it. So like I said, I can't speak to all the other interactions
that Mr. Clark had to garner the support. But for me, this is how she presented it. She never
mentioned Airbnbs until I read the actual paper and asked her about it. Other than that, it was
amicable interaction with mr clark uh but um i wanted to make the board aware of that thank you
thank you for taking i have some questions for mr schultz please yeah okay all right can you put
your address on the record please 1319 ellsworth street okay and uh do you rent do you rent or do
you own i rent and do you rent the whole house or a specific unit within that building we rent the
whole house it's a single family home all right um and then i did want to ask um i know that to
clarify some of this interaction and perhaps is a misunderstanding miss uh my client's daughter
did in fact live in the building at one point um and she is intending to try to move into one of
these properties into one of the units i don't know if this was a misunderstanding between the
two of you i don't i could imagine that happening um i just want to be very clear that the letter
that people signed clearly says, I have it up on the screen, that for Airbnb short-term rentals.
So people were advised of what they were signing prior to signing the letter, as evidenced by what
Mr. Schultz has said, that he read the letter and he didn't want to sign it anymore. So he did not.
I also think that it's worthy to note that the people who have signed the letter, most notably
the people close to our property owners and have a vested interest in the block long-term.
so that's that's that's what i have to say uh can i can i say can i add one thing chairman
sure i i would just like to say that just because i rent doesn't mean i don't have a vested interest
in the block so to imply otherwise is frankly insulting that's i said long-term hold it council
hold it hold it i i understand what you're saying sir thank and thank you for taking the time to
calls calls yeah is there anyone else in the virtual please call my client back to clarify
this conversation as well because i think that he's fundamentally please call her back and try
to move the comment you know what i mean absolutely stephanie can you
are you still available stephanie i'm not sure stephanie yes miss stephanie's there please
unmute a council uh stephanie just state your name for the record you've already been sworn
Stephanie DeClerk.
Proceed, counsel.
Stephanie, did you inform him that you were asking for support for an Airbnb unit at any point during your conversation?
Yes, and I told him specifically if he wasn't comfortable with the fact that I was asking for Airbnb,
that his option was to, of course, I respected his decision not to sign the support letter,
But that also, if I, that he was welcome to cross out anything on that form, including the request for Airbnb, write everything in.
anything on that form, including the request for Airbnb, write everything in, including long-term
rental, because he informed me that he was very new to the neighborhood and just signed a lease
to move into the neighborhood, that he was philosophically opposed to Airbnb. I told him
I respected that, and he was entitled to his opinion. He could cross that out and write
anything in that he chose to from that form before signing it. And you did inform all of the
neighbors who have signed these support letters that it was for short-term Airbnb-style rentals,
correct? Absolutely. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. And Ron, do you need to add anything else, Ron?
No, I'm fine. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to hold this. Okay. Thank you. And be
honest with you, what we're checking on is that you're asking for Airbnbs for four units or three
units, but they really don't exist, right? Because this is a single family home.
That's what I'm saying. In the eyes of the city, these units aren't there. It's a single family
home. Which is why we're requesting for the Airbnb units to be created.
Yeah, but it's a single family home, right? It's not. It's currently divided into four units.
Yeah, but what's it zoned?
It's zoned RSA 5.
Right.
As are most of the other multi-family houses.
But we're not talking most of the others.
We're talking yours.
So we're going to take this under consideration.
But I just want to say, that's why we're asking for the variants to create the units.
They don't need to be existing already.
If you had a single family home and wanted to ask for four units.
We're going to take a look at this week and we'll get back to you.
Excuse me, this is Hillary.
um miss bazidlow it doesn't list the number of units and i don't know that visitor accommodations
typically do so that's why we need to get clarification that they're because from what
we can see there's only two legal units at this property so if we approve visitor accommodation
and there's more units than that that may cause a problem so that's why we need to check to see
what what's happening i appreciate that and i understand um i just want to clarify that this
was presented to the RCO and to the neighbors as four units. Thank you. Okay. We're going to move
on to number three. MI 2022-007-299-2302-04 East Gordon Street. Let's see here.
No letter from the Fishtown, but applicant has submitted a vote count, which shows 37 in support.
Eric Carroll is the attorney.
Mr. Carroll has been promoted.
Okay, thank you.
Hi, Mr. Carroll, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Thank you, Mr. Bergman. Eric Carroll, on behalf of the owner.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please, sir?
Eric, E-R-I-C, Carroll, C-A-R-R-O-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, their relationship to the property?
23 Gordon, LLC.
right our our vice chair has a few questions sir
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate towards
accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have and uh just as one addition um
There is an RCO letter of support. Mr. Dungan, the Fishtown Neighbors Chair, emailed that in. It should be on the file. I have a copy of it for my presentation.
Make sure we get a copy of that, please.
Yes. All right. Thank you. Yes. Please proceed to share your screen.
Thank you. Okay. My clients own 2302 to 04 East Gordon Street in the Fishtown neighborhood.
Right now, you're looking at an aerial view.
As you can see, 02 and 04 are now one lot.
That was not the case up until 2016.
In 2016, the previous owner filed for a lot consolidation.
That was approved.
The property went under one OPA, but the previous owner didn't do anything with the property.
He never built the large house that he intended to.
I'm not sure what happened, but he sold the property to my client last year.
i'm not sure what happened but he sold the property to my client last year
what we're seeking
what we're seeking at this right now in part is the board's approval to subdivide the lot
back to what it was historically back to what it was prior to the 2016 consolidation
um the lot is 1267 feet uh if you cut that in half which is what we're trying to do your your
you're at 639 square feet. That's actually large for this block. Most of the houses on this block
are somewhere between 563 square feet in terms of lot size and 630.
I'll show you a photo from the front. It's been vacant for many years.
As you can see, the zoning notices are posted. I also had submitted a copy of the deed showing that
my client purchased the property in April of 2022.
We have a tax clearance certificate
showing that everything is up to date.
Throw you a copy of the refusal.
So in addition to the subdivision,
what we're seeking this afternoon
are variants larger related to the lot size
if they were to be subdivided.
So if they were to be subdivided
Each lot would be 13, somewhere between 13 and a quarter and 13 and a third square feet in width.
We need a variance for that.
Also, the lot area and the maximum occupied area we're seeking variances for.
Had this not been subdivided back in, or had this not been consolidated back in 2016, by right, we could have built the two houses on the separate lots.
we would have been grandfathered in on the lot with issue.
All we would have needed would be the maximum occupied area variance.
Here's the subdivision plan.
As you can see, the property, one property is 13 and a third in width,
and the other property is 13 and a quarter feet in width.
Let me show you the, we also have the appeal.
Just trying to show the plans here.
So this is a copy.
This is the plans from the Gordon Street view.
As you can see, it's going to be a three-story building.
Each building would be three stories with a basement and with the roof deck and a pilot
house.
We have a basement with a bathroom and the washer dryer downstairs, the first floor living
dining room kitchen.
Second floor of each would be two bedrooms with the bathroom in the middle.
The third floor would be the master bedroom and bath, and then the roof deck with the
pilot house would be shown here.
these plans, given the lot size, this is the best we can do with this property.
It's kind of a property of right now, where by right, we could build a really large house
that would be completely out of character with the neighborhood. And the cost of building it and
the uncertainty of selling something like that is a hardship for my client. That's why we're
seeking the subdivision and just seeking to build two houses on the subdivided lots.
The name, we met with the RCO last month.
The Fishtown Neighbors Association
is in support of the project.
They noted that the design was well received
and that what we're proposing would be more in character
with the nearby properties,
as opposed to what we could be built by right,
which would be this mega house that would stick out
like a sore thumb in the neighborhood.
So I have them. That's all I have. I would the members of my clients. I'm not sure who's still on the line. Somebody had to drop because this went long, but either Chris, Ron or Will. Are you guys there? Would you please raise your hands?
Sure. I have Chris.
tomasco yeah let him in
hi i'm here sorry i'm at my football game at the same time well that's that's good could you
state your name and spell for the court reporter please uh kristin tomasco k-r-i-s-t-i-n-t-o-m-a-s-t-o
t-o-m-a-s-t-o right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
I don't know.
truth yes proceed counsel uh mr tomasco you were a member of the owner of this property 23 gordon
llc yes and did you listen to my presentation that i gave just now yes was it truthful and
accurate yes would you adopt everything i said as your own testimony if you were to testify
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Robert Everett with his hand up.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, good evening.
Robert, last name Everett, E-V-E-R-E-T-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
I am a nearby neighbor, but I'm on the F&A zoning committee.
I'm just going to confirm.
Okay, fine.
That's great.
Proceed, sir.
I'm just confirming that, yeah, the letter was sent Monday.
I have a copy that I was sent.
And Eric's correct.
The numbers are accurate because I'm the one who does the verifications for the meeting.
I can send it to you in case it didn't make the package.
Well, Eric will send it over to our attorney.
All right.
And thank you very much for taking the time to call us.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no handshare.
The Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential use on a city plan,
given the physical conditions of the site.
We recommend requests for variance be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2022-007-299-2302-04 East Gordon Street.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 11, MI 2022, 006-919-424-28 Belgrade Street.
James Quinlan is the attorney.
Mr. Quinlan has been promoted.
We do not have an RCO letter as of yet.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, Mr. Quinlan, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
James Quinlan, Q-U-I-N-L-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Sure. The client is 424 Belgrade Street, LLC.
I have the dual role of being a member of the LLC as well as the counsel for the LLC.
Okay. Right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
good evening council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate towards
accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to
proceed with this case probably in advance of this hearing yes i did thank you please proceed
and share your screen that's one one quick question do you have a proof you have a proof of posting
Proof of posting was sent in, chairman, in the pictures.
Okay, wait.
Were you going to show it when you're...
This is Hillary.
I think we got the exhibits from when we were going to hear this case a couple weeks ago.
We didn't receive any new exhibits.
So is there a new posting photo for this hearing?
Right.
For this hearing, I was notified on Monday that the hearing was Wednesday.
um so i'm that you know i'm here because i was notified to you know that the hearing was
relisted that's the first we heard of it hillary lakeisha can you verify that posters were sent
out because we didn't verify that it was posted i never even to that to that point miss ma'am i
didn't even receive posters sorry lakeisha what were you saying
i'll verify that the posters were sent down okay
we're still waiting a letter from the fishtown neighbor sir
i i we we have we received a letter from the fishtown neighbor
I, I, we, we have, we received a letter from the Fishtown Neighbor Association.
I, I don't, I don't know if they've sent it in, um, to, are they in favor?
They did not vote in favor of it, of the, sir.
Thank you.
Could you make sure you send a letter that, that copy of that letter to us, send it to
our attorney?
I sure will.
Let's give us a minute here.
Thank you.
yes and i'm showing that posters were sent uh april 4th right yeah the april 4th posters were
were posted but do you have do you have a photo to show that i i do okay thank you we just need
to see that thank you sure i need forward a copy of it to for us to for our records that would be
great thank you very good um is my screen i had some problems your screen's up it is up great
thank you uh well let me just uh start with that issue right here so um this is a picture of april
7th 9 54 a.m with the poster uh at the property um and you can see the same bold board here so
So just I hope hopefully that satisfies the board on on that issue.
Thank you. So, board, I know it's been a long day.
I'll try to be brief. At issue here is let me just go to my number one screen here.
So submitted were about 17 items, including five pictures with respect to the actual refusal.
We have two different variants refusals here. The big one, you know, consideration is relates to the minimum lot size. And then, you know, there's also an issue with respect to height. But I want to be real clear, because the Mr. Wojcik, the planning examiner noted at the bottom here that the ZBA, it's not that we're looking to build a pilot house too high.
The pie of the house is conforming in all respects.
It's just that the way the development was designed, and this took place over a few years, we do not have the five-foot set forward.
They call it a setback, but if you think about it, it's really a set forward from the rear of the house, which I will show you.
So I just wanted to be clear that if the variance was granted with respect to not being set forward or back, as it were, we would comply with height standards.
In fact, this property was built, you know, designed thoughtfully and we are not built out to maximum height.
We could be built out to max 38 feet. We're at 33. And a pilot house can be 10 feet above, which means we could be 48.
And my pilot houses for this company are at essentially 43, not 48.
So those are the two reasons for the variance. The arguments in favor here are threefold.
First, the history of this land favors and actually screams for reactivation and development.
I'll get to that.
Secondly, the project represents a reasonable use of the land, which is consistent in size
and scope and character with the neighborhood.
And three, aligned with one of the goals of the ZBA, this project and the variance and
relief sought will actually promote moderately priced housing versus if we are not granted
the variants and have to build very large on what is a big piece of land in the middle of a vibrant
middle-class neighborhood. Pricing would be, we would have to go big and go large and build to max
and sell as high as we could to try to make this work, you know, post-COVID with the rapid, you
know, increase in construction costs. So those are the three reasons which I'll get into if I could
just, you know, quickly show the board the project and the plan so you have a sense of what we're
looking at. Give me a second here, Chairman. Okay, so here is the aerial, here's the location and
aerial view of the map, and over on the right, the aerial view. This project is bound by Earl
streets and Belgrade streets in Fishtown proper. We are somewhere in the midst of Frankfurt,
Aramingo, and Girard, and Gaul. So right there in the heart. Relating to my first argument
So right there in the heart. Relating to my first argument about reactivation, this lot screams for redevelopment in the sense that it was in a time when Fishtown was not doing as well in the 90s.
This land was bought by the city, by the RDA. The structures that were there were raised. The property sat vacant from the mid 90s until 2004, when the RDA actually sold the property to a local family who had been maintaining the property.
That local family continued to maintain the property all the way until we purchased it in March of 21. We entered into conversations with them in March of 19, when I believe a deed restriction lifted.
um so you know this is this is really great valuable real estate which is generating very
little you know use for neighbors other than being a pseudo green space which we've let the
property open we've mowed the lawn we've sawed it and shoveled the sidewalks we've been a good
neighbor since we took possession in 2021 but um you know this this this property you know should
be developed and we have a plan for it. And I think a good plan. So then going to the subdivision,
this is what we've essentially applied for, right? We have three properties along here facing
Belgrade and then two properties front facing Earl, which I note for the board is consistent with
the code 14071D1, which says that when you can, now again, we're missing on the lot size,
fronting properties along the front of the street is a good thing versus having these properties
dip all the way back and having a fence along Earl. As you can see, we have much bigger than
the last project that Mr. Carroll presented. We have 16-foot houses, all the way, actually 17-foot
houses on Earl. So these are not, I'm not looking for, the company I should say is not looking for
a microdevelopment. We're not looking for what we think is taking advantage. These are 17 and 16-foot
wide front parcels in Fishtown proper with 49 and 35 foot depths with 16 and 19 foot rear yards,
all satisfying all the different requirements. We're just, because we are RSA 5 and there's a
1,440 square foot requirement for single family homes, we don't meet that. Just to give you a
sense of my third argument, which was that this project promotes reasonable affordable housing
in the city of Philadelphia, here's what the code would allow, right? The code says 1,440 square
feet. If you try to divide this property up, you fall short of that, and you're left with two lots.
I can assure everyone on this board, and I think you probably are aware, there's no houses in
Fishtown like this. There's no houses with 1,700, 1,800 square foot of space with yards. I mean,
these would be massive properties. I don't even know how I build them, but that's what the code
allows me to do. So then just aesthetically taking a look at the project, we think it's a really
classy looking project. This is Belgrade. So we have classic brick foot homes with proper setbacks
for roof decks. The corner property, we are looking to spend a little extra money with bells
and whistles. These are properly constructed pushouts onto the street. Going down to the
Earl view, this is the side of the property on Belgrade. Again, we're doing a little bit extra
all brick. We're not doing siding. We're not doing paneling. We're trying to stay traditional
with the neighborhood. And we have another Trinity window there on the side. And then here
behind it after a, what is a 16 foot backyard is two properties facing Earl, which will butt
against the third property there. If you could just take a look on some of my measurements
and note that again, my maximum height from grade to plate is 33 feet. I could do 38.
My pilot house is coming out at 42. I could be at 48. So again, we tried to build thoughtfully
and reasonably here and provide a nice project for the neighborhood while providing affordable
housing. Just a quick look at some floor plans. Again, a nice big single-family home basement.
You have a kitchen and a first floor. On the second floor, you have two bedrooms with a full
bath. And then on the third floor, you have a master suite. You have a walk-in closet. You have
a bathroom. And then you have the stairway going all the way up to the roof deck. And I show this
because this is when we designed this. And again, the code changed sort of in the time that we
looked into it and then we built. Pilot houses used to be allowed to be all the way in the back
and there wasn't a set forward rule as it were. And so this construction of having this stairwell
in the back corner really allows for what we think is an attractive foot plan. So the other
refusal, again, with respect to the setback rule is right, I wanted to show here. So these red
So these red lines represent where our, you know, our pilot houses would have to be under the current code.
Red lines represent where are, you know, are.
And, you know, as they're constructed, you can or as they're designed, you can see where they are, which is to go back to the rear yard.
I would point out, you know, to the extent that the city's code was concerned with rear pilot houses being dominant on other people's backyards,
We sort of create a circle or a square or rectangle here where these pilot houses, you know, on Belgrade are abutting the rear yards and then the side of the Earl and the Earl ones are, you know, again, sort of influencing the land and the use.
So, again, what I can say about the letter from the Neighborhood Association RCO was that there was actually no objections or none mentioned in the letter with respect to the pilot house issue.
we did lose the vote on candidly with the board as I would as an office of court we did lose the
vote on the density issue with respect to minimum lot size and the comment in the letter which
you'll see for yourselves is that most neighbors thought it was too many houses and had issues
with parking of course parking as isn't present before this commission we're not asking for a curb
cut. I would actually, you know, admittedly concede that five houses might suggest that there
be five cars. Then again, in the city, you never know who's going to own a car and who doesn't.
And by the way, if we build multimillion dollar houses over two lots, we could have families with
multiple cars. So I can't change the fact that this would possibly affect parking. But with
respect to density, there is plenty of properties in RS in 19125. I lived there for two years
that do not have 1,440 square foot lots. And so that's the relief we're seeking. And I think
I've said enough. I'll be happy to answer any questions and point to any other exhibits that
you might be interested in seeing. But everything was timely submitted for this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
okay questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission this is a wrong bed nine hold it
a hand went up it was robert everett but it went back down again
let's see if he'll put yeah he's back okay hi Mr. Everett
yes I'm here again okay that's fine just state your name for the record for me please yeah
I'm still Robert last name Everett that's right that's right and you've you've already been sworn
so proceed and identify where you're from yeah I'm with the Fishtown Neighbors Association I'm
a member of the zoning committee. I have a copy of the letter. James does too. It looks like it
was sent in on May the 3rd. Everything he said is everything we discussed at the meeting. The
numbers are right. And Mr. Quinlan, if you need a copy of the poster that you had to post, I have
it on my cell phone. I can send it to you. We're fine. It's side by side. Thank you, Robert.
All right. Mr. Everett, what's your position on this?
On our letter, the numbers he quoted were basically the same.
It was more leaning towards opposition based on the density, and that was it.
Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
We recommend that the request of variance be granted, provided maximum four lots with allowable height as required by the code only.
MI 2022, 006-919-424-28 Belgrade Street, I vote yes.
Proviso, four lots.
my vote is yes with proviso james snell my vote is yes proviso ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
with proviso thank you counsel thank you mr chairman thank you number 13 mi 2023
23-002-604, 2352 North 29th Street. Leonard Reuter is going to be president's counsel for
council president Darrell Clark. Vern Anastasio is the owner's counsel.
This case, the evidence and testimony from the March 1st hearing is being incorporated.
In this case, the evidence and testimony from the March 1st hearing is being incorporated
into the record for this hearing.
They have both been promoted to panelists.
Leonard, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Vern Anastasio.
You've already been sworn, if I remember correctly. Am I right, Vern?
Sometime earlier today?
About nine hours ago.
Okay. All right.
Mr. Reuter, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. Thank you very much. May it please the board.
Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
I'm here on behalf of the city and the Council President, Daryl Clark.
um mr chair i don't know how you'd like to proceed i have a i'm sure you can imagine a
whole list of objections uh but procedurally i'll just i think what i want to do is let
let the council for the city go first here
okay yep uh thank you very much uh so again just so we're clear uh procedurally what happened here
is the board approved a variance request back in March, I think that was, and subsequent to that,
I think the same day or the day after that, the council president submitted a request for
reconsideration that was provided to the board, indicating, among other things, that the position
that some of the near neighbors didn't have an adequate opportunity to speak on the record and
to present um their opposition to the um to what had happened now again i apologize i was not myself
present at that hearing so if i repeat anything or if i introduce something that's already in
the record just let me know um and if you just give me a second here i am here with uh mary jones
who is legislative counsel to the council president and again just so we're clear uh
Why I'm here is because in the past, you have seen the council president and other council persons who were appealing against a permit that was issued by L&I, that is appealing a by-right permit.
In those instances, the council office is in opposition to the position of the city, and they're required to be represented by outside council.
You have also seen other instances where the council president is simply presenting their recommendation about whether or not the variants or special exceptions should be granted, and they're always free to speak.
In this instance, I believe a determination was made that because there was a request for reconsideration, it may or may not give the council president a kind of quasi-party status.
and that Ms. Jones was originally going to present on his behalf,
but the law department made a determination that under the charter,
only the law department can represent council members and other city officials,
unless, of course, they're in opposition.
In this instance, our review of the record indicated that the city planning commission
had already made a recommendation opposing the variance on the basis of the determination
that there was no hardship presented for the property in question.
So because we were aligned, there was no need to get outside counsel.
Therefore, the determination was made that the law department would represent the council
president here.
So with that, I do have a few people that we would be intending to present as witnesses.
uh i guess uh what probably makes the most sense is for me to see if uh mary jones is present
yeah i believe she is mr chair i just want to make sure we're clear i should withhold my
objections until after the presentation why don't we do that that's fine that's fine yeah and and
again i understand that there were objections made to the grant of reconsideration it's it's
our position that the board's already decided that issue were here uh mr anastasia is certainly
free to preserve that objection i would rather uh not spend time on the reconsideration grant
itself um because again that'd be preserved for for subsequent appeal uh if that if that comes
to that so i could stipulate i could stipulate to that len for sure yeah yeah so uh i believe
I could stipulate to that, Len, for sure.
So I believe Ms. Jones is present.
If she might be promoted.
Mary, could you state your name for the record, please?
Do we see Mary's hand?
Her hand is raised.
Yes, she's the level chair.
Hi, Mary.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Mary Jones, M-A-R-Y, on behalf of Council President Darrell Clark.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Ms. Jones.
What is your position with the Council President's office?
um uh my title is legislative council and um i serve as the council president's representative
and the in zoning matters okay and in the course of those duties with the council president's
office did you come to learn of the uh variance uh application for the property in question at
2352 North 29th Street? Yes, I did. Okay. And in the course of your
review of that matter, did you come to learn about whether the neighborhood was in opposition
to that or members of the neighborhood were in opposition to the variance?
Yes. Originally, we received a letter from the coordinating RCO, and then after the hearing, we received other petitions and letters expressing opposition, additional letters expressing opposition from the near neighbors.
Okay. And did you yourself look at some of that material?
I did.
Okay. If I could have the chair's permission to share my screen.
Most certainly.
All right. Let's see if I can do this without crashing everything.
Thank you. Can you all see that?
Yes. It's Exhibit C1.
So I'm just going to go through these real quickly.
I think the first Exhibit C1, I think we can stipulate that this is the refusal...
And Ms. Jones, are you familiar with this document?
And again, this is already in the record of the board,
but I'm just indicating that these materials are
familiar to the council president's office.
And can you just identify this particular document?
Let me try to get this so that it fits on the screen.
and do you recognize this document yes i do um that is the reconsideration request
drafted um with the council president's um permission on behalf of um the community
and the near neighbors after they reached out to our office okay and did you review this document
did i personally have you have you seen yes yes yes i've seen it yes okay and in your own words
could you just explain what uh the council presidents why the council president is is
opposed to the variance yes um the community has been very forceful in their position that this
that this type of use is just inappropriate. A nightclub use is inappropriate for this area,
just given criminal activity and other concerns that the community brought to us at that time
and has brought to us more recently and we we support the community in that in their position
that this would be would negatively impact that corner and not and and and you know in addition
to the fact that they don't have a um um hardship presented sure um and it goes without saying but
Just to confirm for the record that the location of 2352 North 29th Street is within the Council District 5 or the 5th Council District, which is the Council President's own district. Is that right?
Or the fifth council district. Okay. Which of, which is the council president's own district. Is that right?
Yes, it is.
Now, have you seen this document that I'm showing now? This would be for identification purposes, C3, I think. Yes.
Yes. I've seen that document as well.
okay and was this provided to the council's office uh was this before the hearing the
zoning board the last zoning board hearing um though it is dated in february i did not
i was not sent this and i could provide emails but i was not sent this document we were not
sent it until um after the community i mean excuse me after the uh zoning hearing on march 1st okay
and uh and i i will say so this was uh but this was received uh by the uh council president's
office at some point between then and now yes okay and you have reviewed this as well yes okay
and is it fair to say that the the letter uh also expresses in more detail some of the concerns that
the neighbors had about parking, noise, loitering, and other concerns?
Yes, that is, I'd say so.
And so this document having been sent to the council president, is it incorporated within
any of the regular routine records that the council president keeps with respect to various
matters?
like does he keep this in a would they this letter be kept in a file in the regular course of
business yes yes um in my position as his owning representative i uh would i do um save all
communication from the community um you know associated with whatever address be it for or
against okay um now as the council president's office is is also is the council president's
office also uh familiar with the kinds of problems that have been ongoing in this neighborhood
i would say yes okay to the extent that the the community has let us know okay
And again, some of those concerns involve loitering, people smoking, some of the problems.
Are there substance abuse issues in the neighborhood still?
I can't comment on that for sure.
I can't comment from our knowledge base that the community would have to be.
But this is just what was reported to us.
um now and again just for the board i don't know because i don't have uh the record of what was
produced to the zoning board before so to the extent that um you know so i apologize if the
board's already seen this letter but it was provided uh earlier either yesterday or today
and again we're presenting it now now one other thing i'm going to show you and i'll have a couple
other witnesses that will testify about more specifics about these documents but um do you
recognize this the next couple pages this this is c4 yes okay and if you just if you can read it you
might not be able to let me try to blow it up a little can you read what it says up in this
first section oh we the neighbors and community organizations oppose development
located at 2352 north 29th street okay there's one word that i couldn't see that's okay i think
it says project project oh development project yeah it's a little blurry um so this is a petition
of persons in opposition to the uh to to the proposal yes okay
and was this also received by the council president's office or that is do you now
have a copy of this yes that was all that was received with the previous letters okay
and have you seen this document marked city c5 yes okay and is this just a list of
specific concerns that the neighbors have regarding the proposed use?
Yes. This in particular was just, I believe, was a response to the...
believe was the response to the applicant presenting a petition of support and this
is just comparing the addresses and locations of the people who signed the petitions opposed and
support okay and would it be fair to characterize the document as indicating that
uh all of the petitioners who are who oppose the project live within 500 feet uh whereas
nearly 80 percent of those in favor of the project uh do not live uh with within that
do not live close to the property yes okay and again this is this document uh
I think which I'll just scroll through it.
This is just a real listing of the petitioners.
This is a copy.
I believe this was presented to the zoning board last time a copy of the petition
in favor of the variance request.
And so again, these documents were received by the council president's office.
Um, we didn't get the, um, the support or the non-opposition petition until after
the hearing. Okay. But they're now kept in the, uh, yeah, it's now filed away.
Yes. Okay. And that was just another copy of the refusal.
so now uh are you are you familiar with this last document yes this one we received today
okay and what does this document uh address um just generally addresses the um our constituents
concerns about a recent homicide that took place at a nearby convenience store, which
is a 24-hour, I guess, establishment that sells little cigarettes, potentially alcohol.
and it it it's clear that there's concerns that a you know a late operating event space and or
nightclub along with that kind of um store is just dangerous and is not um acceptable for the
community okay so and again that that particular document was also received uh by the council
president's office and is now kept in the regular order of business there yes okay and i think this
is the last okay are you are you yourself personally familiar with the location um i'm
i'm not okay i'll skip this last exhibit then for now i think that was the last let me just make sure
oh there uh i'll skip seven go to eight uh this is uh have you seen this before
um yeah the this was also forwarded today okay and this just concerns um
the yes you could explain what this is the constituent some who reached out to our office
near neighbors um just have concerns about um current construction with the um being unfinished
at the uh site and this is just they're listing their concerns okay all right um
so i don't have any further questions for uh ms jones although i would reserve a right to recall
or for rebuttal, if necessary, later.
And I would ask that these documents
be entered into the record
as documents that are kept in the regular order of business
of the government office of the council president.
I don't know if Mr. Anastasia has any questions.
Bernie, do you have any questions?
Just a couple on cross.
Proceed.
Ms. Jones, thanks for coming this evening. Were you aware of the hearing that was held in March
for this particular project? I was. Okay, so your office got full notice and opportunity
to present at that time, is that right? Our office, yes. You had the opportunity and the
notice. Is that right? Yes. And you failed to do so, right?
yes and and you and you failed to do so right no um at that time did you testify before
no we didn't fail to um test um fail to enter excuse me we didn't fail to participate
that was a choice on the part of the council president and again the the the um all of those
documents that he just pulled up, the opposition that came up after, because the constituents
thought their RCO letter was going to be enough. So it was not a failing.
My apologies for that phraseology. Your office, after full notice and opportunity,
decided not to weigh in on the project at that hearing in March. Is that right?
Yes, based on the information we had at that time.
You sat on your rights. Okay, good. The petition in opposition that Leonard proposed to the board today that you reviewed, the top of the document where folks signed, it says that they oppose the development project at the subject address, but it doesn't detail exactly what is being proposed. Is that right?
um yes does it say it's going to be an event space or even a night as you claim it's going
to be a nightclub does it say that does the petition say it right no no it doesn't it just
says we oppose the development at the subject property is that right yes without getting
involved into anything that we applied for. Right. The petition was prepared by the
constituents. Okay. Very good. Yeah. Thanks. I appreciate that. And the petitioner for the
reconsideration is Mr. Darrell Clark, who I believe is your employer. Is that right?
um the petitioner on behalf of the community and his constituents yes okay and where is he today
where he is at this moment that's right it's i mean he's the petition he asked for the
reconsideration hearing typically a uh the protestant would need to be present
specifically to to adopt testimony of his counsel where is he today uh objection he is where he is
we're not asking uh anyone to adopt testimony of counsel and again as we indicated previously
ms jones is not here as uh mr clark's counsel mr ms jones is here as mr clark's representative
of as part of her job mr clark she's just here as the city's witness she's here as a city's
witness as a member of the staff of mr clark mr clark petitioned this board as part of his job
as a council person i'm asking if he's not here then where is he if this is part of his employee
where is he so so i i don't know that that's that's relevant you we ask our we ask our
protestants to adopt testimony and though the board the zoning board here is gracious enough
to excuse it a court of common pleas won't be so i need to know well again listen where is the
Vern, we're going to go past that.
We're not going to get into that.
Fair enough.
Council right here represents the council president.
And, you know, on a regular basis, Mary Jones testifies for the council president.
Of course.
We're fine with this.
Very good.
I have no other questions for Ms. Jones.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Leonard, do you have other?
Just briefly.
Let me just pull up.
I would ask if there is a Mr. George Gordon present, and if he could be promoted.
You see Mr. Gordon?
Yes, I see he has a hand raised.
He's been allowed to speak, Chair.
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Gordon, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Mr. Gordon?
You'll have to unmute yourself, sir.
It should be on the lower left side of the screen.
Mr. Gordon?
He's still muted, Chair.
Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Gordon, you have to unmute yourself.
Mr. Gordon?
Leonard, do you have another witness we can call?
uh if there's a mr aaron jones
i don't unfortunately i was informed uh a little while ago that some of the witnesses
were not available it looks like maybe it looks like there is a mr jones now
no i was asking for i believe an aaron jones
we have a gary jones with his name gary not aaron okay okay okay mr jones could you state
your name and spell for the court reporter all right my name is gary jones senior spelled my
name g-a-r-y j-o-n-e-s right do you swear a firm do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes sir proceed counsel uh thank you mr jones um are you familiar
with the property at 2352 north 29th street yes i am okay and where do you live i live exactly
175 feet away from that structure okay my house is directly 2912 west york street it's the first
house when you come down york street off of 29th okay uh and were you uh watching any of the hearing
with over the last few minutes yes sir okay and did you see some of the exhibits that uh were put
up on the screen yes sir okay are you familiar with the petition that was um passed around
well not the original one no but the one we signed recently yes okay and did you sign that
in uh opposing the variance for the property yes i did okay uh at the time you signed that
were you aware that the intention of the applicant is to uh make it an event space
on the first floor with the uh i believe existing residential units upstairs to remain
uh the original letter said nightclub but yes i was aware
okay um and are you excuse me mr chair um it was just brought to my attention that
that this witness testified at the prior hearing um and i we had originally had the wrong name for
him which is why we didn't notice it um sooner um but we had specifically requested both that
both parties that there were no repeat witnesses because there was extensive testimony last time
that's fine yes and i again i i had the name as a hold on for a second i didn't testify they
asked me a question and i answered it that that's testimony that's enough okay okay leonard if he
has anything different than what he already testified to if not let's move on okay um
the man opposes mr chair we know that it's part of the record i understand no i understand i
time to move on i understand thank you uh you know again i don't know if mr gordon
is could try to get back on hi mr george gordon
it looks like i don't see him participating anymore okay do you have anyone else uh yes
oh I'm sorry
there's a person with a hand raised
let's see who they are
hold on one second
let's say you chair
yes no there is another
individual who's on the witness list
we received from Miss Jones
and that was Regina Boggs
who I do see in the audience
she did not testify previously
and would be permitted to testify at this hearing
yes I'll call on Miss Boggs
Ms. Boss, can you unmute yourself?
Hello?
Regina, could you state your name and spell for the court report?
I'm sorry.
This is not Regina.
This is George Gordon.
Okay, fine.
Oh, I see.
I had to run over to Regina because my phone started acting crazy.
Okay, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gordon, state your name and spell, please, for the court report.
Okay, it's George Gordon.
Right.
G-E-O-R-G-E-G-O-R-D-O-N.
Thank you.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Gordon, first of all, where do you live?
I live at 2420 North 29th Street.
Okay. And approximately how far is that from the property at 2352 North 29th Street?
Exactly 240 feet.
Okay. And are you familiar with that intersection with the property in question?
Oh, absolutely. I used to work there years ago.
Okay. Now, were you able to see the earlier portion of the hearing where we were showing some documents on the screen?
I did.
Okay. So are you familiar with the petitions that were shown?
Yeah, a few of them, yes.
Okay. So I just want to ask you briefly about those. Was there a petition that was passed around prior to the last zoning board hearing?
Prior to it? I believe it was.
Okay. And after the zoning board hearing, when the neighbors reached out to the council president's office, was there a second petition?
we did uh i went around myself uh myself and my assistant and we uh got some petitions that
was opposed to the uh this facility okay um and when you prepared the petition uh and you went
around and uh asked people to sign it um were you aware of what the specific uh proposal was
for this property well at first it was supposed to be an event space that's what we had originally
heard and um but then um we we got the i thought the real uh answer to our question which it turns
out to be it's going to be a nightclub okay is it is it your understanding that uh
the location will be hosting events where people will be able to bring their own alcohol
yes uiob okay um and uh is is there a concern amongst you and your neighbors uh that um there
will be loitering outside of the property uh people smoking maybe be bringing drinks outside
well not only that but uh i mean they'll be smoking drinking urinating on the walls they
they chances are they'll have their motorcycles and cars blasting their their music out of the
cars and this happens in this type of venue okay now you're familiar with two existing businesses
about around that intersection yes on both corners and the same block but both corners
they're supposed to be convenience stores i think they uh i heard the way they get involved in this
they ask for licenses for grocery stores and then they get in and it's already a convenience store
after they get in there and they start selling paraphernalia drug paraphernalia now would it be
fair to say that um there's been a history of um nuisance activity at this at this intersection
absolutely okay go ahead well we've called we've had to call the cops several times look like every
summer especially you know we have to call the cops because there's a bunch of kids young people
young kids on these corners and they just i mean what can they be getting there they're piled up
on these corners and when you call the cops because of the fact that they're there the cops
chase them from there they come right up the street a couple doors down up the street and
they start sitting on people's steps you know and we've had these types of issues okay and is it is
Is it your belief, and again, just speaking for yourself, is it your belief that whether it's that an event space or a place that holds BYOB events or a nightclub at that same intersection, do you think that would add to that?
Do you think that would help the problems or do you think it would make them worse?
It would make them absolutely worse.
I mean, you're trying to live in a tranquil, peaceful environment.
It can't happen.
okay and and that's a matter of common sense to you right absolutely yes okay um did you
are you familiar and again if you're not just say you're not are you familiar with the petition
that was produced by the applicant involving...
that was produced by the applicant uh uh involving um people who were in favor of the proposal
i've never seen it i heard she's uh had one but i've never seen it no okay that's fine um
let me just see oh and are you familiar uh speaking of events was there a recent event
that took place um at this location or around this location at this intersection
um well there was a uh a murder uh at the other uh convenience store right up the block
same block but the other end where the young lady got shot in the head shot in the face
and um yeah so it's fair to say that the concerns uh of the neighborhood about these types of
activities is real yes very real right all right i don't have any further uh questions of mr gordon
uh if if ms boggs is there i would after mr anastasia a chance to sure thanks just briefly
thanks thanks mr gordon for the testimony i don't have a whole lot to to ask you under cross
I just want to make sure that we're clear.
You were aware of the March hearing, is that right?
And you were given notice and opportunity to testify?
I was not given an opportunity to testify.
Did you know about the hearing?
I did.
Okay, and the property was posted, so you knew that the hearing was in March, is that right?
That's correct, yes.
Okay, and you had the opportunity to attend the hearing, is that right?
I did. Yes. Did you attend the hearing? No, I didn't. Okay. But you had the opportunity to,
right? Yes. Okay. Very well. So you, you also sat on your rights. And you say, I did not settle
my rights, sir. Well, you didn't. No, I didn't. Were you out of the country? Were you out of the
country? Want me to ask the question? Yes. Want me to ask the question? What happened was I did not
I had problems just like I had today with my phone trying to stay online, and I just couldn't do it because I'm not that savvy as far as these things are concerned.
Well, I could understand that.
So that's why I had to run up the street here and get with Ms. Barr so she could help me get back on and talk to you people.
But you didn't ask for a continuance because you couldn't get on.
Is that right?
you didn't ask you didn't ask for the case to be continued uh so that you could in fact
i didn't i didn't ask i didn't ask you're at that meeting for any kind of continuance no
you didn't ask mr clark to request a continuance on your behalf as your council person i signed
the document i signed the document being in favor of a continuance okay and but you did say that
when you were presented with the case
that it was an event space
that you were okay with
that use, is that right? No, I never said I
was okay with that, no. I wasn't okay with that
even, no. But you weren't opposed to it, is that
right? As event space.
Well, I just think as an event space,
as a club, it's not in the right, this
is not the right area. Two different things,
yeah, but. Well, it might be two different things, but
I'm thinking the same way about
both things. Understood.
But you are aware that the zoning board approved for event space only with strict restrictions.
You are aware of that, right?
That no public nightclub could happen here.
Are you aware of that?
Well, let me just say it like this.
I believe that once a person has a thing in its possession and is free and clear, they can take it and change it any way they want.
if nobody's watching
who should say that
it's what they said
it was going to be
so that's the way I look at that
so you were speculating that
somebody might take the approved use
and take it beyond that, is that right?
well who's monitoring?
well we do have a department of license and inspection
but yep, I get it
thank you
I've got nothing else here
Thank you. Okay. And if, if I could just, well, it looks like he got off.
Is Ms. Boggs there? Mr. Gordon was just speaking on her connection.
Went down to our house to get the phone.
Yes, I'm here. This is Ms. Boggs.
Thank you.
Could you, wait a minute. Could you state your name, please? And spell for the court reporter?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the Corbin Quarter?
Regina.
Regina Boggs, R-E-G-I-N-A, B-O-G-G-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Leonard, you're muted.
You're muted.
Sorry about that.
Ms. Boggs, if you could just tell the board where you live.
Yes, I live 2410 North 29th Street. I live approximately 154 feet from that building, from that property.
Okay. And are you familiar with some of the conditions around the property currently?
Yes, I am.
Okay. And could you just describe those for the board?
um it's a fence around the property um the fire hydrant is inside of the fence now if there was
to be a fire and the fire department needed to get to the fire hydrant there's no way they can
get sore sure now it's covering the walkway to where you have to walk in the street um that
whole side of the pavement there's no payment there for you to walk on okay so yes go ahead
i'm sorry oh no no that's okay um so uh with respect to those the conditions of the site um
were there contacts are you aware of contacts that were made uh with um uh either the construction
company or the owner of the property about uh cleaning the place up and fixing those those
and responding to those concerns about the fencing and the blocking of the sidewalk and the fire
hydrant okay at the last um zoom meeting i think the property owner um stated um i think that
might have been around in march that they were going to take the fence down uh make sure that
that fence was taken down but that never happened it's still up okay um and
And were you yourself, so are you aware that there were contacts that were made, or were you involved in those contacts that were made between the neighbors and, again, either the contractor or the owner of the property?
I was aware of it, yes.
Okay. And as of now, those concerns still have not been addressed?
They have not.
They have not.
Do you think that goes to the applicant's credibility?
Yes, it does. It's been almost a year that that fence has been around that property.
Like I stated, you have to walk in the street. I'm elderly myself, but people that's more older than me has to try and go across the street or walk on the side of the fence.
uh people with strollers and other children coming out of school or trying to cross the street
you know it's very dangerous okay now uh leaving aside the current conditions of the site uh are
you opposed to uh the variants that would allow this uh site the to be used uh for as an event
space yes i am we we just don't um think that's a good idea for this neighborhood
how long have you lived in the neighborhood ms boggs i've been in this neighborhood since i was
seven years old okay and you have you have strong concerns about the direction of the neighbor that
the neighborhood's going yes indeed okay i have no further questions thank you boggs mr anastasia
Yeah, that's briefly this box. Thank you for your testimony. You would say that would you say that you're pretty involved in and connected to the immediate area? You know what's going on? Most mostly.
Yes, I do. Okay. And I see that the address that you put on the record was an address that was given to us by the planning commission to mail to mail our notice.
So were you given ample notice and opportunity to attend and weigh in to the not only the RCO meeting, but to the Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing two and a half months ago?
I was at the meeting. I was on the Zoom meeting at each one.
And you did not speak up or testify at that time?
Well, I wasn't asked. They just asked, did I oppose? And I just gave them the same name.
They just asked, did I oppose? And I just gave them the same answer. That was it.
Oh, so you were, in fact, on the record prior opposing. Is that right? Saying that you oppose?
Yes, I was.
Okay. So, Mr. Chair, this witness's testimony has to be completely stricken from the record.
as the rules dictate anyone who spoke and was sworn in at the previous hearing has to be
disqualified from testimony today okay so because she had her she had her notice listen listen listen
okay i understand what you're saying and i agree with you but it's clear that mrs boggs is against
the problem well we know that i mean i never got a chance to speak you said you were against it
last time and you said it again so it's redundant it's repetitive and it's prejudiced objection i've
got nothing else for the record excuse me for the record mr chair i do not have miss boggs listed as
testifying previously which is why she was permitted to testify this right the information i have is
she was going to be a backup that miss brown and miss brown testified oh mr chair she just
testified that she did testify in march so i don't know the record could be checked later
all right okay miss bobs thank you for your testimony we understand where you stand
leonard are you done uh yes again we have no further uh testimony again i would we would
however reiterate uh and we're not going to ask for any additional input from the city planning
commission um but the city planning commission previously did indicate uh its opposition to
uh to we don't we know that it's redundant okay veron please go proceed mr chair i
you you muted yourself you muted yourself my apologies i think i think someone did you do
that on purpose you can mute yourself no i think someone muted me because i was getting my my
italian was getting up a little bit so that's okay i'm going to bring it proceed proceed with
your presentation thank you mr chair i uh because the protestant nor mr clark is present to do so
i'm going to do it for them i want to apologize for this hearing uh there is absolutely nothing
absolutely nothing, material, different, material, relevant, that would have this board reconsider
its decision two and a half months ago. All of this is redundant, repetitive, and prejudicial.
And I understand, because you all extend your grace to city council, and I'm willing to go
along with that but let's all remember councilmanic prerogative starts and ends on the fourth floor
of city hall it has no place here in this hearing room and the fact of the matter verne do me a
favor could you please start with your witnesses we understand what you're saying okay uh well i
need to object to every to we hear you we hear you objection okay first i i need to uh object to
the fact that Mr. Reuter is representing City Council and, of course, the Planning Commission.
He's a city solicitor. We also have a city solicitor representing Ms. Emerson,
who wonderfully represents the Zoning Board. There's a separation of powers issue that I
think would need to be reconciled at a higher court, number one. Excuse me, Mr. Anastasio,
for the record before this position was brought into the law department the position that i'm in
it was deliberately significantly walled off from the rest of the law department i am not even in
the same building as the law department i understand i do not appreciate the insinuations
that you are making on the record okay all right all right let's let was it insinuating any
impropriety i'm just thinking procedurally we have two city solicitors on both sides of this
That's that's my only point here. I want to object to Mr. Clark not being available.
I want to I think we covered that. I want to object to all the witnesses called had absolutely nothing material.
There is no mistaken fact. There's no evidence of a mistaken fact.
there's no evidence of mistaken law. The petition that was circulated in opposition
never stated even what the proposal, the application was for. And with that,
I want to call my first witness I'll Trina Nixon, who's the applicant.
And again, no, I've met no, just nothing disparagingly against counsel, I just need
against counsel i just need to be able to put that on the record please let's be clear your
to be able to put that on the record please let's be clear you're you're
your your witness has already testified the last time right well that's correct her testimony right
yeah but but they impued they uh uh mr reuter's testimony brought my clients
uh actions into question she has an opportunity to rebut
i want to i want to trust i want her to respond to something that didn't happen last time if
there's something that she wants to rebut i don't want her testimony to start over again of course
mr chair i just want to note for the record she was not on the list of witnesses that was
provided by mr anastasio in advance of this hearing and i wasn't planning on calling her
But they mentioned the petition that she circulated, so she has a right to rebut.
What's your caller again, please?
Altrina Nixon.
Miss Nixon.
Do we see her hand?
Do we see hand raised?
Yeah, she's unmuted now.
Miss Nixon, could you state your name, please?
My name is Altrina.
For the court reporter.
My name is Altrina Nixon. It is spelled A-L-T-R-E-N-A, last name Nixon, N-I-X-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you. Ms. Nixon, you circulated the petition that was in question?
Yes, I did.
Okay. And you went door to door in your immediate area, immediate neighborhood. Is that right?
did you explain to them that this was an event space and the limitations that you were putting
on it not only did i explain that it was event space i had the petition and the actual zoning
notice with me so when they signed the petition they signed it knowing it said and i even
highlighted the date what it was for and the whole reasoning for it it's already
yeah so they know exactly what they were signing for and i even took pictures with them so they so
you guys can see. Yeah, and that's all part of the record already. And you actually circulated
a copy of the refusal as well. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. And you have no intention
of operating this as a nightclub. Is that right? Not at all. And the fence is because it's an
active construction site. Currently, we have a 10-foot hole with a curb trap. That is not there
to prevent any harm. It's there to protect people. I keep it clean and it's very neat.
I keep the weeds down. And the protection is there is an active construction site with a valid construction and build a permit and a valid plumbing permit.
So we have the right to do this and just wall it off for protection.
And the fence would have already been removed had you been able to secure your use permit and your building permits and get the property active. Is that right?
Absolutely.
And this appeal actually delayed that fence from being removed. Is that right?
Exactly.
Thank you. I have nothing further on Ms. Nixon, but Mr.
Leonard, do you have any follow-ups?
Sure. Ms. Nixon, with respect to this appeal,
you haven't been able to proceed with converting the space to an event space,
but isn't it true that you already have a zoning permit
for a vacant commercial space on the first floor of this property?
That's correct.
Is there any reason why you couldn't have completed that
what part is there any reason why you couldn't have obtained all the building permits
and all the necessary work to finish out the commercial space wasn't that approved a year ago
the actual building permit was uh approved a year ago but after you get the building permit then you
have to do construction then you need to get the mechanical permit so we were waiting on the last
permit so you can check atlas we just got the last mechanical permit so we can continue okay
Actually, I just had an inspector today, so we're moving along.
Okay, so it's correct, though, that you did have a buy-write permit to use the first floor for a commercial space that could be leased out for some other commercial purpose.
Isn't that right?
Well, it was before the event space.
I was told at L&I that you had to change the zoning on what it was, but it was always a CMX1 anyway, so we really didn't have to do it.
So we were just stating that for the rest of the building, because we have two apartments in there. So that was the reason for delineating the apartments to the commercial space on the plans, hence on the permit, that's where we are.
But again, with respect to the initial permit that you received by Wright to use the first floor for vacant commercial space, isn't it true that you never made any attempt to lease that, to finish that out as just a regular commercial space, like a retail store or something like that?
And it was later that you decided to seek a variance for it to be an event space.
It was later that you decided to seek a variance.
Well, I actually, when I signed up to get the permit, I signed up for it to be an event space and I let the permit expire and so on and so forth.
So this was always the intention. There was never any intention for it to be anything else.
However, I did look around when I realized that there was opposition.
I said, OK, let me take a look around. The doctor's office isn't going to be there.
And actually, I have an MBA. This is all on the record. But in my business assessment, an event space will do very well here. I don't want to, the chairman said not to redo testimony. So, continue.
Yeah, please, Ms. Nixon.
Well, I don't think this is repeating testimony. This is exactly the kind of testimony that was not presented before. So, again, Ms. Nixon, isn't it fair to say that you never made an attempt to seek a commercial tenant for that first floor?
That's not true, Mr. Chair.
She testified prior that she did look at alternatives.
Thank you.
Well, it's already been asked and answered.
Do you have any other questions, Leonard?
I have no further questions at this point.
All right, thank you.
Just to redirect, Ms. Nixon, as a matter of right,
you are aware that you could put in your building right now on the first floor
a bodega just like the one across the street.
Is that right?
That's correct.
And that's exactly that kind of place that resulted in the murder that was testified earlier today.
Is that right?
That's correct.
Thank you.
Nothing further on that one.
And who's your next witness?
David Seaborn, please.
Mr. Seaborn, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Mr. David Seaborn, raise your hand, please.
and i actually don't see mr seaborne in the audience oh wait a minute oh no that's not
he may have left i also have mr bj wiggins bj wiggins wiggins yes
okay uh it's been a few hours so i can imagine that they may not necessarily be here
Mr. Chair, there are two Altrina Nixons in the audience, so maybe one of them is one of the other witnesses.
Yeah, should I allow them to speak?
Please.
Thank you.
Can you unmute yourself?
All right, could you state your name, please?
I'll train the next thing. Can you please unmute yourself?
You're still muted here. Okay. Thank you.
Bernie, have anyone else? No, Mr. Chair. And, you know, I don't necessarily think
all that we're going to do is testify that they support this project. I do want to make
make sure that we clarify a couple things on the exhibits uh on item number c3
there uh a letter some sort of flyer from strawberry mansion there was no date on that
letter it was never dated but it does allude to some unfortunate events that happened two weeks
prior. It seems as though there was, at least it was intimated, that there was some sort of
criminal activity or a murder of a woman, unfortunately. And it happened on or about
Mother's Day of this year. The problem with that evidence is that it is two and a half months
after the hearing that happened on the in early march and the the entire idea of a reconsideration
hearing is to present evidence that either was known or should have been known at the time of
the hearing the fact of the matter is that they're presenting evidence that happened two and a half
months after the year uh so that i object to that not only for relevance but for timeliness
it just cannot be considered uh because if you give someone a permit and they build a building
and then two or three months later it catches fire we don't go back and and take back the permit
It just it's not what we do. So that would completely prejudice the applicant.
So I'm not quite sure the relevance of that. I will agree with that.
I will agree with that.
And anyway.
And anyway, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing different today than there was two and a half months ago as far as testimony or evidence.
And as such, I respectfully request that this board uphold its own reasonable granting of a temporary variance for an event space.
Thank you.
Leonard, do you want to?
Yeah, just a couple of things.
Again, the board granted reconsideration on its own grounds primarily because, again, a determination was made that the neighbors and the community did not get an adequate chance to express their concerns.
As far as the incident that took place over Mother's Day, that was presented for the purpose of indicating that the neighbor's concerns about safety and nighttime activities at the location are founded.
And again, somebody could have gone back and, you know, if you want, you can keep the record open.
I can go back and get CAD reports for the neighborhood going back several years prior to the zoning board that could have been presented and that the neighbors didn't have an opportunity to present.
So, again, the incident, it's not a new thing.
As far as new evidence, and again, we don't believe that the zoning board is restricted to simply new or evidence that, you know, should have, I mean, courts remand cases all the time to take in new evidence.
So, and with respect to this, we don't believe that the board was made aware of the fact of the numbers of people on the petition in favor of the project being so far away.
And you can simply, we would simply ask the board to re-examine the petitions and you can take judicial notice of where the addresses are in relation to the subject property.
so and again we think that's that's fairly self-evident um but again and i i do want to
say in terms of things that the board can take judicial notice of what the permitted uses are
in cmx1 uh you can have adult care family child care group child care library religious assembly
safety services transit station building uh antennas you could have uh the board knows that
these are all the things that the applicant did not explore he mentioned a bodega okay they don't
want to have a bodega did they explore business and professional offices sole practitioner group
practitioner government office well that's not going to happen building supplies and equipment
consumer goods uh food beverage pet supplies all these things were ignored mr chair the zoning
to go the zoning board no they can't hear you again i'm sorry i was muted because i was speaking
over mr reuter and my apologies the zoning board knows the code there's absolutely zero new evidence
zero new testimony do you have anything new here there's nothing burn burn please
Leonard, do you have anything else?
Hillary, should we open up for public testimony?
I actually don't think that we need to at this point because we have taken particular.
Do we need the planning commission to make another comment?
We can ask the planning commission if they have another comment, but I think given that the scope of the hearing was limited to people who hadn't previously testified,
and we ask for lists in advance.
We do not need to take public testimony.
And I can just state again, as I did,
that the Planning Commission recommendation
hasn't changed.
There's nothing to add to that.
Again, no new testimony here today.
Okay. All right.
So obviously, we've heard a lot today.
So we're going to take this to executive session next week.
And Hillary, will you do this at the 2 o'clock meeting?
The add-on?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
We'll do this 2 o'clock next Wednesday, and we'll vote in public, okay?
And thank both of you for your comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is there anyone in the audience whose 330 case has not been called?
I see no handshake.
Thank you, everybody.
Thank you.
We don't usually go this late, but I do appreciate everybody.
Thank you. I just appreciate everybody hanging around.
Thank you.