Okay, good morning. Tanya, we'll wait for you to give us the green light to go forward.
Thank you.
okay chair we can try now thank you thank you very much tanya good morning everyone
My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating
in today's hearing along with our vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, board secretary, confessor
plaza, and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board administrator,
Ms. Tanya Sunkit, and board attorney, Ms. Sharon Saleta, are also in attendance. For
those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual
participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding
is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by
hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat, for anyone participating
by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548
and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
Before our Vice Chair, Ms. Tenere calls our first case,
we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance
or withdrawal of an appeal for this morning's list if so please raise your hand and while
we're waiting for that I will read off a list of continuances that have already been requested
MI 2020-001307 1127 North Lee Street that's number one on our list for our board members
number seven on our list mi 2020 that's 001293 2154 north randolph street number eight on our list
sharon uh we have no exhibits i understand for 1300 east columbia avenue
that's true but if you could read the cases from the exhibit list first rather or the continuance
list first rather than those with no exhibits please okay all right so next continued case is
number page number 11 mi 2020-0007142544 west montgomery avenue
number 17 on our list mi 2020 that's 001310 6931 van dyke street continuance as request
attorney moving party and i believe those are all the continuance i have as of yet for this
morning's list. And there are one, two, two listed, no exhibits so far, 1300 East Columbia
I have two listed, no exhibits so far, 1300 East Columbia Avenue and 428 Monroe Street.
Um, excuse me, this is Sharon.
We actually do now have the exhibits for Monroe Street.
What about Columbia?
I don't have any record of receiving exhibits for that case.
That case will be continued.
and the case with no exhibits can we ask if anyone is here for it
okay is there anyone here for 1300 east columbia avenue
no new hands here okay um tanya has this case already been continued in the past
I looked through my prior case summaries and didn't have any record of it having been
listed in the past. What number is that? Number eight on our list. Okay, let me look at it.
um no i don't think so okay mi 2020 dash zero zero one two nine five i'm sorry can i just stop
you for one minute i do see sarah alderford with her hand up may i allow her to speak to this
continue? Yes, please. Yep. Hi, Sarah, you've been unmuted. Are you the attorney for this case?
Sarah Alderfer, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I was not raising my hand for this particular
matter okay thank you all right so uh mi 2020 that's 001295 1300 east columbia avenue is continued
any other requests for continuances or withdrawals please raise your hand
we're going to open it back up to sarah who has her hand up for a continuous
thank you uh good morning sarah please please identify yourself with the record spell your last
name i'll swear you in sure sarah aldifer s-a-r-a-h-a-l-d-e-r-f-e-r 1500 jfk boulevard
suite 800 philadelphia you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
I do. I'm here today on 224751 North 53rd Street MI 2020-001308. I understand that there was some
confusion with the hearing lists and we may or may not be on the list. However, we are withdrawing
this appeal and i just wanted that to be noted what what what's the address again uh 2247
to 51 north 53rd street all right has anybody found that yet no no i looked twice i don't see
it on our list. Is it the 930 list? No, it's not on the list. Okay. Not on the 930 list, Sarah.
Excuse me. This is Sharon. Sarah, is this something that was a resumption hearing? Was
it previously? Was the hearing started on another date? No, the hearing was not started on another
date this would have been the first hearing on this matter okay thank you i'm looking and it's
not on the two o'clock list either if i'm not mistaken mr chair i believe that was yesterday's
case if i'm not mistaken it was continued yes i believe that's true i confess her i thought it
It sounded familiar, too.
It sounds somewhat familiar, yeah.
All right, Sarah.
I guess Tanya will work it out with you.
I think, as confessor said, we may have continued this yesterday.
All right.
Thank you so much.
I'll reach out to Tanya.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
We have a caller ending in 6894.
Caller, you can now unmute yourself and speak to a continuance.
Caller, you can now unmute yourself.
and speak to a continuance.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record.
This is Reverend Louis Nash, Sr.
Miss you guys.
Please, Reverend, spell your last name.
N-A-S-H.
Thank you.
You're swearing to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
i do affirm thank you sir what uh what case are you here for 1407 and 09 north 15th street 1515
north 16th street i believe it's mr mattione three and five and five are you the applicant
no i'm the rco okay um and you're requesting a continuance
no i was i was uh about to say raise your hands to affirm
so we're asking if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal i'm not i'm sorry
i'm sorry no problem we'll get to that case shortly thank you
no more hands at this time chair thank you
okay before we get started
we're going to have a vote on MI 2020-001458 7519 Ridge Avenue this case will be voted on
at December the 16th at 9 30 a.m and we will vote on this case is MI 2020-000826
6301 north broad street my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
tom jim
well we got three votes okay we have three votes we may have technical problems with the other guys
all right um okay let me get my paperwork straightened out here again
so sharon uh 428 monroe we do have exhibits correct we do yes okay and one last time
anyone requesting a continuance or withdrawal for the 930 list
Excuse me, Chair, this is Pauline from IT.
I was just wondering, Mr. Holloman just logged off, if he was going to, told him to log back
in so that he could see if his sound returns.
Okay, thank you.
um can you hear us oh noise can you hear me yes we can yeah we're good now thank you
all right um let's see before we go any further i just want to remind everybody do not attempt
to testify in the chat.
Any comments should be directed
to our board administrator,
Ms. Tanya Sunkit.
Sorry, Chair, can I just do one housekeeping?
Yes, ma'am.
Court reporter, may I make sure that you're there?
I'm here, Tanya.
Thank you, Lori.
You're welcome.
All right, Chair, you can continue.
That would have been something.
All right.
Sharon, do we go, or Tanya,
do we go to the resumption hearings first or we just take them we take them in the order that
they're listed correct um you should this is sharon you would generally do the resumption
hearings the add-ons first okay we'll do that then so um i'll call it carol then you can do the rest
That's MI2020-000970-6164 Walnut Street.
We were waiting for feedback from the RCO and
feedback from Councilwoman Gaultier's office.
THE ATTORNEY'S VERN ANASTASIO.
you may now speak good morning mr chairman members of the board can everyone hear me
yes yes okay i'm sorry you can't see me i don't know what that's about but
nevertheless i'm sorry was he promoted i mean i dressed up for this all right we're going to
promote you i want to see it there you go there you go i mean i dressed up purposely so i figured
you know mu thai okay we'll let you go fire away thanks um yeah we already put our case in chief
on uh it was held for rco input we had not heard from anybody until recently uh apparently there
was an rco issue where cobs creek was the coordinating rco identified to us when we
filed this application in january my office emailed uh cops creek and the other rco uh
that were identified asking for to be put on the agenda. That email goes back March 12th of this
year. And after a few attempts, a secondary RCO did reply, but the primary RCO, coordinating RCO,
did not reply to us. In fact, we hadn't heard from the coordinating RCO until 11th of November,
which was after our achievability meeting. And of course, after the hearing and that email
was not even directed to us. It was directed to the owner, the owner's daughter. It was forwarded
to us subsequently. So nevertheless, it's a little convoluted, but at the end of the day,
we did in fact meet with uh an rco we mailed to you know a couple hundred folks uh we had a meeting
and uh that's where we are excuse me this is sharon saletta i believe that andrew goodman
of councilwoman gauthier's office is um is signed on and has his hand raised he
i believe wants to speak to this issue um and perhaps request a continuance but
if you could thank you good morning mr goodman please identify yourself with the record
andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n office of council member jamie r gaudier where or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes absolutely thank you andrew please
proceed? Yes, so our office would request that the board not proceed with a vote today on the
grounds that the kind of outreach and notification requirements per the code were not satisfied,
were not followed in this case. A meeting was indeed held, but it was with the wrong RCO.
There is a process for officially getting a case reassigned should, you know, should a case
actually require that, but that was not followed in this in this particular instance. And in fact,
if we had known in advance, which is also a notification requirement outlined in the code
of the applicant, we could have intercepted this and ensured that the meeting with the correct RCO
actually happened, again, as per the code requirement. This sets what we believe to be
a dangerous precedent that community engagement and notification outlined in the code be kind of,
you know picked and chosen at will by the applicant and so we must object to that
that is not typically the way it works as far as my experience and it's it's if i may mr chairman
again we were notified of the coordinating rco we emailed as recently as early as march of 2020
i've already sent that email to attorney saletta as evidence we did not receive any reply from the
coordinating RCO. We did, however, get a gracious reply from a secondary RCO offering to hold a
meeting since there was no reply from the, you know, it was a group email. No one ever heard
from Cobbs Creek. So this secondary RCO stepped up and said that they would host the meeting,
which then we took all the addresses and we did a certified mailing, which I've already put into
the evidence of the record over the since the last meeting last hearing uh we held an rco meeting
and it only after the fact did we find out that uh they needed another rco um and here's here's
the kicker um we just found out that this coordinating rco they're not meeting again
until next year uh and you know we put an application great i'm sorry
uh and you know we put an application great i'm sorry i said that sounds great next year
yeah well i mean we've we've you know we went through the process i understand with covid i
certainly don't blame anybody for not reaching out back to us uh you know things happen especially
during these difficult times but i don't think my client should be prejudiced further remember we
You already had a hearing.
Vern, you froze just there.
I'm not sure.
I mean, some point of clarification to respond.
Hold on, Mr. Goodman, please.
He's muted.
You can continue.
You, Vern, you froze up there for a minute.
Okay, am I okay now?
Okay, I just, I think I wrapped up by saying,
I just think this would be very, you know,
This penalizes my client for, and they didn't do anything that would warrant such a thing.
We did exactly what we were supposed to do.
Again, I don't blame the RCO for not replying, but be it one RCO or the other, the same number
of addresses and the same individuals would have been mailed.
Nothing would have changed.
So we went through that process.
We posted the property.
We did a certified mailing, which is already a part of the record.
There's not really much else we could have done.
Yeah, I mean, from what I can see, you follow all the protocols that you needed to follow.
Mr. Goodman?
Yes, so we're certainly not contesting that mailers were not sent out, but the code also requires that district council office and overlapping RCOs be notified with advance notice of this meeting, which we weren't.
And if we were notified, we would have been able to have this conversation at that time, but we weren't.
So we're having it now, and I think, you know, the last date of the notification or the correspondence of the RCO being March 12th, I think is indicative, right?
These are some dates that are all that are going to stick out in our mind as the days right before the city shut down due to COVID.
and the Zoning Board's emergency regulations that they passed in the summer to start back up again
state that the 45-day clock restarted to account for this and allow for applicants to re-engage
with coordinating RCOs. And again, if we had known that this were a problem in July,
we could have faced it in July, but we didn't, and so we're here today.
We repeatedly emailed all the RCOs, all of them, throughout the COVID crisis. The only RCO to reply
was achievability and we proceeded i understand some groups have more difficulties than others
but the exact same 150 people would have been notified anyway so nothing and to and now after
the fact to say oh we're by the way we're not in november we were notified by the way we're not
meeting again in 2020 in november i think it's prejudice prejudice is my client yeah and that
certainly not here to besmirch anybody the fact i mean cobs creek neighbors association has had
quite a few zoning hearings since you know since the emergency regulations were passed so there
would have been again an opportunity to intercept this and follow this according to the code um but
it was missed and so we can't we asked the board not to proceed today
mr goodman do you happen to know when the uh cops creek folks would be meeting
um not off top of my head i mean usually they're standing meetings of the first monday of every
month um so that's that's what i know brings us into january right and this board doesn't come
back until i believe the 6th of january which is a month away at at the earliest um mr chairman
might i remind everybody that this is we never had the hearing yep i know this is part two we've
And we submitted written comment before that hearing as well.
And no one reached out to us to coordinate a meeting in the last four weeks.
The board's going to make a decision at the next week's executive session on the 16th.
Thank you.
Excuse me, but this is also a resumption hearing.
Is that correct, Mr. Anastasios?
Yes, this is part two.
So, Sharon, we're taking more testimony?
Yes, you are.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I got ahead of myself.
Well, the record's closed on our end.
Yeah, on your end.
Right.
And Mr. Goodman, do you have any other comments on your side?
No, nothing further.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.
Thank you.
All right.
Executive.
So, Sharon, okay, we're going to close.
The record's closed.
The Board will make a decision next Wednesday, the 16th at 9.30 a.m.
Okay, yes.
The Board will make a decision next Wednesday.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The other resumption hearing is MI2020-000774-3515 North 18th Street.
Mr. Knockinson.
can he be promoted he's being promoted now
good morning mr chair members of the board good morning mr knockins
identify yourself with the record please uh yes alan knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n
of Knockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Just excuse me one second. I apologize.
sorry about that i'm trying to socially distance in my office i'm the only one here and i had to
answer the door sorry no problem do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth uh yes i do thank you please proceed uh yeah so i'm here to present 35 15 15
north 8 18th street and um i'm going to share my screen
uh so we were here previously regarding 35 enlarge that out yes
uh can you see him mr chair a little bit bigger
so let me uh just start out with the the notice of refusal so you can see
what this is about. So we're here I believe a month or so ago regarding 3515 North 18th Street.
We're here to legalize a four-unit dwelling in an RSA 5 property and the only reason why we're here
is for the used variants. During the presentation,
we showed that it's not uncommon to allow for multifamily structures within this proximity of
within this proximity of the property and the only thing holding up the board's decision
was community input we met with united uh toyoga and they unanimously are in support of this
project and we also have they asked us to get signatures from nearby neighbors uh directly
impacted by this project and here they are in support of it again it's we're not changing the
unit count we're just legalizing the account there are meters uh for the uh this these amount of
units and that's it thank you anyone have any questions on the board no no anyone would like
to testify in this case please raise your hand no times at no hands at this time oh one second
thank you planning commission one second chair um charles richardson has his hand up
Oh, sorry about that. Charles, Mr. Richardson, please identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Board. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312, City Hall.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Councilwoman has no objections to granting the variance.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good morning, Chair and members of the Board.
My name is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
Do you swear for them to tell the truth?
The whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This property is indicated for single-family use in the comprehensive plan.
We feel that the addition of a fourth unit represents an overuse of the property.
Additionally, a decent development of multifamily in a single-family zone has created a collective overuse of the block.
in a single-family zone has created a collective overuse of the block.
Accordingly,
Accordingly, we object to the granting of the variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-000774 3515 North 18th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you.
uh tanya sharon we're ready to go forward with the irregular cases yes the regular list okay
carol number three i believe uh not garrett is not garrett street 1163 garrett yes number two
i'm sorry okay i moved my papers around yep it's okay thank you calendar number 1300 1163 garrett
street good morning mr chair good morning can you put your name and address on the record
please and spell your last name certainly it's jared klein k-l-e-i-n from blank rome 130 north
18th Street in Philadelphia. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? Yes, I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I can waive the reading. Unfortunately, I can't stipulate to the accuracy, but I will
explain that as I get into my brief presentation. Okay. And have you mailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos and plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes to all those questions okay you may proceed thank you thank you very much i'm going to share
my screen can you all see that yes yes good okay so we're here for 1163 garrett street
which is in the pass young square neighborhood that i'm i'm sure the chair is very familiar
with the location um this property is dual zone so it's a cmx1 with rsa5 um and that zoning
designation we believe led to the missed refusal that i'm going to address in a second um but the
application is to um consolidate lot lines uh this parcel has an odd uh configuration in that
there's a rear there's an 1163 garret rear and an 1163 garret I'll call it the normal front parcel
we're adjusting those lot lines and seeking to construct a single family house because the lot
is of the typical South Philadelphia substandard lot size we got refusals for open area and rear
yard depth the refusal that we think should be there but is not is the setback for the third
floor from the street frontage. My read of section 14701-3 of the zoning code is that because we're
CMX-1 but attached to an RSA-5, we were required to comply with the dimensional requirements of
the RSA-5, but our plans did not show an eight-foot setback at the third floor. So we believe
Al and I missed that refusal. However, as I'll explain as we move forward a little bit, we did
address that issue with the RCO and the RCO was aware of that additional refusal and approved
our proposal with that understanding. As I mentioned, we did meet with Pass Young Square
Civic. Here is their letter of November 3rd where they were voted in non-opposition to the application
and you'll see that they noted in here that the attorney for the property owner stated the
application should have also received a refusal for the third story of the structure because it's
not set back from the front. So we were fully transparent with the RCO about the issue we
thought that L and I missed. Just to give you a sense of the application, this is the zoning map
showing you the location of the parcel and an aerial map showing you that this property is
located here. It is just off of Columbus Square and the city municipal building that's under a
redevelopment proposal is located here so it's in that area this is the photograph of the subject
property uh the idea is to demolish the existing structure as it is in as you can see a state of
disrepair uh photos of posting uh and this is to give you some context on the block
you can see that there are structures of a variety of sizes heights and shapes that are
variety of sizes, heights, and shapes that are already on this block. This house here that I'm
already on this block.
showing on the screen is across the street from the subject property with its oddly configured
bay windows in different heights. So we believe that what we're proposing is contextually appropriate
for this block and as I noted the RCO agreed with it. Here are the plans. It's going to be a standard
single-family house, much of the type that the board sees all the time. And again, the refusals
that we received were for the rear yard depth, the open area, and that third floor setback.
Floor plans and elevations. And the rest of my exhibit packet includes the standard documents
that I don't need to walk the board through, certificate of tax clearance, deed showing my
client's ownership, and the RCO mailing letter that was sent out to 107 different addresses.
I would ask, in order to address the missing refusal issue, I provided Sharon with a separate
set of the site plan. I would ask the board to stamp that as a proviso to clarify that the board
is approving of the plans as presented. Excuse me, Mr. Klein, this is Sharon Saleta. I
I did discuss this with Sarah Adamo at L&I and believe that it would be, just so it isn't confused, that these are not revised plans, these are your original plans.
So adding a proviso stating approval includes variance for third floor setback. Would that be acceptable to you?
If the board is inclined to grant this, yes, that would be a perfect proviso. Thank you.
Thank you.
And with that, I would just like my client to unmute herself, Elizabeth Garson, if you could virtually raise your hand.
She's available. She can unmute herself and wait to be sworn in.
Elizabeth, please state and spell your name and give us your address.
Sure, it's Elizabeth Garson, E-L-I-S-A-B-E-T-H, G-A-R-S-O-N, and I live at 1159 Garrett Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19147.
Mr. Chair or Madam Vice Chair, could you swear Ms. Garson in?
I think the Chair does. Okay, do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Elizabeth, did you hear my presentation this morning?
I did.
And do you adopt my statements as true, correct
in your own testimony?
Thank you very much.
Members of the board, that's all I have.
Okay, I'm back.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Thank you, sorry about that.
Questions from the board?
Would anyone like else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff. This property
is indicated for commercial residential mixed use on the comprehensive plan.
both of the two lots consolidated are undersized from what is allowed under the zoning code,
the requested lot consolidation would bring the consolidated lot closer to the minimum
lot size required by the code. Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the
requested variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001300, 1163 Gerrit Street, my vote is yes.
my vote is yes excuse me this is sharon seleta could we add a proviso stating approval includes
variance for third story setback so noted thank you thank you my vote is yes my vote is yes with
proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you very much everybody enjoy the rest of your
day thank you you as well calendar number 1302 1407-09 north 15th street
isaac slepner i think is the attorney
oh i have a michael matt marionne okay you can promote him
Mr. Sleipner is with Mr. Mattione's firm.
I'm on.
No, he's not promoted.
Sorry, he's coming in now as a panelist.
Sorry, he's coming in now as a panelist.
All right.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Sorry about that.
Good morning, Mr. Mattione.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. It's Michael Matteoni, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I, Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal
referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the
RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, everything.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I have Joseph Byrne, the owner's representative, with me as well.
This is, in many ways, a simple case.
We're requesting to have 30 units in the building that presently exists.
There will be no new construction, but it is legal for 24.
And I'm just going by our tax certificate and the refusal.
There's no new construction or anything in this building, but there are six units in the building that were built and were not legal.
And we would like to legalize the units.
We've met with the RCOs.
We've met with four RCOs, four separate RCOs.
Three of the RCOs, Map Holistic, Friends of the 47th Ward, and Community Land Trust, and they're the nearest in location to the property.
They all support the granting of the variance.
Beach Interplex sent in a letter saying that they oppose the variance, but they're also the farthest RCO from the property.
The elder, Mr. Byrne, can speak to this a little bit as well.
And I believe that Vivian Van Story from Community Land Trust and Reverend Nash, I know he's on, are both on and willing to talk about why they support this application.
This application, again, the owner is very active in the community, and if they have the six extra units, it will give them additional funds that they will then use to benefit the community.
They are very active in the community.
They work very hard in the community.
And this property was acquired by them, and it has, again, that's the opposition letter from Beach.
It has six extra units.
I just wanted to show some quick photos of it and then
that's the building it's been there for a long time down the street at 1431
north 15th street the exact same building that's legal for 28 units exact same building exact same
footprint everything so when we met with the three nearest rcos map holistic friends of the 47th
ward and community land trust they were all in strong support of this because they understand
that the six additional units would give additional funds to allow this owner to give back to the community.
They are very active in the community, and they fully support it for that reason.
The alternative would be to have just larger units in the building, which the developer would do if this were denied.
But again, the larger units are not as desirable.
They have higher rents, and they leave the larger groups of students, which is mainly student housing, living together.
and that has undesirable impacts of more likely for parties and things along those lines.
The smaller units, just some additional photos of the building, the smaller units
are much more desirable for that reason.
So if I could bring on Mr. Byrne, if he could be unmuted.
He just has to raise his hand first.
Here it goes.
you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in yes good morning sir please identify yourself
for the record spell your name and that's where you win good morning chair uh joseph byrne b-y-r-n-e
my address is 1516 north 5th street philadelphia pa 19122 swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Mattione. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Mr. Mattione. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joe, did you hear my statements?
Joe, did you hear my statements?
I did. And are they true and correct? They are. And do you adopt them as your testimony? I do.
And do you have some any further comments for the board regarding you know why these six units
legalizing and what benefits it gives to the community and how you work with the community
regarding this property? Sure. So as Mr. Manionio mentioned, we were the original
developer in 1431 North 15th Street, which is on the same block. This entire block on all four
sides is 100% student housing. The sister building, 1431, is on the exact same footprint on the same
block and we applied and received approval for the 28 units several years back. We were denied
by the same board for this application and weren't really provided a reason why. It's the same size
parcel on the same block with community support with the same architect and they basically just
told us that they didn't feel like approving it at that time. So we amended the application,
built the building and we had to do something obviously towards aware to change the application
to move forward with the project, which we did. And I'd like to mention the fact that these units
are not occupied, they're vacant. So what we're looking to do is, again, legalize the units that
are there. We can offer these units at a lower rental rate and make them more affordable for
for the residents in the area and basically that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any
other witnesses Mr. Manione? Well I believe Reverend Lewis Nash and Vivian Van Story both
want to testify they are from the two RCOs in the area that support the project. Okay if you can get
them on and give us a brief presentation that would be helpful. Certainly. We do Reverend Nash
first. Yeah, Reverend Nash is available. Good morning, Reverend. Please identify yourself again
for the record. Good morning. My name is Reverend Lewis Nash, Sr. And Reverend, do you swear or
for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do affirm thank you
mr matty over reverend we met with you on this project correct uh 1407
and you sent in a letter of support for this project yes i did and why are you in support
of this project reverend i concur with the testimony that you gave and we would be pleased
to support it because he is supportive to our community and we don't want someone to uh that
made an investment in our community to lose out as well we appreciate the investment i have nothing
further for robert nash mr chairman thank you any questions for this witness no no thank you
Anyone else, Mr. Mattione?
Vivian Van Story from Community Land Trust.
She's available.
She just needs to unmute herself and wait to be sworn in.
Hello.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with the records.
Spell your name.
Excuse me.
My name is Vivian Van Story.
I'm president of Community Land Trust, a housing development organization,
a certified CHOTO for the city of Philadelphia.
Would you please spell your last name?
v-a-n-s-t-o-r-y it's one named van story thank you and you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you mr medione thank you mr chairman and uh
miss van story um we met with you correct regarding this property in the application
pending before the board yes and you uh were satisfied with the application yes at first
I was with Beach also. And when it happened, we didn't understand the whole thing and who he was
once I found out and then how he has contributed to the community in the past. And going forward,
he is going to help us with some environmental education starting there to preserve the quality
of life for the community. And on that end of where he has his buildings, we've always
had multi-purpose buildings there. I mean, you know, not single family, but it was always
structures and they were always, but six, we allow him to stay with the six and maybe he'll
and maybe he'll help us with things going forward with the environment, the trash, quality of life.
help us with things going forward with the environment to try.
So when I, Mr. Nash had hosted the meeting, I went there too because I go back and forth
and I met with him and I, you know, we worked, he said he would work with the community and plus
it, he hasn't done a bad job in the past. So the Community Land Trust Corporation
uh support his endeavors thank you thank you thank you do you have anyone else
i have no further questions and i have no further um witnesses mr chairman thank you
questions from the board no no i gotta have myself is there anyone else who would like to testify in
this case don't use it this time chair thank you uh planning planning commission
sorry about that um this is greg waldman planning commission staff this property is indicated for
multi-family residential use on the comprehensive plan a total total of 14 units will you
be permitted by right for this lot size and zoning district. We believe that existing 24 units is an
overuse for the size of the lot and an additional six units would great in that non-conformity.
Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance not be granted.
I get what you're saying, but if they made those units bigger, you're still going to have the same
number of maybe an increase in the number of people occupying that building. All right,
MI 2020-001302, 1407-09 North 15th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Calendar number 0457, 1428 South 23rd Street.
hi this is jared um i'm trying to share my screen yeah give me one second mister
this is sharon saletta the property owner's name is jared beaujoli
and i believe he's appearing pro se
okay name and address for the record sir and can you spell your last name
he's coming back in as a panelist thank you
okay jared are you available open your mic and video
Oh, okay. Perfect. Hi, Jared. Can you spell your last name and give us your entire name
and address for the record? Yes. So it is Jared Borgeli. The last name is B-O-U-R-J-O-L-L-Y.
And my address is 2213 Reed Street, Philadelphia, PA. And can you guys also see my screen that
i'm sharing right now not yet but do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about
the truth i do are you an attorney no i'm actually representing myself on this one okay um let me
see something i'm trying to share the screen have you emailed the exhibit with the required
documents which would be proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and plans of
the property five five years five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco
and do you have a letter yes i have okay thank you you may proceed okay i'm just trying to get
my screen you guys can't see it yet correct no jared do you have your documents open on your
computer are you using the computer okay so now now that your documents open click on the share
screen at the bottom of the zoom okay and then i'm clicking share and then click your documents
and they will open up for all of us to view okay so i click share and then it says open system
security okay i think i have to do some security stuff really quick hold on let's solve it all
All right, here we go.
Okay. And then let me try that again. Okay. And can you guys see it now?
Yes, you're right.
Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you for today. So the refusal for this project is I'm seeking
to do a duplex in a RSA 5 district. This is a property which my father and I own in our personal
names and I plan to reside in and my sister as well in the other unit. So I'm going to walk
through my exhibit and I also wanted to state before I got started that I have full support
from the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition and also the zoning committee and
the community itself supports this project. So in my exhibit, I will go down the documents. You can
see the refusal, and this is for the two-family dwelling in an RSA 5 district. And then the next
document, I have some photos of nearby properties. This is the lot which the property would sit on.
This is a new construction next to it, and then this is a property that's being rehabbed as well.
the parcel that we are planning to build would be exactly the same height as this neighboring
property so it wouldn't be any bigger and then I have some additional photos of nearby properties
and then you can see that's across the street from the property this is also across the street
from the property and this is the corner adjacent to the property this is the support from the
community, the Point Breeze Community Coalition. They were all in support of the project. I didn't
have anybody opposed of this. The community itself supported the project. Some of the
provisors, which I spoke with the community and the board are to add a bike rack in front of the
property just to kind of cut down on some of the congestion for cars, replacing the sidewalk
in front of the property and then also removing the bay window that I had initially submitted
to the plans with L and I and I agree with all those provisos. The next you will see a zoning
map of the nearby. This is the property that's highlighted on the zoning map. As you can see,
it's RSA 5 adjacent, you know, across from the property. And then this is my application of
appeal and then additionally i have our tax good tax certificate standing i have my yeah that's
the clearance you can see this is the deed of the property stating that we are the owners
and then i have my zoning petitions which i got support from the neighbors nearby and next to the
property there's a little bit more of those and then as you can see sorry this is zoomed in this
is my certificate of bulk mailing. I had mailed it out to 214 nearby neighbors. Um, and then let
me zoom this in. This is the project information form, which I also completed online. A copy of
the provisos where I had, you know, I added, um, an egress and a stairs in the back. And I also
removed the bay window, um, from the property, um, and those initial plans that I had submitted
to L&I. And sorry, it's not letting me zoom in a little bit more or zoom out. And then this is
the plans for the project. As I mentioned, it's going to be the same height as the neighboring
property. And this next set of plans are the interior plans for the project. I will be living
in the top unit and then my sister would be living in the bottom unit. And I've also highlighted the
areas um that i've updated in the proviso and that would be the end of my presentation
excuse me this is sharon seleta these revised plans are included in your packet is that correct
yes they are and how many pages of the revised plans yes um just one page and then i have the
reviso form that I completed as well.
Thank you.
And then I'm just going back up to the community support page.
So did you guys have any questions for the project or?
Frank, are you talking?
Oh, we can't hear. Can you hear me?
I think yes I think he might have to come back.
I think, yes, I think he might have to come back.
Can everyone hear me now? Yes we can. I just keep losing uh I keep losing my uh
there you go okay uh i'm sorry have we concluded with the presentation
yes yes does the board have any questions that's where we are okay has the board any questions no
uh anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
yes chair we have an albert little page good morning mr little page please identify yourself
for the record. Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Albert Littlepage. I'm the president of Point
Breeze Community Development Corporation. We're from to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. The Point Breeze Community Development
Coalition is the coordinating RCO along with the community and the nearby neighbors supported this
project along with the company Provisos. So we are in agreement with this project, sir.
thank you and i i was not listening in because i was having technical difficulties there is a proviso
yes um carol did you get that proviso no i did not they it was in a letter and now the letter's
not up oh yeah the proviso excuse me this is sarin soled i would request that you hold the
vote on this until the end of this 9 30 session um i have some questions about the proviso plans
form i'd like to run by the applicant to make sure that we have it right before you vote on it
okay so noted thank you and thank you thank you albert do i need to hold on a chair or can i hang
up now uh i think you can hang up do we need mr little page sharon no okay thanks albert
okay carol number five okay calendar number 1303 1515-17 north 16th street
i'm here i'm mr mr mattione can you put your name and address on the record and spell your
last name? Sure. Michael Mattioni, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I. Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence
Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do. Another group of questions. Have you emailed your exhibit packet
with the proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and plans of the property five
days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes
everything okay thanks you may proceed thank you madam
Okay, and again if Joseph Byrne could be unmuted because again this is a project he's involved
with. And this is 1515 North 16th Street. It's similar but different to the case that we heard
on 1407 when we have our tax compliance. It's different in that Mr. Byrne, his group, acquired
this property on february 3rd 2020 but it was built six years ago the property has 20 units
in it but it's legal for 19 units but the prior owner built it with 20 units um don't know why
they did that but they were the prior owner and we had no control over what they did but we know
what's in the building we are 204 square feet short of having the required square feet for 20
units. So it's a very nominal variance that we're requesting. We did meet with, again,
four different RCOs, and with respect to this, there was a support letter from three of the RCOs,
the Community Land Trust, Matt Polistic, and Friends of the 47th Ward. And I know that we
have Reverend Nash and Vivian Van Storey here to speak in support as well. There was an objection
from beach interplex again beach interplex geographically is not very close to this the
other three rcos are right next to this property and there are support letters from those rcos
Those RCOs, I just want to get to the photograph for showing the property.
i just want to get to
This property is interesting.
Even though it's new construction, it is on the Historic Register and was approved when constructed by the Historical Commission.
and that's the property and it runs from 16th street to the little street behind it that I
can't remember the name of I'm sorry anyway we're asking for one variance of 204 square feet to
allow this this extra unit that's in the building to be legalized it is a vacant unit because it's
not legal right now we've met with the RCOs like I said three of them strongly support it because
Mr. Byrne has taken over the ownership of this property. He just took it over in February.
And the alternative would be to have a larger unit or units in the building,
but it is already laid out with this unit. So I would like to call on Mr. Byrne if he's unmuted.
Mr. Byrne, you can unmute yourself. Yes, hi.
he was sworn in the last case you have to swear him in again
no uh mr byrne you're still on the road from earlier just identify yourself for the record
please yes joseph byrne b-y-r-n-e and joe did you hear my statements i did are they true and correct
they are and do you adopt them as your testimony i do and do you have any further
comments regarding this application? Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate to the board,
as Mr. Mattione mentioned, we acquired this building in its current state. It's been occupied
for over five years. It runs to Sydenham Street from 16th. So the unit that was occupied
at our own cost, we immediately, when we went to apply for our renter's license,
were made aware that that unit was not legal.
So we immediately moved to move the tenant out at our expense to break the lease,
and that unit remains vacant.
So we encountered this mistake that was made by the previous owner and developer.
We immediately moved to make sure that we weren't in any violation
and having that unit occupied,
and we're just looking to legalize what someone else overlooked in the past.
I have no further questions for Mr. Byrne, Mr. Chairman.
Do you have anyone else, Mr. Maggioni?
Again, Reverend Nash, if he's available.
They would just have to raise their hand.
You know, in the interest of time, Mr. Maggioni, as an officer of the court,
We'll stipulate that Reverend Nash would adopt your testimony.
And as well as Vivian Van Story.
As well as Vivian Van Story.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else like to testify in this case other than Ms. Van Story and Reverend Nash?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. Greg Weldon, Planning Commission staff.
This property is indicated for multifamily residential use in the comprehensive plan.
We do not believe that an addition of one unit would have an adverse impact to the block.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-001303 1515-17 North 16th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Calendar number 1292, 2018 East Tioga Street.
Mr. Chair, it's a letter. We have a letter in non-opposition from Councilman Squilla on this.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Mr. Clinton. Name and address, please, and spell your last name.
Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
Henry Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N, Queen Memorial Building, 3rd.
Do you swear on a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wave and stip?
And again, have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
the refusal of the referral, photos and plans of the property five days within advance of this
hearing? And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes. Okay, you may proceed.
Thanks. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Ms. Sunke, can I share my screen?
Yes, you can, Mr. Clinton.
is that large enough to see mr chairman
yes yes yes this is good this is good okay uh this is concerning 2018 uh east tayoga street
This is my presentation binder containing exhibits A-A through A-11.
Appearance statement, the refusal.
This is an RSA 5 zone, but as I will show you on this side of Tioga Street, it's generally multifamily.
And the request is to add a three-family unit at this property.
We met with Harrogate Civic Association.
They are in support 12 to 1 at the meeting.
They voted in our favor.
They asked us to install cameras, provide some additional lighting, file a sidewalk tree application, and to have regular maintenance on the exterior sidewalk of the building.
This is a pretty unique situation in that 2018 Tioga, my client purchased a property from the sheriff in September.
The deed didn't get recorded until October.
And then in November, for whatever reason, and you can see there's a sticker on the front door, the city demolished the building.
And you'll see my photographs as I work through this presentation.
This is the block right now.
2012 is a duplex.
2014 is a duplex.
And I have documents at the end of my presentation to show you that.
This was 2018, which the city demolished.
This is a two-family, and this is a four-family.
Here are photographs of the lot right now.
You can see our posters notifying the community of our meeting today.
Another shot of the vacant, now vacant lot.
So the plans are to have three one-bedroom apartments on this site with one bedroom on
the first floor, one bedroom on the second floor, and one bedroom on the third floor
with a rooftop deck.
These units are going to rent in the area of about $750 a month.
We told the community group they were happy with that, and that's one of the reasons they
issued their letter of support.
The following documents are the deed, my mailings.
I have to explain the tax certification.
So I have attached real estate tax bills indicating that earlier this week, my client
owed about $750, which he paid.
This is a line from his credit card statement indicating that he paid.
And then this morning, we just ran another printout from the UOPI indicating that he now has a credit of $336.
That goes to the tax certification.
These are your additional documents that are typically part of the presentation binder.
The zoning map.
I will have a witness who's on the call.
Here's our zoning letter.
certification that we mailed out 198 letters to the surrounding neighborhood but here's the
records I wanted to show the board indicating that in fact my aerial photograph does represent
what the remaining homes on this block on this side of the block are. 212 is a two family this
since 1985. 214 is a two-family since 1976. 2020 is a two-family as of 2012 and 2024 has
been a four-family since 1992. So I will entertain any questions that the board may have.
So I will entertain any questions that the board may have.
Do you have any witnesses?
I have one witness to the owner, Wojtek Spadlow, who's on the call.
And if he could be unmuted, I'll ask him to adopt my testimony.
Wojtek, are you there?
please unmute your mic oh yes do you hear me yes sir please identify yourself with the records by
your first and last name his name vojcik w-o-j-c-i-e-c-h last name spadlo s-p-a-d-l-o
i am the owner co-owner of the property thank you you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you did the court reporter get that spelling correct
yes i did thank you chairman thank you uh mr uh clinton thank you mr chairman uh mr spadlow have
you heard my testimony today yes i do if you had the opportunity to testify would you adopt my
testimony as your own and as true and correct yes it is thank you mr spadlow thank you any questions
from the board no no no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good morning this is greg walden planning commission staff this property was rezoned
to residential single family in 2017 as recommended in the comprehensive plan
However, we believe that three units is an overuse for the size of the lot.
However, we would not object to two units.
Thank you. MI 2020-001292-2018 East Tioga. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Carol, before you go, I'm going to be jumping off this call, this hearing for about 20 minutes or so.
I know you're going to be here. I'm going to be here. Okay. Confessor, everybody,
you'll have a quorum, I believe. James, you're still going to be on? Yes. Yes, sir. James,
Professor and Tom? Yes. Okay. All right. I will see you all back in about 20 or 30 minutes. Thank
you. Okay. Great. Calendar number 0263 1383 Sanger Street. I have a Sousa.
Could you hear me?
Yes, I can hear you, but I can't see you.
Oh, yeah, I won't be able to show my appearance, but my name is Verna Souza.
I'm the owner of 1383 East Sanger Street.
Okay, can you spell your last name, please?
Yes, no problem. S-O-Z-A.
I'm sorry, could we just pause one second?
Keisha, can you present her as a panelist?
Yes, I just wanted to make sure she was the applicant first.
Yes, I'm the...
She's coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
This is Sharon Saleta, if I could say that we do have a letter of support from the RCO.
she's back ma'am you can unmute yourself okay could you hear me yes can you put your name and
address on the record please and spell your last name okay so my first name is verna v-i-r-n-a
last name Souza, S-O-Z-A, and the property I am applying for is 1383 East Sanger Street,
Philadelphia, PA-19124. Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? Yes, I do. And have you emailed your exhibit packet with proof of ownership,
tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and plans of the property, five days in bail,
refusal or referral photos and plans of the property five days in advance in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes I have um and before we
proceed is it possible if um the other applicant that's on the application which is under the name
Feritza Cadillo you can see her on this call if she could share her screen to show that package
as i present um sharon yes she can um okay if she raises her hand i believe she did yep
yes she's coming in now as a panelist okay just so we're clear she will only show the slides and
you would do the presentation thank you sounds great thank you tanya could i proceed yes you
okay so good morning chair members and members of the board um my name is verna souza and sitting
beside me during this meeting is my mother delma souza um we are both listed as owners of the 1383
east sanger street property if you could okay so but he's sharing the package and a few so i'll
just proceed um so the package being shared just consists of everything that's requested
are you able to see the package no we can't see anything hold on let me do we do know it's an
application for a permit for two for a two-family dwelling in an existing structure yes we still
cannot see okay i'm going i'm sharing now okay now it's coming through i'm ready okay now you
just have to put it up as you can see the application the refuel yes can you make it
can you make it a little larger oh sure sure thank you so badita as mentioned earlier you're um the
owner of the property can speak you can just move forward like vanna white with the slides
okay thank you speaking she's just sharing okay so to begin the property was purchased during
June of 2013 for me and my two children to reside. Unfortunately on August 18, 2018 our house caught
on fire due to an electrical outage issue. Since then the property has been vacant due to not
having insurance on the property at that time to assist with repairs. Gratefully my mother two years
after, which is why she's the second owner now, she started to help us with fixing my home and
transforming it to having the first floor into a bi-level with the basement as depicted on the
plans that are shown in the package. And then the second floor would be a separate apartment.
At the beginning of this process, we were not aware that to rent the second floor,
I needed to complete a zoning because I had thought, you know, I'm living in the first unit
until I was informed by license and inspection. After being informed, we immediately paused
construction and began the process to make my home a legal duplex. There are many duplexes
in the area. For instance, 1364 Sanger and 1392 Sanger C are just two of the many examples of my
knowledge. I even have photos of it. You can see that they have two doors at the front entrance,
just like how our property will have if passed to have become a duplex. So on October 7th to 2020,
we met with the RCO after waiting several extra months due to the unexpected cancellations that
the COVID pandemic has brought upon all of us. During that meeting with the RCO, we did receive
a letter of support. Also, some details I forgot to mention is that we will make sure to have
trash stored in container in front of the porch area. As soon as we get to the next steps of this
process, I will also make sure I acquire all permits for building, electrical, and plumbing.
Lastly, there will be exits located at basement rear, and there are windows on that level as well.
You have no living in the basement, correct?
So basically the plan is that me and my two children will be living on the first floor, and the basement is also part of our unit.
And then the part that's run it to another person is going to be the second floor.
Okay, Tom, do you need to see that plan?
Do we have a picture? Oh, okay.
Oh, yes, right here. Sorry.
There it is, right there.
And we had initially thought, since I was living in the first unit, that we didn't need, like, any permits.
And we found out and we made sure to stop and make sure we begun the process as soon as possible.
The bedroom that's in the basement, can you go back to this basement?
Mm-hmm.
Where is the exit?
so it'll be at the rear of the basement um so currently we are like well not currently
like well not currently because we have to pause it but we were doing we were working on that and
because we have to pause it but we were doing we're working on that and making sure that
making sure that that's safe and we have an exit there there are also windows located in the
basement as well and then you go to the basement on the screen um you're present okay there you are
um does that look yes okay to you yes good okay great um so yeah that's um everything i needed to
clarify i just want to use this as a way to recover from the financial hardships that have
been piling up ever since the incident in 2018 um i have a 10 year old and a daughter in college at
moment so this will be a huge um help and i would greatly appreciate if the chair members
and the members of the board could support thank you understood are there any witnesses
does the board have any questions no
i have a sloan folks
sorry could you could you repeat that
good morning good morning she's just saying we have some another person to speak to this
okay okay hold on one second good morning and you can take your one second you can take your
packet down.
Thanks.
Hi, Mr. Folks.
Good morning, Madam Vice Chair
and members of the ZBA. My name is Sloan Folks,
S-L-O-A-N-E, F is in the fire,
O-L-K-S, room 508
City Hall, Office of Councilman
Maria Quinonez Sanchez.
The Councilwoman would like to have on the record
that the applicant has met with
the convening coordinating RCO,
has received a letter of support
and the Councilwoman
has no opposition to this variance request.
Thank you very much.
Okay, and you were sworn in earlier, correct?
No, ma'am, I was not.
I apologize.
I'm so used to hearing your name.
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Does the board have any questions?
I have one more hand, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
He's ready, Vice Chair.
Okay, sir, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Hi, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be on this Zoom. I'm supposed to be on the Zoom
for 442 West Queen Lane.
No, that's the wrong case.
Right.
You can continue.
Is Mr. Al on this?
No, he said he's not on the right Zoom. He don't think for this case.
so okay so the board has no the board has no questions no thank you i'll count calendar number
zero two six three i'm sorry chair i apologize for the interruption can we try to get planning
commission on this we sure can as soon as i heard your voice i know back to my old thing
planning commission please hi this is greg walden planning commission staff
um this property is indicated for single family residential use in the comprehensive plan we do
not believe that an additional unit at this location would create an adverse impact to the
surrounding block accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the requested variance thank you
calendar number 0263 1383 sangra street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
Okay, Ms. Sosa, your information will be emailed to you.
Thank you so much, Guy.
Happy holidays.
Thanks, Petita.
Calendar number 1299, 2511 East Firth Street.
Leo has been promoted. He's coming in as a panelist.
All right. Good morning, everyone. Sorry, it took me a second to get in.
all right good morning everyone sorry took me a second to get in that's okay can you put your
That's okay.
name and address on the record please inspire your last name yes absolutely leo mulvihill
that's m-u-l-v as in victor i-h-i-l-l address is 2424 east new york street suite 111 philadelphia
19125 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth i do have you
You also emailed your exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of those.
Okay, you may proceed.
All right, members of the board, good morning.
Leo Mulvihill today on behalf of the applicant, 2511 East Firth, F-I-R-T-H Street Incorporated.
We are here today because my client wishes to build three new single-family homes.
The issue here is simple.
We're in an industrial zone, and I'll show that in the zoning maps in a moment.
For purposes of today's hearing, I'm showing now my exhibit table of contents.
We have the refusal, appeal, and project information form at page one.
Zoning maps at seven.
Deed at eight.
Commercial activity license at 17.
Tax clearance at 18.
My zoning letter is at 20.
We have the letter of support from Old Richmond Civic Association at page 23.
I have photos of the property at 24, plans at 36.
So members of the board, I'm showing now a copy of the refusal.
So the relocation of lot lines to take one lot divided into three, which are similar in width to existing homes on a residential block on Firth Street, which is located one block north of Greensgrove Farm in the Old Richmond Civic catchment right by Fishtown.
The issue that we have here is that this lot is owned industrial commercial mixed use, meaning we can't build a house there if we wanted to.
We tried to otherwise comply with all the RSA 5 guidelines.
The lots are a little smaller because of how we had to do the subdivision, but they're similar, like I said, in width and depth to the existing homes that are adjacent.
I'll move now to page seven of my packet, which I'm showing on the screen.
you'll see indicated here on the top is the subject lot in dark purple that I've circled.
Below, the second image is an overhead shot. This is right in between Allen and Gall Streets
on Firth Street. This large purple parcel that I'm circling with my mouse, this is Greenscrow
Farm. Directly next to us is a Greenscrow Farm storage area, which contains their apiary for
you know, keeping bees, a number of other things. There's also a large metal structure that runs
in the rear of the property. It may have used to house an industrial crane. We're not entirely sure.
All right, yeah. Just perusing through my packet to get to the important stuff.
Here's my notice letter, which went out on September 9. We had a community meeting
on September 22nd. This is the reverse. It was a Zoom meeting. At page 22, I'm showing you my
proof of mailing showing that 69 pieces of mail went out on September 11th. At page 23, which is
on my screen, a letter dated October 9, from Rosemary Thomas, president of Old Richmond Civic,
showing that 13 residents were present, 12 were in favor, one was opposed. So overall, this was
approved by the RCL. Page 24, the site photos that I took, I apologize for my shadow, it was a little
late in the day. This is looking westbound on Firth Street. You can see to the left the existing
single-family homes are about 12, 13 feet wide. To the left you see Greensgrove's vehicles and the
large open lot where the farm is located. The parcel that you see marked with an X in the street
is where we're looking to build. I'm just going to do a 360 real quick for the photographs,
paging through. Paging now for purpose of the record, 27. We see an open lot and then these
plastic garage doors that have a no towing sign in front or no parking sign in front of them.
This is the area in which we intend to build those three homes.
And then you'll see in this photo, which is page 29 for the record, you can see that large
crane structure in the rear. We're not touching that, that's staying. At this metal pole that
indicating about one-third of the way down the picture. This is where the lot ends and we are
not touching the rest of Greensgrove's lot which is off to the right of this photograph.
This is looking now eastbound on Firth Street right towards Aramingo Avenue. You can see the
rear of some of the industrial and commercial buildings are along Aramingo Avenue there.
Southbound is the Sunsets. This is Greensgrove.
all right those were the photographs now for purposes of the record referring to page 36
in my packet these are the three homes that we intend to build brick front single family
These are the three homes that we intend to build. Brick front, single family, three-story, nothing too crazy.
three-story nothing
Page 37, you can see how these three homes are going to fit into the existing site.
This is the proposed lot consolidation. We're doing something a little weird with this, only because of the existing crane that I showed previously.
um so 2509 East Firth which is the existing home directly to the west of where we're proposing to
build they are keeping this part of this lot it looks kind of like a large L I'm indicating with
my cursor right now or like an upside down L I guess I should say and then we are subdividing the
lot so we don't touch any of that crane structure and we've been granted easements for each of these
parcels to access a common fire alley. And the reason is the removal of this structure would be
incredibly expensive and dangerous. Also, it continues through onto the adjacent parcel at
Greensboro. So there's no way we could really do it or coordinate a way to get that out of there.
So the existing owner of 2509 is happy to continue to maintain that and grant these easements to
lots 1, 2, and 3 that we're proposing. These are the interior floor plans, nothing too crazy.
Basement, we have a potential pet shower even, which is pretty cool, frankly. Bath, living area.
I wish I had one. Ground floor, we have living, dining, stairs, and kitchen. The stairs are
essentially switchback stairs in the middle of the house due to the lot width. We really can't
do much else with it. Second floor, two bedrooms and a bath. Third floor, we have the owner's
suite, so we have a large bath to the rear, large bedroom to the front with a nice-sized
walk-in closet. Each of the homes also comes with a roof deck. The pilot houses are set
back about halfway, so nobody's going to be hanging out in the street. This is the proposed
building section. We're not going any taller than 38. This is our proposed subdivision plan,
which has already been stamped by the city. Again, I'll zoom in on this for the board.
These are our three lots. They end up about 571 square feet. If we had gone all the way back,
which we initially tried to do when we were trying to figure out what to do with this giant
steel crane frame, we would have been the same size as the adjacent lot of 2509, which is around
1600 square feet. So technically we would have received the refusal of a lot size, but ultimately
they're going to have use of space behind the homes here. And we do have the emergency access
easements. Those agreements have already been prepared with the adjacent property owner who
sold these slots to my client. And that was page 41, which is the last page of my packet.
Going back to page 36, which are the proposed renderings, we're happy to answer any questions
you may have at this time. But ultimately, the hardship here is this is a commercially zoned
property on a residential block, pardon me, an industrially zoned property. It made sense probably
in the past when there was some larger industrial structure here, considering the fact that this
block, as you saw in the photographs that I showed, is entirely residential but for people form.
That's why that's the hardship here, so that's why we're asking for our variances.
And nothing else at this time.
Does the board have any questions?
And are there any witnesses?
Not from me.
Does anyone have their hands raised?
Not at this time.
Okay, planning commission?
Good morning. This is Greg Baldwin, City Planning. This property was rezoned from
medium industrial to industrial commercial mixed use in 2017 as recommended in the comprehensive
plan. Greens Grove Farm was using that property at the time of the rezoning. However, single-family
residential use would be consistent with the rest of the block. Accordingly, we have no objection to
with the granting of the requested variance.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1299, 2511 East Perth Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Great, thank you Chair Tenere, members of the board.
You have a good day.
Okay, if everybody could hold on, you too, Leo.
um number four uh calendar number oh four five seven one four two eight south 23rd street
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes excuse me this is Sharon Saleta with
my vote is yes excuse me this is sharon saletta with proviso one revised plans one page approved
today please you got it my vote is yes with one page revised plans yes sir proviso yes for proviso
yes with proviso thank you thank you sharon calendar number you're welcome
1297-2951 South Broad Street.
Sorry for that.
Xin Chen is now coming in as a panel.
good morning mr jen can you put your name and address on the record please and spell your last
name sure zen jen zhen j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here
on behalf of the applicant do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
And again, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal referral, photos, plans of this property five days in advance of the hearing, and have
you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
I will go ahead and share with the Board the information relating to this case.
this is an application for a legalization of existing conditions. We have submitted the
refusal letter from the South Philadelphia Community Civic Association along with their
petition, the photograph plans, LNI certification statement, property sale listing, appraisal,
agreement of sale, D tax compliance, and other related documents. So this is an application
for use as a two-family dwelling at this location. One of the key reasons that we're here before the
board is because when this property was originally purchased, it was certified as a zoning
classification of RM1. And this was done at the end of 2019, August of 2019, when my client
purchased the property. It was certified as RM1. Not only that, at the time of appraisal,
I'm going to scroll down a little bit here to the layout of the property in the appraisal report.
The property had existing, right here, existing two units set up. One kitchen, living room,
bedroom and heater bath and garage in what is essentially the basement level, but it's a kind
of a walkout basement situation. And then the first floor and second floor again is with additional
kitchen and bedroom. So when the property was purchased and even as when it was listed for
purchase, everything in the record showed it was RM1 and that included the city cert, which came
to my client. However, once it was purchased, the zoning for this district apparently was
changed to RSA 5. So when my client went to apply for a rental license, he was given a refusal
stating that you must now legalize this existing use of duplex because the zoning district has
changed. The community is not in support of a duplex at the location, both at the meeting on
Zoom from the community RCO leadership who ran the Zoom, as well as petitions provided. It seems
that the surrounding neighbors are not supporting a legalization. But I want to point out that
there is a hardship here for my client because this is not a situation that was created
by my client this is a rm1 zone district that had a existing long-term existing apparently duplex
that was sold as a duplex was appraised as a duplex and was existing as a duplex at the time
that the property was acquired i'm going to show the board the photograph of the property as you
can see these properties, this one's on the corner, the first floor is actually elevated
off of the street level so that there is one entrance at the upper level.
so that there is one entrance at the upper level, and then what is called the basement level that
was the other unit actually has its own entrance on the street level. So this is not a sub-ground
basement, this is actually more or less on a ground level as far as the basement level is
concerned. The property itself has the two electric meters from some time back. It is
set up as a duplex from the time of purchase. None of this stuff is really new. The kitchens
were existing. My client wanted to do some renovations to update the interior, and I think
that's what triggered between that and applying for the rental license both triggered the city's
feedback that this has changed now to RSA 5. I am not sure that the property was actually vacant
for very long because at the time of listing, if you look at the property, it was still being
occupied by prior owner as far as we can tell. So it wasn't a situation where it was vacant for
more than three years and the zoning reverted because of that. So I'm not sure what happened
between the time it was certified in 2019 and the time my client went to apply for their rental
license with the zoning classification or whether the city simply made a mistake but the end result
is my client has purchased now what is an existing duplex but is now stuck facing having to re-renovate
it back down to a single family dwelling which is a hardship in this case because that is not
something he created or that he had contemplated would be the situation he would face. So we're
asking the board in this case to look at the situation in the whole and understand that this
is not again not an intent to illegally convert any property this was an existing duplex that
simply was transferred as an rm1 district and then somehow the districting changed i'm gonna
show the floor plans here this is basically the layout that is existing inside the property i'm
zooming in to give the board a better view of what's here. So as you can see, again, the setup
is that the property has a floor level basement that has its own kitchen and living room and
bedroom. And then it has the entrance from the upper floor that goes into the second floor and
third floor that is one unit. So once again, I totally understand the nature of the opposition
from the community. But I do want the board to understand that there is, again, hardship here
that was not created by my client through any action on their part. It was a change somehow in
the zoning during dependency of a transaction in the end of 2019. This is not something that
happened a long time ago where he should have been more aware of the oncoming change. So I want the
South Philadelphia Civic Association was in favor or in opposition?
No, they're in opposition because...
And isn't there another RCO down there?
They were the coordinating RCO.
I don't know if the other RCO...
We reached out to everyone that was listed on the RCO notification,
but they are the ones that actually coordinated the meeting on Zoom.
And they did receive a petition from a neighbor, I believe,
that went around and got a petition against converting the property. So as you can see,
the vote from their side is opposition. And we discussed the same facts that I'm presenting to
the board at the meeting. They do not see it as a hardship because they don't feel that
the change in zoning affected my client's rights in any way, which I disagree with, but
that is the position they have taken in this case.
So as you can see, we did have the virtual meeting.
They had obtained their own petition in the area.
We did not do a petition.
I believe this is a legal issue more so than a issue that the neighbors may actually understand
from the perspective of a pre-existing condition that was legal and then the zoning district
being changed in the area. Does the board have any questions? No. The floor plans show like
it is existing two units. Yes, it is existing two units, correct.
This is the quote basement level as you can see from the elevation plan it is above ground
And that is the first floor and that is the second floor, according to the building's elevation and also the floor plans you see before you.
and that is the first floor and that is the second floor according to the buildings.
Correct.
And even the appraisal report indicated that was an existing kitchen, both in the basement as well as the existing kitchen that was on the first floor.
So it was not a, when he purchased the property, it wasn't that there was no kitchen in the basement and we put it in.
It was there even at the time of appraisal.
We understand.
Are there any witnesses on this case?
I believe my client, he does not speak English.
So if I may stipulate, but his daughter is present who can speak English and answer and confirm my testimony.
Okay. Can you ask her to adopt your testimony?
Sure. Sophia Lin, she should be available.
Yes, she's coming in now.
good morning all my name is sophia lynn s-o-p-h-i-a-l-i-n
good morning do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
yes i do thank you okay thank you uh miss lynn you heard my uh representation to the zoning board
regarding the history and the current conditions of the property um can you verify that my
representations are true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own yes thank you thank you
if i can jump in can i before you go i apologize i got in a little bit late um
the next door neighbor 2941 south broad is he the owner um let me let me um let me see i have
the property sale agreement the seller was uh carmilla salvo i'm not sure if the next door
neighbor i'm not aware if the next door neighbor is still related to this seller i see i'm trying
to get a handle again i apologize i was i had to i had to get off and i was not here for the full
presentation. No problem. There were two votes that were submitted by the RCO, opposing?
Yes. Well, the RCO, so the RCO's board was present at the Zoom meeting, and they voted against it.
There was one attendee who voted against it, and I believe the attendee or someone submitted
a 35 signature petition in opposition from the neighbors.
okay i see frank phaby that's why i asked 2949 he okay he was the one who um i assume circulated
the petition is that correct it's possible yes frank the name frank does sound uh like the
individual you just had it uh on one of your exhibits right there you just passed it oh
i'm sorry all right he's the next door neighbor okay okay yes all right and and again i apologize
guys for my lateness. Was there a letter from Councilman Swilla's office? I have not received
a letter, but I'm not sure if someone from that office is present today. Yeah, so Carol, if you
don't mind, I know you were going to ask the board. No, I don't mind at all. Not at all.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
no hands at this time chair yeah planning commission
good morning this is greg waldman planning commission staff
this property is indicated for single family residential use in the comprehensive plan
it was part of a bill in 2019 that rezoned the block for multi-family residential to single
family to reflect the existing land use of the block however because of the property's recent
use as multifamily, we have no objection to the granting of the requested variance.
Thank you. And with the Board's approval, I'd like to close the record on this and that
we render a decision on next Wednesday's Executive Session 1216, I believe it is, at 9.30 a.m.
I agree.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next case is a resumption hearing, calendar number 0037, 3114 Frankfort Avenue.
this is Sharon Saleta do have a letter from the RCO and from Councilman Squilla in non-opposition
And from Councilman Squilla in non-opposition.
Ms. Hamill, are you out there?
I have a...
No, we're looking for Dorothy Hamill.
She's coming in down as a panelist.
Thank you.
I am here.
Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Dorothy Hamill, H-A-M-I-L-L, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. You may proceed. Good morning, chairman, members of the board, Dorothy Hamill on behalf
of the applicant, Avi Oslick, who is also on the call. We had previously presented at the
last zoning hearing, but we had been waiting for a rehearing with the Powergate RCO because we had
agreed to original application was for seven units and in our presentation had modified that
and presented plans for six. We had the meeting with the Powergate RCO and presented they as you
have in the letter they voted to a letter of non-opposition to the proposal provided we are
we've agreed to put additional lighting and additional cameras on the building.
We already have cameras on the building,
but we've agreed to put additional cameras and lighting on the building
as part of our proposal.
And I think that's it.
okay um questions from the board no no no no
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair
Good morning. This is Greg Waldman from Planning Commission staff. This property is indicated
for multifamily residential use in the comprehensive plan. The property has a long history of being
used as multifamily. Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you. Ms. Hamill, is that a revised plan?
yes what i had attached in the previous hearing how many pages
uh two pages two pages thank you this is sharon slutt ms himmel if you haven't done so could you
please send me the revised plans and the proviso plans form as two separate pdfs sure so i can
stamp them and return them to you thank you yes thank you mi 2020 that's zero zero zero zero three
seven three one one four frankfurt avenue my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan two pages
approved today my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
MI 2020-001290, 428 Monroe Street.
Thank you everyone.
Have a nice holiday.
Thank you.
Stay safe.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you as well.
I don't have no one hand raised for this one.
Do you know the attorney?
Excuse me.
The attorney is Neil Sklaroff.
yeah he's coming in as a panelist now
This is Sharon's letter we received a letter in non-opposition from Councilman Squilla
Mr. Neal, you can unmute yourself, say your name, and wait to be sworn in.
Neal, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Certainly. I'm just trying to get this. There we go. My name is Neal Sklaroff. The last name is spelled S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F.
my business address is 1500 market street suite 3500 e philadelphia 19102
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
yes i do and you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes i do have you also emailed your exhibit packet with the following documents proof of
ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance
of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes I think we sent the
exhibits in longer than five days ago but a slight revision was sent within the last few days
and that's what I'll be showing on the screen. Okay I do have to tell you you look like a federal
judge in your chambers. You may proceed. Well, I probably would have some good cases then.
I'm pleased to represent the School District of Philadelphia today with regard to a modular
Classroom Project at the William and Meredith School. Joining the hearing remotely today,
I believe, is Nicole Ward and Gamil Hall, who are from the district's Office of Capital Programs,
as well as Omar Rosa from Stantec, the civil engineer for the project, and William Colette
from OZ Collaborative, the project architect. I'm going to invoke 14.303.14F, and if there's no
objection, I will make statements that will be on behalf of the client and can be used by the board
to make conclusions of law. The Meredith Elementary School, let me just go through some of these.
initially a list of exhibits
our tax clearance
there are a number of deeds here
the Emeritus Elementary School
is an assemblage of eight parcels
that were purchased and developed
in 1929
and we have a
a consolidation plan that has been approved as part of this application and we'll show some of
that in a moment. This is a copy of the zoning notice. The property has frontages and not only
on Monroe Street but also Fitzwater and Fist Street and so we put up six posters as well as
copies of the refusal as is required and these are photographs of the postings as well as
the neighborhood directly across from the postings.
This exhibit shows the area in which the modular classrooms are to be placed. Now let me explain
why we need to have these modular classrooms. The catchment area, that is the geographical area
from which students are supposed to come to Meredith, would produce 680 school children
in classes from kindergarten to eighth grade. The current building is operating at 120 percent of
capacity. But because there remains a lack of space, there are 130 students from the catchment
area that must attend school outside of the catchment area. So in order to meet the need
So in order to meet the need and to return the screen.
and to return the students... Hi, I'm sorry.
Hi, I'm sorry.
If I could just ask a quick question.
We had a question about whether there would be share of your exhibit package on the screen.
Isn't it on the screen?
No, Mrs. Sklaroff, we don't see it.
I did get a question of the audience.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
No worries.
What am I not, I did ask you there.
you click the share screen button and then click on your documents to share
i did do that seem to continue to have this so try to unshare and then do it again if you wish
and i need to get to that um
screen
is that working it's coming mr square got it thank you so very kindly all right i'm sorry
i'm sorry to take all of your time let me just get this so it's
that should be better
these were the the last of a long series of deeds again this are the posted zoning notices as well
as the posted refusals there were six of those and we showed the property
that were opposite in the neighborhood. What you're looking at here on the top
is an area that was used for several rows of parking. You'll see there's an existing fence
to the left and some really nicely redone homes along Monroe Street, which is also to the left
there in the there's a mural at the I think that's the north end of the building that will
not be affected by that that's part of the mural arts program the piece through imagination is the
name of it to the right you see the long-standing Murrith elementary school building
shot from the other end is view number two at the bottom as a mixed-use building at the end
it's a restaurant on the fourth floor and the first floor and a multi-family I believe on the
second and third floor these are some additional views of the school and the area again that was
a parking lot that will now be partially parking and the modular classrooms. This is a rendering
of the four modular classrooms that were proposed and the area between that set it back 30 feet back
and the area between that and the fence will be used for 19 parking spaces.
this is rendering a site plan of that elevation this is a top view showing the classrooms there
are four classrooms each of which has a restroom toward the bottom where it says floor plan
you're going to see in a moment that that's an elevated deck where the students will enter and
leave and and they'll have a short walk till they get to the main building this is our application
for approval this is the site plan the zoning site plan that went along with that
and we have some better plans as we go along Mr. Sklaroff excuse the interruption I think we can
get past some of those plans that you were ready to present and summarize. This is similar to what
we've done in other cases when it comes to modular to provide additional space for students.
I'll go over the refusal I think and we could wrap it up. Thank you. This is RM1 zoning district in
which educational use is permitted by special exception. I think the record shows that we are
in fact in educational use and I believe the plans and all the records will show that there's
no adverse effect to the community. The next four items have to do with plantings and setbacks and
and setbacks and the like. The first one has to do that the setback can't be any deeper than the
the like, the first one has to do that.
setbacks on adjacent properties. The adjacent properties have a zero setback. As a matter of
practice, recently we do not put the modulars at the street front as a matter of safety,
and here we want to keep it as close to the main building as possible, and therefore we have a
larger than permitted front yard setback. The second issue is they wanted landscape buffering
to the north and south and toward the rear of the lot. Well, the rear of the lot is really
Fitzwater Street, so we have two frontages. But we're not going to put any plantings toward
the mural, so not to obscure that, or toward the mixed-use building, which has some
lower windows. We don't want to obscure those. The third item was that the fences are supposed
to be either wood or metal, not a chain link fence. We do have a chain link fence. We need
to have people be able to see through it. But we have agreed that is the community,
that is the school community, as distinguished from the school district, will work with the
local community to see what they can do to improve the image from the Monroe Street view.
And the last that they're supposed to be landscaping before parking in the street,
If we were to do that, we would reduce the number of available parking spaces, which is something that we don't think anybody wants.
Let me just, we had a temporary zoning permit, and so here is the elevated steps and the modular building from the existing building, Meredith's school side, and the top photograph is from the, showing the fence along Monroe Street.
And we did meet with some time ago with the Queen Village Neighbors Association, as well as an additional RCO, well attended with 83 folks.
And for the most part, they're in favor of this with the one condition that we, that the local school district parents and whatever work in the future with regard to beautifying that fence.
That completes my presentation.
Again, we have some folks who could answer questions, but I think that it's for the most part our position.
do you need anyone to adopt your testimony no i'm using 14 303 14 just wanted to double check
thank you thank you questions from the board not a single one uh anyone else like to testify in
this case if so please raise your hand no hands at this time chair thank you very much planning
Commission. Good morning. This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff. This property is
indicated for multifamily residential use in the comprehensive plan. We have no objection to the
granting of the requested variants. Thank you very much. MI 2020-001290, 428 Monroe Street.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you,
Mr. Squarrow. Thank you. That completes my business before
the board. You all stay safe and well. You do likewise. Thank you.
You too. Calendar number 1296 4425 Baltimore Avenue.
i have a gregory
yes you can present um gregory as a panelist he's the attorney good morning board
good morning sir please identify yourself with the record spell your first and last name good
morning my name is gregory heleniak h-e-l-e-n-i-a-k address of 2005 market street 16 4 philadelphia pa
Address of 2005 Market Street, 164 Philadelphia PA, 19103.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Ms. Denary, our either Secretary Plaza, can we have the questions asked of this here attorney?
Yes. Name and address for the record, please. And can you spell your last, oh wait.
I'm sorry, Tanari, if we could ask the questions regarding the exhibit package, so forth and so on.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we have emailed the exhibit packet five days in advance.
We met with the RCO, Spruce Hill Community Association, and have provided a letter in our packet.
They are offering their full support.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Good morning to the board and all those assembled.
My name is, as I said, my name is Gregory Heleniak.
I represent Eric Grau and Carol Ann Muller-Grau, who I believe are on the call today as well and available for testimony.
They are the owners of the property here, 4425 Baltimore Avenue.
We're in the RTA 1 zoning district.
I would ask that our submission packet be incorporated into the record.
And we're here today because a refusal was issued by L&I when Mr. Grau applied for a
zoning permit for the continued use of this property as a three-family dwelling. What happened,
there was an issue with the rental license that Mr. Growl was going to resolve and was informed
by L&I that he needed a zoning permit. When he applied for the zoning permit, a refusal was
issued for the three dwelling units. This property was converted in 1955 to three units. At the time,
it was a doctor's office and two dwelling units. In 1984, through variants from this board, it was
converted to three dwelling units and has been in continuous use as three dwelling units
since that time. I'm going to share my screen here.
This is our exhibit list. The refusal I was mentioning
and the Spruce Hill Community Association letter.
We met with them outdoors.
Mr. Helleniac?
I'm sorry.
I'm always pestering.
Would it be okay for you to enlarge it a bit for the attendees?
Absolutely.
Thank you kindly.
That's good.
Thank you.
We met with Spruce Hill on September 30th outside of the restaurant school.
And I'd like to note that this sentence here, where Spruce Hill normally conveys a position of non-opposition if they're in agreement, but in this instance, they are more direct in asking that this board vote favorably on this application to restore the zoning for this property.
As I said, this is a longstanding use of the property. My clients have owned the property since 2005 and have maintained the use of the property as three dwelling units since that time.
Copies of the tenant list from the closing documents and the leases for the period of the last 15 years has been provided to the board as part of our exhibit packet.
this no alterations have been made to this building nothing has been done like I said
this came up as an issue with the rental license that we're trying to resolve and I need to resolve
the underlying zoning records with L&I this entire block except for this is the property here
As you'll see, this entire block is these brownstone twins.
All but one of them has been converted to multiple dwelling units, several of them far denser than the three units that exist in this property.
This property exists with one dwelling unit on the first floor, one dwelling unit on the second floor, and one dwelling unit on the third floor.
As you'll see, here's the back of the property. These are the meters for the property. There are three meters, one for each unit, one for common features as in public lighting and common space lighting.
And the fifth unit is for the basement, which is just used as storage by the owners of the property, not dwelling or living space. As you'll see, this is the feature.
dwelling or living space as you'll see this is the these are pictures of the property here's
evidence of the mailboxes and the units inside there's a kitchen on the first floor and bathroom
here's evidence of the second floor unit with a kitchen third floor door and kitchen space
And this is the examples of the block where the entire block, this is across the street,
is multifamily in these old brownstone buildings, as you can see.
So what we're asking for, as I said, is for this board to correct the error of L&Is in
issuing a refusal for this use as it has been maintained continuously since the previous
variance is granted in 1984 or in the alternative we would ask that a variance be granted. It would
be a hardship for the Grouse to deconvert this building back to a less dense use involving
moving of kitchens, conversion of access, etc., etc., especially when it's been in this three-unit
configuration um for about 50 uh 60 years um if there's no questions for me i'd like to bring on
mr growl uh to confirm my testimony please proceed thank you uh eric if you can please
raise your hand so you can be recognized um okay eric can you uh put your name on the record
Eric Grau, E-R-I-C-G-R-A-U.
Chairman, would you...
You swear, yeah, sir, you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Hellen again.
Eric, did you hear my testimony?
Do you believe it to be true and accurate?
Do you adopt it as your own?
and you purchased just to confirm you purchased the property in 2005 that's correct at the time
it was uh three dwelling units with existing leases yes and if you maintain the property
is three dwelling units continuously for the 15 years you're in the building yes
i i would now open it up for the board if you have any questions for me
thank you any questions from the board no no anyone else would anyone else like to testify
in this case if so please raise your hand we also have an additional witness who can confirm that
it's been three units over those 15 years that the board would like to testify i don't think
we'll need that person yet uh anyone else no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
um good morning cusp of the morning this is uh greg waldman um planning commission staff
this property is zoned a two-family residential and is recommended to be rezoned to multi-family
residential in the comprehensive plan accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the
requested variance thank you mi2020-001296 4424 baltimore avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you thank you mr
just for clarification it is uh 4425 baltimore avenue i just want to make sure that was on the
record did i did i miss did i misstate that i apologize it's 4425 baltimore avenue yes thank
you we appreciate the board's time thank you calendar number one eight four five four forty
two west queen lane good afternoon i mean good morning it is afternoon good morning it's still
for the record and can you please spell your last name absolutely uh zenjin z-h-e-n-j-i-n 1617
john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the applicant
you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do you also wave and stip i do and have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal referral photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this
hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all questions
and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes to all questions. Okay great you may
proceed. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm going to go ahead and share with the board the information
on this matter. This is a application for a new construction on a vacant lot. What I want the
board to understand is that 440 and 442 are essentially two lots that are being built together.
these are twin buildings so the number of units actually reflect it's three of each
property so total of six the refusal is attached along with the community letter from
solar germantown petition of support on our side photos plans now we also submitted list of
neighbors with three to four units photographs of the neighbors and property use records of
the neighbors. What this property is, it is a RTA1 property, which means that under the zoning
code by right, my client can build two units on each of the lot for a total of four. However,
what my client would like to do is to build six total units, but with the condition, of course,
that no unit would have more than two bedrooms. The reason why my client decided to approach the
community with this proposal is because four units, while it's by right, based on the size of
the lot and the buildings in the area, four units actually turn out to be harder to manage
with more additional bedrooms than if we had six units where we're restricting it specifically to
two bedrooms each. The density of the bedrooms actually wouldn't really change because each of
the two units would have at least three bedrooms versus three units with two bedrooms would be
essentially a wash when it comes to the total density according to bedrooms. Now the additional
units will be smaller with less bedrooms so that it will be easier to manage from the management
side. These are going to be rentals and we were very clear with the neighborhood association,
the neighbors, that this is that is the intent and that is what we see also with the neighbors
in the area. As part of RTA1, part of the refusal also indicated six parking spaces, and we're able
to put four in the front based on our design. What I want to do is actually show the plans first to
the board, and then we'll address the specifics on the community's letter. So as you can see,
the property is two buildings side by side. This is one's 440, one's 442. You'll be three units in
each. We're trying to put in the parking spaces in the front. What is actually unique about our
proposal versus what is existing on the block is that there isn't really consistent off-street
parking on the block. On our side of the block, for example, it's clear from the photo of the
properties next door that while this lot is going to put parking in the existing buildings next to
us which are also twin style with three families in each does not have any off-street parking and
in fact the parkings are for the most part on this side street on street this is a different angle
you can see that the other property has a side entrance similar to what we're proposing and
this is the other size building from our property. What we also want to point out with the design is
that the ultimate design is to propose two bedrooms, three units. And again, this property
will have a pretty substantial side and rear yard available to it so that trash management,
whether it's two units or three units will be much easier than a roll home situation because
you can access the rear space here the entire rear space by the entire building so there is
open space in the back there's actually a 20 foot deep rear yard and the width of the property also
allows the yard the actual width of the yard to be pretty substantial as well i believe it is
25 feet wide and 23 feet wide, so almost 50 foot wide in width, 20 foot deep for the rear yard area
where the trash will be placed until pickup time. The parking will be in the front. We are proposing
a curb cut in order to achieve that. So again, the layout inside will be three total units with
two bedrooms each, keeping the total bedroom counts to six bedrooms per building. Again,
it's two buildings, three units each, so the mirror image of this floor plan for the other
half of the building. We are proposing some balconies, but again, the idea was to have
proposing some balconies but again the idea was to have some additional open air for the individual
units if they're not using the rear yard. If that is an issue of course the balconies are not
something that my client must have as part of the design. This is a proposed design
based on the idea of a six unit building. I do want to also point out that this is a heavily
multi-family block, 432, 36, 38, 44. These are all addresses which my client has confirmed
have at least three units, if not more, with the other addresses on the block also have many that
are at least duplex, if not more. So on both sides of our property, we're actually surrounded by
triplex multi-family uses as well. And these are also reflected in the city records, which is
attached to our exhibit. So we have shown that these are documented three families,
they're not just illegally converted three families. So to address the community opposition,
we met with the solo Germantown Civic and they did write a pretty extensive statement
with their opposition. The key items here is that they're asking for some,
without conceding to even agreeing to any idea of anything over a duplex what they have brought up
a lot of their opposition was aesthetics of the project while we understand aesthetics is
important to the community and my client was willing to negotiate without being able to move
forward beyond we just want aesthetics without even possibility of considering six units i think
the discussion was not fruitful and therefore we did not actually get into details with what
could be concessions in the aesthetic side the community basically took the position they would
rather see a single family house here than anything else which i understand but um again this is at
least a duplex by right for each and therefore four units by right on the lot even if we were
to build completely uh by right based on the zoning code so again i want to be clear with the
zoning board that my client is willing and asking for a restriction on the number of bedrooms as
part of any decision from the board that would be in support of a six unit. And if not, the final
project would be four units. But of course, by right, the number of bedrooms would be adjusted
according to the needs of that design. My client did try to get a petition herself for the
neighboring property. But the issue is that they're mostly rentals. And therefore, most of the tenants
were not willing to actually get involved with a petition in this case and both properties on both
sides are actually set up for a triplex use on each of the house as well so that is again the
community is in opposition i want to be cleared out again with the board but once again my client
understand that there's no legal hardship because it's a new construction but what we're asking for
the board is kind of a more reasonable layout for the property in the sense that six units with
limitation to two bedrooms, no more than two bedrooms each, just makes more sense here than
larger two units. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions from the board at this time.
And if you want me to direct to a particular exhibit, I will be happy to do so. Thank you.
Do you need to get your client on? Yes, my client is here by phone. Let me pull up the information
real quick to make sure that it might be shown as a phone number.
My apologies.
I'm just pulling up the information.
I have the last four digits or you can just ask your client to raise his hand.
I believe I have the last four digits here.
That's why I'm actually trying to pull up my apologies because there was a lot of information
going through so last four digits is one six five five um it should be uh pinkus
caller ended in one six five five you can um unmute yourself and just say your name for the record
they could press star six
caller you will have to press star six so that you can speak
mr jen in the interest of time as an officer of the court will stipulate that your client
would adopt your testimony are there any other questions are there any questions from the
Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
Are there any questions from the board?
board. No.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Yes, Chair, we have Mr. Charles Richardson.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson.
Please identify yourself with a record.
You're still under oath from this morning.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson from the office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
The applicant met with the RCO, and the RCO had some very specific things that they were looking for in the case that they have come out against this.
And in fact, the Councilwoman is supporting the RCO.
The property that is being proposed to be built looks nothing like anything that's smack dab in the middle of a block.
And then it looks nothing like anything that is in the neighborhood at all.
The density that they're asking for is too high.
And, you know, if they're going to build something, they should go with their buy right, if anything else.
But again, they need to try to conform more with what actually exists in the neighborhood,
as opposed to trying to put something that looks totally different and is out of character
with the properties in the neighborhood. So the Councilwoman is in objection to granting this.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Yes, Chair, we have a, I'm sorry, never mind.
To address that again, Chairman, just to be clear, when we met at the RCO, we were never
really able to get into the aesthetics because the RCO is taking a hardline position against
any variance whatsoever.
In the case of a by right build, the aesthetics would be what my client would be building
based on their by right design so that is why the aesthetics were not further discussed at that
meeting because we were not able to get past the issue of the number of units yeah thank you
i'm sorry you can go ahead keychain i'm sorry uh we have a um miss allison but if you want to speak
first miss tye you can no i just wanted to make sure we got allison from solo miss weiss
Ms. Weiss, good afternoon. Please identify yourself with the record, and I'll swear you in.
Allison Weiss, A-double-L-I-S-O-N-W-E-I-S-S.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Yes, we are the RCO, and we hosted the meeting, and we submitted our letter, as Mr. Jim has referred to it, but I wanted to make sure there are many community members that wanted to attend this meeting and voice their opposition, so I wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to speak.
well they will but we're we're just not we're not going to entertain anything uh
from everyone we want the same same message from everyone uh no disrespect if something new and
different uh that would be helpful but if not we'll just recognize that there are other people
who are in attendance who are be who oppose this project yes and we we do have an opportunity to
to touch on aesthetics but the community is opposed so thank you i'm sorry i missed that
first part about the aesthetics what was that we did have an opportunity to speak on the aesthetics
and the neighbors were unhappy with the proposal the balconies that no other property in the
near area so let me ask you this i mean the the mr jen said that the balconies
were not that important they would have be willing to remove it is there is there any
opportunity do you think there's an opportunity to have further conversation on this matter
and aesthetics aside because that's not an issue for the board only if it is for a twin at most
okay that's what I wanted to get at okay thank you thank you anyone else
planning commission.
Good afternoon. My name is Greg Walden, planning commission staff.
This property is done to family residential and is recommended to remain as such in the
comprehensive plan. We believe that six units is an overuse for the site. The applicant would
The applicant would have been permitted to build four buy-write units if the lots were not consolidated.
have been permitted to build four buy right units if the loss were not worth.
We also believe that the proposed front-loaded parking with continuous curb cut would have an adverse impact to the block.
Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variants not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2020-001845442 West Queen Lane, my vote is no.
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no thank you thank you calendar number 1765
879 marcella street
this is sharon saletta the property owner's name is tanya solomon i believe she's representing
herself. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Solomon. She's coming in as a panelist now, Chair. Thank you.
good afternoon
you have two devices on
if you can turn off the one you're not going to use okay it's off all right okay can you put your
name and address on the record please oh yes tanya solomon address 879 marcella street
philadelphia pennsylvania 19124 thank you can you spell your last name please yes solomon s-o-l-o-m-o-n
and can you also swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Have you submitted an exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Everything was submitted with approval from the RCO.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
Well, we're just actually just asking for rezoning.
to continue to run our group daycare from our homes.
We've been doing-
I'm sorry, do you have exhibits to present?
They're not coming up for some reason.
We've been trying to download them
since we've been on this call.
All right.
I know you were having some technical difficulties.
So Chair, if you need them,
I can search for them and try to present.
but they were sent over to everybody on 12-1. I don't think we're going to need those.
Obviously, no matter what we do, the state's going to have to do the inspection. They'll
figure that out. Sounds good. Thank you. You said this is a continuation. Was this
a temporary before? Yes, we've had two temporaries before. How many years?
One was for two.
One was for five.
Okay, thanks.
Go ahead, Chair.
I'm sorry for interrupting.
No interruption.
Are you asking for another temporary?
The RCO agreed to another two years.
They know that we were looking for a property.
And when does your current lease run out?
This is my home.
I'm sorry.
When your current temporary variance runs out,
when was it it ran out in February 1st I believe oh okay all right understood
any questions from the board no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand yes chair we have um miss hillary miss hillary you can unmute yourself
say your name for the um record
good morning or sorry good afternoon mr chair members of the board hillary emerson on behalf
of councilwoman sherelle parker you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you you're welcome um councilman parker um is not opposed
to an extension of a temporary variance at this property for a group child care facility.
As you know, we typically have some concerns about commercial uses on residential properties,
which is why we believe a temporary variance is appropriate in this case. And as Ms. Solomon
indicated, she is looking for another property to house the daycare. We're happy to note that
that she is operating a four-star facility at her property
um facility at her property and also that the community and the neighbors were not opposed to
and also that the community and the neighbors were not opposed.
an extension of a temporary variance at this location thank you questions from the board
no no anyone else testify
planning commission
good afternoon this is greg waldman planning commission staff this property is a single
family residential and proposed to remain single family residential use in the comprehensive plan
we do not believe that the continued use of the state family daycare would have an
for adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood accordingly we have no objection to the granting
of the special exception thank you mi2020-001765879 marcella street my vote is yes with the proviso
temporary variance to expire december 31st 2023
23. My vote is yes with the proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
I believe that concludes the 9 30 session. Do we have any unfinished business?
Chair if I could I just wanted to put on record with Ms. Solomon.
Yes. Last time she came this is Tanya Ms. Solomon there was an error on the zoning board's part
and i appreciate that her understanding with this and um any other assistance she may need
you can come to the zoning board but i just thank you tanya last time it was our fault
but thank you very much very much okay um i have a case which was not called 1127 lee street
uh i thought that was wasn't that one on the continuous yes mr jinn i'm sorry we thought i
thought that was continued and it was read as continued at the beginning of the session
wrong on that um if we're mistaken on that would be possible for the board to hear it now yeah we
did submit all the uh evidence needed to present it today it's 11 27 north lee yes that's correct
Yes, and we also had a letter from Councilman Scuola in opposition and support from the RCO.
I apologize for including that on the continuance list.
Oh, no problem.
No worries.
All right, let's go forward with MI 2020-001307, 1127 North Lee Street.
mr jen you're still on their uh uh oath so just give us your full give us your name and
proceed with your testimony thank you then jen z-h-e-n-j-i-n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard
suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the applicant
it's carol you're muted
has he put his name an address on the record yes okay so you have to be sworn in i was sworn in
earlier okay so it's down to have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents
including proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos
including plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes, to all questions. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank
you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case.
We have submitted the community letter, refusal, photos, plans, and related documents with this
case this is an application for a dimensional variance uh for a an addition to the real of the
property community is in support of this application as you can see from the community
letter it is voted completely in support uh the plans of the property what this is this is
essentially a trinity house it's an extremely tiny lot and it is actually surrounded by uh houses
that are like it, which already had extensions done. And my client's property is about one
property from the corner of a row of homes similar to it. As you can see, these are literally little
rectangular houses that have very short depth and are very small in size. So the addition is
primarily to give my client opportunity to have more space within the property. The neighboring
Neighboring properties will not be really impacted except for this house, which is not an objection to our extension.
properties will not be really impacted except for this house, which is not an objection.
The other side properties have already been covered 100%, and this notch is where the addition would actually end up inside of.
So this window here would not be impacted as well.
In essence, our addition will have no real direct impact on the neighboring properties.
there's also a legalization of an extension for a kitchen, which used to sit in this little square.
My client had a addition done with the kitchen and now seeks to also do a second story addition
to extend the bedrooms. That is all this application is for. Again, it is a, the issue
is that this property is so small that there's a hardship to trying to get more space without
triggering a variance. And we would ask the board's favorable ruling in this matter. Thank you.
Thank you.
Do you have your client to be sworn in?
Yes, I should.
My client should be here as well.
Anne, are you on the line?
Maybe you can...
Please apologize again for the mistake that you and your client have.
I'm sorry, Amy Hongfei is the client.
My apologies.
Yes, she's available.
Does she just need to unmute herself and say her name for the record?
Yeah, hello.
My name is Hongfei.
Please spell your, ma'am, please spell your first and last name.
H-O-N-G, home, last name F-E-I, F-Frank, E, like Edward, I, Indian.
I live in the...
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Jin.
Thank you.
Amy, you have heard my testimony and representation to the zoning board regarding this property
and this application.
Can you verify that it is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, it's true.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the Board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good afternoon. This is Greg Walbem, Planning Commission staff.
this property is indicated for single family residential use in the comprehensive plan
we have no objection to the granting of the requested variance thank you very much mi 2020
dash zero zero one three zero seven one one two seven north lee street my vote is yes my vote is
yes my vote thank you all mr jen i apologize to you and your client for the mix-up no problem
all right thank you uh we any other any unfinished business 9 30 session
no all good all good all right thank you everyone stay safe see you in about an hour and a half
thank you thank you good afternoon everyone we're going to give miss sunken a few minutes
to go through her files and then we'll proceed with the two o'clock session
carol carol you there yes yes but while you're waiting number one on our list for two o'clock
414 20 south 20th resumption oh yes that's an appeal against ellen i we're going to do that at
the end of our session two o'clock session okay move that back and we'll explain you know number
Number three is continued, number...
I'll read those off.
I just want to make sure of those, but that number one, we're going to do at the end of
the session.
So, Mr. Plaza, are you available?
Secretary Plaza?
Yes, I'm here.
Can you reach out?
Could you do me a favor and reach out to Tom?
It looks like there might be some concerns with his devices.
He's got like three...
I'll get a hold of him right now.
Thank you so kindly.
can you hear me oh tom are you there yeah okay yeah you got like three devices yeah i had a
problem once i correct it okay it's still showing one of them is still showing connecting to audio
now if it works for you and the sound is fine for us right now leave it alone
but chair we're ready to proceed okay thank you all right okay thank you tanya
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere,
Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Saletta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
Thank you.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their hearing.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded, that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue i'll repeat that also to enter an appearance statement
call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
Before Vice Chair Tenere calls our first case, I'd like to announce the following cases that we've received a request for continuance.
And I'd also like to ask at this time for anyone who's requesting a continuance or withdrawal for the two o'clock session this afternoon to please raise your hand.
So the following are cases we've already been asked to continue.
MI 2020-002267-533 West Montgomery Avenue.
That's number two on our list.
Number three on our list, MI 2020-002206-1370 South 46th Street.
Number four on our list, MI 2020-002266, 2000-34 North 2nd Street, and MI 2020-002256, 1837 South 10th Street.
Those are the requests we've gotten to date.
if the applicant and or his or her attorney is available and if you agree or disagree with those
cases being continued if you disagree with that please raise your hand at this time and again I'll
repeat if you're requesting a continuance or withdrawal please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you and I would remind everybody please do not
attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments should be directed to our board administrator,
Ms. Tanya Sunker. I'm sorry. Chair, this is Sharon Saleta. Number six on your list I have
marked as having no exhibits. I heard from the attorney Corin Weiss today and we received the
exhibits today. We also have a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla. If you
I could call Mr. Weiss so he can explain why the exhibits weren't timely submitted.
Thank you. Mr. Weiss, are you available?
Good afternoon, Mr. Weiss. Please spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in.
Warren Weiss. C-O-R-E-N-W-I-S-E.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
the exhibits were provided previously I received a call that they were not
formatted properly we're not reading well so I did reformat them and submit
them today and I spoke to Ms. Saleta I do apologize to you and your panel as
well as Ms. Sunket and Ms. Saleta as I know that this is really challenging
stuff and everyone's taxed but it is some pretty simple in my opinion hopefully
of yours to a pretty simple dimensional issue with support of the neighbors and the RCL.
No worries.
Thank you.
Anyone, anyone, any hands are up?
I think you're already answered, but I'll ask again, continuance or withdrawal requests.
Are we going to hear this one, Chair?
And I believe it's, that'll be the first case we're going to hear, number six.
is that accurate
that's right yes okay i guess we can proceed
i'm going to promote him yep i'm sorry chair i'm going to promote him to panelists he's going
to come back in i'm sorry i didn't hear i didn't hear you
I'm sorry I didn't hear I didn't hear you he's being promoted yeah he'll be back now
Mr. Wise you are promoted so you can share your screen as necessary
calendar number 2203 1219 Latona Street Mr. Wise put your name and address on the record
please and spell your last name orin wise c-o-r-e-n-w-i-s-e
address address sorry 100 north 18th street suite 300 philadelphia pennsylvania 19103
okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing about the truth
i do and you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do
Have you, do I read that?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet
or have we already gone through that?
It was emailed.
We've gone through it.
We need to read that.
Okay, have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents,
proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal referral, photos and or plans of the property
five days in advance of the hearing?
And have you met with the RCO
and do you have a letter?
I have emailed the exhibits
that are required we have met with the RCO and in that packet there is a letter of non-opposition
from Pass Young Square Civic Association. Thank you you may proceed. Okay and with me I believe
on the call are the architect Rick Miller and the applicant at least one of the applicants
Christopher Steven and Margaret Mecca. I believe I'm sharing my screen I hope you can see my exhibit
packet yes yes we see it okay thank you um so starting with the refusal so this is 1219 latona
street the refusal is if you're familiar with this provision 701 2b4 this is the this is the
third floor addition uh statute where um you can in in attached row home or in an attached row home
you can build a third story, but if you're abutting two row homes on either side that are only two
story, an eight-foot setback is required. The refusal is because the plans submitted do not
have an eight-foot setback for the proposed third story edition. And I'll just zoom. Well,
here's the, we met with the RCO. Here's the letter that the zoning board should have received from
passing square civic association uh that the the rco voted eight zero in non-opposition with the
roof deck and pilot house uh trellises at the rear and the front um being used as single family
household uh and they note the refusal as well here where abutting properties are two stories
and the code requires an eight foot setback in that scenario um this is the petition we had
signed. As I tell all my applicants, I'd rather five signatures from the adjacent nearly impacted
neighbors than 40 signatures or 400 signatures. We're at 1219, here's 1217. Other neighbors all
on the block of Latona, and let me show you that, that do not oppose the variance at 1219 Latona
Street for a third story with no setback. I asked when my client sent me this petition, I said,
where is 1221 they said oh they live in california here's the email uh margaret is my applicant she
emails me here's the email down here from miss bucks debbie bucks who is 1221 uh that says here
we agree for you to build your third floor without the setback we'd want to do the same
so uh let me know and hopefully this pandemic business is over soon um i'm sorry just same
email I printed twice by accident. Let me zoom through. So here's the plans. In fact, bear with
me. I want to just drop into the photos first. And let me show you that. While you're doing that,
full disclosure, if you noticed on the petition, there's a woman by the name of Amanda DiCicco.
she does happen to be my cousin so full disclosure
thank you sir and thank you to your cousin um i want to show you the subject property first
if i can find a good one
no i can't find a good one
no it's in here somewhere there it is okay this is 1219 latona street you can see uh two story
You can see a two-story abutting.
We can't see her, no exhibits yet.
We can't see your no exhibits yet.
What's that?
I'm not, I'm not.
We can't see your exhibits.
You are screen sharing.
Let me try again.
Anything?
yes we see yes okay got it now there we go so this is 1219 latona um the applicants uh margaret
and christopher have lived here uh margaret's on the house for about 10 years long-standing
members of the community um before the pandemic they were actually you know looking for a little
more space and actually were looking in the neighborhood they love this location as as many
of us do uh it's it's a great area and they wanted to stay in the neighborhood but we're outgrowing
their home looked around actually couldn't find anything then the pandemic hit and uh bad went
to worse and now they're working from home and really need extra space so they started talking
about building up and when we when they got into this process and dealt with the architect they
realized that there's this issue with the abutting properties and requiring eight foot setback
and I'm sure Mr. Chair and the members of the zoning board have heard this before this rule
regarding the eight foot setback for abutting properties creates kind of the haves and the
have not scenario because if you don't abut a two-story property you can build up three stories
no problem and you don't have to maintain that cordis line no setback this is the this is if
the picture showed their property they would be two doors over to the right so this property
is three doors to the west of 1219 this is uh 1227 i think and what's also interesting about
this property is this property is not set on the property line and there is already a setback
and the setback we'll see on the plans i think it's uh four or five feet so the facade of this
property is set back from the property line and we see that three and four doors down where
this house the gray one on the left is is built on the property line and the next one is actually
set back from the property line so this distance this difference between the facades of these
properties is that setback that is carried down this block on Latona so we do see down and this
is like I said this is to the west so to the west we have three-story properties then we have three
story properties three doors down which is set back um and now looking to the east we again have
the have-nots in the middle two stories and then when we get down to the corner
three stories so this if if my clients were this one they could build up uh without any variance as
by right. And then, I'm sorry. So there's their house, 1219, next door, next door. And there's
these larger properties down to the east. And this is to the east looking south. This is to the east
north, three large properties is to the east south, the south, southeast corner, larger tall
properties and then this is it doesn't come out that good but i was trying to show the setback if
you look further down here you can see the properties down here then reclaim the uh setback
on latona street and looking to the west you can see this is that setback that these properties are
all set back that that amount of space i saw that picture already so um well i'm here i'll just
show you the tax clearance which if you're going i've been trying to get the tax experiences from
the revenue department and when we use that website to request the tax clearance all we
get now is technical difficulties so i wanted to print out this page it says 1219 latona street
is zero past due and I hope that's and here's Margaret Mecca um so they are compliant but
the actual cert we were not permitted here's the deed to uh Miss Mecca 1219 Latona Street
dated 2000 2010 so if I pull it back up to the plans I think we got a pretty good understanding
of that you can summarize okay um yeah let me i'll just they want to put up a third story they
don't want to step back eight feet um and there is
And I can surely have whoever's on the line, I think it's Christopher Steven or Margaret Mecca, I can ask them to adopt my testimony for the record if that's necessary.
Here's what's proposed, just to give you the idea.
so they're going to add this trellis it's just this does project out into into what's the
sidewalk but it's actually within their property line like we said here's a third story addition
that's proposed large windows uh you know uh facade materials um keeping in character with
the neighborhood and there's a small cornice line to be preserved but you can see uh here it's it's
minimal it's not eight feet but the deck itself is actually set back because they're they're uh
and the neighborhood was thrilled about the fact they're adding so much green on the on the block
because there's going to be some planters here and the deck itself is set back but it's this
it's this living space that they're so uh so interested in gaining because um you know they're
building the third story they want to make sure essentially the difference between the the eight
foot setback and no setback is is it is a room um because the stairs have to stay where they are
and if they have to set it back they lose all this front area but uh the layout is going to
be an additional room uh two additional two rooms up in the third story and if my client's been
recognized i would just ask them to put their name on the record and and uh confirm that my
my statements have been accurate and they adopt them as their own
oh anybody on
do you know if they um on the telephone
uh i believe they should be on the zoom uh raise your hand
mr christopher and margaret
no worries if they're not able to get on uh we'll stipulate
oh there he is steven mr christopher can you hear us am i getting it backwards again
steven christopher i'm sorry i do this i do this to that every time his name is steven christopher
please identify yourself for the record spell your last name uh this is steven christopher with
the ph and christopher last name ch-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r and i have my wife here with me
I'm Margaret Mecca. First name, M-A-R-G-A-R-E-T. Last name, M-E-C-C-A.
Steven, did you hear my statement?
Yes, we heard your statement and everything is accurate and we would like to adopt it as our own.
Thank you. Questions from the board.
i'm sorry chair well sorry the question um was for them was not answered they were answering
corin's question okay swearing them in we could just make sure that's on the record gotcha miss
miss mecca mr christopher do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth we do yes all right we're all legal now okay yeah questions from the board no
no no no no one else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon my name is ariel de liberto that's a-r-i-e-l d as in dog i l-i b as in boy
E-R-T-O
And I'm here with the City Planning Commission
Thank you, Swear or Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed
This parcel zoning requires a third floor addition to be set back eight feet from the front facade
Because the adjacent properties are two-story homes
The applicant has not demonstrated hardship to justify granting the variance
Therefore, we oppose the granting of the variance
Thank you
MI 2020-002203 1219 Latona Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
So listen, when you get that deck built, if you look east, slightly to the left of the chimney stack on Jackson School, I'll be on my deck and just wave to me, all right?
it's on the record it's on the record take care thank you very much may i be excused
thank you very much may i be excused so are we going to seven and eight now
i don't know we we didn't have it we did we get the exhibits uh sharon
yes you're going to um the two oak lane okay because early oak lane ones we're okay to go
yeah no we have very good okay count calendar number one eight three five eleven hundred oak lane
and wait a second strike that eleven hundred dash eleven twelve oak lane calendar number one eight
three five and there's another oak lane calendar number oh seven three seven eleven twenty two
oak lane are they all to be heard together sharon they are these were actually continued so they
could be considered together oh okay great um bill car is the attorney and paul bonnie
is representing i believe the rco okay thanks
bill should be available he can unmute himself and say his name for the record
okay good afternoon mr chair members of the board can you put your name and address on the record
please yes i can you'll be sworn in after okay william kerr k-e-r-r um high schwartz is my firm
name 40 east airy street in norristown pa do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do. And do you agree to waive and stip? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit
packets with the required documents, including proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal,
referral, photos, plans of this property five days in advance of the hearing? And have you met
with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes, to all of that. Now, this is the third hearing in
this in this matter the first was february 12th the second was november 4th of this year prior to
the november 4th hearing we submitted all of our exhibits there were four packets so you should
have all four packets from the november 4th hearing thank you mr bonnie do you want to put
your name and address on the record yes uh good afternoon my name is paul bonnie uh my office
address is 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1109, 19106. I'm here representing the RCO and also the next
door neighbor, Yvette Young. Okay, and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? I do. So do you also agree to wave and stip? Yes. And have you also emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in
advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter well you're well you
are yeah just to clarify we're the we're the public and according to he's not the applicant
right right so representing okay right okay we do have exhibits and witnesses but um pursuant to
the board rules we're not legally required to understand understood thank you thank you
you may proceed someone may proceed okay i think um where we were is we we have a pretty extensive
record already um including um a statement of support from the count from councilwoman parker's
office and also a statement of support from the planning commission uh at the last hearing i had
almost gotten through my witnesses and we ran into a time crunch i have one additional witness
that I like to put on. It's our engineer. So at this point, I'd like to call Sarah Poindexter,
if you could raise your hand, Sarah. And Chair, if I could just point that the notice that went
to the attorneys was that this would be limited to 45 minutes to an hour because we have another
special listed. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, this this will be very short. And then Mr. Boney can
put his uh his uh opposition on here is available okay she just had to unmute herself uh it says
sarah been activated are you able to hear me yes that you sir yes ma'am please identify yourself
with the record uh spell your last first and last name this is sarah poindexter s-a-r-a-p-o-i-n-d-e-x-t-e-r
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
And your interest in this application?
I'm the engineer of record and was the one who prepared the zoning site plan.
I'm the engineer of record and was the one who prepared the zoning site.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Okay, I'm trying to, okay, this is, can everyone, I guess I'm not sure I've shared that yet.
Can everyone see the screen?
Nothing yet.
every time you do this you think you have it figured out and then the next time you
go to do it it doesn't quite work all right how about now no
now yes got it now yes okay this is our this is our um the view of our project
just to refresh your recollection.
And then I want to get to the site plan.
Does everyone see the site plan?
And then this is our zoning plan.
This is the one I really wanted to get to.
Okay, so Sarah, have you, did you,
did your office prepare this site plan?
Sarah?
We'll stipulate that.
Sorry.
I was muted.
Excuse me, what was the question Bill? Did your office prepare this site plan?
Yes. Okay, and who are you employed by?
Employed by Rodriguez Consulting, Survey and Civil Engineer. Okay, could you just give the
board a brief synopsis of your background as an engineer? I would stipulate she's an expert
engineer thank you we'll stipulate thank you okay at the uh november 4th hearing um did you hear
testimony by mr horner our traffic engineer i did and do you uh do you support or do you agree with
his uh testimony on the uh the parking and the traffic issues i do um i i was also wanting just
to point out in addition to david's testimony um you know there's kind of a counterintuitive
engineering principle that i think applies um to this project where you know off street parking
lots um sometimes people don't realize actually promote traffic um and and vehicles in neighborhoods
so um i i think you know it's been said a few times throughout these testimonies but
this senior housing development really is um meant to attract and you know how it's been explained
and i think how it's represented in the design it's been um designed to attract seniors who
who want to live in a community that doesn't require a private vehicle um that's you know
why a shuttle has been is going to be provided by the management service so um it's it's my opinion
that you know yes i agree with david's testimony but i also feel like that you know this development
is meant to attract those who are looking to not have a private vehicle.
So do you believe that the on-site parking that we're providing is adequate for this property?
Yes, especially with the expanded parking, which is meant for the employees and visitors.
What I also think is a great addition of this expanded parking is that it allows for ADA
compliant loading and trash pickup. And do you have an opinion as to whether
this proposed development including the parking in the driveway
configuration would have a negative impact on the neighborhood from an engineering perspective?
I do not believe it will have a negative impact. That's all I have for Ms. Poindexter.
I have some questions. Thank you Mr. Kerr. Could you keep just leave this drawing up on the screen?
I'll leave it there.
But could you zoom in a little bit on the drawing?
This is where I get challenged.
Well, it's...
Because I'm not seeing the zoom, the zooming it, the zooming...
Maybe the plus at the middle top, but I don't know.
Yeah, I'm not seeing... maybe I'll try that.
No, that's not working.
Okay, if you can just then push it down so we can see the top of the page.
Yeah, I'm not seeing any function that would allow me to zoom in.
That's it.
Is that okay?
A little more, a little more.
How's that?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Ms. Poindexter.
Your drawing has at the top towards the left has a label about Oak Lane Avenue and it says that on this.
label about Oak Lane Avenue and it says that on this block Oak Lane Avenue has a width of 60 feet
but then it says quote on city plan so I'm guessing that that means that on paper in the
city offices it says 60 feet but you would you agree with me that in real life it's not 60 feet
wide it is 60 feet wide um the difference between the um you know the city plan and the actual um
is that there's not a 13 foot sidewalk 34 foot pavement 13 foot sidewalk um designation it was
not built to city plan but the actual right-of-way width is 60 feet
Well, I don't want to embarrass you, but I mean, it's clear that you have not measured
it. Is that correct? That you didn't go out there with a tape measure? I mean, I'm just
going to, let me cut to the chase because this is just a factual matter. My client and
I went up to the-
We actually, we are as a surveyor. Yeah. So we did measure. And on the north side of
oak lane the right-of-way from a visual standpoint it looks like it's private property but the right
of way actually goes through the front yards of the the properties on the north side of oak lane
right so on okay i don't know why we're having this problem so on the city plan the right-of-way
goes through somebody's front lawn but in real life a car has only a much much narrower width
from concrete curb to concrete curb.
So it sounds like you're asking for the width of the pavement, not the right-of-way.
Thank you.
Is that correct?
Yeah, the right-of-way is the legal city limit property.
Okay, well, I didn't understand your terminology in your profession, and I apologize for that.
So the width of the street that the car can drive on before it hits a curb is much less than 60.
Is that correct?
Correct.
It was supposed to be 34 feet, and it is less than 34 feet.
Would it surprise you if it was 22 feet 6 inches?
No, it would not surprise me if it was 22 feet 6 inches.
OK, because as you'll hear in a few minutes, my client and I went out with a tape measure this weekend and it was 22 feet, six inches.
I want to direct your attention to the parking that you have indicated in the middle of the drawing.
And so cars would enter first on 11th Street.
Isn't that correct?
this this driveway here on 11th street right where the pointer is
do you do you know how wide do you know how wide that driveway is
i'm going to open up the drawing on my side since i can't see it on the screen um just give me a
moment if you have the answer you can let me know but give me a second to open up the drawing okay
Well, I estimated it with my yardstick to be nine feet, 10 inches.
So that doesn't sound crazy to you.
I'm not saying that that doesn't sound incorrect.
You have no reason to argue with that at this point.
I don't.
And then so cars would, I mean, we can get into that later if we will.
I understand you're taking my word for it.
But so cars go in there at 11th Street, and then they turn, and then there's some spaces on the left and some spaces on the right.
And then they exit up at Oak Lane, this 22-foot, 6-inch street that we talked about.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And Oak Lane goes two ways, right?
it's a it's a two-way street is that correct that's correct okay and you have what's called here a
passenger turning study vehicle on the right and actually it's tough to see but
right there in the middle of the driveway that's exiting on oak lane you have a
turning, some turning lines. And as you can see, isn't it correct that for a car exiting
on Oak Lane and turning right, that the two lines that are drawn on this page actually
cross over into opposing traffic in order to make that right-hand turn?
Would you agree with me that that's what this drawing indicates?
would you agree with me that that's what this drawing indicates
So it does show that from this auto turn that you do to, let's see, it does show some lines
kind of going out into the opposing traffic, yes.
Thank you very much.
And you would agree with me that the predominant driver in this scenario are elderly people.
Is that correct?
No, actually, these are for employees and visitors.
Would you agree with me that there are some ambulances and emergency vehicles that are larger than 19 feet in length?
yeah i think i would add though that this is a conceptual plan let me just add that this is a
conceptual has not gone through it this is not a technical um you know plan to be constructed from
we can certainly widen the proposed curb cut or flares in order to have you know an easier
turning movement that's that's not a problem at all let me interrupt if I may or is that to
suggest that we've not you've not yet gone through the streets uh department uh review
as it relates this has been approved by streets department yes this has been approved so um if
but I'm just saying that there's you know uh concerns and also this is done by you know a
computerized program. It just basically shows that the movement can happen. It's not a perfect
program, but we use it. Go ahead. When you said conceptual, that kind of threw me off. That's why
I asked. Okay. Well, the zoning plan is conceptual. We will have to go through a subsequent streets
department review, their checklist number two review, that shows a lot more detail than this.
Would you also agree with me, Ms. Poindexter, that large ambulances and emergency vehicles have a wider turning radius than your typical passenger car?
I would. And again, you know, those types of details will be reviewed in detail with the building permit review.
if any adjustments are needed in order to make those turning movements work we certainly will
be working with all those departments right now this is a concept to get us through a zoning
approval well we'll see about that I have no further questions thank you great
just some a few redirect questions I'll redirect Ms. Poindexter again is it your testimony that
THIS CONFIGURATION, AGAIN, THE DRIVEWAY OFF OF 11th STREET INTO THE SHARED PARKING FOR 1100 AND
1122 IS APPROPRIATE FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT? YES, I DO. AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE STREETS
DEPARTMENT IN THEIR INITIAL REVIEW, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY,
Can you see the cursor that I'm moving on?
Yes, I can.
Is this heavy line here along, I guess, the south side of Oak Lane, is that the right-of-way, the legal right-of-way?
The red line, the property line, that's the southern right-of-way line.
and then the dark black line right underneath the oak lane avenue that's the northern right-of-way line
okay so here we have the southern right-of-way line correct that's correct and then we have
the sidewalk line which is out here i believe that's where your curb line is correct okay
that's the curb line and then across the street on the north um the curb line is much closer
correct correct correct and that was what was um identified that the paving width is less than 34
feet it's right and then the ultimate right of way line is this other uh dark line up here to
the north correct that's correct so the city at some point theoretically could decide that they
were going to expand this right of way and go to the ultimate right of way line correct
if that was needed correct that's correct that's correct okay uh that's all that i have
okay uh i thank you very much um i'm ready to put on my case
um and i'm also going to so i have five witnesses they're all i think very well rehearsed
um and we really want to move through them quickly i am going to email my exhibits
right now they're on their way over to um ms sunkett
Right now, they're on their way over to Ms. Sunkett and Mr. Kerr and Ms. Suleta.
These are my main exhibits.
And I'm going to share my screen.
Well, in a moment, I will share my screen.
First, I want to say that we're going to focus our attention on a few things.
I just want to tell you what they are so you have a little bit of a roadmap.
First, this is a case about a use variance and also several dimensional variances.
And we're going to point out that no hardship has been demonstrated and that we can actually prove that this can be used.
in compliance with the zoning code we're also going to focus on the character of the neighborhood
we have a lot of photos to show you we're going to focus on the lack of parking in the neighborhood
and we're also going to focus on traffic safety issues we don't have any experts
we just have residents and their observations and photographs and experiences
witnesses, but we think that that will show pretty much.
So I am going to share my screen here.
Let's see.
Well, this is from last time, and this is from today, and you will see that we have
five witnesses we may have a sixth depending upon if we need the sixth but we have five witnesses
and the first witness i'd like all of my if possible ms sunkett i'd like all my witnesses
to raise their hands and be recognized and then we can just move through them one after another
or would you rather they raise their hand only when we get to them um yes once we get to them
Okay, then my first witness is Freda Williams, and I'd like Ms. Williams to raise her hand and be recognized, please.
Afternoon, Ms. Williams. Please identify yourself with a record, name and address.
She hasn't raised her hand yet, Chair.
Can we go to the next person, Mr. Bonney?
We'll come back to Ms. Williams if we have to.
She's available now. Ms. Freda, you can unmute yourself. I'm waiting to be sworn in.
Good afternoon, Miss Williams.
Please identify yourself, name and address.
Good afternoon.
My name is Freda Williams.
It's F-R-E-I-D-A, Williams.
W-I-L-L-I-S.
It may be looking like John Williams.
It does.
We got her.
She's on.
can everyone else hear me i can yes chair we can hear you fine paul could you hear me
you're muted paul sorry there was a blip hear me i can hear you okay miss williams was just
giving us her name we'll get her address and i'll swear her in thank you okay you have my name
yep and the spelling got that okay thank you and i live at 815 asbury terrace
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir i do thank you ma'am mr bonnie okay ms williams i'm going to turn the floor over to you
and i'll just uh scroll through the exhibits as you speak okay well again my name is freedom
Williams. I am the co-chair, well actually I'm the chair of the Housing and Zoning Committee of the
Oak Lane Community Action Association, commonly known as OLCA, and we are the RCO for this
particular matter. And today I would like to describe to you who we are, talk a bit about
the immediate neighborhood, and report to you the votes of the community at the two RCO meetings
that were held on this matter. And then I also want to bring to your attention the strength of
our opposition to this project. I guess everyone thinks where they live is the best place, but
you know, we take a great deal of pride in East Oak Lane. It's a very old neighborhood. It was
established in 1683. We have a long history of community engagement. Aside from OCA as an RCO,
We're a community organization. We have our tree tenders. We have the Friends of the Oak Lane Library.
We have multiple organized blocks. We have many block captains.
And many in this neighborhood have a book where East Oak Lane is actually featured.
It's called The Images of America, Oak Lane.
It's called The Images of America, Oak Lane, Olney, and Logan.
And in the introduction, the book states,
in East Oak Lane, the home builders erected mostly large, elaborate, detached houses.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to object to this.
This book is not in evidence.
I haven't seen it.
Yeah, I'll sustain it.
With all due respect, Ms. Williams, I appreciate.
That's fine.
we can appreciate the pride you have in your community i'm well familiar with your community
we can get just to the heart of the matter as to what the opposition is about
thank you we can we can omit this exhibit i'm gonna let's keep please keep going ms
williams we want to cover a lot of ground okay sorry i'm not seeing any of you mr bonnie we
have no exhibits up. Oh, okay. Well, that's a problem. I apologize for that. Do you see it now?
Yes, we do. Thank you. Okay. Well, so this is what you missed. And then this is their website.
And then this is the book she was quoting from. And it's just the introduction to a book. But
Why don't you continue? We can ignore this exhibit, and Ms. Williams, please proceed.
Okay. Well, basically, again, what I want to bring to your attention is that
there are, you know, if you look at the subject property, you can see up and down Oak Lane that
there are, yes, a few institutional uses. There's a school. There's a firehouse. But basically,
this project is surrounded by homes, detached residential homes. And we're the people who live
in the homes. We, you know, we didn't come here by random. We chose to be here. And we are a
diverse community. We've been an active community, but actually this project has galvanized us in a
way in terms of opposition, which is a bit stronger than has
been that has happened in the past. We, if you look at the
property, not a drawing, not a rendering, but if you actually
look at a photo of the property, it's vacant, it's a flat
corner lot. And you can see the property from Oak Lane. You can
also see all of the other homes, detached single homes that
around this area. I believe that there were some photos, I'm not sure if you can see them or not.
But nonetheless, since you asked, and it came up before that was about the width of Oak Lane.
And I did go out, I went out with Mr. Boney, and we measured from curb to curb,
and it was considerably narrow at 12th Street, and it was 22 feet six inches wide.
There's also, we pointed to out the narrowness of the driveway on 11th Street.
And I understand that the engineer talked about it being a concept and they would make changes as necessary.
But currently, as it stands, this is a very narrow driveway and there's a set of stairs that jut out.
And then there are stacked, you know, there are cones that are stacked and the church uses that.
And sometimes they put the cones out and then that eliminates parking.
So, again, you know, just just to let you know, and I wish you could see the photographs and you could actually see more of what the actual neighborhood looks like.
As to the RCO meetings, I have submitted reports from the RCO meeting from February 12th, I believe.
it was sorry only yes um chair did we lose paul bonnie i was just thinking the same thing i don't
see him yeah miss williams could you please pause sure mr bonnie are you out there yeah i don't see
him here. I just looked. I don't see him either. I'm not seeing him either.
Ms. Saletta, do you have contact for Mr. Bonney?
Yes, I will give him a call on his seat now.
Thank you kindly.
Thank you.
Mr. Bonnie signed on
on his ipad he is on can you um identify and keisha can you promote him yeah thank you
there we go got you back
okay miss williams continue please and if you can summarize it would be helpful
oh let me try and get the exhibits up on this um okay i was just pointing out to to the board
that, again, this particular area, the particular site, is basically surrounded by residential
detached single-family homes. But I was bringing to your attention that we had submitted as the RCO
two reports regarding both addresses, 1100 and 1122 Oak Lane. The first RCO meeting that we held
was held on February 5th. At that particular meeting, over 100 people came out. 82 people
voted in opposition. 15 were in support of the request for variance. There were a number of
objections that were raised with regard to why they felt that this was not the appropriate site.
But the primary one is that this is zoned as single-family housing, and that is what we believe
it should be used for. In the second RCO meeting, which was held October 22nd, and we also sent a
report for that, we objected to the unity of use application by the applicant. Again, because this
supports the original application, we are not in support of anything that supports this project.
As we've indicated previously, we have concerns about parking. We know they had a parking engineer
or they had you know someone who did parking however we live here and we are the ones who
experience our need for parking and having to walk from this place to that place and uh parking is
one of the concerns that we have and actually from what we can see just based on the refusal
it indicated that the church only had five spaces and now they want to share those five
when on the on the refusal it actually states that the church was to have 32 spaces. Now how that was
how they got a variance for that previously we don't know. I'm only going by what is on the
actual refusal or the application that they made at this time. So we are not in support at all of
any shared parking. The next thing I'd like to bring to your attention is that you may have
received multiple letters because our neighbors, as I've said, were very much engaged in a series
of actions that were in opposition. And one of the things that we did were yard signs. I think
we've lost Mr. Boney again. And he had our exhibits, which were to show you that we had over
100 signs that stated no, no to this apartment building. When you strip away the title of senior
affordable, whatever you want to call it, the bottom line is that this is an apartment building
with 40 units and the potential for 40, 60, it's a stretch to go to 80, but certainly there are
some people who would be couples and therefore we're not only talking about 40 additional
persons being added at this one site. In addition to the yard signs, which we didn't have to beg
people to obtain, they called us. They were willing to pay. That's the level of opposition.
We held not one, not two, but three rallies. I'm sorry you don't have the photographs to show you
how many people actually came out. At two of the rallies, 75 people came out in opposition.
In the last rally that we had in September, we actually had signs where, you know, we knew we
couldn't come to the ZBA. And so we came out and we stood and we asked you to vote no. That was
the purpose of that particular rally. So once again, what we would say is that we consider
ourselves. As citizens, taxpayers, property owners, we are held to a certain standard.
We're expected to participate in, you know, the process. We're asked to participate in RCO,
and we're seen as being competent to assess and measure and to make determinations about our
to assess and measure and to make determinations about our neighborhood. And that is what we have
neighborhood.
done. So in the second RCL for the unity of use, I don't know if I reported the actual vote,
but it was 64 opposed and two in support. So again, the only thing that I can say to you,
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt. This is Sharon's letter. Mr. Bonnie is asking that he
again be promoted he has signed on his main computer i apologize for interrupting and if you
can just um allow me miss williams yes sir yeah you can conclude that would be helpful thank you
okay so my conclusion is that we are asking that our judgment as experts in our neighborhood
be respected and acknowledged because we are indeed the experts as to what belongs
in our particular neighborhood. We have no objection to senior housing in general. We are
simply saying this is not zoned. It's inappropriate, the height and the use. And we would say that
they should that what should go there is what it's zoned for single family detached housing
thank you very much thank you for your testimony very helpful thank you mr bonnie
can you see my screen mr chairman all we have is the uh introduction into the uh yes history of
oak lane i'm just going to rapid fire scroll through these exhibits this is the um photograph
that ms williams was referring to that shows the neighborhood this is from google all the houses
in the back around and i'll just continue this is the subject property that she was describing
as flat and vacant that's one side of it that's the other side of it this is the property looking
from Oak Lane, as she mentioned, straight through to Ms. Young's house. Ms. Young's going to speak
next. She lives in the house to the right. This is the narrowing of Oak Lane, Mr. Chairman. We
spent some time on this last hearing and also a few minutes ago. As you can see, looking straight
up Oak Lane, it radically narrows on the block of the subject property. The subject property is to
the right, on the far right corner. And as you can see, Oak Lane really narrows considerably.
I hope you can all see that. And that's a two-lane street. This is the rear driveway
on 11th Street that I measured as 9 feet 10 inches. This would be the entrance to the
parking spots. This is a little closer. This is me sort of holding the camera above the gate.
And this is the looking at that entrance from 11th Street. You can see the two neighbors right
next to that driveway have lawn signs protesting this project. These are the various lawn signs
that are around the neighborhood. The purpose of these photographs are not just to show you the
lawn signs, but also to show you the single-family homes that are in this neighborhood. I'm just
going to scroll right through it. Gorgeous house, beautiful houses, beautiful neighborhood,
beautiful neighborhood. Now these are the rallies, and I'm almost at the end here.
This is one of the rallies that was held specifically to oppose this project,
which would be right across the street. You can see the vacant lot on the right-hand side.
Here is another different rally.
And now this is the difference.
So these are two rallies altogether.
And then the third rally is in the next page.
This is at the zoning board hearing that was ultimately canceled for procedural reasons.
And instead of coming, we can't come to 1515 ARCH.
so all of the neighbors uh associated with the rco gathered at the site and held signs
to try and mimic as if they were in your boardroom i'm going to object to all these photos of these
rallies i don't i don't have any way of knowing who these folks are where they live how close
they live to the property i have no way no way of vetting that out so i would just object to
these and ask that they be stricken from the record i hear what you're saying but i just don't
see people coming from other parts of the city. I'm familiar with Oak Lane and how they operate,
so I'll overrule your objection. Okay, thank you. So now I'd like to call Ms. Yvette Young if she
can raise her hand. Yvette Young, you can now unmute your mic, say your name, and wait to be sworn in.
And Paul, I would ask that you instruct your witnesses if we can come up, have...
And Paul, I would ask you to instruct your witnesses, if we can come up, have a discussion
or comments, something new and different, not to be disrespectful, but in the interest of time
that would be helpful. Yvette, are you there?
Yvette, I hear a lot of static. Yvette, we hear a lot of static. Ms. Young?
So I muted her, Ms. Young, if you could reconnect, maybe with a telephone.
So could we move to the next witness, Tanya, while that's happening, or let's move?
Yes, Chair.
We can move to Mr. Matthews.
And then we'll come back to Ms. Young.
Yeah, thank you.
i'm here if you can hear me yes sir please identify yourself first and last name and your
address my name is david matthews m-a-t-t-h-e-w-s i'm from 6701 north 11th street
in philadelphia oklahoma and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do and what you live in what proximity to the application
um i live about half a block away because um it's it takes up that that lot takes up like half of
the block okay i just want your close proximity by any chance uh i don't know if you saw the
exhibit with the protesters were you in that group were you in that i was in a couple of them
okay thank you that's all i need to know thank you mr bonnie mr chairman uh uh this what's on
on my screen is an overhead aerial photograph.
The subject proper-
Paul, you're froze.
Uh-oh.
We gotta get you a new computer.
I think it might be the technology, internet.
I am still here if anybody, if-
Yeah, just hang in there, sir.
We lost your attorney,
or at least lost contact with your attorney, I should say.
The zoning attorney's worst nightmare.
We're not too happy about it either.
I can imagine. I can imagine.
Property is down in the middle, the middle center, right where the word Google.
Paul, we lost you three minutes ago.
We lost you. There you go again.
Paul, can you hear me?
Unmute yourself, Paul, Bonnie.
Take yourself off of mute.
Sorry.
Yeah, you're on.
Yes, I hear you.
Okay, we lost you shortly after I asked Mr. Matthews if he was in that group of protesters.
and then you started to speak and we lost you why don't i just turn it over to him
yeah okay let's do that all right well um i don't know if anybody else i don't have a
i have a screen does anybody else see the exhibit yes it's up i'm gonna leave and come back then
all right well there i am i got it got it back thank you oh okay uh my name is dave
have david henry matthews i'm the son of alice and henry matthews uh who bought the our property
at 11th and oak lane uh i think it was 1971 and if you're looking at a picture like i am right now
it's the brown roof house all the way over to the right and above oak lane so that's our house
um i'm in strong opposition to this to this uh proposed building uh oak lane is definitely a
community of single family homes and it's best like that the road is very narrow across that's
right next to the proposed property um basically uh i'd also like to point out that uh there are
are there three other single-family homes right across the street from the church
and where they're proposing the new building?
It would be just a heartless money grab.
I mean, it's just a terrible thing.
I see so many people trying to make us live with it.
I do appreciate the chance to, after all this time,
after all this time to get a chance to speak to the people who need to hear from us um please
to get a chance to speak to the people who need to hear from us.
understand we treasure our neighborhood we don't want to see it exploited um we've lived in that
house since 1971 and it's been passed down from my parents to me to my to my my brothers and
sisters and it's good i'm sure it will be passed down to our next family to our next generation
too where it's it's our family homestead where we've all stayed when we needed to from time to
time and for long periods and short periods of time uh in east oak lane we're just regular people
where i'm i mean i'm an audio engineer i mean meaning like a audio visual technician and i get
up and work every day you know i prefer to be a guitar player and audio recording engineer but
you know in another life maybe uh but just to say that all these people that live in east oak lane
We're not rich. We're just working folks that have chosen a really great place to live, and we all feel very lucky to live there.
People who want to live in the city and have a place in the city.
Mr. Matthews, if you can conclude, no disrespect.
I'm very close. I will conclude by saying that that's a perfect spot.
That location, 1122, is a perfect spot for a house.
If you look at the image, you can see that our house, which is about half an acre, is exactly the same shape and almost the same size as that property.
And if they build a single family home, maybe even two, they would sell instantly and for a good price.
Mr. Matthews, can you tell us, just I'll ask you one question.
Are there any parking problems with the congregants of the Refuge Church?
there are many problems tell us one of them well they park on the sidewalk they park in no parking
zones all along all of oak lane that you can see on the sidewalk so that cars can pass by when they
park there they park on my and how do you know it's from that church and not the other church
well because my my mother was a member when she was alive she was a member of east of oak lane
Presbyterian Church, and we're tight with that church. That's where I went as a kid. And if
anything was going on with Oak Lane Presbyterian Church, my mother, when she was alive, or any of
us would have been able to ask for that to be handled, because we're very good friends with
the minister. Let me ask it this way. Is the Presbyterian Church a better neighbor than the
refuge church much better thank you very much mr i know for the questions i appreciate it thank you
and appreciate it on a lighter on a lighter note maybe you can get your audio visual skills and
help mr bonnie out thank you mr chair could i just ask a few uh cross-examination questions
mr matthews yes i'm here you've been there since 1971 correct off and on yes okay um when you
moved into the into the part your parents moved into the property was the uh the saint mary's
ukrainian church um occupying the property 1122 oak lane if you're talking about the spot where the
evangelical refuge baptist churches is that what you mean i'm talking about the vacant lot oh that
place oh um yes there was that was a president uh what do you call it um ukrainian church so there
was a Ukrainian church there in 1971, correct? As far as I know, yeah. Were you aware that there
was a fire at that church in 2013? Yes. And so between 1971 and 2013, this vacant lot was
occupied by the church, correct? Yes. Okay, that's all I have. My next woman is Yvette Young. Yvette,
um she she uh signed back on on the phone
she can do star six so that she can raise her hand we'll know who she is
and how many other witnesses do you have mr bonnie after miss young
i have five all together so i have young and then two more
i have a caller um number ended in 7816 yes that's her hello this is yvette young hi yvette
thank you um what uh can you please state your name and address for the record
yes yvette young y v e t t e and my address is 6625 north 12th street which is next door
And my address is 6625 North 12th Street, which is next door to the subject property.
Mr. Chair, do you want to give her the yes?
Ms. Young, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Are you a member of the Oak Lane Community Action Association?
Yes, I am.
I show you Exhibit 12, which is your deed, showing you purchased your property in 2014. Is that correct?
Yes, that is my deed.
Your house is a single-family house?
As you heard last time, the pastor said that they used the vacant lot as a parking lot. Is that correct, as far as you know?
Yes, that is correct.
I'd like to refer you to the current proposal. Tell us if you're opposed, and if so, why?
I am opposed to the project. A 40-unit apartment building at this location is improper. Our neighborhood is predominantly single-family homes. Apartment houses are not allowed at this location. It's too dense. There would be too much traffic and too many cars looking for parking.
I also think that the proposal is too high.
With the height, there would be many, many windows at a very high height facing the side of my house.
The project would have an emergency side exit facing my property with a footpath that would run against my property.
um there's insufficient open space insufficient rear yard insufficient parking keep going
most of the houses in my neighborhood are three-story homes they have plenty of open space
they have rear yards they have um the properties have driveways and garages
Ms. Young and Mr. Bonny, excuse the interruption, and please don't misunderstand.
I think we've got the picture figuratively and literally.
I'll jump to you.
Yeah, because, I mean, it's repetitive, and I don't mean that disrespectful.
These people have been waiting a long time.
I think the board understands the very nature of this community as being single-family residential.
Okay, so I'm going to show you the pictures of the houses on her block.
very quickly. Thank you. Very quick. The subject property is on the left. Her house is the first
house there. You can see half of it. I'm going to just take you down the block on her side.
She would testify that all of these houses are not only single family detached, but that they
are owner occupied. Is that correct, Ms. Young? Yes or no? Yes, that is correct. Okay, then this
is the zoning map of her property is in the blue rectangle on the left hand side and as you can see
the zoning map has this entire area of as rsd3 which is what the subject property is zoned for
the rsa is also single family that's just attached not detached so those are mostly duplexes um now
there are the random anomalies, but this is what the zoning map provides. Now I'd like to
go through the parking situation because the consultant for the developer said that Oak Lane
was one of the blocks that he was relying upon to handle the parking load from this facility.
and as you can see on oak lane the subject property has the red dot in it and on oak lane
on that block the signs from the parking authority for many years have said no parking anytime on
either side of the 1100 block on the on the block to the right between 11th and lawton there's no
parking at all on the south side and then in front of mr matthew's house there's no parking
right on that little stretch on the corner going to the left hand side you have the 1200 block
on the bottom of the 1200 on the south side of the 1200 block you have the firehouse
and also some parking lots for some businesses so there's no parking at all in the middle of that
block and there's only two hour parking on the corner near the library on the north side you
Can I jump in here? Is this relevant to Mr. Matthews' testimony?
Because I have some follow-up questions for Mr. Matthews.
I thought you've... No, this is Ms. Young.
I'm sorry, Ms. Young. I'm sorry. Ms. Young?
Yeah, this is still Ms. Young.
Ms. Young would be testifying that this is, in fact, what the parking signs...
Ms. Young would be testifying that this is, in fact, what the parking signs say on these blocks,
so we're still on Ms. Young. Okay, gotcha. And so on the 1200 block of Oak Lane,
on the north side, in the middle, it's no stopping at all because there's a firehouse across the
street. And on either ends of that block, it's no parking during school time, which is basically the
entire daytime, 7 a.m. to 4.30, as is this little stretch on North 12th Street above Oak Lane. So
really, you know, this is one-third of the area that the consultant said would supply parking
capacity for this facility. He said, in particular, the 1,200 block of Oak Lane would provide parking
capacity for this facility. That's really not correct because you can't park there during
school times or it's only two-hour parking and you know unless you want to have these senior
citizens uh you know running outside all at all times of the day and weekend to move their cars
every two hours and when school opens or closes it's just not going to happen um i'll just ask
you ms young is that do you agree with everything i said absolutely okay furthermore ms young
would testify that another part of what the consultant was relying upon was the entirety
of this block of 12th street that she lives on and that they would have senior citizens parking
all the way at the bottom of 12th street um in the night and inclement weather or whenever
and i would object to that that's not what that's not what the testimony was it's not what the
testimony was uh that's all i have on this exhibit but let me um well through while it's up there
Could I cross-examine Ms. Young on a couple of points?
Let us just finish.
I'm almost done with this witness, and then you can have her.
Well, I was going to do it on this exhibit.
I can go back to this one.
I can go back to this one.
Ms. Young, is this what your street, did you take this picture,
and is this what your street looks like on any given night?
And I'm going to show additional pictures.
That's the subject property.
This is still your block.
And again, I'll object to these because we don't have information as to when these pictures
were taken.
That's fair.
Day, day of the week, my engine provided very specific information as to when he was
out there.
You can ask her that.
Can you hear me now?
What we need is for you gentlemen to stop, try to prevent yourself from talking over
each other.
and we are running close to an hour, if not past the hour.
We're not in it.
Ms. Young, I'm trying to get through it, Mr. Chairman.
I'm trying my best to plow through it.
Ms. Young, you got this email from the police department that said
at the top and bottom of your blocks on this year alone,
there was five auto accidents.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Do you think that this is a safe driving area
or is it a tricky driving area? It is a very tricky one because coming off of that narrow
street at Oak Lane, there have been actually other numerous accidents, including a hit and run. My
niece's car was hit in front of the library. She only reported that to her insurance company,
not to the police. So that actually is one of the accidents that went unreported, but there are
numerous is it so a lot is it so tricky that the city put four speed bumps on your block
that is correct okay i don't have any other i don't have any other questions uh bill you can
mr carter cross-examine yeah sure could you go back to that aerial photo paul
all right um just a few questions on this uh miss young uh paul could you just hover over
Ms. Young's property? Right here. Which is right below the St. Mary's Protectorist Church? Well I
think that's an old thing from Google but that's where it is on this drawing. So Ms. Young when
you purchased the church had already burned down it was no longer there correct? Correct. Okay now
across 12th street on the corner we have the Oak Lane Library correct? Yes. Okay and that's not
single family residential correct correct and are you familiar with the premier apartments
yes and where are they in relation to your property right here okay are you familiar with
the premier apartments yes okay are you aware that there's 46 apartment units in there
yeah i am yes and that there's no part there's no on-site parking with that property correct
and that there's no part there's no on-site parking with that property correct
yes that's part of the problem okay and then there's also the firehouse that's on
oakland behind the library correct yes okay then across uh north of oakland then you have
the elwood school correct the car with respect i think it was noted in uh miss williams's testimony
that we stipulate that there are some municipal buildings
within the general vicinity.
Okay, just one thought, just one last question.
You're not a traffic engineer or any kind of a civil engineer, correct, Ms. Young?
Yes, I am.
I have my master's degree in civil engineering, yes.
Okay, so you are a civil engineer, okay.
Yes, I am.
Okay, did you do any engineering studies that you've presented to the board here today
for this project?
I did do some measuring of the street yes I did you've not presented that to the board
no I did not okay that's all I have my next witness is uh penny null if she could be recognized
I'm chair um if I could mention that we have over 100 people in this zoning I'm hearing and
that we have another special, and the allotted time has surpassed, and just to note.
I thank you, and I just said that a few minutes ago, so.
Well, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask you what you'd like to do.
Well, if there's any substantive issues that have not yet been covered,
not, again, not to be disrespectful to the folks who are waiting online to testify,
I don't imagine we're going to get anything much different than has already been testified to by
the near neighbors uh well there there is Mr. Chairman there I could put on Ms. Kroll and ask
her like you know 45 seconds of stuff and then I can rest and then I can do 45 seconds and rest
and then I can do my closing argument now he can ask cross but you know I just want her to talk
about her property okay proceed we can finish it today then that's what we'll do if we can't
finish it today then then you're right okay but well i don't want us to close and we'd like you
know hopefully that we'd like the record to be closed so thank you ms crawl can you uh
unmute yourself she's available she just has to unmute herself i'm sorry
miss kroll penny can you unmute yourself can anyone hear me i can hear you i can yes chair
we hear you fine all right because i leave i lose i lose and have to keep getting out so i get lost
occasionally miss kroll miss kroll good afternoon please identify yourself for the record spell
your first and last name and provide us with your and provide us with your address my name is penny
Kroll, P-E-N-N-Y-K-R-O-L-L. I live at 6610 Lawton Avenue. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Ms. Proceed, Mr. Bonnie. Ms. Kroll, I'd like
you to jump to the last part of your testimony, which is about your house. Yes. I'm going to put
your house on here, so go for it. I live at 6610 Lawton. It's over half an acre in size, actually
0.66 acres in size. It's about one and a half blocks away from the subject property. I have a
huge, large front yard and backyard that the kids can play. The white fence you see there
is just the front side of the house versus the back side of the house. Well, we bought the house
because we were looking for a nice neighborhood to raise the children in and a nice large space
Ms. Kroll, so you're, now I'm showing the data sheet from your property and it's correct that
you said your parcel is 0.66 acres and you have a single family home on it. Is that correct?
Yes, I do. I'm showing now the zoning map that shows your house in relation to the subject
property, your house being on a property that's 0.66 acres and the subject property being 0.48
acres according to the engineer of the applicant, is that correct? Yes. I have no further questions
of this witness. All right, just a couple quick questions. Ms. Law, did you receive a letter from
my office with regard to the RCO meeting on this project? Yes. Okay, because I don't see you on the
list. Oh, that's because there are three of us who live in the house, we're a multi-generational home,
and my daughter and son-in-law, the Light Hearts, were the ones who went.
Yeah, I don't see 6610 Lawton as an address that we were required to notice by the...
yeah i don't see 6610 lawton as a as an address that we were required to notice by the uh
well oh oh let me tell you we did not get a notice from miss crawl miss crawl miss crawl
thank you for your testimony thank you and i would just state an objection that she's not
uh a near neighbor so we would ask that her testimony be stricken look at it 20 look at
exhibit 23 mr kurt so i i'll rest and i'm i'm ready for closing arguments i think the applicant
should go first since it's their burden but then I'm ready to chime in. Mr. Kroll, Mr. Kerr I'm sorry
are you ready? I'd like to actually just share my screen just in rebuttal to some of this testimony
Mr. Pony if you can get out now I'm going to find I just have one visual I'd like to share.
I think I'm finished I think I'm out tell me if I need to do something.
NEW SPEAKERS. I'M TRYING TO SHARE. IS ANYONE SEEING?
NEW SPEAKERS, NOT YET.
NEW SPEAKERS, ARE WE SEEING THAT NOW?
NEW SPEAKERS, YES, WE ARE.
Okay, this is exhibit six from my – and this is actually an aerial photo and two other photos of the prior church building that was located on this property on 1122 until 2013.
It's a very substantial church building, not single-family residential, very limited parking and or driveway.
way and this is what the neighborhood was used to from the 20s to 2013 that's what the record
indicates so I'll state that in rebuttal to Mr. Boney's case and as far as the closing we believe
that the record here support well actually are there any are there any other neighbors that are
going to make statements here I would hope not no I think we close that down for them we close that
Okay. So I believe that the record supports the grant of the requested variance. First of all,
this photo establishes that this property is really nonconforming since the 1920s. But for
the prior, this church would still be there. We're proposing a much less intensive use,
40 units of senior housings, which is one of the most innocuous and unobtrusive uses that you can
imagine. We have testimony in the record of the significant efforts made by both Pastor Richardson
and Mr. Bruce Morgan, the developer, to be respectful of the neighborhood and also to
respond to their concerns. We've been at this for a year and a half now. There are a significant
number of support letters which have also been submitted in the record in our binder number two.
So the board should have that and you can refer to those support letters. So there is significant
excuse me, significant support from the neighborhood.
We also have testimony from our expert architect
that the use in the proposal is reasonable
for the property, that there'll be no negative impacts
and that the requested variances are the minimum
that are needed for this reasonable use.
There's testimony from Mr. David Horner, the traffic expert,
that the proposal will not create traffic impacts
and that there's more than sufficient parking
for the proposed use.
We have supportive testimony from Sarah Rodriguez,
our civil engineer.
all of that all all three of those are experts and there is no expert rebuttal testimony to any
of that evidence final couple points the planning commission letter which was read into the record
at the last hearing recognizes the need for affordable housing and indicates unequivocal
support for the grant of these variances and finally at the first hearing back in february
council and parker's office made a very significant statement in support of the project so we think
We've done our homework.
We've done everything we could.
We've tried to accommodate the neighborhood.
We recognize that there's still some opposition,
but we believe that given the history of this property,
it's a reasonable proposal
and that the requested variances are warranted.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'll be as quick as I can.
Go ahead, I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Mr. Boni.
The applicant has not provided any evidence
demonstrating a hardship for the use variants
or for any of the dimensional variances. The subject property is zoned RSD3, which is for
single-family residential detached only. It's a rectangular property with one corner that's
extended a little bit. It's 0.48 acres. It's flat. It's vacant. And we, in fact, have demonstrated
what we don't have to demonstrate, that the compliance with the zoning code can
What we don't have to demonstrate, that the compliance with the zoning code can in fact be done.
That a single-family house can easily be put here as it does exist on three sides of this property.
On the south side, there's Yvette Young's house and the rest of the block.
Behind it, there's a house on 11th Street behind this property that's a single-family house.
That's next to that rear driveway.
And across the street on Oak Lane, there is three single family homes. So it is really beyond any dispute that a single family home can be built on this property easily. In fact, Ms. Kroll's property, which is a block and a half away, is on a property that's larger than this property. So certainly a single family home can be on this property.
We have demonstrated parking problems that the applicant has not mentioned.
We have demonstrated safety problems that the applicant has not mentioned.
And I'm really just hitting the high points here.
But also, Mr. Chairman, take a look at the parking situation.
The church in the 90s obtained a variance to have seven spots, even though 74 was required.
Seven spots.
Now they come to you with a unity of use application to share those spots. There is absolutely zero evidence presented to warrant a reduction in the variance that you granted them.
Similarly, this subject parcel needs 27 spots.
So with the church now under the current code requiring, I believe, 35 spots, I'm sorry, 32 spots.
So the church under the current code, as indicated by the refusal, requires 32 spots.
The subject project would require 27 spots.
that's total required 59 spots, and they're providing you with 12. That is, that's not even
a variance, so not, I don't think a variance can be granted for such a radical departure from the
code. Finally, I will just add, as I'll be a bit of a lawyer and mention that this board granted
a variance for the subject parcel four years ago for a parking lot. It's undisputed,
Can you still hear me? It's undisputed that it's been used as a parking lot.
And so, of course, there's no hardship if you deny this application, because they can use it
with the variance that you granted them, or your predecessor, granted them four years ago.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we ask you to do the right thing. We think this neighborhood
has worked hard to show you the strength of their resolve. They've sold yard signs. They've had
three rallies. They've had standing room only meetings. They've consistently been overwhelmingly
voting against this project. We think and we humbly request with all the respect and strength
that they can muster. And I think that they have earned and that we ask you to vote no on this
project it does not give us any pleasure to ask that um we're we're it's a shame that we think the
applicant has um you know misunderstood the requirements of a hardship um in in philadelphia
and um you know we're happy to see senior housing someplace else at a different product property
there are there are areas of this region of this district of the city where the city said in its
2035 plan that we should have more senior housing there's plenty of areas in the upper north district
that are properly zoned for that and we would be happy to you know to to see the developer go to
one of those places properly zoned but this is unfortunately the wrong location and we thank
you so much for your time um and we really you know put our fate in your if i could respond just
briefly, Mr. Chairman? I can't hear you're muted, Mr. Chairman. 30 seconds, please. Okay, just very
quickly. Mr. Bonnie's testimony was all neighbors who opposed the property project. There was no
expert testimony from anyone who testified that it was in fact possible to build single family
homes on this property. And the other thing to just keep in mind is for 70 some years, this was
a church. And the neighborhood had the good fortune that the church burned down. And now
they want the property to be down-zoned, down-used to single-family homes. This property has
this property has been used institutionally since the 1920s. What we're proposing is a
been used institutionally for since 19—1920.
significant reduction in intensity and we believe that the expert testimony is unrebutted and
warrants the grant of the variances. Thank you. Thank you. I said earlier, a few minutes ago,
that I was shutting down the testimony. I failed to ask, is there anyone from
the councilwoman's office available? Is Hillary still here? Is Hillary on?
hillary you can unmute hillary i apologize i i got i got ahead of myself on that one
oh that's okay please identify yourself you're still on the earth from earlier today
yes this is hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker
please proceed um well i had i spoke at the last two hearings uh mr chair so i i did not have any
additional comments to add from the councilwoman okay thank you i just wanted to make sure that
thank you very much no problem uh questions from the board no uh i think we got the planning
commission last time but i'll ask the planning commission again good evening or good afternoon
Ariel DiLiberto from the City Planning Commission. Our previous testimony stands. We are in support
of this project in variance. Thank you. I'd like a little more time to talk to our board.
So the record on this case is closed. We'll render a decision next Wednesday, December the 16th
at 9 30 a.m. Thank you all for your participation. Okay, thanks for your patience and your attention.
Thank you, everybody.
and we're doing 20th street now yes calendar number one four three three four one four sorry
um chair you um can i please just respectfully ask um that if it's okay with you all we can
just do the continuances for 330 so that everyone here doesn't have to wait in case it's continued
absolutely just give me a second to get my paperwork okay all right on the 3 30 list
the following cases have requested a continuance uh page number one 20 mi 2020-001830
2041 north reese r-e-e-se street
Number six on our list, MI 2020-001-861-2442 North 54th Street.
And what I have next, Sharon, from earlier today, you had mentioned that page number seven,
3639 North 19th did not have an exhibit. Is that still the case?
I'm sorry, I was muted. I asked you, could you just call that out to see if anyone is here for it?
Sure. MI 2020-000197, 3639 North 19th Street. Is anyone here for this case? Please raise your hand.
No hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, this will be continued. Tanya, has this been continued in the past?
Yes, it should be a must be heard. Thank you.
This will be a must be heard. Thank you.
next one was number eight on our list mi 2020 that's zero zero one nine four five five six
zero zero ogons avenue that is um meredith furlinger she is prepared to go forward when
we get to the 330 list. Okay, next one, number nine on our list, MI 2020, that's 001-936-5901
North 10th Street. Could we ask if anyone is here for this? Is there anyone here? Hillary's hand is
Hillary's hand is up for this.
up for this Hillary
Hillary, we have not yet received, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tanya, any exhibits on this case?
we have not yet received
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair.
Hillary Emerson on behalf of Counsel Mitchell-Parker.
I reached out to the RCO yesterday to see if a meeting had occurred because I hadn't heard either from the applicant or the RCO since the original email went out.
And I still have not heard from either party.
So we would request a continuance at this time.
thank you tanya have we has this been uh continued in the past yes a couple times
okay chair if i could note that both number seven and number nine the attorney is michael lambert
i don't have exhibits for either okay we will reach out to them mi 2020-001936
5901 north 10th street is continued must be heard and we also number 10 on our 330 list
mi2020-001944 7135 rising sun avenue is there anyone here for this case
um we have alicia jackson and she cannot speak because it's uh i'll promote her
cannell lc um alicia you've been promoted to panelists you don't have to open your video
could you speak to the continuance miss miss jackson please spell your first and last name
and provide us with your address
Alicia do you have audio
I only see a camera
Ms. Jackson, I would ask that you chat with me through the Q&A regarding this case.
And do you have an attorney to represent you to go forward today?
And if you can chat with the Q&A, we can resolve that with the attorney for the board.
okay chair
yes excuse me this is hillary emerson in councilman parker's office the rising sun avenue
case um was just called is also in our district um as uh the art i checked with the coordinating
rco and a meeting hasn't been held yet in this matter so we believe a continuance would be
appropriate at this time okay and again i'll ask tanya has this already been continued um it has
one time chair but it's okay for it to just go forward and not at this time it must be heard
thank you mi 2020-001944 7135 rising sun avenue is continued
um chair is number nine continued as well because i know there's no exhibits
uh north 10th street yeah i thought we continued that correct yes we did yes thanks all right
so we go back to the uh the resumption hearing resumption hearing which is on page number one
calendar number 1433 414 south 20th street
is the attorney um mr demarco michael phillips yes i already promoted michael
name and address for the record please and spell your last name please
michael phillips p-h-i-l-l-i-p-s oh good we'll make another pass and bring some more
Thank you.
Shake your vegetables.
What's your party?
Hello.
I'm sorry.
No idea who that is.
Looks like that's right.
I'm sorry.
I muted everyone.
So you guys might have to unmute yourself.
Good afternoon again.
Michael Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S.
1500 Market Street, Suite 3400, Philadelphia PA 19102.
I'm here on behalf of the property owner, RLDL 20th Street, LLC.
i'm here on behalf of the property owner rldl 20th street llc this is an appeal against lni we
are the property owner um mr demarco who i see just uh joined as well uh represents before you
go any further do you swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do
and have you emailed an exhibit packet with all the required documents proof of ownership tax
compliance refusal referral photos and plans of the property in advance of the hearing five days
in advance of the hearing have you met with the rco you know there's no rco here yeah this uh since
it's an appeal against lni and again this is our third hearing um but i did email our exhibit packet
um on behalf of the property owner um to miss salato prior to the november 4th scheduled hearing
um just to refresh the board's recollection uh mr demarco put on testimony at the two
prior hearings which were in august of 2019 and october of 2019 and request uh rested his case
at the conclusion of the october 15 2019 hearing um at this point uh the city of philadelphia and
I actually do not see Mr. Reuter on.
However, the city and the property owner like to make argument and put on our case in defense of this permit.
I will begin by stating that the law is clear here.
and we've spent about four to five hours of hearing discussing matters of quiet title
and discussing many extraneous matters, none of which have to do with the validity
of my client's by-right zoning permit.
Shelly DeHall, the plans examiner, testified at the prior hearing that the plans and permit
were all issued in conformity with the zoning code.
And that's the starting base point,
is a presumption that the municipal officers
perform their duties properly.
And in order to rebut that presumption,
the appellants need to show
and have the burden of showing affirmative evidence
that there was some irregularity,
that there was something wrong with the permit.
They have altogether failed to do so.
The law matters and the code matters.
This is not an instance where just how many neighbors come to a hearing and say that they
oppose a project, because here the project was in full conformity with the zoning code.
Not liking the law or not liking a buy-right project is not justification to appeal a buy-right
permit, and you can't just disregard the code because you don't like the result.
Here, our client relied on the code in its development plans and utilized the fresh food bonus for the additional 15 feet of height and utilized the affordable housing bonus so that the CMX1 property would be treated as CMX2.
They have paid $62,640 into the city's affordable housing trust in connection with this project and for the issuance of the building permit.
So think of the uncertainty that would be created here if this permit were invalidated, because what the appellants have argued are, one, that the fresh food bonus is unconstitutional.
And I would state that, aside from the fact that they lack standing to make that argument, that is an argument for the courts.
Two, they have argued, oh, so that would, as a result, invalidate any permit that relied on the fresh food bonus prior to 2019.
Now, the code was subsequently changed, as was noted, through the legislative process.
the neighbors lobbied councilman johnson uh and were able to effectuate a change in the fresh food
uh bonus that's the proper way to change an ordinance and that's the way the law works if
you don't like a law the reaction isn't to attack everybody who relied on that valid law
it's to lobby and have the law changed and that's what they did but to invalidate every
permit that relied on this bonus justifiably prior to 2019 would be an absurd result
developers need to know that they can rely on the code and that is exactly what was done here
And that is exactly what was done here.
the other arguments that have been
The other arguments that have been presented by the appellants, one relates to the parking.
Now, I'm going to share my screen now so we can go through.
this is the permit that was issued valid zoning permit complete demolition of existing structure
direction of an attack structure 60 feet high with the fresh food market bonus
and the mixed income moderate housing bonus.
The parking, we proposed four units and four parking spaces.
You'll note here is the zoning application that was filed,
which specifically references that the four,
I'm just putting my cursor over where it says four accessory parking spaces
and two accessory bicycle parking spaces in basement
to be accessed by shared driveway accessory to ground floor commercial use.
The appellants have argued that the parking is not permitted because it's not clear what the use was for.
Here it is clear. It was always intended for the ground floor commercial use.
Furthermore, the plan also calls out parking at basement accessory to commercial use.
here was the code which provided that in the rsa 5 rm1 and cmx2 districts and here we're cmx1
from a use standpoint we're treated as cmx2 because of the utilization of the moderate
income housing bonus but from a density uh i mean from a development standpoint uh we're bound by
rsa5 and here accessory parking for any single family two family or multi-family use shall be
prohibited unless it can be accessed from a shared driveway alley or rear street and that was not
what our parking was accessory to our commercial use as was made clear in the plans. I also think
it's worth pointing out that the code that rear street has since been defined and as I'll get
into in a little bit when we tried to reach a compromise with the neighbors to avoid this
protracted now 18 months worth of litigation and promises that they will appeal us in the future
and tried to reach a compromise through a variance plan. The parking for the residential
use at the time was permitted by Wright because Waverly is a rare street. At the time that we
pulled the permit, there was no definition of rare street and there was that period of uncertainty.
so what's left we have arguments about quiet title those are an absolute red herring
and totally irrelevant and notwithstanding the fact that my clients are the legal owner of 418
and 414 to 416 and have deeds to the property, right?
And also a corrective deed was entered into because if you may recall, it's been a while,
but in August when Mr. DeMarco brought forward an attorney claiming to act on behalf of one
of the heirs of an owner of the property from the 70s who claimed that we did not have title
to 2006 Waverly, which was not even an actual address, and retained an attorney who was
the appellant Ms. Gilboy's husband's business partner to represent these heirs who lived
in California.
We dealt with that for two hours.
Well, that's all resolved in moot.
A corrective deed was filed.
A settlement agreement was reached with those neighbors, I mean, with those heirs, which totally and completely resolves any quiet title issues that could have been pertinent.
But again, they're not.
So the one other piece of evidence that Mr. DeMarco tried to bring forward was that the parking garage was not feasible.
We have David Plant from Rogerio Plant Land Design who will be able to testify that first off, the driveway ramp and the slope is not a zoning code issue.
There were no regulations pertaining to that in the code.
Second, the curb cut was approved by the streets department.
the curb cut was approved by the streets department and third the driveway ramp is
feasible and i'll note that you know permits were issued for this so are we going to hear from
witnesses or is this are we doing different witnesses this is an this is an introduction
uh but but my witnesses will be brief because quite frankly the uh the plans are clear in
And the appellants have the burden of pointing out that there is some error and they have altogether failed to do so.
Before I bring, call my first witness, I do want to make one other statement in my opening as to why it's now, you know, December 2020 and our last hearing was October of 2019.
um despite the by right nature of the plan um faced with now two protracted hearings
and the promise uh which i have emails in my exhibit packets from miss gilboy that
they will continue just appealing and appealing and appealing we tried to reach a compromise uh
and uh and we presented a variance plan uh with the understanding that the neighborhood would
then support this if we reduce the height, but we had to expand the footprint of the building.
We went to a meeting before Center City Residents Association on that plan. We received a refusal.
Went through the time to have a meeting with CCRA, who issued a letter of non-opposition,
um but there was one problem with that plan near neighbor who lived directly behind uh who lives
essentially directly behind the uh the property and i'll show where right now um so our property
here is outlined in uh green it's this in the rear uh this one right here outlined in blue
opposed our request for a variance.
They did not oppose the buy-right plan,
but they opposed the variance
as it would impinge upon their light and air.
They hired an attorney, Matt McClure,
over at Ballard Spar,
and were prepared to come to the hearing
to testify that we did not show a hardship.
And quite frankly,
we couldn't show a hardship here
because we have a buy right permit so with that in mind uh we did not proceed with that variance
plan and entered into an agreement with uh miss her name is angela luton i have the agreement in
the record as part of our exhibits where she confirmed she does not oppose the buy right plan
it's taller she's you know has said it was emails that say she might not love the height she might
not love the fresh food market but it's by right and she respects the by right process so i cannot
in good faith come before the board and claim to have a hardship when a near neighbor complains
even if it's one near neighbor against 100 neighbors who want to oppose a by right development
because the law matters here this is not a variance case this is a by right permit i'll
again also point out that we have no opposition here from uh the neighbor to directly to the rear
nor to number five right here, 2001.
The appellants and the people fighting this right here,
Ms. Simillo is opposing it
and other neighbors throughout the neighborhood.
Again, not on the basis that what we did is not by right,
but on the basis that they just don't like
what we're proposing.
With that, I will briefly call my witnesses
mr chairman do i get an opportunity to respond to that opening i didn't know we were doing
opening statements i mean i would like an opportunity to respond i know you're pressed
for time but i i thought we were getting right to testimony today well we got a lot of argument
that you know needs a response so i don't want to belabor two days worth of hearing on mr demarco's
arguments excuse me this is the reporter if everyone could please speak one at a time thank
you i'm trying to do that mr chairman i'd like the uh the opportunity to respond i didn't know
we were doing argument at the beginning of this hearing. I thought we were going to go right into
witnesses. I've never had the opportunity to address the board on legal argument. You just
heard a bunch of legal argument. He referred to exhibits, some of which are objectable to me. I
can try to be brief, but, you know, I know you're pressed for time, Mr. Chairman, so I'll defer to
the board on this, but I'd like to respond. Mr. Phillips, you were about to respond to that
comment. Yes, I would like, I have transcripts, two days worth of hearings. Mr. DeMarco has
arrested his case. This is the opportunity now for the property owner to put on their case. I opened.
this is the opportunity now for the property owner to put on their case i opened i would like to call
my witnesses briefly mr demarco will have the opportunity to cross uh examine them and then
we just get to closings all right let's proceed that way thank you i would first like to call um
Nancy Templeton.
Ms. Templeton is now available.
She can unmute herself.
I have unmuted myself.
Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record, first and last name.
Nancy Templeton, T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N, with CH Planning.
Ms. Templeton, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Phillips.
And Mr. DeMarco, I would just ask if you would agree to stipulate to Ms. Templeton as an expert land planner.
Yes, I will.
Mr. Stampleton, note, Exhibit 6 of the property owner's packet is a report dated October 14th,
2019 concerning 414 to 18 South 20th Street. Did you prepare this report?
I did.
Okay. And did you review the zoning plan that is at issue in this hearing?
I did.
Okay. And you reviewed also the zoning application?
Okay. Is it your professional expert opinion that the zoning plan met all dimensional and use
requirements? It is. Okay. And is it your professional opinion that the parking that
was proposed was permitted for the commercial use? Yes. Okay. And with respect to the
uh the drive uh the driveway and the pitch of the uh of the ramp into the basement
is your professional opinion that that is a zoning code issue it is it is not a zoning code issue
did you find any valid uh objections uh to the zoning plan no
i have no further questions may i mr chairman demarco uh before uh mr demarco does that i
just want to introduce myself sorry i was a little bit late i had a conflicting meeting that went
longer um no worries mr sure please identify yourself sure this is leonard reuter r-e-u-t-e-r
for the city of philadelphia do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth uh yes i do um and i would just say that i i have no no questions um from ms
templeton thank you mr demarco good afternoon everyone uh ms templeton thank you mike uh phillips
if you don't mind leaving your screen up at least for the moment uh because uh since it's ms
templeton's report probably easier to go through that um i have it as well but uh you have it up
I'll ask you to leave it up if that's okay. Sure. Ms. Templeton. So good afternoon, Ms. Templeton.
I've stipulated to your qualifications. I have some questions. So in your report, actually,
what's on the screen right now where you have background, you mentioned that the plan involved
a lot consolidation of two lots, right? You see that? Yes. All right. So you are aware that this
was a lot consolidation of three lots into one, right? Let me ask you this. Did you see the lot
consolidation plan itself? I don't recall. Okay. Are you aware that it was a consolidation of
three lots into one? I will just subject to the point that the lot consolidation permit
and the lot consolidation plan are not being appealed. I'm sorry. There's a statement right
on her plan. I'm asking her if she knows that the sentence in her report is inaccurate. I'm
allowed to do that. Are you aware? Ms. Templeton, please, if you could. I don't recall. You don't
recall. All right. And you have said that clarification of ownership is not a zoning
issue, right? You've made that opinion here today, right? I have. All right. You're aware that
right? You've made that opinion here today, right? I have. All right. You're aware that the zoning
code at section 14-303 subsection 1 includes a voluminous list of requirements to demonstrate
ownership in order to submit a zoning application to LNI? You aware of that? That is true. Yes.
All right. So you're aware that 14-303 contains the requirement that the applicant have
authorization from the owners to submit a zoning application do you agree authorization from the
owners right we can put that up on the screen if you want i mean i believe you've admitted it but
let me let me make it make sure it's clear for the record you do agree that zoning section 14-303
requires the applicant to provide authorization from all of the owners of the property to submit
a zoning application? I'll just object to the point that I think it's beyond the scope of
her report, and we've ad nauseum. We've established ownership, haven't we? We've established ownership.
We've established that there was equitable ownership at the time. This goes to Mr. DeMarco's
argument that 2006 Waverly Street, which was not a taxable parcel, was owned by, was never properly
conveyed to the prior owners and interest, and therefore that invalidates its entire
permit. We've gone through this ad nauseum. Ms. Templeton is not here to testify regarding
the ownership. She's here to testify regarding whether or not the plan and the permit were
validly issued uh mr chairman uh the the objection is is is is clearly because they do not want you
to hear the evidence and the cross-examination because the issue is is extremely clear that they
did not have authorization to file the zoning application at the time it was filed the witness
has given an opinion that ownership is not an issue and it's just not correct ownership is an
issue because you have to demonstrate that you have authority to file an application
from the owners when you file at that time we did not i did not get into it with this witness yet
she's made an opinion about it the problem is that and and as far as ownership mr chairman
that's the problem they have not demonstrated ownership that is why this board has to decide
that issue because L&I did not elect to revoke the permit and punted the issue to you. And
unfortunately for the applicant, the code is crystal clear that you are required to have
ownership or authorization from the owner to file the application, and they did not.
At the time of the original application, that's what you're saying, correct? At the time of the
original application the argument goes back to what we talked about a while ago that they did
not have ownership right since that time and according to and correct me because i'm not a
lawyer mr phillips that matter has now been resolved is that correct that we do show proof
of ownership now correct and at the time of the application we were the equitable owner of the
parcel at 414-416 south 20th street which was the legal parcel recognized by the city
of Philadelphia. We were under contract to purchase it at the time of the application.
If we accept Mr. DeMarco's argument, are you suggesting, Mr. DeMarco, I'm not putting words
in your mouth, that the applicant go back and start all over again? I'm suggesting that the
applicant misrepresented to the department that it had full site control when it did not and knew it
did not move forward with an application even though they were getting ready to file a quiet
title litigation immediately after they obtained a permit they failed to notify the department
that they had a piece of the property where the owner did not consent to the filing of the
application and let you know that when we had the hearings last year the applicant rushed to get
that in did not have that authorization and got his permit and then filed a quiet title action
which has been settled since then so i'm happy to stipulate that the quiet title litigation i'm
happy to stipulate that it's been settled the issue though is that you're required not to lie
to the department and say you have site control when you do not have was accusing me
gentlemen gentlemen
Mr. Phillips
if I might
my point Mr. DeMarco is
My point, Mr. DeMarco, is if you're agreeing that they've gone through the process,
they've got quiet title now, why are you suggesting we shouldn't move forward with this?
No, we should move forward with the hearing.
Because it's been corrected, hasn't it?
We should move forward with the hearing.
First of all, there are other issues.
There's a number of blatant inconsistencies in the plan and conflicts,
and there's plenty of legal reasons why the permit shouldn't have been issued also.
But one of the critical reasons is that the code says what it says, Mr. Chairman.
The code says you have to have site control.
We asked the department to, we demanded that department withdraw, revoke the permit because at the time they did not have site control at the time this all happened.
Department said, no, the zoning board's got to decide that.
So the fact that they've now settled, by the way, they settled, everybody had settled.
And we thought we had an agreement where the applicant wasn't going to move forward with this project, has now elected to move forward.
So the case was settled in that time frame, during that time.
But the problem is at the time, because he couldn't get the permit now.
You see, if he were to go forward with this now, if Ellen and I would have done the right thing and revoked the permit like they should have, he would have to go back.
He wouldn't be able to build this now because the code has been changed because of this project.
because this project was so unsightly and so not what was intended by city council in the code.
They changed the code immediately after they got the permit.
So the problem is at the time the applicant was made, they had no site control,
and they told Ellen Nye that they had it, and that was a misrepresentation,
and this board is empowered to decide that issue.
And, yes, we would say that they would have to move forward again.
hi this is a um leonard reuter just to respond to that uh the argument um is it i'm not quite
understanding the argument here because under the code actual code section that was cited by
mr demarco that's 14 pardon me 14 303 sub 1 uh sub c and then going even further 0.3
so that sub c.3 each application filed pursuant to this 14303 sub 1 sub c is hereby deemed an
application filed on behalf of the legal owner of the property and on behalf of any equitable
owner of the property with an interest in the application all filings or statements submitted
in support of such application are hereby attributed to the legal owner and to any
equitable owner with an interest in the application. So when people present an
application as an equitable owner, we look at basically we see what the
documents are that they present to show equitable ownership, which was done in
this case. Mr. DeMarco is saying there was another property owner who should
have been part of that and that's what led to the quiet title action. The
department, or I should say really, I was asked at the time to look into
this and we had everybody at the city um we all decided that this you know if we were not actually
even approached by the so-called you know property owner we are approached again by the objectors to
the permit and uh again the failure to name everybody that should be named or even if there
were a failure or some kind of defect in the deed or something that by itself um i'm not hearing where
there's any authority in the code that that by itself would invalidate the permit the city always
looks at these sorts of disputes whether it's a property a boundary dispute you know somebody says
oh he doesn't have an authority to put a fence there because we actually have an easement i mean
that's a kind of dispute that could come up anytime the city of philadelphia we don't make
those determinations we don't send out we don't have we don't do the title search we don't send
out surveyors that's up to the people who are making the dispute uh to deal with so there was
there were no there was nothing at the time that would have led the city to have
revoked this permit on the basis of somebody else coming in and one third party saying that
another third party really owned or had an interest in this so and again now that it does
appear to be cured and I think I heard that there's really no dispute that any dispute that
any question of ownership of the other parcel has been resolved i again don't see how it make would
make any sense uh for that to again require the revocation of this permit i mean if if you open
the door to that then the lni could be revoking zoning permits all over the place because we would
have no idea if somebody after the fact had filed some kind of quiet title action in another case
in another property. So it seems like that's just not a workable solution. I think that
I think that we just have to move on here because it would be putting the department in an untenable situation where now we have to validate who owns what.
we just have to move on here because it would be putting the department in an untenable
And that's just not something that the code requires and it's not even something that is even possible.
So I can move on, Mr. Chair, and try to expedite this.
I'll move on to other aspects of my cross and Ms. Templeton, but I do want to respond to Mr. Reuter.
The code says what it says.
Someone has authority to enforce these code provisions.
The code says very clearly, no person other than legal owner, equitable owner, conservator, or tenant shall file a zoning application under this zoning code, okay?
Someone's got to enforce this.
If L&I doesn't want to do it, you as the zoning board sit above L&I and operate with those powers.
Someone's got to do it.
If L&I doesn't feel like doing it, and I agree that someone else has to bring that forward because the applicant did not present the right information.
So it's up to us to do it.
I mean, someone's got to do it.
We did not know.
We're not the applicant.
So we found out after the fact that they lied to the department.
I won't use the word lie.
They misrepresented to the department that they had site control.
Someone needs to enforce this.
And it's got to be you, unfortunately, because L&I has abdicated that responsibility.
The problem with Mr. Reuter's point is, if no one enforces this, any applicants can lie to the department and say, I own this property.
I want to file zoning application.
L&I is not going to check.
What I'm saying is that it's moot.
It's clearly it is.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, gentlemen.
One at a time.
Gentlemen, you're talking.
I'll move on.
Well, I've remained quiet.
I just need to say one more thing.
Mr. Phillips, just one second, please.
Leonard, finish your statement, please.
Look, I'm saying, you know, again, obviously I don't agree with Mr. DeMarco's characterization of what the code says or what the department's required to do.
But regardless of that, the issue is clearly moot now.
There simply isn't any, I see no public policy purpose that would be furthered by requiring this to go back to the starting board, to the starting blocks or, you know what I meant.
you know it's it it doesn't make any sense to me that would be a tremendous waste of uh everybody's
resources it's moot it's done that's what i was getting it is resolved if i can just state one
one thing just to piggyback on the mootness at the time the application was filed there was
a legal address of 414-16 south 20th street this is from the opa's um property records
the owners listed with the city of philadelphia were the kims su wan kim and young he kim
the land area referenced in the city's records was 2278 square feet which includes the entire
parcel including this 2006 waverly that mr demarco is complaining about so from the city's
standpoint the legal owner of the entire parcel were the kims and that is who my client was under
equitable ownership with so not only is it move it's just it's inaccurate to say that any falsehood
or lie was perpetrated upon the city the city goes based on the tax records we go based on the tax
records and clearing up a minor title discrepancy which has been cleared up is not a justification
to invalidate the permit I'll let Mr. DeMarco continue asking Ms. Templeton questions you may
thank you um all right so miss templeton uh let's talk about this this garage elevator which uh
i note that on your report on page six of your report where you have written section eight by
the way do you have that report in front of you i'm pulling it up oh okay i thank you mike
so miss templeton number eight at the end of your report section eight uh which is on page six
you see oh thank you mike you see where it says do you see that on your screen uh miss templeton
i do all right you say the proposed garage will have an elevator
to provide access between the parking garage and the street level
you see that yes all right that's inaccurate right
my understanding was there would be an elevator all right but you know that the plans don't show
an elevator they show a ramp right i believe you're mistaken uh to what that says it's an
elevator for pedestrians for pedestrians yes street level not not for vehicle not for vehicles
Okay, but you know that the plans actually do show.
Okay. But you know that the plans actually do show a garage elevator on the elevation drawing.
You're aware of that?
I thought there was an indication on the plan that the applicant corrected.
all right so you do agree though that there was a discrepancy on the zoning plan itself between
whether there was a garage elevator or where there was a ramp right because the elevation showed the
elevator but the plan showed the ramp would you agree with that i don't recall exactly but i do
know there was a discrepancy that i i believe the applicant acknowledged and
either intended to correct or did correct sorry i think that's fair the applicant acknowledged
that that was a that was an inconsistency agreed yes all right so let's let me ask you something
if the elevation was right and that there is a garage elevator proposed you couldn't that would
be a structure that would not count as open space do you agree with that yes okay fair enough thank
you uh did you do you recall the testimony of the architect at the earlier hearings that
a garage elevator was considered for this project do you recall that i believe so all right fair
enough did you also see on the zoning application itself that it proposes a garage elevator did you
see that on the application mr phillips went through it when he gave his opening oh god they
pull it up okay thank you very much um can i just uh interrupt for a second mr demarco could you
just clarify um the phrase you're using excuse me who's speaking i'm sorry this is this is leonard
reuter um could you just clarify what you mean by garage elevator are you referring to an elevator
that lifts automobiles or an elevator for uh humans that just happens to be in the garage
just so um it's really more for the board to understand what you're talking about
Yes, I'm speaking about a garage elevator for cars. That is shown on the elevation on the zoning drawing.
Objection is not shown. The word elevator is on the zoning plan. However, the zoning plan clearly references a shared driveway.
The zoning application says access by a shared driveway, and the zoning permit says shared driveway.
There is no car elevator proposed, no mechanical lift proposed.
And again, this is another red herring because it's something that was not proposed and is not part of the permit.
Mr. Chairman, that statement is directly contradicted by the language that where his courser is right now.
Yeah, mechanical elevator.
There's a mechanical elevator in the building.
That's not a car elevator.
That's an elevator that in the reason that's lifted is because any elevator overrun is part of the structure.
So, therefore, I reference it on the application.
I'm going to object.
I'm trying to cross-examine this witness, and I'm getting testimony from Mr. Phillips.
I know it's embarrassing that there's been all sorts of mistakes on their application,
but I'm allowed to conduct a reasonable cross-examination without being interrupted with testimony.
We agree that you guys shouldn't be interrupting each other, but I think we did need clarity.
Mr. Reuter asked the question if it was an elevator for vehicles or was an elevator for
pedestrians and I think that's that's a fair question to ask. So let's proceed as quickly as
we can please. I'll try to do that. Ms. Templeton getting back to the zoning application in front of
you you see where it says accessed by a by shared driveway and mechanical elevator right? Yes.
and and the phrase preceding that is talking about parking spaces and bicycle spaces right
yes all right do you think it's clear that what mr phillips is saying that mechanical elevator
refers to a pedestrian elevator do you think that's clear from that application
it is not clear okay and that would certainly dovetail with the confusion on the plane itself
where the garage elevator is shown on the elevation, but the ramp is shown on the drawing.
Don't you agree?
Where is the elevator on the drawing?
Thank you.
You see where it says to the right, it says garage door for car elevator to basement on the elevation.
Garage door for car elevator to basement.
and there's a structure shown there right yes I see all right so so it's certainly I think it's
Yes, I see that.
All right. So it's certainly, I think it's fair to say, isn't it, that there is confusion within the application language and the elevation drawing as to whether a garage elevator was intended or a ramp. Do you agree with that?
Yes, I guess so.
All right. Fair enough. Thank you.
And would you agree as a land planner that a garage elevator is a structure which would not be counted as open space, right?
All right. And so if, in fact, the elevation was correct, the garage elevator structure could not be counted as open space. Agreed?
Thank you.
All right. Do you also agree that garage, excuse me, parking spaces that are accessory to any use
must be accessible to street level, right? That's in the code itself, is it not?
Yes, that makes sense.
Okay. And it's, for the record, Mr. Chairman, that's section 14-801.3, which requires that
any accessory parking be accessible to the street all right um you also state in your report miss
templeton that and that's on page two of your report i don't know that you need to change this
mike but i'll i'll ask the question you agree that the regulations in the zoning code at 14-800
for parking and loading those regulations are applicable you say it in the third paragraph you
say the development is also subject to the regulations of section 14-800 for parking and
loading you agree with that statement right yes okay have you seen the um
the garage
layout drawings provided
and Ms. Sunkit, if you can
provide me
share screen ability
I think you already did
but I think Mike, I guess you have to click out
Do you want me to pull it up on mine?
I know where you got your material plants
Yes, sir
I could do it too
but I'm happy to have you
I appreciate that very much
Thank you very much
indulge you but let me ask make sure that uh nancy has uh miss templeton has seen it have you seen
the uh the plant david plant's response uh and drawings before today no you have not okay
well let's do this um i'd like to refer you to it and ask you the question if if if you can answer
so you can answer. If not, I understand. Mike, I'm going to ask her about the ramp drawing.
If you could pan down, I appreciate you helping with this. Right there.
Ms. Templeton, do you see there's a 24-foot width? I'm sorry, I'll up a little bit, Mike. I'm sorry.
right there do you see there's a 24 foot width in the middle there there's a measurement of 24
feet across i can't really read it very well mike is good enough to zoom in i appreciate it mike
okay 24 in uh 24 feet right that's not an accident right that's a driveway aisle width do you agree
do i agree that driveways are 24 feet no let me rephrase okay so i'll make it clear
do you agree that the code requires driveway aisles within parking garages to be 24 feet
i don't recall the exact language but
um okay that's what it is that's what it is all right uh but you know that you agree that
there are requirements for driveway aisle width and yes all right and do you see how the driveway
ramp depicted in this photo intrudes on the 24 foot wide width there
you see the edge of the driveway ramp right excuse me the the car ramp going down you see
that there right you point to it are you are you saying here yes sir yep
do you see that miss templeton yes all right do you see how the ramp comes into and past and within
the 24 feet wide dimension i guess so all right it's a zone violation isn't it
It's a zoning violation, isn't it?
it has to have to have clearance i don't think i don't know
It has to have clearance.
I don't think, I don't know.
I don't know if I agree with that.
All right.
Well, this is cool.
I'll reserve this questioning for Mr. Planck, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Templeton.
So you have made the opinion, and Mike, thank you for putting that drawing up.
You've made the opinion that because the accessory parking is for the commercial parking,
that it's not the curb cut is not prohibited because it's accessory to the commercial use
correct that's one of the the access is yes right well it doesn't have to follow the rsa-5
right but then but that's because that is because you you have stated very clearly in your report
that because the parking is accessory to the commercial it is permitted right yes all right
so but do you recall that the project table on the zoning drawing
states that the parking is accessory to the residential units
i believe that issue coming having been presented and i think it was
again um a clarification of an error that needed to be corrected i believe so all right i recall
all right fair enough so so in other words that was a mistake on the plan as well correct
i believe that's what it was all right so the and to be clear the the and i think i should
mike if you want me to do i'm happy to do i don't want to keep making your work but um i would like
the board to put on the screen i'd like to put the plan up which i can thank you and we can look at
the zoning table this is where the discrepancy resides the zoning table is at the top we went
yeah we went over this before already i know but she's testifying yeah um all right you have
any sense rich how much longer it's going to be uh well i can be done with cross of miss templeton
relatively uh we got a leash and we have an entire 330 i mean if this is going to be for
every witness i mean i think we're well beyond the scope but i mean i thought most of this we
may have heard but we went we went over this ad nauseum at the last hearing finish up with
Ms. Templeton, and then we'll make a decision. Thank you.
Right. She made the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, so I have to ask her about it.
I'll try to be as brief as I can.
So, Ms. Templeton, you see the four proposed parking units on the table,
our accessory to the residential use there?
Can you point to it again?
Of course, it's right here, Ms. Templeton.
It's four for residential right there.
Yeah. All right. So wouldn't you agree that it is certainly unclear from the plan as to whether the accessory parking was accessory to the commercial or the residential in the best light to the developer? Would you agree?
again i was
i was understood that this to be an error that was going to be corrected fine so isn't it true
then that the zoning examiner could have asked for a clarification here or at least an amendment
to the plan to make it clear that the parking was accessory to the commercial don't you agree
i guess you'd have to ask the examiner well i'm asking you as a zoning expert
you're here as a zoning expert well yes they could ask for clarification all right thank you
and certainly the examiner could have asked for some sort of floor plan to show that the parking
was only accessible to the commercial unit she could have asked for that correct
I guess you could ask for anything.
Right. Doesn't L&I have written authority in the code to request whatever clarification it needs?
Do you agree? Okay.
And you mentioned in your report that as far as the curb cut on Waverly Street,
um you're aware that the code provision that that we have cited uh which is 14-803
1c.1 which is is to prohibit front-loaded garages on residential row home blocks
you you know that's part of the current code right yes okay so
you know that's part of the current code right yes okay so the the section that i just mentioned
the intent of that section is to prohibit front-loaded garages on residential row home
blocks correct i don't know if that's clearly stated but i understand what you're saying
all right and waverly is a single family row home block is it not yes okay fair enough i'm objecting
to the fact because we received a permit for this for the residential use when we went for
the variance. So clearly this is not a refusal issue. This is what we're going through here
again. Mr. Chairman, this is why I reserved my objection to Mr. Phillips' intro. That's not
really relevant and that's not necessarily correct. There could have been an error on that
too. But anyway, I'll move on. I'll move on. Are you also familiar, Ms. Templeton, with
the provision of the code that says that on a corner property both street frontages are
considered frontages for the purposes of measurement and setbacks? Yes. And to be
clear, so I'll put that on the record, that's 14-701-1D, which states that both Waverly and
20th street are can or should be considered frontages uh are you aware of that yes but i
believe the planning commission can designate a primary frontage street i agree i agree with you
is there any evidence on this plan whatsoever that the planning commission did that
i did not see any okay and you would you would state that if you knew that right
that's something you would certainly be interested in right
could you restate that um of course uh if the planning commission had designated
one of the frontage frontages as primary you would certainly state that in your report right
um yes i suppose so right because that would relate to whether this was a whether the curb
cut was adjacent to a rear street right right right so waverly can it should be considered a
frontage so it really can't be right objection you're making legal argument that you're leading
I'll move on.
So as far as the, I'm almost done.
And thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Templeton.
As far as the fresh food market is concerned,
you've made an opinion that the fresh food market
let me make sure I read it correctly. I'm sorry. I'm almost done here.
You stated that
let me ask you this. You know that there are certain definitions that are applicable to a
fresh fruit market, right? In the code? Yes. Right. And one of those definitions in the code at the
time it existed at the time of this application stated that, thank you, Michael, a fresh fruit
establishment to be considered that has to either be 5,000 square feet or has to have 50% of its
display area be for fresh fruits and vegetables, right? You aware of that? Yes. Simple question,
Ms. Templeton do you agree that the zoning plan itself not the application but the zoning plan
does not show any floor plan of the fresh food market do you agree with that I agree all right
and do you agree that the examiner is only taking the statement of the applicant in the application
that the plan meets those requirements for the display area that's in the code do you agree with
that? I can't know what the examiner thought. Okay, I'll try to rephrase. Do you agree that
the plan has no floor plan, which would show that 50% of the display area was for fresh fruits and
vegetables? There's no floor plan. Of the food market, right? Of the food market. And you also
agree, you stated this earlier, that the L&I has full jurisdiction to ask for that if they so chose.
Do great. I agree. All right. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Unfortunately,
Mr. Chairman, I do have two brief redirects that I need to clear up for my record.
Very brief. Yes. Ms. Templeton, we'll go back to this plan.
Ms. Templeton, we'll go back to this plan and Mr. DeMarco drew your attention to the
elevations where it says garage door for car elevator to basement.
In your opinion as a land planner, what is the purpose of building elevations in a zoning
The purpose of elevations?
Yes, of an elevation.
uh to show um characteristics that you can't see on a
on a plan view height and
primarily the height primarily okay and looking back at the actual zoning plan and much was made
about whether this was an elevator or a ramp on the zoning plan does it clearly say exterior
ramp down to basement yes does it also say ramp up from basement yes are there references
to a shared driveway in the zoning plan I'll show you here and there's references to shared
driveway in the uh application yes okay uh based on this zoning site plan right here
would any reasonable person look at this site plan and think that there
is an elevator being proposed and not a ramp
no um also much was made ado about the fact that uh and i believe as mr uh Montalbano testified at
hearing it said four for residential and zero for commercial. However within the projects group does
it say accessory to commercial use? Yes. Within the zoning application did it say accessory to
commercial use? Yes. Right here within the application does it say proposed parking at
basement accessory to commercial use? Yes. Is there any question in your mind as you look at this
based upon the application in the plan that the proposed parking was to be accessory to the
commercial use? No question. And lastly, I will ask about this issue about frontages and rear
street. Is it fair to say that the determination of whether or not Waverly is a rear street or not
only matters if the accessory parking is proposed for a single family, two family, or multi-family
use? Correct. It does not matter if it is proposed for a commercial use, correct? Correct. I have no
further questions. Just one question based on that last question. One question. Ms. Templeton,
it's prohibited. The curb cut would be prohibited if this were solely a multifamily use, right?
Or any residential use. All right. And there are four residential units in the building, right?
yes okay that's all let me just make one clarification when you say it's prohibited
would you mean it's prohibited unless waverly is designated as a rear street
because if waverly is designated as a rear street then wouldn't the code
permit parking for the residential use it would not
so um and i'll leave it at that all right further gentlemen here's where we are um
we're going to close the record the board will make a decision next wednesday at 9 30 a.m which
is december the 16th on this matter thank you all mr chairman i have to put an objection on the
record i i was promised that i would have an opportunity to talk to the engineer and cross
examine the engineer uh it's it's relevant to the interior of the garage and the feasibility of it
it's one of our major issues uh we're gonna have to continue at the earlier hearings you had said
that we would hear from the engineer it's in the testimony uh i need to cross-examine the
engineer that's why i didn't call him as a witness this was in the record at the earlier hearings
i have to have to have a right to talk to mr plant uh it's it's a critical part of our presentation
mr chairman and i will just say this in response mr chairman if the board feels that it uh that
it has heard enough evidence or has heard enough argument over the past six hours and that they
have not heard any affirmative evidence whatsoever showing that this zoning permit should be
revoked, then the appellant has failed to satisfy their burden and we can move on. If there are any
the appellant has failed to satisfy their burden and we can move on if there are any questions
that the board has about any aspects of this permit um you know i would welcome those and
we'd be happy to answer them but i think what we've shown is that this is a by right project
here's the problem mr chairman during the architect's testimony i forgot for i forgot
I did not continue with questioning because I was told the engineer would be available.
And the board was a group, from what I remember from the transcript, and I can get it to you, you allowed me to do that.
You said we would hear from the engineer.
And I'm now being prevented from having that right.
It's going to be a problem that's going to potentially require a remand.
And I don't have a complete record.
I forgave testimony that I wanted to do on cross because I was promised to have the engineer.
Can I ask for an offer of proof of what Mr. DeMarco wants to ask the engineer?
I was just getting to that.
I mean, what else are we going to talk about that we haven't already covered?
With all due respect, Mr. DeMarco.
The discrepancy, the lack of accessibility of the interior parking and the Rosario plant drawing is critical evidence of the ownership issue.
And I understand that you might be uncomfortable with ruling on that.
I hear what you're saying in your voice, but I've got to make the record because I believe that it's a critical issue that if this board is not going to deal with it, the courts are going to want to deal with it.
So this is my last shot, Mr. Chairman, to make a record.
I don't want to belabor the point, but I've got to make that record.
And Mr. Plant and Rogerio are the people who produced the plan,
which show that there's another owner out there that did not get said at the time.
I understand Mike doesn't want you to hear it, but I've got to make a record.
I don't want you to have to keep continuing this, but I've got to cross-examine Mr. Plant.
I was promised that.
We've already heard it for like three hours.
So the cross-examination of Ms. Templeton doesn't satisfy any of those
issues you're saying or other issues that the end that Mr. Plant would be able to address
Mr. Plant if you remember and I know it's stale in your mind but when we had these hearings back
last year I agreed not to continue a certain cross-examination of the architect because they
deferred to the engineer on these critical issues whether you are going to rule in favor of us or
not I've got to be able to make my record or else we're going to be back here so I agreed not to
continue with certain questioning of Mr. Montalbano because I was told I would have an opportunity to
speak to the engineer and Mr. Phillips and Mr. Phillips will agree he did tell me that it's one
of his witnesses so I okay all right all right so what we didn't do finish up last year we'll have
to finish up next year so uh we'll continue this case yeah uh mi 2020-001433 414 south 20th street
do we have a date tanya no chair not at this time okay miss sunkett will notify you of the
continued case date i appreciate your time mr chairman thank you and all i'm asking again
new and different please understood thank you mr chairman thank you time board have a good
holiday if i don't see you all right everybody stay safe thank you bye all right that concludes
the two o'clock list am i correct that's correct yes it is now 10 of 12 we'll get back here at uh
five o'clock or five after? Sounds good. Five after five.
Ready? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Before we begin, Ms. Sunkett, we'll give you an opportunity to
open up and see how many hands come up or whatever, and we'll wait to hear from you.
Nope, we're good, Chair. Oh, we're ready to roll. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Good evening, everyone.
my name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating
in this evening's hearing along with our Vice Chair Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary Confessor
Plaza and Board Members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell. Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit
and Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who haven't yet
participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can
expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand
by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue. I'll repeat. To enter an appearance statement,
call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
Before Ms. Denary calls our first case, we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal for this evening's 3.30 list, please raise your hand.
In the meantime, I will read into the record.
Do I have to do it again?
We read these earlier.
You know what?
Let me read them just in case somebody can.
Yeah, it would be helpful.
The following requests for continuance have been made.
I'll read them off.
If anyone disagrees with them, please raise your hand.
MI 2020-001-830-2041 North Rees Street.
Excuse me, Chair.
This is Sharon Saleta.
We actually interrupted the 2 o'clock session to go through these.
I know.
I just figured maybe somebody didn't hear it.
Oh, okay.
That's a good idea.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Yes, absolutely.
No worries.
Number six on our list, MI2020-001861, 2442 North 54th Street.
And those are the two that I have that were requested, continuance were requested.
If anyone objects, the attorney or the applicant, please raise your hand.
and if there's anyone else who would like to have their cases continued please raise your hand
or withdrawn please raise your hand um so chair i'm not sure if you recall but
there were a couple of other cases that were continued number seven was it hold on a second
please as that was there were no exhibits you called to see if anyone was here and it was
continued must be heard um also the same with number nine continued must be heard and number
10 continued but not must be heard all right okay there were no exhibits okay i didn't get those
okay i got them now just so number seven
I think we already did that one right
that's right you did already know that you you um called it out and asked if anyone was here
representing the applicant okay so it was number seven and then number number nine number nine
both of those were must be heard and then i did those earlier correct all right and then number
10 was continued but not must be heard okay so we're we're straight on that yes thank you okay
um tanya we go we are okay yes chair ready to proceed okay calendar number
calendar number 1831-2209
north 7th street
mr chair this is jason hand
mr jason had his hand up he has now been made a
thank you i believe
Hi, Mr. Jin. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yes. 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.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed all the exhibits, proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all those questions.
Yes, to all those questions.
You may proceed.
Excuse me, Mr. Chen, you have three cases on the 330 list.
If any of those should be considered together, could you let us know?
The other two actually can be considered together.
They're related matters.
But not with this case, correct?
Not with this case.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to go ahead and share some information with the board
so that we can look at the case itself.
So I have up before the board the letter,
I'm sorry, the cover letter,
which shows that we submitted refusal,
community letter, photos, plans, and related documents.
This application is straightforward.
And in fact, this area has a lot of such applications,
which is that this zone this area is zoned cmx2 however majority of the block particularly 7th
street 8th street is actually either vacant or currently residential if you look at the photographs
our lot is sitting next to what is an existing multifamily and on the other side of the this is
the lot in question and then on the other side of the whoops i'm sorry i expected more photos
my apologies. On the other side of this property actually is another new construction, which is
also multifamily. When we met with the RCO, which is APM, a meeting was held and all attendees at
the meeting were in support of the idea of waiving the requirement for a commercial space for this
particular property because it is kind of sandwiched between two multifamily residential
and the rest of the block has no active commercial at this time 7th street at this location actually
is pretty close to germantown avenue which does have commercial um it is a commercial quarter and
does have commercial activity it just hasn't quite reached this area of 7th street uh majority of
this area in fact is um less developed and even the street on the other side of the street it is
actually, I believe, back to more residential properties, not commercial, with a lot of vacant
lots also mixed in in the area. As such, the community actually supported waiving the commercial
use. We basically are asking what would be normally a two residential unit and a commercial
to be changed to a total of three residential units in this case. The plans are shown here.
this property it does have a easement alleyway which will be something that is shared theoretically
with the neighboring property however it is going to be pretty tight because the other property is
built already you can see in this photo again we're actually sandwiched between two multi-family
residential development at this time the floor plans basically lay out one unit on each floor
with the basement being for utilities
and basically open storage space.
The bedrooms are with two bedrooms each,
three units in total
with a large living room kitchen area in each unit.
The trash storage is available behind the property.
There is space and there's again,
a easement access way,
although it's probably gonna be difficult to use that.
what my client also did is have a small roof deck placed for the upper unit so that they could
always put the trash here and then the first floor unit obviously has direct access to the rear yard
through the side and even the second unit could access because there is a alleyway theoretically
there is an alleyway I'm not sure how wide it's going to end up being as I'm not sure the other
property left enough of the easement, but there would be an access way to the rear as well. So
even as a CMX use, if there was a commercial unit on the first floor, I don't believe the trash and
other situations would necessarily change, and it would actually increase potentially the amount of
traffic and parking that would be on the block. As such, the community did support our request for
as variants, and we would ask the board's favorable consideration in this matter.
Thank you.
Do you have a witness?
I believe my client should be on the line.
Let me, if you can give me one second.
My apologies.
Joseph, are you there?
Joseph, are you there?
Thank you.
It should be Mr. Gitterman, Joseph Gitterman.
If not in the interest of time, Mr. Jinn, as an officer of the court,
would stipulate that your client would be adopting your testimony?
Yes, I would stipulate as such.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Joseph Gitterman has his hand raised, sir.
I will allow him to speak right now.
Sir, please identify yourself.
Spell your first and last name.
Yes, how are you, everybody?
My name is Joseph Gitterman, J-O-S-E-P-H,
And the last name is Gitterman, G-I-T-E-R-M-A-N.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Jin?
Thank you.
Mr. Gitterman, you heard my representation and testimony before the zoning board relating to this case.
Can you verify that it's true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
No. Mr. Mason, Planning Commission.
Yes, this is Mason Austin, representing the Planning Commission.
Do we have a firm to tell the truth, if nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, while the lot is designated for multifamily residential in the comprehensive plan, it is zoned for commercial mixed use.
However, subsequent to the publication of the district plan that designated this lot for multifamily residential,
the council office has embarked on a strategy to strengthen this segment of the commercial district.
In support of those efforts, the staff of the Planning Commission recommends against the granting of the requested variance.
I'm sorry to catch that last part.
Recommends against the granting of the requested variance.
There's both sides of it. All right.
i uh mr chairman i did speak with uh miss jones at the councilman's office and i think you will
see that in this situation this particular property is difficult to put a viable commercial
but yeah i agree i i agree that's what i was getting at yeah no disrespect the planning i just
i agree uh okay mi2020-001831 2209 north 7th street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
is the next case is the next case thank you is the next case the add-on case with uh mr patterson
or do we go to market street mark i don't know i have a market street is next
if you could call the add-on for mr patterson that would be great thank you
Okay, great. Calendar number 0916, 2616 South 8th Street.
The attorney is Ron Patterson, and I think he's reporting on the status of an agreement with the neighbors.
South 8th Street or 18th Street?
18th Street.
Is it South 18th?
I believe it's South 8th Street.
the original hearing was on
December 2nd
yeah I thought it was South 18th Street
18th and Oregon
okay Mr. Patterson
can correct that then thank you
this is the one they had to work out
some arrangements with Dr. Nocella
or somebody next to her I believe
is mr patterson available mr patterson is available i'm promoting him to panelists right
now thank you very much jason
hey thank you mr patterson name and address for the record please
good evening ron patterson 1835 market street philadelphia ppa 19103
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do do you agree to wave and stiff yes i do and you're here for the
status of the agreement yes yes thank you so yes last wednesday on the second at 2 p.m we had a
hearing a full hearing and we concluded the hearing um they're uh at the hearing the
a full hearing, and we concluded the hearing. At the hearing, the immediate neighbor
attorney interjected and wanted to ask if we could reach an understanding and an agreement,
because we share a lot, line, and easement. And so the board graciously let us have a week
to talk about it and negotiate, and we did come to an understanding and an into agreement. And I have
I sent a letter confirming to that effect, as well as the neighbors from attorneys from
Verne Anastasio's office, Harry Cook.
He has a letter from him confirming that, as well as a letter of support from Ms. Nestico,
the adjacent neighbor.
So we're all good.
So that's an agreement between both parties, not a proviso, correct?
That is correct.
Yes, it's a private agreement.
We can vote this now, correct?
That's correct.
MI 2020-0916, 2616 South 18th Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you for your consideration there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1767-2222 Market Street.
Mr. Bob Kerlis has his hand up. I will allow him to speak right now. And Mr. Alex Clore as well.
You can promote Mr. Kerlis, too. He's the attorney.
Promote him to a panelist.
He's now a panelist, ma'am.
Thank you so much.
You're welcome.
hi mr careless can you put your name and address on the record please and spell your last name
uh good evening robert careless c-a-r-e-l-e-s-s cozen o'connor 1650 market street
philadelphia pa 19103 do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
i do do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you submitted all the exhibits proof of ownership proof of tax compliance refusal
referral photos and plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter i do on all accounts you may proceed thank you yes your screen
is up that's great uh good evening everyone i'm here before you today with respect to the new
professional office building for Morgan Lewis under construction at 2222 Market Street.
The application that we've submitted requests a special exception for the accessory use of two
outdoor areas as roof decks on the 13th floor and 19th floor that I'm indicating on the drawing
and are highlighted. As confirmed by L&I, our drawings satisfy the criteria that's set forth
section 146045 with respect to the dimension of the decks. I'm showing you the drawing for
the 13th floor deck. Market Street is here, 23rd and Ludlow. The occupiable area of the 13th floor
deck is 85 feet long, 25 feet wide. For the 19th floor deck, which is where I'm indicating,
The occupiable area is 136 feet long, 27 feet square feet wide, excuse me.
Showing you pictures of the surrounding area from perspectives looking east and west.
The top picture is a perspective from 23rd and Market looking east.
You can see the large parking lot to our north. On the other side of Market, the 23A
condominium building is to our south here. This is the proposed area in the
Google image where the parking lot is. The 238 condominium building, again to
our south, is approximately 118 feet in height. Our proposed deck on the 13th
floor is at an elevation of 198 feet or 80 feet above the 238 building. Further,
our neighbors at 23A have sent a letter of support to CCRA, our RCO, in support of our
application for this grant of a special exception. This letter references a community benefits
agreement. That agreement contemplates the decks and provides if the use would be limited to
accessory uses to the office building and no nuisances would be permitted. That same covenant
That same covenant is found in our lease with Morgan Lewis.
is found in our lease with Morgan Lewis.
We did meet with CCRA on October 27th to discuss our application.
Following the public meeting portion of CCRA's zoning meeting, the zoning committee voted to not oppose the application,
provided with a proviso that there would be no amplified music on these decks after 7 p.m. on weekdays.
We respectfully requested that CCRA reconsider that proviso and amend it if it felt that
a proviso had to be suggested, such that the language be in line with our CVA, at least
with Morgan Lewis.
CCRA was not able to consider that request at the November meeting, and we did notify
them that we would be requesting that the 7 p.m. proviso not be imposed on the grant
of our special exception.
uh i'll note briefly that pennsylvania law is clear that the at the imposition of conditions
on the grant of a special exception must find support in the record in order to warrant their
imposition um our again our application is proposing to use two outdoor areas as roof decks
on a 19-story office building in the cmx 5 district this is not a bar this is not a restaurant
This isn't a law firm, it's an international law firm that would have lawyers there working
well after 7 p.m. In terms of the grant of a special exception, we meet the test
for the grant of a special exception as set forth in section 14.303.78
without the imposition of any proviso and we would respectfully urge the board to grant our special
exception without proviso, but if the board is inclined to grant the special exception,
only if it is subject to a proviso we would request that the board adopt the proviso that's
consistent with the cva and with our lease with morgan and we had sent that language into the
board but i'll read it that the use of the bow keys and roof decks be limited to use as accessory
to business and professional office purposes and not for any purpose which constitutes
a nuisance under applicable philadelphia law or code um again we think that whatever concern may
be generated by the 7 p.m. proviso would be covered in that covenant and I remind the board that we
also have the an unconditional letter of support from CCR from the 238 condominium building to our
south. That does conclude my testimony. I do thank the board for its time. I do have two witnesses
that I'd like to ask to come off mute and affirm my testimony.
Could I please ask Mr. Wale Mambukunj of Parkway Corporation to raise his hand?
You can unmute.
Good evening, everyone.
Good evening, sir.
Please identify yourself with a record first and last name.
Certainly.
My name is Wale Mapuganji.
First name W.
A is in Albert.
L is in Larry.
E is in Edward.
Last name M is in Mary.
A is in Albert.
B is in Boy.
O is in Orange.
G is in Gun.
U is in Umbrella.
N is in Nancy.
J is in Juice.
E is in Egg.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Karolish.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Wale, could you just take for the record your title at Parkway Corporation and your professional address?
Certainly. My title is Vice President and Project Executive for Real Estate and Development at Parkway Corporation.
Address is 150 North Broad Street, Philadelphia.
you and and while did you hear my presentation to the board just just a few minutes ago yes i did
and would you adopt and affirm that testimony as if it were your own testimony yes could i
mr chairman could i please ask um mr alexander clore of gensler to raise his hand so he can come
off mute yes good evening good evening please identify yourself first and last name please
Alex Klohr, K-L-O-H-R.
So you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Kirlis.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Alex, are you familiar with the criteria for the grant of a special exception on the Philadelphia Zoning Code?
And in your professional opinion, do we meet the criteria for the grant of a special exception?
And did you hear my presentation of the board?
I did.
And would you adopt and affirm that testimony
as if they're your own testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further for the board tonight.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Jason.
Jason, Planning Commission?
Plenty.
This is Mason Austin representing the Planning Commission.
Mr. Chair and members of the Board, the lot is designated for commercial,
core commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan and is zoned for that use.
Because the lot is located in a major commercial district,
staff of the Planning Commission have no opposition to the granting of the special exception.
Thank you very much.
mi2020-0017672222 market street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
no proviso
okay thank you very much with proviso no proviso that was not i just wanted to clarify
I'm sorry, nobifies.
Right, thank you.
All right, MI2020-001833, and I believe that's 2225 North 8th Street.
And Mr. Jinn, is this connected to the 7th Street project as well?
Yes, it is in a way, the same owners, so we can proceed with both.
because we had a workout in agreement with the council office.
All right. MI 2020-001832, 2215 North 7th Street.
You've already been sworn in.
Just please identify yourself with the record.
Thank you.
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.
Thank you, Mr. Jin.
Please proceed with your testimony.
Thank you.
We have some questions. I forgot. So used to Carol. I apologize.
No problem. Do you agree to wave and step? I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet and the required documents, including proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, and photos and or plans of the
property five days in advance of the hearing? I did. Also, have you met with the RCO and do you
have a letter? We do. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead
and share with the board the information relating to this case. My apologies. I'm trying to
let me make sure I'm providing the 8th street, yes okay. So this is the application on 8th street
which is the first of the matter. They're related in overall request but they're a little different
in size and location. The 8th street property is one that is in a CMX2 zone district much like the
7th Street property we did earlier. What it is is that these properties are kind of sandwiched
among residential properties, and it is zoned CMX2, but there's no real commercial activity on these
blocks. And even though the lot itself right now looks like it could be used for some commercial
purpose, the reality is most of this block is residential. When we met with the community group,
it is at the same meeting that we had two other properties with, the neighborhood overwhelmingly
supported the idea of keeping it just a residential property. As such, our request essentially is to
place a residential building as a multifamily unit, converting what would have been required
first floor commercial to an additional residential unit. As you can see, the building
would be three-story. It would be built to a similar height as to what is existing in the
neighborhood. The property itself would be divided into each floor being one unit. I'm going to zoom
in a little bit to make it easier for the board to see. Again, leaving an open family exercise
area in the basement for the first floor unit. Dining and bedroom. We have on the upper floors
two bedrooms or a study room and a bedroom depending on how the ultimately the individuals
who's using the property would like to use it. There is a roof deck also on the third floor.
This property does have a rear yard. It is not a corner property but right as of right now the
property has vacant lots next to it. The management of the trash would be the roof deck would be up
to replace some of the trash.
First floor would have the rear yard access.
And in the case of the second floor unit, I believe we put in a specific trash room for that unit within the unit until trash is ready to be taken out.
And in the case of the second floor unit,
I believe we put in a...
So given that situation, we did receive support from the community on this request.
Now, I want to go ahead and share the other property and explain to the board what we had done with that one, because it relates back to the council office's non-opposition to our proposal for a complete residential property on this particular address.
So what I'm doing now is I'm sharing the information from the other case, 2215 to 19 North 7th Street.
I'm going to show the refusal which is based on the number of units based on the lot size as well
as the commercial now this what this is it's a subdivision in a sense a consolidation of three
lots each CMX2 each would have by right been at least three units plus the commercial what my
client is doing he's combining these into one because he is doing this even though we received
support from the community for full residential use of a total of 12 units the council office
asked that we work with them and place at least a commercial unit into the space because it is
closer towards the germantown avenue side and the hope is that with all these additional multi
families coming into place that this commercial unit would be viable in the future because the
negotiations kind of lasted until late this morning. What we have agreed to do is to maintain
a request for 12 residential units, but with the understanding that this unit here, which
was originally on the plan as a residential unit, would be converted to a first floor
commercial space. It's approximately 684.8 square foot on the ground level, and then
it has its own associated lower level. By doing this what we would like to do is either have
a one-page supplemental plan submitted to the board to be stamped or if this can be done in
some way as a proviso based on the location and size of the unit either one would be acceptable
to my client and myself depending on which way the board wish to proceed with this matter. But
By doing this, what we're doing is we're giving the,
because the council office request
is some kind of commercial space
that is not necessarily a huge space,
but enough to be used in this building to be provided.
We are providing that as a way to meet their requirements
while still keeping with the overall design of the project.
This particular project have more units.
However, everyone has access to the rear yard
and the stairwells inside also all leads to the top level.
There are actually trash rooms,
also small trash rooms placed within each unit.
And these are basically all two bedroom units
that are designed within this space.
So with the commercial unit coming in,
we may have to slightly relay out the floor plan
on some of the upper floors,
maybe reducing them to one bedroom unit
and moving one unit up there
while providing a commercial space on the first floor.
So I wanted to explain that to the board
as part of this application.
It's part of the reason the council office
also does not object to the 8th Street
being a completely residential property.
I'm sorry, I'm not hearing.
The commercial, can you hear me?
Yes, I can now.
The commercial component that you're showing here in yellow.
What address is that attributed to?
22 what?
So here's the issue.
This is a consolidation request.
So in order for us to really clarify this with L&I later,
after if we go for building permit,
we probably would want some kind of marking on the plan
to say that's the commercial space.
This is currently unit four on the residential plan
that we agreed to convert to a commercial use.
So, Sharon, maybe you can help me, what is your special language that we would need to make certain that if we approve this plan, that the commercial component, I mean, it's going to probably require a revised plan, no?
I think, Mr. Jin, you even said that you may change some of the apartments to one bedroom as opposed to two.
So I think the main floor, the only floor that's being affected by this change would be the first floor.
So if we were to do a plan, we would probably just mark, make sure this is marked completely
If we were to do a plan, we would probably just make sure this is marked.
as a commercial.
And then if the board would leave the other floors without stamp plans, we can always
readjust those freely with the building department moving forward.
With the council office had no objection to the total of the 12 units that we're requesting.
Yeah, I get that.
I just want to make sure that we...
I don't know if Sharon would be able to advise on this.
an alternative would be that first floor must contain a 684.8 square foot commercial space.
I can do that, but is it address specific?
It wouldn't be. This will be a... Oh, sorry, Sharon.
I'm sorry. This is Sharon Saleta. I was disconnected for a few minutes, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
So if I may, Chairman.
So what we're doing is we have agreed with the council office to change what you see on the screen here, Unit 4, essentially to be provided as a commercial space.
While maintaining a total of 12 residential units besides adding this commercial space here.
So the question is, what's the best way to put that into the decision from the board?
so that's complicated would it be possible for us just to hold the vote for one week in order to
work out what the exact language should be and whether it's better to do it by
a proviso or revised plans i i don't have an objection to that absolutely yeah i think we
just you know we want to you know help you out and get this done i just want to make sure that
everyone is comfortable with what the language is right and i don't want my client to have
problems at lni in the future yeah all right so so we'll hold that one up let's go back to
do you have your client do you have anybody yes um it'll be uh mr david uh badouj badouj
sir please identify yourself with the record and spell your last name please
uh david badush d-a-v-i-d b-o-b-a-d-o-u-c-h and you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do mr jinn thank you mr badush you were you were here
during my presentation um you've heard what i represented to the board regarding the two
properties uh can you verify that my presentation is true and accurate and adopted as your own
Yes. Thank you.
I just have one comment, just one question.
If we were just writing proviso for 685 square feet of commercial, isn't that just a simple solution or no?
Well, but it's going to change the dimensions, I believe, and I'm not, I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon.
um i i would rather run it by ellen i so that i can confirm that you will not have any issues
when you go to get a permit yeah sir it'll work to your advantage we're only going to hold it
one week okay all right it'll work to your advantage so there's no no no confusion no
mix-up all right thank you okay thank you um this is sharon soletti again can i just say mr jinn
thank you so much for your office being so accommodating i think i emailed you after seven
than last night and you got back to me immediately and provided all the information that we needed
so thank you it's our pleasure you're welcome all right so what we'll do is we're going to vote the
eighth street one first uh mi 2020 i believe uh the planning commission did not get an opportunity
oh sorry about that i'm sorry mason i'm sorry no no problem uh mr uh this is mason austin representing
of the Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, with regard to 2225 North
8th Street, the lot is designated for multi-family residential in the comprehensive plan, but
is zoned for commercial mixed use. Because the proposal would be by right in the recommended
zoning district, Planning Commission supports the granting of the requested variance.
Thank you, and I got ahead of myself again. Is there anyone else who would like to testify
in this case? Please raise your hand.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. MI 2020-001833. 2225 North 8th Street. My vote is yes with
the proviso second floor unit to provide a ventilated trash room. Yes with proviso. Yes
And for MI 2020-001832, 2215-2219 North 8th Street, this case, this hearing will be resumed on Tanya, we can do.
this hearing will be resumed on tanya we can do this next week because it's just a
a matter of clearing up the language yes as you wish chair okay so we'll do it
tuesday or wednesday what works best how about tuesday for this we got multiple ones on wednesday
that's the 15th correct correct all right this hearing will be resumed on december the 15th
at 9 30 a.m at which time we'll consider any feedback related to the proposed plan and any
adjustments that need to be made to the uh uh to the i don't know the architectural plans of this
project thank you okay all right um last case mi 2020 does zero zero one nine four five five six
This is Sharon Saleta. Mr. Richardson couldn't say but he did email us a letter in support.
I figured he was yeah okay thank you. I figured that's why I called back up. I figured he was
around somewhere. Oguns Avenue. Good evening Mr. Chairman. Good evening madam.
so we have no little people today well we do actually have little people there's one sitting
next to me very quietly eating his dinner and the other is um bad mom alert watching okay
okay also she texted me a picture that made my day so thank you okay miss belliger let's proceed
thank you all right good evening um i guess you need to start first right yes i do yep do you uh
do you agree to wave and stip i sure do and uh have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents including proof of ownership proof of tax clearance a copy of the refusal or referral
and photos of the property or plans of the property five days in advance of the hearing
i sure did and have you met with the rco and if you have do you have a letter we do okay thank
you please proceed all right uh good evening mr chairman i'm sorry could you swear her in oh i'm
sorry right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i sure
do thank you thank you tanya mr chairman members of the board my name is meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r
of Dilworth Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E. My client is DFH Regency LLC, which is
the owner of the property and is represented here today by Josh Greenberger. This is a very simple
request, so I will be brief. We did receive a letter of support from a concerned community
association, which is in your packet at tab 11 and is up on the screen. And as Sharon indicated,
we did also receive a letter of support from the councilwoman's office. The property before you
today is 5600 Ogance Avenue. As you can see in the aerial photos that I have up on the screen at
tab six, this is a very large property that extends along Ogance Avenue from West Olney Avenue
to North 18th Street. The property is over two acres and contains a three-building apartment
complex that was built in the early 1940s. So the board understands the scale of the buildings,
I'll briefly scroll through some of the photos at tab 12. Now historically the number of units
in the buildings based on the public records that we have has varied at most reaching 203 units
sometime in the 90s, but the property was most recently documented as having 202 units.
And I will bring up the most recent permit that reflects the 202 units.
The rental license that the current property owner has is also for 202 units.
Now, the building has studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units,
which are shown in sample floor plans at tab four. My client just purchased this property
just over a year ago in October of 2019. Since then, they've been undertaking a comprehensive
assessment of the property in preparation for beginning some significant renovations to these
rather old buildings. Renovations will include unit-by-unit overhauls,
including adding individual HVAC and washer and dryers, an amenity building, updated common areas
and facade modifications. Now as the new owner has become more familiar with the building and
its tenants, they discovered that the building in fact has 206 residential units, not 202.
not 202. That's why we're here, Board, for the missing four units. Now, with respect to the
That's why we're here board for the
and this
application, we received one refusal. The property is zoned RM1, which of course permits multifamily.
However, based on the lot size, technically only 194 units are permitted. This is, of course,
based on the modern zoning code and does not take into account the long-term history of this
property, which has 200, which is documented as having 202 units. It's not clear where or when
the additional four units came to be. In fact, we're not even sure which of the units are those
missing four. There are no units that are clearly different than the others that would help explain
where this discrepancy came from. My client was not able to gather any useful information from
the prior owner. We accordingly, of course, submit to a hardship because this board previously
approved the structure for 202 units back in 2011. The instant request is just to correct the
zoning records, which exclude those four units that have been in existence presumably for a long
time and certainly as long as my client has owned it the last year. 206 versus 202 units is a
comparatively small deviation for a property of this size. This is the least minimum variance
given the long-term existence of these units. This won't increase congestion. The complex does
have a large underground parking facility, and the four units have existed for presumably some time.
The proposal will not impair light and air or negatively impact surrounding properties.
the complex has been in existence for near 80 years, and the new owner is about to undertake a
sweeping modernization project that is long overdue. Documenting the four missing units
will ensure that this new owner is not stymied by incorrect zoning records.
We submit the variance complies in full with the provisions of section 14-303-8E of the code,
as is further detailed in my memorandum of law, submitted at tab 7. As I mentioned,
we did meet with the community, a concerned community organization, association. Their
letter of support is attached at tab 11. Now, Josh, if you could hit the raise hand button now,
josh greenberger
josh greenberger you have to raise your hand sir okay
josh greenberger yes josh greenberger mr greenberg's been allowed to speak
Thank you. Good evening, sir. Please identify yourself with a record name and a name, first and last name.
Josh, we don't hear you.
in the interest of time uh marith we will uh you being officer court will stipulate that your
client would adopt your testimony thank you mr chairman thank you any questions from the board
no no no thank you would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
I'll answer, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this is Mason Austin representing the Planning
Commission.
The lot is designated for multifamily residential in the comprehensive plan and is zoned for
that use.
Given the history of the property, the relatively minimal variance requested, and in deference
to the neighborhood group, staff of the Planning Commission has no opposition to the granting
of the variance.
Thank you very much.
MI 2020-001945
5600 Ogons Avenue
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
No revised plan, correct?
Okay, Meredith, thank you
Thank you, everyone
This concludes the 3.30 hearing
Is there any unfinished business?
That's it, Chair
We're all good
Thank you again, everyone
Thank you