And did you hear the statements that I made?
Are they true, correct, and accurate?
And do you adopt them as your own?
And briefly here, Andy, is this picture here I'm showing, which is page 33 of the presentation,
does that show where the floodwaters were as they were receding down Shurs Lane during
Ida in August of 2021?
Yes, Ryan, that's correct.
This is a picture that was taken in the late morning.
The floodwaters actually came up a little bit further.
Being a property owner in the area, I was active around here.
And if you look up here at the picture that you're showing now, you can actually see a great in the ground next to the driveway.
And the floodwaters actually came up that far.
So one of the concerns also when the space was, you know, with global warming, whether that's an issue or it's not an issue, we're clearly seeing storms happen more and more often.
And we're worried that at some point we may be impacted even on this site with water hitting us.
So when it came back to the viability of a commercial user, that was in the back of our minds.
In addition to the floodwater, there is, I would consider significant vacancy, you know, on Main Street and directly across the street.
So there's an office building directly across the street. It's got two available offices right now.
One is over 5,000 square feet. One is over 3,000 square feet that they have been trying to lease without any success.
And then here's a map that I created where I actually walked mainstream.
And you can see a bunch of vacancies within like a one and a half block radius of where we're looking to build.
You know, down in the in the in the right in the right lower corner, you can see the Little Woods building.
And then there is the dwelling furniture building, which has been sitting vacant.
As you go further up, there was a former on the right hand side of the street.
There was a former shared workspace, which is sitting vacant.
There is a haunted house directly across the street, which they're using because they can't get a full term tenant there.
So they use the haunted house, which is basically just one event that they do on an annual basis to fill the first floor because they because, you know, being in the floodplain, they're concerned about renting that out.
As you go a little bit further up the street there, you have the Pompano's Mill right there.
They have a very large vacancy in that building, which is directly on the street.
It's a storefront piece, and that's been vacant for as long as I can remember.
As long as I can remember, if you go a little bit further up on the right-hand side of the street, there's a vacant church that has been sitting there for, that must be there for years and years, and also the Sweat Fitness Gym, the entire second floor of that commercial building, that building, that space has been sitting vacant now since COVID had hit.
If you go a little bit further up on the right-hand side of the street, there's a
So there are a lot of challenges, and that was one of the concerns that the neighbors have brought up. Did we put in the appropriate amount of effort to do our due diligence and find a commercial tenant? When I answered myself, I said that the broker had done his due diligence.
Andy, we're good. We're good. The board, I think, has heard a lot about this. I just have one more question for you.
Yes, yes.
I just wanted to confirm that there is a SEPTA station, as far as regional rail stop, just half a mile up Crescent. Is that correct?
That is correct. It's a quick walk. Yes, it's a short walk.
Terrific. I could go on and on, but I just want to explain to the board, that's all I have as far as witnesses.
But I just want to convey to the board that I believe we've met the five elements here.
there's a hardship relating to the unique physical conditions of this property. Because of those
conditions, we can't develop within the code. This isn't self-inflicted. This is not going to alter
the character of the neighborhood. And this is the least relief we could seek under the code.
And I wanted to remind the board that we do have revised plans that we've emailed. There's three
separate sheets, as well as a proviso plans form. Mr. Bowen, I haven't seen a letter from the
rco what did they say um i i can share it here here yeah
is that 13-0 against um 13 as far as it's unclear because this talks about members not near
neighbors i it seemed like most of the people i was dealing with were on the board board and
weren't necessarily near neighbors, but it shows 13 opposing it, zero, and then one and one. So
14 to one is what it shows out of the 66 notice. And we send 66 notices, but I don't know how many
are near neighbors. But here's their explanation as to why, if you'd like to review that. I can
zoom in if that helps. Mr. Bolin, this is Hillary. This was not sent to the board, so if you could
please send the copy to us for our records, we would greatly appreciate that. Of course. So I
don't want to study this now. So is there questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
no chair
thomas
okay questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have john hunter
okay hi could you could hi could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
Yeah, my name is John Hunter, J-O-H-N-H-U-N-T-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am the chair of the zoning committee of Maniope Neighborhood.
Okay, fine.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Could I just point out we sent our letter in to all the normal people of contact?
Yeah, we have not received it yet.
I'm sure it might be there, but we haven't seen it.
well it was sent on monday okay sure thank you all right okay um yeah could i start off by saying
that i don't think it was corrected but the description of the project in the refusal
mentions 55 car parking spaces but i think this has been corrected it's now 37 which everyone
seems to be referring to now okay um uh yeah we as as has been described this is i find it a little
contradictory that
this is a landlocked site.
It's got
I2 on one side and
I1, sorry, I2 to the one side
and to the rear. It has
an elevated
railway, which
isn't going to go away, on the other
side, and it's on a steep hill.
It seems that the argument is
that this is not appropriate for
commercial use, but it is
appropriate for residential use, which to me
just is contradictory and doesn't make sense.
The lower two levels of the apartment building are below the level of the Scepter Railway.
So it's only the top floor, the fourth floor, that you can actually see daylight and see across the Scepter Railway.
daylight and see across the um scepter railway so i think our first reaction is that this is
not an appropriate site for residential use even if it were erroneously um zoned as that it's it's
zoned as i see a mix it's been under agreement since 2021 as has been mentioned and has also
been referenced, the year before was the hiatus with COVID, which affected everybody, not only
in Manningham, not only in this area, but everywhere and particularly in the city. So I think Mr.
Pennington's testimony could be addressed to pretty much anywhere in Philadelphia in terms of
disruption and vacancies in commercial spaces. We have suggested that commercial use
or some sort of use, ICMX is such a broad category,
there are all sorts of different uses that could be pursued,
but certainly residential isn't one that is appropriate.
Mr. Langston made his, I mean, our understanding
of what he told us at the two meetings we had with him,
the zoning committee meeting and the public meeting,
is he's primarily a residential developer,
although he does do some commercial.
But the evidence that he gave about the properties adjacent were just his walkabout.
For instance, the dwelling building that he referenced is completely wrong because it's now been sold and is being renovated as a church at quite a considerable cost.
So there is some glimpses of renaissance in the area, and certainly the bad timing in terms of COVID and the way that this developer wants, sorry, the owner, present owner wants to sell it are unfortunate.
But that isn't a reason for granting a variance to change this to residential.
I'd also point out that another thing that is a little curious is that Mr. Langson pointed out to the property being right on the edge of the floodplain.
And if you look at the Ruggiero plant drawing that is in the package, the floodplain is actually indicated.
It's not at the entrance to the property, it's just below it.
But similar to what I said before, it's a little contradictory that people would be suggesting building residential units right on the edge of the floodplain.
I mean, commercial is much better, it's much safer.
One other thing that, of course, comes back to the 55 parking spaces that were initially proposed at the public meeting, which still didn't convince people, and that's why the majority except for one person voted against the scheme, is that there are 37 parking spaces at the moment, whether they're legal or not, it's not up to me to say.
but those 37 parking spaces will be lost and there would be 37 parking spaces which is less
than one to one so neighbors were concerned about parking being displaced onto the adjacent streets
which is already under like everywhere else in philadelphia you've heard it so many times is
already under stress from parking requirements.
And I think that the compatibility with the adjacent areas of, all right, there are offices
across the street, there's a mill building, some of them are being used diagonally across
the street on Crescent Street, there's another mill building which has a silkscreen printing,
is an architect's office. There are quite a few viable and active daytime uses that are being
already used and have been in operation for a long time, despite the vagaries of the COVID
disruption. So that influenced all of our vote. We see no benefit in changing the zoning on this
location. The three levels of
apartments have got poor aspects.
They're located with an 85% lot coverage and with
very limited views.
Mr. Hunter, thank you.
I have no cross-examination. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
planning commission thank you chair bergman and good afternoon david fecto with the city planning
commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the industrial and commercial mixed use zoning at this location there is no physical
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 presence of this property
the presence of this property adjacent to the special flood hazard area makes this unsuitable
adjacent to the special flood hazard area makes this uns
for residential use city planning commission recommends the board deny the proposed use
variants for residential use in an industrial and commercial mixed use zoning district
thank you david um mr bolin um i want to continue this the vote till next week
we'll vote at uh 2 p.m on wednesday um it'll give us time to go through what what was in the letter
and things of that nature, and we'll take everything into consideration, and we will vote
next Tuesday at 2 p.m., next Wednesday at 2 p.m., okay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank
you. I appreciate it. Thank you, and thanks to everyone who testified. Move on now. We're going
I'm going to go to number 11, MI 2023, 002-737-1814 West Ontario Street.
Pascual Colavita is the attorney for the owner.
There's a letter of support from the Allegheny West Civic Association.
Mr. Colavita is coming back as a panelist.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Mr. Colavito.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Pasquale Colavito, P-A-S-Q-U-A-L-E-C-O-L-A-V-I-T-A.
Right.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
Ernest Peterkin.
Actually, it's J&K Hotpads LLC is the owner.
Ernest Peterkin is the principal.
And our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
And I just want to confirm that you indicated it was 1814 West Ontario Street.
Number 12.
Number 11, right?
number 11 1814 West Ontario okay perfect okay and just to reiterate yes we do stipulate
all right have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits
that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
okay I've been informed I spoke with Ms. Emerson so I was just retained yesterday so I'm it's
somewhat of a um disadvantage as to what i typically would when i when i handle these
matters from the beginning but i my client mr peterkin appears to have done a fantastic job
submitting everything and miss emerson did confirm that all required documents were submitted
okay um i think we did receive the letter of support from allegheny
west civic association so please proceed and share the screen okay
hey hillary i don't didn't see the uh tax cleaners are we good
i'll show it yeah yeah we're fine that was submitted okay um again good afternoon all
I'm showing the table of contents.
I will, I guess, mark, move, and submit into evidence as Exhibit A, the deed, the certificate
of tax clearance, notice of refusal, the application, appeal, and project information form, letter
of support from the Allegheny West Civic Association and meeting summary, which within
the same exhibit, I attach a copy of the notice to the neighbors, proof of mailing.
At Exhibit F, I will show you the photographs of the zoning poster that was done in the appropriate time.
Exhibit G is a set of plans that were submitted.
Exhibit H will be a building certification, fire alarm certification that showed its proof of existing use, as well as Exhibit I, which also details the same use.
Exhibit J will supplement that with other similarly situated multifamily dwellings in the neighborhood.
So as you can see, Exhibit D, my client is the appropriate individual who filed the appeal for the permit and the appeal.
Attached is the certificate of tax clearance.
and the refusal this is an RSA 5 zone and our request is to allow a three-family dwelling here
this property prior to his purchase of it was used for a significant period of time
as a three-family dwelling he doesn't know the exact amount of time