So A13 is the zoning map and A14, another error there, is the aerial photograph. So
obviously, we have the notice of refusal. Again, this is zoned RM2. This property sits on
Byberry Road at the furthest extent of far northeast Philadelphia before you hit Montgomery
County. It's near the corner of Philmont Avenue and Byberry Road, which I'm sure many members of
the board are familiar with. So the use of personal services is prohibited RM2, as is the
uh eating uh you know eating and drinking establishment so we have our uh project
information form our application of appeal my transmittal letter to the board uh requesting
that the matter be listed uh here is the deed uh the strategic vantage lp purchased the property
the first day of november of 2019 uh again with the tax clearance uh there is a balance due for
2023 again as stated that is not due till march 31st we have our uh let me blow that out okay uh
this is a survey plan of the property this being bybury road running from the bottom
right corner uh up towards the center um
And then here we have our site plan. The building is an irregular shaped building, almost like a flag, but with a triangular shape to the right.
It is an irregularly shaped lot, triangular for the most part in shape.
This plan was submitted to the Planning Commission for landscape buffering purposes, as you can see noted with the green, and that plan was approved by city planning for landscaping purposes.
With regard to the actual floor plan, basically coming in from the parking lot, you would have a reception area and a pool for the aquatic center, relaxation and spa rooms for therapeutic massages.
There are water closets for the patrons, a woman's locker room, a men's locker room with showers.
In the center, we have a juice bar to serve.
In the center, we have a juice bar to serve, you know, smoothies, juices, and prepared foods, you know, in a sit-down capacity, not pre-packaged prepared foods.
And then we have here, let me, okay.
Okay. So this is the existing building, top left. The proposed renovations to the exterior
of the structure will greatly improve its appearance and ambience. These, again, are
just examples of what are typical in basically a Turkish spa or bathhouse. So we would have
some sort of a recreational pool, saunas, again, saunas. We also propose a small area for
entertainment of the youngins with some arcade-type amenities, the hot tubs, ice pools,
things of that nature for the health and wellness of the aquatic center.
This is a picture of the posting of the poster on the front of the building.
Again, another shot of the poster. This is the site looking from Bybury Road. This is the front
of the structure. As you can see, there are condominiums or apartments on either side of us.
We are bordered by the West Trenton Regional Rail Line. It is clearly an industrial building,
Even though it's zoned RM2, across the street, across Byberry Road, is also multifamily dwellings.
And this is a photo from the backside of the property.
As you can see, there is clearly ample parking within the lot.
Again, this is some views from Byberry Road, showing the front of the building.
Again, it being used by Premier Products for many, many years until they either relocated or ceased operation.
These are just some ancillary storage buildings.
They would also be used for storage by the Wellness and Health Center.
Some more shots of Byberry Road.
currently it is being used as a moving and storage facility for long-haul distribution of
household furnishings as you can see a lot of home depot boxes bicycles mattresses you know etc etc
as far as recent zoning history this is the zoning permit as you can see from 2021
for the wholesale distribution and storage.
You know, it's a moving company.
That permit was issued and the board,
pursuant to our agreement with Somerton,
knowing that we were coming in with the Health and Wellness Center application,
we agreed to a temporary variance for the moving and storage company,
which would expire in 2024, as you can see on the permit.
This is the permit from 1947 for Premier Porch Enclosure Company.
And again, that company, you know, occupied and used this site for millwork and manufacturing
and, you know, continuously for all those years.
um again this is the zoning map it is zoned rm2 um uh you know you know across the street is rsa3
rsd3 to the south of us and here is an aerial photograph as you can see this is a film on
avenue to the upper left corner you're entering into uh it's either montgomery county or bucks
County. I think actually Byberry Road might be the separator between Bucks and Montgomery County
at that point. However, it is at the far reach of the upper left quadrant of northeast Philadelphia.
So with regard to Somerton's letter, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that
It, while the Southern Civic Association voted to support the application for the health and wellness center, you know, the aquatic facility, they asked.
you know, the aquatic facility, they asked for a proviso that BYOB be prohibited.
While we did not specifically agree to that, I suggested that if they wanted to include that as a suggested proviso,
by all means do so, and we would address it at the board.
I would point out that in their letter, and they routinely do this, they ask for agreement to restrictions on what are basically the regulated uses.
They're not easily identifiable in this letter.
However, in the restriction, which quite frankly, I drafted as a courtesy for Somerton, it included uses, regulated uses that would be prohibited and adult oriented merchandise or services, drug paraphernalia, gun shops, detention and correctional facilities, on and on and on.
My client has no objection to a restriction as far as these uses because, quite frankly, they don't belong on the site.
And he has no intention nor desire to include them in any future use and would be more than happy to include them in a restrictive covenant.
With regard to BYOB, I would point out that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has an advisory that clearly says there's nothing in the liquor code or the PLCB's regulations that prohibits an individual from bringing his or her own alcohol into an establishment as long as it is legally procured in the Commonwealth.
So we feel that any reasonable or responsible competent adult, if they want to bring a bottle of wine or a six-pack of beer into the aquatic facility, it should not be unreasonably restricted.
And again, you know, I compare those uses to, you know, a private country club, a hotel, you know, any other establishment that provides similar services.
So if, you know, if a reasonable, competent adult and, you know, a couple wish to bring a bottle of wine to the aquatic center, I don't think that that should be unreasonably restricted.
And again, I'm not quite sure, and I've discussed this with Hillary, that I'm not sure that the Zoning Board has the authority to regulate the consumption of alcohol or the provision of your own bottle of wine.
Sean, could you go back to their letter?
I'm going to go back to where they end the letter about opposition and what they say.
I don't have the letter.
Right here it is.
This page.
I think there's a little section there. Here it is. Yeah, that's it. The vote of the SCA members taken was predicated upon the applicant's agreement to apply the list of use restrictions, i.e. the regulated uses, of indefinite duration to the property by means of a written instrument, i.e. the deed restriction, which we have no qualms with.
We're fine with that. So, you know, in the absence of that agreement, the vote was taken at the meeting, which one of opposition to a variance in the absence of that agreement.
So and then they took another vote whereby 13 members voted to oppose a variance in the absence of the agreement and six members voted regardless of whether an agreement was reached.
Right. So in other words, in other words, you know, the regulated uses, you know, would be restricted.
However, we feel that, you know, reasonable adults should be permitted, you know, to, you know, bring a cocktail or a bottle of wine to an aquatic center.
So I do have Ferkat and Andrew on the call.
Ferkat being the lead member of the LP, I would ask that he be recognized.
I ask that he raise his hand so Jason could find him quickly, and he will verify and adopt.
Ferkat, have you raised your hand?
Hi, could you state your name and spell please for the court reporter?
Can you unmute yourself and state your name?
Furcat, can you unmute yourself and state your name?
Hold on, please.
So, Furcat, if you're still in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Oh, there he is.
Yes, hi, I'm sorry about it.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Furka, the first name F-U-R-K-A-T, and the last name Kusenov, which is K-H-U-S-E-N-O-V.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Furka, have you heard my representations to the board today?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, it is.
and would you adopt them as your own testimony yes thank you very much all right hi questions
from the board no mr chair no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman all right questions or
comments from the virtual audience do not see any further hands sir no hands no sir
um planning commission thank you sir david effecto city planning commission mr chairman
and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
multi-family zoning at this location the current zoning creates a clear hardship
preventing the building's reuse given the physical condition of the property and the
building's documented use history the city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the use variances. Okay. MI 2021 002 585 250 Bybury Road.
I vote yes with proviso. Eating and drinking establishment is limited to sit down restaurant.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I wish you and the rest of the board and the entire ZBA staff a very Merry Christmas and a happy Christmas.
Same to you, same to you.
Thank you, same to you, Sean.
Thank you very much.
Number three, MI-2022-004-417-3901 Lancaster Avenue.
Alan Knocklinson is the attorney.
I believe we have a letter of support from the RCO.
And also, I believe we now have a letter from Councilwoman Gauthier's office in support.
Yes, Mr. Garrett, this is Hillary.
We have an email from Councilman Gauthier's office indicating their support of this matter.
Hello again, Alan Ockamson.
All right, Mr. Ockamson, you've already been sworn.
Could you identify your clients and their relationship to the property?
Yes, Florence and Joy Furman, their owners, are the owners of the property.
Right. And our Vice Chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. Nockamson. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral,
photos under 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, in all respects.
Thank you. You may proceed and begin by sharing your screen.
Thank you so much.
All right, so I'm here to present 3901-05 Lancaster Avenue. Florence Furman has owned
this property for almost 50 years. She currently has her restaurant there on the ground floor,
and she's looking to develop this property by keeping her restaurant on the ground floor of
this new building structure and have residences above. So during our presentation, we'll be going
over the notice of refusal, the letter of support we received from the People's Emergency Center
Community Development Corporation. I believe I also heard while I was transitioning over as a
panelist, the chairman acknowledged that we do now have a letter of support from the district
council member. I do have some email correspondence from Mr. Goodman, the district council member,
Zoni8, who also acknowledged in writing, because of the parameters of this project, that they are now in support.
because of the parameters of this project, that they are now in support of this project.
I have a petition from nearby neighbors.
So the Furman family is a fixture within this part of West Philly.
We're on Lancaster Avenue, a commercial corridor.
And we're trying to create density in this very uniquely shaped and positioned property on this commercial corridor,
which you'll see by way of the maps that are exhibited for photographs of the property,
our plans and drawings and then we'll go over our rco meeting notice we had a well-attended
community meeting um and you know we had unanimous support but you also see the letters uh the notice
that went out to the surrounding property owners um and proof of mailing of that community notice
our application for appeal that we filed with the zba along with the notice of refusal as well as
its project information form or deed to property showing that my clients own the property in their
individual capacities. And then the payment agreement. So my client is currently on a
payment plan to pay their tax arrears with the state of Philadelphia. Again, in the virtual
audience, we have Joy and Florence Furman, the owners of the property. One of them will virtually
raise their hand, be sworn in, and adopt my testimony as their own. I also have in the
virtual audience Scott Murphy of Design Blend. So if you have any technical questions, he'll be able
to answer those. So the notice refusal. So this is a CMX2 property, but given where it's located
on a commercial corridor and its unique physical characteristics, I would equate this more to a
CMX two and a half property. You know, this commercial quarter is in desperate need of
density to help support it. And based on those, you know, based on the foregoing, we believe that
the requested variances make sense under circumstances. So what we're trying to do
here is consolidate 3901 and 3903-05 into one lot. We are looking to demolish the existing
mixed-use building there, and to erect another mixed-use building with a restaurant on the
first floor to replace the restaurant that's currently on the first floor, and then to put
16 residences above. And you'll see that we have a responsible floor plan where there's no basement
living. The commercial component takes the first floor and the basement level. We have multiple
uh access points for entry we have an elevator uh you know for this neighborhood uh that is
aging and needs uh this type of housing and will show affordable housing um and that's one of the
reasons why the community is enthusiastic about this project as well as a district council member
because there is a lack of affordable housing and housing which has an elevator service and
one-bedroom units for this aging population. But we have three refusals. So the first one is the
fact that the density of the residential components, we're asking for 16 units. If this was a CMX two
and a half property, we'd be more akin to that. We'd still be short. But that's why, you know,
but because of the rising interest rates, the cost of construction, and many other factors that are
outside of control um we could not build this building in that pretty much any respect that
would be allowed that would be allowed as a bright um in in you know again as a compromise and this
is not zoning related we are providing affordable housing of two affordable units uh again not that
it's only related but my client um has a community benefits agreement uh that was signed by the
coordinating rco we also have agreed to work with the district council member and you know
and the state planning commission and making sure that there's a proper deed restriction
holding us accountable for those two affordable housing units uh as part of this project uh so
in you know to allow for the greater density to make this project go forward we need this you know
we and to provide that affordable housing we need this extra density uh the second refusal has to do
with the occupied area, where 80% is only allowed of occupied area, where we have 97.68%.
But again, not out of character to where we are. Right now, we're a non-conforming building to
begin with. And we're a triangle or a lot, which would make it almost impossible to comply with