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.