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.