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?