We are live.
Thank you.
okay chair looks like we're good to go thank you tanya good morning everyone my name is frank
di chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's
hearing along with vice chair ms carol tenere board secretary confessor plaza and board members
thomas holloman and james smell snell board administrator tanya sunken and board attorney
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, for the benefit
of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves
prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being
recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be
recorded. Fourth, 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. Finally, to
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 as well.
To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that said, we can begin, but before Vice Chair Tenere calls our first case, we'd like
to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal of an appeal listed to be heard
this morning.
If so, please raise your hand.
Ms. Sunkit will recognize you.
We have John Sabatina.
You can unmute yourself
And wait to be sworn in
And then speak to a continuing
Mr. Sabatina would you please
Spell your full name and
Give us your address
John Sabatina
It's J -O -H -N
S -A -B -A -T -I -N -A
Castor Avenue second floor
You swear and affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed
I did put in for a continuance earlier on a written form yesterday, but I wish to make sure that it gets in.
I'm requesting a continuance because we've had a difficulty getting a meeting with the RCO.
Could you give us the calendar number, please?
Calendar number is 39966.
39966. And the address?
1541 Adams Avenue
okay calendar number 39966
1641 Adams Avenue is being continued
in addition I would like to request that the
continuance date be November the 10th
3 30 p .m. to coincide with the continuance that I have
for a property appearing before the same RCO
Mr. Sabatine, if you can discuss that offline with Ms. Sunkit.
Thank you, John.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
long folks mr folks please identify yourself and give us uh i'll swear you in and then you'll give
us the address and calendar number of the week for the request for continuance good morning
chairman and zba uh sloan folks that's sloane f as in fire o l k s office of councilwoman maria
can you only sanchez room 508 city hall you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes sir i would like to request uh continuance on two cases before the
zba today the first is calendar number three nine nine zero three one six six five harrison street
um as of uh yesterday the rcos reported that they have not met with the uh applicants uh so
therefore we are requesting a very uh continuance um uh so that was that harris or harrison harrison
harrison street 1665 harrison street thank you number four okay all right calendar number three
3 -9 -9 -0 -3 -1 -6 -6 -5.
Harrison Street is being continued.
Do you have another case?
Yes, Chairman DiCicco.
Calendar number 39848, 1383 Sanger Street.
Again, the applicant has not met with the RCO,
and we would like to give them a chance to, well, by law, they have to meet,
so they need to meet.
What number is that?
uh the calendar number again is 39848 um oh that's that's that's 330 case i apologize
that's that's okay so um let me make sure we make sure i apologize um okay um and on the first
request could we see if anyone else is here yes please yeah i'm gonna ask that i'll ask that
question is there any uh do you have any others mr folks okay um i'm sorry chairman we see 20
seconds today yeah okay so 50 41 harrison is our adams in 1665 no sir no no sir not this morning
uh anyone else anyone else
mr chair which case was the sabatina case where there was the continuance request
1641 adams 1541 adams chairman no i'm talking about a different case okay i'm sorry that was
mr sabatina calendar number three nine nine six six got it any other requests for continuances
or withdrawals thomas medina
you can unmute yourself and speak to a continuance and if i could make the
correction it is 15. of course 1541 adams 1541 okay all right thank you uh
thomas medina
i do not see audio i don't see that either i'm gonna move to the next person
caller ended in 484 please unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in and speak regarding a
concern you. Yes, my name is Mary Catherine Bauer. I'm an
attorney. I represent Fremco. Excuse me, Ms. Barrow, would
you please spell your name for the stenographer? B as in boy, A
as in apple, U as in umbrella, R as in rabbit. And your address?
The address involved is 1665 Harrison Street.
that was just a request from the councilwoman's office for
yes i'm calling for continuance because i sent i sent in a request because uh mr robeson just had
open heart surgery okay so he can't justify mr folks from the council councilwoman sanchez's
office just made that request that case will be continued i heard that but i just want to make
sure that um they they know that yes we're on top of it it's just we can't uh testify right now
thank you thank you so any other requests for continuance or withdrawals or does someone anyone
any other requests for continuance or withdrawals or does someone anyone believe that a case
believed that a case.
is being continued in error here we have michael meacham michael you can unmute yourself and speak
to a continuance mr meacham would you please spell your full name for the stenographer and
give us your address. Michael, M -I -C -H -A -E -L, M -E -A -C -H -E -M, 2330 North 29th Street.
Where are the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed.
Oh, well, I'm calling on...
Give us the calendar number and the address of the property, please.
MI -2020 -000224, 2330 North 29th Street.
You're asking for a continuance?
Okay. MI -2020 -000224 -2330 North 29th Street is being continued.
Yes, I didn't meet with the - We understand you're continuing, which is granted.
Mr. Medina please or Medina please stop unmuting yourself you're causing feedback
we will address you when appropriate
I'm sorry chair you can continue. Okay anyone else?
Medina you can now unmute yourself and speak to the continuance
yeah i'm calling about property 1541 adams avenue mr medina excuse me would you please spell your
first and last name and give us your address yes medina m -a -d -i -n -a my address is 4224 romaine
street for devil p at 19124 you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes please proceed give us the calendar number and the address of the property you're
concerned about. The address of the
property is 1541 Adams
Avenue, and I don't
know if it was today at 930 in the morning.
We already have a request in, Mr.
Sabatina. The attorney
on the case already made that request for
a continuance. Are you
in agreement with that?
They just keep postponing the date
so that nobody can fight for what they're trying to do
Are you the applicant, sir?
No, I'm not.
You're interested in a party?
Yes, I'm just a party.
I don't want them to come in and do what they want to do here.
As long as you put your appearance in, you'll get communication about the next date.
All right.
Thank you.
Any other requests?
We have a call -in user.
Call -in user.
There's no number.
Hello?
Good morning.
Please identify yourself.
First and last name.
Adrienne Fernandez,
Swampoodle Neighborhood Possibles
Association, RCO.
I'm calling to...
Adrienne, hold on. Do you swear
and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? Yes.
Please tell us what case you're
concerned with. Okay, the
address is 2404
Lehigh Avenue.
you have a calendar number yes it's three nine eight six two questioning a continuance
yes um was it a continuance already granted i didn't hear the applicant speak and there's been
no um public meeting no one no one asked for a continuance yet but you okay so chair yes
the attorney of record sean ward submitted a request for continuance okay thank you
all right calendar number 39862 2404 lehigh avenue is being continued any other requests
that's all chair you can proceed all right carol again i don't have my sheet so if you don't mind
call the case calendar number 39612 1627 ritner street the attorney is leo mulvihill
i don't see leo present
if leo is not here can we move it to the end of the session because there was some confusion
about the scheduling sounds good i'll pull the other the next case 1019 arch street mi -2020 -000730
the attorney is pascual colavita
i'm sorry that's a clerical error the attorney is in jen
and Zin Jin is being promoted to panelists.
Mr. Zin Jin, you can unmute yourself and share your screen.
Good morning.
Thank you, Tanya.
Mr. Jin, can you put your name and address on the record?
Zin Jin, Z -H -E -N -J -I -N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,
Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Here on behalf of the applicant.
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?
You may proceed.
Thank you.
This is a second appearance before the board on the same application.
I'm going to go ahead and share the screen at this time.
Let me put the information up on the screen.
So, this is an application, particularly with an issue of FAR, the floor area ratio.
Just to refresh the board's memory, we had a presentation before.
The refusal itself indicates an FAR currently of 590%, whereas the permitted is 500%.
However, we were asked to go back to PCDC, who at the time voted strongly in opposition
of this case to represent an alternative status and see if there will be a substantial change
in the way the case would be voted through the community. We did two things. We went back to
PCDC, who originally had a one to five opposition, where non -opposition was one and opposition was
five. Based on the changes and the situational changes, the votes did change. However, they still
came out one in opposition over non -opposition. One of the key changes that makes a difference
in the evaluation here is that the first floor of this building is currently under contract
with a lease agreement for a restaurant use. Under the FAR exclusions calculation, if there's
an eating or drinking establishment on the first floor or if there's a proviso saying
these are the only uses that are permitted, it would not be calculated into the FAR calculation.
So in essence, by having a restaurant in the first floor, our FAR actually dropped from 590
to 524%, making the excess floor area being a total of approximately 750 square feet,
rather than the approximately 3 ,000 when we presented last time.
Because of the substantial reduction in the FAR, we asked the RCO to reconsider their position.
Some members did reconsider.
However, ultimately, they're still not fully in support,
mainly because they feel that it would impact possibly future development
where things were done that were not too cold initially.
There was also an issue last time where the community claimed that we were operating without permits. That was cleared up at the second meeting. We had permits for demolition. So the work that was being done during the period the case was pending, those were following specific permits that limited to that work that was being done.
So it was not a situation where work was being done illegally while the case was pending.
In addition, my client, this is, I'm showing the board the original votes here on the screen.
This is the original vote of five to one.
Later on, the vote was four to three for the second meeting.
In addition, my client went and obtained a petition of the area because, again, he feels that the neighboring people in the community
generally would not be in opposition of this 750 square foot FAR or this
building in general. So we obtained a pretty extensive petition showing that
Petition showing that generally the people that are in that particular area, whether the business owners or residents are not strongly
generally the people that are
Objecting to this FAR change or this building in general. Now with the FAR rules. I just want to show the board that
The actual rule is in the code
and that particular
i'm sorry i'm kind of scrolling fast here so the the gross area calculation has specific exclusions
and one of the key exclusions that we're discussing here is that in this cmx4 district
retail sales eating and establish drinking establishments financial services which
incidentally, the owner himself is in the financial services business, except he was
planning to be located on the second floor. These would allow up to a 25 % total growth area floor
being excluded. What this ends up doing is making our request now almost de minimis in the total
request to be over the square foot area because we're talking about a difference of 16 ,406 square
feet to 15 ,656 square feet that is permitted so we're talking about 750 square foot actual change
at this point. Now I know the board architect Mr. Holloman recommended at the last meeting that
maybe we can take off the entire top floor because at the time we were talking about approximately
3 ,000 square foot over the FAR that is permitted. At this point we're talking about 750 square feet
taking out an entire floor would not really be a I wouldn't say it's not a
viable solution but it's a very difficult solution I also spoke with the
engineer mr. Alex wrong who should be here with us and I would like him to
kind of address the difficulties in removing further removing floors or the
meganeum floors in this particular project if miss sunk it I don't know if
Mr. Rung is showing us attending at the moment.
Could you spell the name for me, Z?
Alex, A -L -E -X, Rung, R -O -N -G.
It would be A -R, engineering.
I'm not sure if he's attending based on that.
No, if he could raise his hand.
Mr. Rung, if you're with us, please raise your hand.
okay i'm not sure if he's able to make it on i spoke with him this morning and it was my
impression that he would be able to make it here uh well i cannot um i cannot make the
representation on his behalf but i can certainly uh supplement a letter if the board would like
to have a letter explained.
Oh, he is here.
Okay, great.
Yes, I'm here.
Yes, Mr. Rong, can you give the board a little bit of...
Let's swear him in, please, his full name.
Sir, give us your full name and address, please.
Alex Rong, A -L -E -X, first name, last name,
R -O -N -G address
Presidential Boulevard
616 Bala Kingwood
PA19004
Is we're in a firm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Rong,
can you explain to the board a little bit
of your background and your expertise
in engineering?
I am a professional engineer specializing in structure. I have 25 years business experience.
I have a PhD and master's degree specializing in structure. I have taught as an adjunct faculty
at Drexel University, Temple University, and also Philadelphia University.
Thank you. I would move to have the board admit Mr. Rong's testimony as
expert testimony at this time. Thank you. So Mr. Rong, with regard to further
removal of structural support of that 750 square foot I testified to earlier,
what is the engineering difficulties that this building would face if that
removal were to be required if you remove the existing roof and load
If you remove the existing roof and lower that to the next lower floor, the next lower floor
becomes the roof, the difficulty will be first we have to reframing for the pilot house location.
Secondly, the existing roof deck is designed for heavier life load, say 60 PSF. However,
the existing floor is only designed for residential 40 PSF so we need to
strengthen all the floor joists and also reframing at the pilot house staircase
area. So it would not be as simple as simply removing 750 square foot of
flooring somewhere in the building to accomplish the goal of hitting the 500
FAR? That would be a major task structurally you need to strengthen
and sister each choice it's not easy thank you let me follow up on that question i hear what
you're saying that there's a challenge in terms of uh removing the the roof uh the the roof of
the building and bringing it down one level to the fourth floor i believe you said it can be done
is that correct correct but it's just a question of cost right uh time yes all right time is money
but it can be done. Yes sir. I have a question for the engineer. Why
was the existing roof designed for 60 PSF? Whenever you have a pilot house we
consider that as the deck and that is required to design for 60 PSF life flow.
Isn't live load for roof less than 60 PSF?
Regular roof if there's no deck that's 30 PSF.
And the uh the penthouse is that heavy?
Whenever you have a pilot house you have area we will consider as a deck. That deck area
shall be designed for heavier load. If you don't have pilot house, don't have
access to the roof, then that roof is considered as a regular roof that can be
designed as 30 PSF. But my understanding, the owner or this building, the roof will
have a pilot house for access.
I'm sorry. Thank you.
maintenance purposes or it's I didn't I didn't see a
if you look at elevation of the building zoning yeah yes I will go to
that. I believe it's, bear with me while I pull up the elevation. You can see
there's a pilot house just at the elevation, yeah. Yes, but at the same time
it looks like the roof is supposed to be unoccupied so there's no deck proposed
for the roof, correct?
so i'm going to pre -slide what is the what is the status of that roof we're talking about
is it in place all of it the roof is in place yes has it been uh i mean is it just a raw material
or was the roofing material put down um i think my client um might be best to answer that he's
more familiar with the current status or his -
Well, according to your client, not to be sarcastic,
the last time we talked to him,
he said he wasn't in the building for over a year.
So I don't know if he's gonna be an expert witness
on this or not.
I understand.
Mr. Ron, have you been to the roof of this structure?
I was there a few weeks or a few months ago.
The roofing material was at being installed.
So you were still going ahead
with putting material on the roof?
That's what it sounds like.
Hey, Frank, I have a question, if I may.
Yeah, sure.
Mr. Rang, a quick question.
Have you been the engineer since the inception of this project?
I was the engineer at the beginning, however, there's an interim about two, a year or two.
I was not involved.
okay so were you or were you not aware that the this building was uh an extra two floors were put
onto this building when it shouldn't have been were you aware of that i was not involved at that
Were you aware of that?
I was not involved at that period.
Period.
I was involved at the very beginning, I think, at the first approved plan.
And somehow the contractor has an issue with the building, and now then I shut it down.
At that period, I was not involved.
And I was hired by the owner about six months ago.
So a man of your expertise, you mentioned you've been in the business, I thought you said roughly
25 years. Have you ever seen in the city of Philadelphia downtown, an extra two floors be
installed in a building and an owner not be aware of it? Have you ever seen something like that?
Not many. Okay, thank you.
So what I do want to point out again, with regard to the final FAR, which is the sole refusal at
this point we're talking about a 750 square foot structural difference you
know with the regard to about 16 ,000 square foot total floor area ratio at
this point which is well I don't want to call it de minimis but it's certainly a
small portion of the overall building I think that the variance itself or FAR
is meant in this case generally to keep the building out of a particular floor
area ratio so that it does not become a super structure whereas normally 500 percent is permitted
I think here we're talking about 524 percent not a 600 percent or even 590 percent as it was before
so I would ask the board's consideration that certainly my client acknowledges that this
building was built without following the original plans and it is currently again under
supervision with LNI to correct and meet everything that the code would otherwise require.
Now we're here particularly for this variance for the FAR just for that difference which
ultimately the 750 square feet is essentially a portion of one floor at this point. So I would
ask the board's consideration in that and not force my client to completely tear down a portion
of the structure just to meet the uh 750 square foot additional space you know you make a good
argument about the uh the far but it still doesn't address the issue which brought this to everybody's
attention in the first place the extra two floors i mean that's well we can play with these numbers
interior wise all day long and get to where you need to get to but the building was built beyond
what the permit allowed for. Way beyond. Yes, it was. However, I do want to point out though,
this is a CMX four district where height is not an issue. So the extra, if the floor ratio was
there, the extra height would not be ultimately. Then what's to stop the next person from doing
the same thing? Well, I got, you know, CMX, I can build as high as I want. I'll get a permit to go
three stories, but you know what, I'll make it six. And as long as I acknowledge it, everything's
okay yeah all right i understand the board's concern here but again we we're we're not asking
for the board to set a precedent here but at the same time the specific case we're talking about
you know a 750 square foot difference ultimately is what would we be setting if we approve this
we you said we would not be setting a precedent well it there are far variances in other proposals
those as well. There are large buildings being built on North Broad and other places. So
FAR variants in and of itself is not something that is unusual in CMX4 districts.
All right. Any other questions from the board?
What is unusual is an owner of a building doesn't know that it was built two stories too high.
that's kind of unusual. Yes. I'm sure he was paying the contractors to put the extra two
floors on. They weren't doing it pro bono. I'm back to the engineer issue of 60 PSF.
Is that for the 96 square feet of a pilot house but not the entire roof?
So whenever, usually, whenever there's a pilot house, the intention is the roof can be used for promenade purposes.
And according to IBC, whenever this is for promenade use of the roof, we consider as a deck that should be designed for 60 PSF.
That's in general structure engineer take on the design life flow.
the design life loan. However, if there is no access to the roof, there's no
However, if there is no access to the roof,
pilot house, the for sure the roof should be designed for lower life loan,
that's 30 PSF. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions from the board? No.
Anyone else wish to testify in this matter? If so, please raise your hand. I
I would think my client is here with me I would like I'm sorry I'm sorry
um Tana is Mr. Jung z -h -e -n -g
he gonna testify to anything different than he did last time or did we not have
his testimony um we did have his testimony last time I
don't think it'll be anything different I just want him to affirm my
testimony for today.
Can I raise the hand?
Kenny, can you raise your hand?
I got Kenny. He didn't have a last name.
Oh, okay.
We can talk now.
Hello?
Kenny.
Kenny, would you please give me your full name?
Yeah, my name is Haokun Zhang.
Please spell it.
Okay, H -A -O -K -U -N, that's first name.
Last name Zhang, Z -H -E -N -G.
You're swearing to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kenny, you heard my testimony to the Zoning Board and also Mr. Ron's testimony.
Do you verify that my testimony is true and correct and that you would adopt it as your own?
Yes, you do. I do.
Thank you.
Okay, anyone else wish to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Here, I have you, Wu.
You can unmute yourself.
Wait to be sworn in.
Hi, this is Rue Wu.
My name is Y -U -E -W -U
and I'm representing Philadelphia Chinatown
Development Corporation, RCO for this case.
My address is -
Can you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
So as RCO for this proposal,
we maintain our opposition position
for the revised plan since the revised plan didn't really have a design change.
The only change was the use of the first floor, which was a restaurant.
And in the original proposal, it was also a restaurant.
So the RCO find it's difficult to have a valid reason to change our position.
And we oppose this proposal.
thank you very much thank you anyone else to testify
in this case nobody planning commission
uh and brian you'll need to identify yourself for the record brian wenrich b -r -i -a -n -w -e -n -r -i -c -h
city planning we're in firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed this property is indicated for high density residential commercial mixed
use on the city's comprehensive plan this proposal has not demonstrated any hardship
for the additional far accordingly we are opposed to the granting of the variance
thank you carol i need that uh i don't have that sheet in front of me calendar number
which wait which 19 arch why don't i why don't i have it i can read it do you want me to read it
out yeah yeah please read it out sharon thank you it's mi 2020 000730 i have it right here
okay uh mi -2020 -000730 1019 art street my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
my vote is no my vote is no thank you calendar number MI 2020 -000244 1754 South
Hicks Street I have listed a Catherine
I have listed a Catherine Missimer as the attorney.
Good morning. I submitted the documentation. My name is Steve Bertil. I'm actually going to be
presenting this application. Okay. Can you put your name and address on the record,
please and spell your last name yes uh steve bertill b -e -r -t -i -l uh from claire harrison harvey
and bransburg go ahead sorry uh the address is 18 1835 market street suite uh 14
so call 19103 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?
Have you mailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans of this property five days in advance of the hearing?
Also, have you met with the RCO, and if so, do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you.
With me today, I have the applicant and restaurant operator and owner, Diana Wajojo, and our architect, David Whipple.
At the end of my presentation, I'll ask for them to be recognized so they can adopt and affirm my testimony.
For now, I'm going to share my screen.
All right, so good morning again, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
As I said, my name is Steve Bertil.
I'm here representing the applicant and owner of 1754 Hick Street, calendar number 39833.
We're here to request a variance approval for the extension of the existing use as a
sit -down restaurant into the second floor of the same building and the erection of a
rear deck slash patio on top of an existing rear one -story addition.
so i'm going to just so you get a sense of the context in the street that we're referring to
here's a photograph of the existing structure as i said the um the address is 1754 hick street
The property is currently zoned as RSA 5 here in this highlighted section of the zoning
As you can see, essentially every corner property in this area is zoned as either CMX2 or CMX1,
except for our property.
I'm not sure why that is.
We'll get into that a little bit later.
But the current use of the property is a sit -down restaurant, Hardina Restaurant, which is nationally or locally recognized restaurant that's been family -owned and operated for 19 years.
I'll have the owner talk a little bit about their business at the end of my presentation to get a sense of who's asking for this variance request.
The property is situated between Moore Street to the north and Moore Street to the south.
Here is a view looking south on Hicks Street.
And here's another view looking east on Moore Street.
The proposed rear roof deck in question will be here. I don't know if you can see my mouse
moving sometimes you can sometimes you can't so in terms of the proposed
application as I said this is a increase of the existing use from currently the
Currently, the use is approved for the first floor and the cellar.
use is approved for the
We're trying to increase the use into the second floor, and then also onto the rear
deck that's proposed as part of the application.
There'll be no change in the existing footprint of the building, no change to the existing
cornice height. And in addition to constructing that, there will be removal of existing pedestrian
level exhaust on the building, which you can see here. It's currently exhausting at a pedestrian
level. It's going to be moved to the roof and also removal of these exterior stairs,
which is which is cutting into the right -of -way of the sidewalk we did meet
with the RCO on May 27th RCO is Point Breeze East Point Breeze neighbors and
show you a letter that was generated. The RCO did vote in support of this
project by a total of 12 votes and two opposed. Some of the concerns that were
raised by, I imagine, by those two that opposed was the privacy of their rear yards or their
backyards from the deck. As such, we did submit revised plans to include a privacy wall onto the
deck. We submitted a separate provisal form and plans with that slight change that addresses
that issue but even with that concern voiced the the registered community group did vote in support
of this project in terms of the refusals that we received for this one we have the proposed used
because the district is rsa5 of any increase in a prohibited use even though it was previously
granted via variance needs variance approval as I said it was already
granted via variance in 2014 we're not creating the use we're just expanding it
to accommodate the growth and business we'll discuss in a second and also the
use itself as I said earlier would be permitted by right if the property was
properly zoned as a commercial mixed -use property as all the other properties in
the area are again I'm not sure what happened here and why for some reason
this one property was omitted but the uses analogous to all the commercial
mixed -use properties in the area in addition to that the roof because the
deck is going to be placed on the rear extension or the existing rear addition
it's deemed as a roof deck and that's roof decks for non -residential use are
prohibited in the RSA 5 district our position is that although this deck is
technically pacified as a roof deck it is on the rear of the building it's in
fact less visible than a rare residential deck because there's no
driveway behind the house you cannot see it from the street frontage it does not
increase the building in the height and there's no roof that access structure
structure of the building. Go back to the zoning map so you can see it.
This is the rear roof deck that we're referring to.
And as I stated, the non -residential roof is not prohibited in most of the
commercial mixed -use districts which is more in line to what this property
should be zoned as. Because this restaurant has been here for close to 20
years, this is something that we think fits within the character of the space
and also the neighborhood. In terms of the restaurant itself, Hardina is a
restaurant that's been nationally and locally recognized as a staple in not
only South Philadelphia but in Philadelphia as a whole due to this overwhelming success and their
Due to this overwhelming success and their, you know, their status as trusted community partners, they've had an increase in business, and as such, they need to, you know, expand the use of their existing space to be able to stay in this neighborhood of Southfield, which they want to do.
they don't want to go to a new location they want to just adjust the location
that they have that they grew and developed in to be able to utilize it
to be able to best serve their customers and also the community so as
such for all these reasons we feel that the the requests of variances are
de minimis in nature appropriate for the neighborhood we don't anticipate any
detrimental impacts on health and safety in fact we feel like it will reduce
detrimental impacts because we're moving exhaust from the restaurant from
pedestrian level up onto the roof therefore you know pedestrians don't
have to deal with that exhaust and also we're clearing more space in the right
of way which is more pedestrian friendly with me I have Diana with Jojo if
Diana, if you could raise your hand so that Tanya can see you.
I'd just like her to affirm my testimony.
So, can you speak?
I'm sorry?
Can I unmute herself to speak?
Oh, hello.
Hi, Diana.
Can you say your name and spell it for the record, please?
Yeah, Diana with JoJo.
D -I -A -N -A -W -I -D -J -O -J -O.
Mr. Chair, do you want to swear?
Ms. Woodrow -Johan?
Vice Chair, can you take care of that, please?
Sure, I can.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Diana, have you heard the testimony that I provided to the board this morning?
Do you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
And, Diana, could you just tell the board a little bit about your restaurant
and your family's background with this location?
So we opened in 2001 while my parents started it,
and then me and my sister took over in 2017.
um we yeah we've been in business all this time um and we you know besides doing business we also
try to do uh community work giving back to the community uh we also do like food drives too
um but yeah but our main goal here is to um expand the restaurant so we could have a little
bit more seats and so it could be a little bit comfortable for our customers
thank you diana um if the members of the board has any questions we're happy to answer
um but that will conclude my presentation as i stated um we do believe that the variances
requested are de minimis when you consider the the context of the neighborhood and the
zoning designations of similar properties in the area um and so forth we ask that the board
approves this variance request with the provisal of approving the amended plans
or the adjusted plans that include the secured or the privacy law on the rear
edition I'm sorry on the rear deck
What are you trying to do?
Frank, are you there?
We can...
Audio might be...
It doesn't look muted about that because audio might be gone.
so we're
here can you do an audio check please
okay vice chair can you take over please well i don't know what he's saying at what point are we
You just showed up a sign that said call and vote.
I'm not sure if he's.
So basically, Vice Chair, if you could request if anyone of the board members have questions
if anyone uh the board members have questions and then go to the public uh because i believe
and then.
mr bertiel has finished with his presentation and their planning thank you do any of the board
members have questions no no no is there anyone else with questions that would be uh i'm going to
you tanya yes it appears that no one has their hands up at this time um any
commission oh i'm sorry no it's fine
planning commission morning this property is indicated for residential use
on the city plan this is an existing restaurant and due to the existing
corner commercial pattern on the block we do not believe this proposal will have
any negative impacts on the surrounding area accordingly we are not opposed to the granting
of the variance okay vice chair it appears that uh the chair uh left to return hoping that his
audio will work so it's your call and we have four people for a vote or if you wish to wait
for the chair your call i actually spoke with the chair and he um suggested that the board go ahead
didn't vote who's holding up sign calendar number mi -2020 -000244 1754 south hick street my vote is
yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you members of the board can i ask uh
i wasn't sure if the chair would do this after or maybe this is a question for sharing but i
uh wanted to confirm that that includes the proviso to uh accept the amended plans
frank can you hear you can hear can you hear me yes all right good i i didn't hear with that
portion of it i had this footage yes with amended plans sharon yeah uh sharon did you receive that
document and mr bertel if that's the case how many pages would that be it would be one page
okay i need those emailed to me along with the proviso plans form now um and if you could move
the vote back one case we also we do have mr mulbahill is on the line so if you can go back
to writner street i will review the revised plans for this for this case so we're pulling back on
the vote yes okay so strike that vote and we will come to it later calendar number three nine six
1627 ritner street the attorney is levo mulvihill
good morning members of the board good morning mr malva you put your name and address on the
record please certainly my name is leo mulvihill m u l v as in victor i h i l l address is 2424
east york street suite 111 philadelphia 19125 here on behalf of the applicant kelly peterson
okay and do you swear to tell the whole truth i do also waving and stepping correct
okay you are here for a limited reason and that is to tell us how the rco meeting went
Yes, members of the board. So I'm here. We had our, we were here last Tuesday for a zoning hearing on this matter. The RCO wasn't able to hear our case until that Tuesday evening.
After that meeting, discussing everything with the neighbors, we did receive a letter of support from the RCO, which was forwarded to the email address for the zoning board by the RCO last week.
i've forwarded another copy to ms suletta this morning for the review of the board
okay thank you is there anyone here specifically specifically i was trying to pull up a copy
um which i have in front of me at the moment
and the vote was the vote was three in support two of non -opposition the overall position that
was taken via the letter then dated September 17 2020 with a position of
support from the Broad Street West RC oh this was the pet facility yes this was
the dog daycare located on the corner there okay thank you any questions from
okay thank you uh any questions from the board no no anyone else wish to testify in this case
mr mobile do you need to have your witness brought on again your client rather uh that's
not necessary as we're just simply submitting this letter for purposes of the board right
We got our testimony last week.
I think, I don't know if the Planning Commission weighed in, but I'll ask the Planning Commission
again.
We weighed in last time.
Yes, they already did.
All right.
What is the calendar number?
Calendar number 39612, 1627 Rittner Street.
Calendar number 39612, 1627 Rittner 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 and if you'd like you can now go back to mr bertill's case i have reviewed
the revised plans form and the revised plans and um they can be stamped if and added as a proviso
one page i would ask that mr bertill send me if he hasn't done so a copy of each of those
the plans and the plans form each as a separate document so that they can be stamped thank you
we can vote it though correct yes correct that mi -2020 -000244
1754 south hick street my vote is yes and with the proviso revised plan one page approved today
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
calendar number mi -2020 -000225 1561 east topolhockin street number four
this is an application for a permit for three -family dwelling
a multi -family dwelling in an existing structure
this use multi -family dwelling is prohibited in the zoning district
tanya i'm looking for a robbie burks yes i'm promoting them to panelists thank you robbie
Burks. You've been promoted to panelists. You can speak by omitting your mic and sharing your screen
as necessary. Good morning. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Robbie Burks, 1561, 812 Hockey Street. Okay, and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you may proceed. Where am I? So, this is Crystal Thompson. I'm her
daughter. I've been helping her with the whole application for variants. We're coming to you
guys today because this is an existing structure. Since 1953, this was a two -apartment building
and a doctor's office okay excuse me excuse me do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do did we get the correct spelling of her name please
sure can you put your name and address on the record and spell your name crystal c -r -y -s -t -a -l
thompson t -h -o -m -p -s -o -n the property address is 1561 east top of hawkins street philadelphia pa
19138. Thank you. Have we heard from the owner or applicant at all? She's here. We have. She was the
first one to speak. Yes. So 1953, a variance was given to the prior owner for an addition.
um since then it's been listed and used as um a two apartment and he lived upstairs from 1953
to 1973 that's when my parents bought the property miss burks miss burks i'm sorry
we really need your mother to put this on the record okay i'm saying the same thing yeah
This previously was a
This previously was a used, what was it you said, as a doctor's office.
It was used as a doctor's office.
She's having some medical issues, but mom, do the best you can, please.
I'm sorry, you are her daughter and you have firsthand knowledge of the information that
you're presenting on the record i do um then the board's call if we'll allow that sure that's fine
okay thank you um so application 50309b was in 1953 that's when the variance was requested and
granted to the original owner um for an addition the property has always been used as two apartments
and um he lived upstairs in 1973 the property was bought by ronald burks my parents and they
continued to use it live upstairs and use it as apartment dwellings downstairs he passed away in
2005 robbie burks go and get the property into her name and then it's a single family dwelling
When all the corner, the corner properties, 1561, 1501, 1601, 1600, within the two block radius, the corner properties are basically multifamilies apartment buildings.
So we're not sure why her zoning was changed.
We did go to the RCO and we did get support from the RCO also for the variance for this current property.
the usage so you're basically asking to legalize what was a triplex for a number of years right yes
sir do you have any floor plans by any chance um yes uh there are a few of those with us that
would be helpful okay uh can you guys see the screen not yet no okay none of your material
yet. Did you click share screen yet? Oh, let's see. Oh, share screen. There you go.
After you click the green button share screen then click on your document.
Okay. Do you see it? No, not yet. Okay.
share screen there we go there you go okay now double click on the actual document
do you see it you got it okay so I'm going to enlarge it for you
So this right here is the addition that's been in question. 19 feet by 3 inches by 18 feet by 4.
It's always been there, really attached to the property since the variance was granted in 1953.
okay um questions from the board no no no no no one else wish to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand here we have hillary emerson from the council person's office good morning
Hillary Hillary you can unmute yourself sorry I thought I had unmuted myself um good morning
Mr. Chair members of the board uh sorry I have a co -worker here with me um Hillary Emerson H -I -L
a -r -y um emerson e -m -e -r -s -o -n on behalf of councilwoman sherelle parker we're in the firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do um uh mr chair uh as uh um
ms thompson noted uh this property was approved for an extension back in 1953
um and the notes at that time indicate that the property was um approved for two families plus
the doctor's office it's a little bit confused it confused as to what the configuration was
It's a little bit confused as to what the configuration was at that time from the documents,
but it does say two family plus a doctor's office.
The councilman is not opposed to a triplex of this location, given that it is a corner property.
It's entirely above grade with separate entrances and exits for the basement units.
And in the area, the corner properties are multifamily, and some do have a history or even current commercial use in the ground floor.
The community was not opposed, but a couple people wanted to be sure that if this was approved as a triplex,
that it would stay in its current configuration and that the top two floors that were one unit would not be changed.
settlements as a way to provide though existing configuration with the two units in the basement
and then the remaining unit on the second and third floors or first and second floors, however,
that's done. And then because this is a triplex, we obviously ask for a certificate of occupancy
to be obtained within nine months to ensure that all the fire code requirements are met.
that's all i see chair
uh was there a proviso you said uh hillary about the uh configuration was it yes the the community
there was a concern raised in the discussion at the meeting that if this is approved as a triplex
it might be reconfigured and they didn't want to see any changes in the current floor plan
no changes cities no changes to the current floor plan right exactly so two units in the
basement and then the other two floors being a single unit and then a ceo
anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no one thank you planning commission
this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan due to the
existing three unit layout and the multi -family corner block pattern we did not believe this
proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding area accordingly we are not opposed
the granting of the variance thank you sorry brian could you also whenever you give your
um recommendation please state your name and agency brian when rick city planning thank you
sir thank you thank you uh calendar number mi 2020 -000225 -1561 topo hawkins street my vote is yes
with the following proviso to be obtained within nine months and no reconfiguration of the current
floor plan my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
calendar number mi2020 -000214 1825 east pacific street
The attorney listed is Shawn Ward.
Madam Chair, this here was requested by Shawn Ward for continuance.
Frank, do you want to announce it or do you want me to?
um yeah you can uh calendar number mi -2020 -000214 1825 east pacific street is being continued
thank you calendar number mi2020 -00021849 palethorpe street number b
Sarah Alderfer, who's the attorney?
That's Pell4, P -E -L.
Sarah, you have been promoted to panelists.
You can share your screen.
And unmute yourself to speak.
Pell4.
Good morning, Sarah.
Put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name.
S -A -R -A -H -A -L -D -E -R -F -E -R, Sarah Aldafer, 1500 JFK Boulevard,
Suite 800, Philadelphia, 19102.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Do you also swear?
And I have an initial request that this matter be heard along with 1849 North Pale Fork Street, MI -2020 -00209.
They're adjacent properties and they have a shared history and we're requesting the same variance for both.
Is that an A or B? Is it 209 is, 210 is listed as unit number B as in boy? Is 9 B as well? Or is that?
It's 1849 North Pallethorpe. So there are different addresses, but they're adjacent properties.
sorry it's confusion sarah we're on 1849 pelthorpe and the next one you want to be heard with it is
oh excuse me 1848 with hancock thank you thank you tanya
so they're going to be heard together uh if it pleases the board
it's it's probably the same thing yeah that's okay so 1849 north hancock and 1849 palethorpe
is that correct yes correct okay the calendar number for 1848 north hancock street is mi 2020
money dash 000209 right thank you and you're swearing and affirming to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth for both of those yes and waiting and stipping for both correct
and you've also or have you also emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership proof
of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and photos plans of the property five
days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and if so, do you have a letter?
Yes, I emailed the exhibits on Friday, and I have a copy of the letter, which is in the exhibit
packet at page 40, which I can bring up on the screen now. Okay, you may proceed.
All right, so I'm here on behalf of the owner of both properties, Desi Properties, LLC,
and its principal, Guido Jaramillo. These are adjacent properties located at 1848 North Hancock
and 1849 North Pilthorpe. The owner acquired the properties by deed dated December 15, 2017,
which is Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 16, pages 52 and 86 of the Exhibit PDF.
So this goes back, the history of this property goes back to November 4, 2015,
when a variance was granted by the board for a large parcel that included these two properties.
That variance was to subdivide into 19 lots with single family on the lots going down Pailthorpe and down Hancock, and then these two corner properties, which are at issue today, were to be commercial cellar first floor with two apartments above on each.
At that time, the properties were zoned ICMX.
In March of 2016, admin review was granted to correct an issue with the use registration on the original variance
and register the properties as commercial, seller first floor, apartments above.
um in september of 2016 the properties were remapped from icmx to rm1 by city council bill
number 160465 which is exhibit five of your packet um that is page 29 here so the properties
were remapped from here ICMX to RM1 so the commercial use is no longer by right and we're
seeking a variant to register the uses a variety of uses in the existing commercial space so that
we can use the commercial space. We've met with South Kensington Community Partners who supports
the proposal um and i can show for reference the plans of the property
the proposal and I can show for
at exhibit they're mirror plans but they're at exhibit
14 and 20.
So apologies for the sideways scan, but you can see here that it is a first floor commercial
space with steps down to the basement and then the interior photos of the property show this as well
you can see it's commercial space first floor open this is another view of the first floor
and then there's a half bath and then this is the basement of the cellar so we're just seeking a
variants so that we can register uses in the previously approved commercial
units this time I'd like to have my client adopt my statements if he if he
can be promoted you know could you raise your hand on the zoom
Hello, this is Guido. My name is Guido Jaramillo, G -U -I -D -O, J -A -R -A -M -I -L -L -O,
address 6129 Delaware Crossing, Coopersburg, PA.
Are you going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Mr. Jaramillo, have you heard my statements?
I have.
um and you're the owner of um desi properties llc i am and they are the owners of 1848 north
hancock and 1849 north palethorpe that's correct um and you heard my statements i have
uh are they true and correct they are do you adopt them as your own i do
um at this time i'd be happy to answer any questions from the board
questions from the board no no no anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your
hand here we have slum folks from the council person's office good morning mr folks you're
still under uh you're still you were sworn in you're still under oath thank you morning chairman
and zba board sloan fuchs sloane fs and fire o lks office of councilman maria quionez sanchez
room 508 city hall uh regarding the uh reference request for the properties located at 1848 north
hancock streets and 1849 north pale um 1849 pale thorpe street uh the applicant has met with uh
the rcus uh regarding both properties and has garnered a letter of support uh therefore the
councilman is submitting a letter of support also thank you thank you anyone else wish to testify
in this case no more hands chair thank you planning commission
Ryan Munrick, City Planning. This property is zoned for residential use on the city plan,
but due to its previous zoning and previously approved plans, we have no objection to the
granting of the variance.
Thank you. Calendars number MI -2020 -000209 and MI -2020 -000210. 1849 Pailthorpe Street and 1849 North Hancock. My vote is yes on both.
my vote is yes on both but it's 1848 north hancock street
sorry about that 1848 north hancock and the other was 1849 palethorpe yes
so my vote is both uh yes on both yes on both yes on both yes on both
yes on both yes on both
thank you thank you thank you calendar number mi 2020 000 227 433 pierce street
This is an application for a permit for the erection of an addition
above an existing two -story attached structure with roof decks to be accessed by second and
third floor for use as a one non -accessory parking space at the ground floor and two dwelling units
household living above. The size and location is shown in the application and plan. No signs are
on this permit. The applicant is Neely Tang. We have Vern Anastasio. Oh Mr. Anastasio can you put
your name and address on the record please? Good morning Vern Anastasio that's V like Victor E -R -N
like Nathan, Anastasio is A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006, Philadelphia,
19107. Here today before the board representing owner Neely Tang for 433 Pierce Street.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
have you also emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership proof of tax clearance
refusal referral photos and plans of the property five days in advance of the hearing
and have you met with the rco and if so do you have a letter yes on both thank you you may proceed
okay this is um a long neglected uh property uh on peer little pierce street uh at pierce
street itself is a long neglected street very few homes on the block it's mostly a little tiny
street that's full of either empty lots boarded up properties or garages and what we are proposing
is for the first floor to have a garage there's already an existing curb cut
and then on the second floor we'd have one family dwelling and on the top floor we'd have another
one family dwelling. We'd have two decks one off the second floor rear one off the third floor rear
as we see here. This is the exterior rendering in the garage here once one family dwelling here on
second floor one family dwelling on the top and this is the rear elevation with the two decks
we met with the community group first let me uh let me do this first
we've got our tax clearance our settlement sheet
and this would ultimately be an opportunity for some life to be breathed into this long
neglected property and it'll be you know one of the first hopefully of many new developments on
the street which again is in desperate need of rehabilitation i have as well
i thought i had a dickinson square west civic association letter i believe you have that in
the record they sent that to you directly and they are in support of the granting of the variance
and with that if you can if you can confirm that that would be helpful otherwise i can pull it up
madam vice chair you're asking me to confirm that i can see the refusal if you have no if
you have the community letter that was sent to you i know i certainly have that
it was sent to us subsequent to submitting you should pull it up please very good
just give me one second okay i appreciate that i had it up i don't know where it went but
Just give me one minute.
Vern are you trying to pull something up from a different um yes yes so you can unshare the
screen if it's not in this list here it's not so unshare the screen okay hold on click the green
button I gotta hope I have to open up fully again right I do a new share I'm
to click the green button to take away this year okay do you see it now yes the letter that you
sent yes this is Dickinson Square West do you see it yes wonderful and here it is it's dated
September 17th they met with my client has met with the Dickinson Square West and as you can
see right there, they support appeal number 39899. And with that, I'd like to ask my client
to identify herself. Ms. Tang? Hello, this is Neely Tang, N -E -E -L -Y. The last name is Tang,
T -A -N -G. I live at 820 Bainbridge Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19147. Thank you, Ms. Tang.
Ms. Tang, did you hear my presentation to the board today?
I'm sorry. Can she be sworn in first?
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Ms. Tang, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Tang, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
I did.
And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And would you adopt my presentation as your own testimony if need be?
Thank you very much.
and with that that concludes my presentation mr chairman any questions from the board no no no
anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand now
no hands at this time thank you planning commission
Brian Wenrick city planning this property is indicated for residential use on the city's
comprehensive plan due to the existing block character we do not believe this proposal will
have any negative impacts on the surrounding area accordingly we are not opposed to the granting of
the variance thank you carol when you read this off did you not give me an mi number yes i did
mi -2020 -000227 all right because verne has it as the calendar i guess either one does it matter
yes it's fine okay mi -2020 -227 433 pierce street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you all tanya i have a question can i read off the appeal numbers as opposed to the meeting
item number yes um actually because of the way i have the vote sheets up set up okay it's either
calendar number or meeting id so if you could if you have one of those that would be better
okay we have both of them and i've been reading the meeting item mi 2020 000 235 445 green street
Is anyone here for Green Lane?
No hands are up, Madam Vice Chair.
Why don't we, just in case they're having technical problems, go to the next case and
and we'll deal with this at the end okay calendar number MI 2020 -000 -212 -4525 Lardner Street
we'll deal with this at the end.
Okay, calendar number.
Madam Vice Chair, I have Jennifer Bazitlow.
Jennifer, you can share your screen and unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
jennifer can you hear me i can hear you i'm having trouble with my video so you may not be able to
see me however i don't know what's going on okay i cannot see you okay as long as i can hear you
that's good name and address for the record please sure jennifer bazidlow b as in boy a as in apple
z as in zebra y d as in david l as in larry o as in oscar 4500 worth street suite d202 philadelphia
Pennsylvania 19124 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do you also agree to waive and step yes do you have you also emailed an exhibit packet in
with proof of ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos and or
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and
if so, is there a letter? Yes, I emailed in the primary exhibit packet last Friday the RCO letter
I sent in on Monday, which was when I had received it. Also in my presentation, I did add one
additional photo that just shows the property from 2014. That was not in my previous exhibit
packet. I'm happy to share that later if I need to. All right, let me share my screen.
Okay. So I'm here today with the owner of this property, Tim Borton, who owns 4525 Lardner Street
through his LLC, Philadelphia Heritage Investments LLC. Tim, if you just want to raise your hand
so that they know who you are, you'll be allowed to speak. I submitted a package with a refusal
deed, tax clearance, a letter of non -opposition from the Wissen -Noming Civic Association,
aerial view of the property, and portions of the zoning archive, as well as photos,
and the plans, which I am incorporating into the record. 4525 Lardner is a 2 ,422 square foot RSA3
zoned property at the northwest corner of Lardner and Dittman, which is directly across the street
from Henry Lawton Elementary, and this is in the Wissen -Noming section of
Philadelphia. I'm going to get to the zoning archive section as a little bit of
background here. In 1962 this property was approved for multifamily use with
four units plus four garages accessed, front -loading garages accessed off of Lardner Street.
The four units here are not at issue. They have been in continuous use and are still approved.
That variance is still in place. What happened was my client, Mr. Borton, purchased this property in
2016 when he purchased this property there was no garages and there were six units in this building
um so what we are here today is to seek to seeking to legalize that use of the building
as it has existed and uh all evidence points to the fact that this building has existed in this
fashion since the 60s for almost six decades and so we're just trying to get that legalized
so that he can continue making improvements for his building
because right now he can't pull building permits
because of this discrepancy.
So let me just pull up the plans.
This is, so you can see, this is the photo of the property.
As you can see, this property never had garages.
There's no place where the garages would have been.
Okay, cool.
Bye -bye.
Just get to the floor plan. So this is how this building was configured when he purchased it.
There are essentially two detached structures, I mean, semi -detached structures, each with three units in it, one on each floor.
There are, it's essentially two detached structures, I mean semi -detached structures.
The ground floor, this first floor, and then the second floor, each are one -bedroom, one -bath units.
They're all roughly the same size and roughly the same configuration.
um so what happened i can show you the current photos of how this is how the building looked
in 2014 before he purchased it it was in need of significant repair but as you can see it's still
in the same um configuration as it was in 2014 before his purchase um like i said there was the
six units already present. What happened was when he went to go improve the building, there was some
moisture issues on these ground floor units. He began the demo of the property. So this is what
they look like currently. No pictures were taken before the demo took place, but you can see that
there was an existing bathroom already in these units. And so there's moisture. He did the demo.
he went to go pull building permits and that's when he learned that in fact there was only four
permitted uses and there were missing garages um to these structures um i want to first i want to
address these two issues with the parking and then the units separately let me first address the
parking issue um based on this construction of the building as and as well as my conversations with
some of the long -term residents and the RCO, as far as you can tell, there was
never garages built. That was the variance granted in the 60s, but it just
never happened. At this point, if he was required to construct those garages or
otherwise provide off -street parking, it would be a significant hardship as it
probably would involve just tearing down the whole building and rebuilding it. So
that's a hardship to the building and also a significant financial hardship. It also wouldn't
make sense because if you see along here, there is parking along this side of the street. And if
we instead replaced, if we put garages or some sort of parking in front here, it would remove
the public on -street parking. So essentially we would have no, we would probably lose more
on -street parking than we would gain by providing those parking spaces. I also
heard something from the Wissendoming Civic Association, which I rarely hear
from any Civic, which is that there's no parking issues in this neighborhood, and
that's because there is good public transit. Many of the residents do not
own cars, including several of the existing tenants in the four units, in
the four existing units. Several of them do not own cars, and the people
that do own cars several of the properties surrounding here do have off -street parking
where they remove their cars from the street um so like i said the the removal of the garages i
i think is kind of very clear that this never existed and it would make sense to authorize
uh the continuance of not having off -street parking at this property as for the legalization
of the two additional units. Again, speaking with the RCO and your neighbors, as far as they can
remember, this has been a six -unit building. And it's configured in the same way as when my
client purchased it. Let's go to the floor plan again. So I actually want to show you this photo,
which is the outside. While these are ground floor units, they have direct
access to the outside through these doors. There's no hallways, they don't
have to go upstairs to go out the door, they have direct access to the
outside. There's also five large windows in each unit. They're configured with
basically the same amount of access as the other units. In fact, if you look at
the egress distance provided in the floor plan, the maximum egress distance in the lower units
is actually 10 feet less or 11 feet less than in the upper units. So in fact, there's a shorter
distance to get out of these units in case of an emergency than in some of the upper floors.
I also wanted to note that this is a six -unit building. In order to pull these additional
rental license a ceo will need to be maintained so any additional fire code improvements that
So any additional fire code improvements that might need to be made would be made along with
might need to be made would be made along with that
that CO application. This property, like I said, has been used for, while it's zoned RSA 3, has
been used as multi -family housing since 1963. The proper zoning, more in conformance with an RM1
zoning district. Based on the size of this parcel, if it was RM1, six units would be allowed by
right, so it's not radically out of line with the use of the property. It would be a significant
financial hardship for this property if the owner were to lose a third of the units. This is why I
wanted to show this. The building, when he purchased it, was not in great shape. The owner has taken
a lot of time and effort and money to rehabilitate this property in speaking with the neighbors
they all were very happy with the maintenance of this building since my tenant my client has taken
over and want to see the continued maintenance and updates of this property no one's had issue
with the tenants parking anything like that which is why I just want to mention with the civic
association they were not currently holding meetings so what we did um this is the letter
that went out um sorry who is the civic association which was a gnomic civic okay
um so what we did was i talked i gave the whole presentation to the board of um of
was gnomic civic uh and they were perfectly fine with this they were familiar with the building
they have had no prior complaints with the existing use, which is what we're asking for,
is how this building has been used for 60 years. We sent out this letter asking the neighbors to
contact the Registered Community or Wisnoming Civic with any questions, concerns, support,
opposition. I think we sent out 80 notices for this area. Approximately eight people contacted
the Civic Association. All were in support.
Thank you. Do you have any witnesses who wish to testify?
I have the owner, Tim Borton, should be on the line, and I would like to have him testify.
He can unmute himself and wait to be sworn in.
Timothy, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Tim, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Name and address for the record, please, and please spell your last name.
Timothy Borton.
Last name is B -O -R -T -O -N.
You may proceed.
All right, Tim, I just want to confirm with you, when you purchased the property, it was
six units, correct?
That is correct.
And it was represented to you as a six -unit building?
Yeah, that's what I thought I was buying.
Okay, and there were no garages or off -street parking present at the time you bought it?
Not at all.
Okay, and then I just wanted to say you've heard my testimony here today, correct?
You believe it to be truthful and accurate?
And you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
Are there any other witnesses?
I don't have any other witnesses.
okay plan does the board have any questions no no planning commission
ryan wendrick city planning this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan
due to the long -standing existing layout of the structure uh we feel that there will be
no negative impact on the surrounding area accordingly we are not opposed to the granting
in variance. Thank you. Calendar number MI 2020. Did you want to see if it was anyone who was
wanted to testify? Oh, I thought Jennifer just said that she had no one else. Is there anyone
else there? I do have one person with their hand up, but David Borton. I don't know if he's related
to the case. Can we find out? David Borton, you can unmute yourself. Okay.
David, can you put your name and address on the record? You're here for 4525 Lardner Street?
yes okay name and address please David Borton 90
Yes. Okay. Name and address, please. David Borton, 9029 Ashton Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
19136. That's B -O -R -T -O -N. And do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
the truth? Yes. Thank you. You may proceed. I just wanted to mention that I am a co -owner also,
and timothy is my son uh everything that has been stated has been truthful and that they're
uh i just wanted to add that to the record thank you no more hands vice chair thank you
is sunk it and the board has no questions no no questions thank you calendar number mi 2020 000
212 4525 lardner street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you calendar number mi 2020 dash oh oh two three six eight oh one seven stenton avenue
madam vice chair i have steve bertill returning okay
mr bertill hi can you hear me yes i can name and address for the record uh steve bertill b -e -r -t -i -l
1835 Market Street
Street 14
Philadelphia PA 19103
Thank you. And do you
swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? Yes
I do. Do you also agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes
Also have you
emailed an exhibit packet with
proof of ownership, tax compliance
the refusal or
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 to the all of them okay you may proceed thank you thanks uh good morning
again uh mr chairman uh madam vice chair and members of the board uh i'm here on behalf of
the owners of 80 17 stenton avenue uh hardiman hall acquisitions llc with me i have uh mr darren
Hardiman and our architects Christopher Johnson and I believe we may also have
Mr. Bruce Hall on the line as well. Let me share my screen.
As I stated, I'm here to present our application and our request for variance for 8017 Stanton
Avenue.
We're here to request a variance for the approval of the erection of a semi -detached structure
for use as a two -family dwelling with two accessory off -street parking spaces in the
rear of the property.
So in the beginning, let me just show you a picture of the current property so you get
a sense of the current condition.
this is this lot is on this RSA 3 as most of the lots are in the area and it
is facing on Stanton Avenue between Gorgas Lane and Vernon Road that it's
currently a vacant lot the current a lot area is 3 ,092 square feet an existing
lot width is 24 feet and two inches.
This is the zoning area of the property.
The highlighted lot is the lot in question.
And as you can see, most of the area is zoned the same as RSA 3 and RSA 2.
We'll get into why that distinction is not necessarily impactful on this lot in a second.
as I stated we are is that stacked parking no it's not stacked the entire
vacant area I'm sorry I don't understand the question it's the entire what we're
looking at or what I'm looking at is an area one part is manicured the other
is an area one part is manicured the other part is not so is it that whole area oh i'm sorry you're
talking about the fault this photo here yes yeah so did that entire here let me give you a better
aerial shot this is the lot that we're referring to here okay
So, again, facing on Staten Avenue, the proposed project in question is the erection
of a three -story semi -detached structure for uses to family at 38 feet in height on the proposed
plans are to have a unit of three bedrooms and three and a half baths and another unit of three
bedrooms and three baths as you can see from the plans we are proposing rear parking on the lot
as the street is facing the main throughway of Stanton Avenue we're
utilizing the rendering of the project and we're utilizing brick for the
exterior of the project that fits in the context within the immediate neighbors
in the neighborhood as a whole. Here's a photo from the rear of the proposed structure,
main access via side entrance, and here's the spaces for the accessory parking.
Just so you get a sense of the layout of the proposed units,
as you can see on the left, here let me zoom in a little bit so you can
that's too much, David. On the left you can see unit one on the first floor in the lower level
with three bedrooms, two bedrooms on the lower level, one in the first floor level,
and three and a half baths. And on the right you can see unit two
between the second and third floor with three bedrooms in total, one on the second floor,
two on the third floor and three bags now we did meet or the the applicants met with the
registered community group on august i'm sorry yes on august 4th uh the registered community
organization for this uh lot is the 50th democratic ward there were concerns or uh
critiques of the projects raised regarding the style of the building
fitting into the neighborhood and or renters changing the dynamic of the
neighborhood I would like to address both of those issues if you go back I'll
go back to the a wider area so much
of the neighborhood you'll see just to give you a sense of the use of the
context of neighborhood when it comes to multifamily or renters this is the lot
where my mouse is going up and down in question on the same block on the corner
of the block you'll see a the structure here is a four -unit building address 80
25 to 27 Staten Avenue and on the same block on the opposite corner is a two
unit building 901 Vernon Road in addition to that but there are multi -family you
know duplexes sort of separate throughout this neighborhood but more in addition
to you know two multi -family structures being on the same block um not even a block away are four
large multi -family buildings of over 10 units um per building i couldn't get the exact number
because the zoning records weren't clear but there i were i was able to confirm that there's at
minimum 10 per structure uh units in these buildings in addition to that over here is a
commercial mixed -use building that has seems like it's gone through various
changes with commercial uses on the first floor and residential and office
uses in other and the other spaces in the structure. I believe part of it's
used as a community center now with accessory parking. So as such we don't
uh accessory parking. So as such we don't believe our proposed use of two units on this lot is going
believe our proposed use
to change the character of the building as when it relates to renters being residents in this
neighborhood. There are renters all throughout this neighborhood and this is just in the one
block radius of the structure. As I said if you expand even further out it's more of the same.
What did the 50th Democratic Ward say? What was their letter?
Here, I'll scroll down to it.
Oh, that's the notice.
There it is.
Leave.
So the war took a vote.
There were two in support.
court, and I believe not for housing, if this is included or on the attendees.
So they're opposing it. Is there anyone a witness from the councilwoman's office?
We have Hillary Emerson.
Good morning. Yes, Hillary Emerson on behalf of Councilwoman
sherelle parker and um do you do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing about the
truth yes i do thank you all right you're you're welcome um yeah i um i attended um the
the rco meeting um for this case back in august i said my co -worker is still here
i hear yeah i know um the the councilwoman um opposes um the proposal with that family use
um of this property um we feel that it is an overusing of the property um they're proposing
to attach a duplex um to what otherwise appears to be a single family home um and they're also
proposing two three -bedroom units, which is, um, those are very big, um, units. Um, we don't feel
like there's a hardship that this has to be a multi -family unit, especially given that a permit
was issued in 2009 for, to build a single -family dwelling here. Um, I'm not sure why it was not
built, but, um, previously that was, uh, clearly considered. Um, as counsel for the applicant noted,
There are some multifamily in the area, particularly on the corners of the block,
but in the middle of the block, it seems to be twin single -family homes.
It's a very short block.
There's not a lot to go with, but there do seem to be three or four twin single -family
homes in a row in the middle of the block.
We are also concerned about the bedrooms that were proposed in the basement for safety.
and in the unit the basement is below grade. We're concerned about the the massing of the building
while the height is the same as the other it was proposed as the other half of the semi -detached
structure. It's significantly more square footage or volume from what we can see and that just seems
out of character with the neighborhood. And in the design with the there is bricks which we
appreciates but um there's there's glass and and the um i think the angular angular design is
different than a lot of the neighborhood i feel like it's it's the community felt like it stood
out quite a bit from what the rest of the neighborhood um there are also concerns raised
um about having two cars parked um back there because the um the driveway is split with like
it's elevated partway, whereas where this is at the end of kind of the elevation with a retaining
wall. So there was kind of the neighbors were concerned about having, you know, two cars moving
in and out of that space because it's a very narrow driveway and it has that retaining wall
drop off. And I believe that there are neighbors here on the call here or in the meeting here to
express their concerns. So just to summarize, well, we appreciate the applicant's interest in
developing this space and investing in the community. Unfortunately, we oppose the
multifamily proposed library site. Thank you, Hillary. If I could just
go ahead. I want to address some of the comments that Hillary made, but also after addressing that,
I did have more of my presentation before residents, if the board would allow me to finish that before the residents.
finish that because the residents absolutely um so but i'd like to just address some of the
Absolutely.
So, but I'd like.
statements made um initially well i'll start with the design of the building here's a i don't know
why this keeps zooming out apologies here's uh another view of the block regarding the design
standing out. As you can see, on this block of Stanton Avenue, there's literally four different
home designs. There isn't one uniform. I understand many a times some of the neighborhood concerns of
a house on the street that sticks out because it's like a uniform look to the block or the street.
that's not the case here as you can see literally every house is different
stands these two next to each other but every house has a different design and
the houses on the corner as I stated our residential or multifamily residential
nature much more density than what we're proposing which is two -family that when
In regards to the massing, as I stated, this building is 38 feet.
It's not any bigger or any wider than any other houses that will be on this block.
The width of this lot is 24 feet 2 inches.
So we can't put a building on here that's bigger than the size of the lot.
In addition to that, as you can see from the renderings, we're including a walkway on the
side for main access into the building which means our building is actually smaller your design is
completely different from any other home on that block that's correct that's correct i'm not uh
i'm my point wasn't to to to say that it's the same my point is that no house on that block is
the same. Right. A little bit different from the block. Yeah, it is different than any other house
as every other house on that block is also different. It's really the point I was getting
to with the design. When it comes to the rear parking, the refusal that we have on the rear
parking is due to the zoning designation as RSA 3. We actually meet the
dimensional requirements for an exception of the under the rear parking
under 14803B which states that residential parking shall be permitted
in the required rear yard of an attached building when the lot area is served by
rear alley or shared driveway with a minimum of 12 feet in our uh the alleyway behind this proposed
project is 12 feet i don't see that so you would access the parking through the rear alley
exactly there's a rear driveway that's 12 feet nine inches which is larger
than over than what the code requires for the um exception under the rear parking
prohibition for residential properties. The only distinction here is that this property
is semi -detached and not attached, and that's the only difference. In terms of the dimensional
requirements for this exception, we meet all of them. I think what the representative from the
council's uh member's office was stating um was not that the rear main access driveways raised i
think what she was referring to in terms of uh a raised driveway was the fact that there is if you
can see here a retaining wall in the front of the property that runs along the property on next to
the next house as with any no that is not what I was referring to and if you look if you go down
the side street on Gorgas and look half of the driveway is elevated with a retaining wall and
then the other half is lower by the buildings on Cornelius Street and so you're referring to
the retaining wall on the main access driveway for all the homes correct okay so in response
to that I mean that driveway again has been if you can look at the I'll go back
to the aerial if you look at the aerial of this block as you can see there's
rear parking on almost all the houses behind behind our our lock
almost all the houses behind our lot that all access the same driveway and all has the same
path in and out to their lots. The only difference here is that where we would be parking is next to
this home, but it would be parked there. In terms of movement on the driveway, that would happen
along this main uh driveway as it does now for every other house that utilizes it um so that
shouldn't be a substantial difference um for anyone that's currently living there um or plans
to live there in the future but if i can just get back to the because i do want to address some of
the other um refusal which is um the two -family dwelling in this district as i stated although
this entire area generally zoned as RSA 3 or 5 and or RSA 3 you can see that in
many or RSA 2 excuse me you can see that many of the lots that are zoned as such
have multiple multifamily uses and not just on the corners as I stated or this
lot here is multifamily and those are the corner but it runs the entire left
up to the middle of the block. This lot here is in the middle of the block. It has not only
residential but commercial uses. And the increase of two family units, again, if we're talking
about density and size, it's not a substantial difference to this neighborhood when you consider
Do you have any witnesses to present?
Yes, I do.
I have with me the owner of the property, Mr. Darren Hardiman, who is here, if you could raise his hand.
All your witnesses need to unmute themselves to be sworn in.
Darren, if you can unmute yourself.
Good morning.
Good morning. Name and address for the record.
darren hardiman d -a -r -e -n last name is h -a -r -d -i -m -o -n 6024 ridge avenue suite 116
number 300 philadelphia pa 19128 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do and what is your relationship to this property i am part owner
of Hardiman Hall Acquisitions LLC. Okay. You may proceed. Thank you. Mr. Hall, did you hear
my testimony this morning? I did. Okay. Could you confirm the truth of my testimony and adopt it
as your own? Yes, I would. Okay. And is there anything that you'd like to add regarding your
proposal to the board? Yeah, I think that you highlighted everything. I don't think that there's
anything more for me to add um if the board has any questions or anyone has any questions for me
i would be uh happy to answer but i don't think i have anything further to add aside from what you
said okay does the board have any questions for this witness no no no i should uh oh i'm sorry
is there another you have another witness yeah we just i just wanted to make sure that the board
was aware that we also have the architect on the line if there was any questions that would be
for an architect, Mr. Johnson.
So I don't know if we should swear him in
or if the board doesn't have questions for him either.
I have no questions.
Does the board have any questions?
I have no questions either for the architect.
I have a comment for the architect.
I think that this design is better than next door,
the one -story building.
is there another witness that you have uh no that concludes my witnesses thank you
okay does the board have any questions
no and miss sunkett are there any other witnesses
um if anyone wishes to testify on behalf of this case raise your hand because at this time no hands
are up okay you can proceed okay planning commission
brian winrich city planning this property is indicated for residential single family use on
the city's comprehensive plan the proposal is out of character with the single family uses
and style on the immediate block this is an overuse accordingly we are opposed to the granular
This is an overuse.
Accordingly, we are opposed to the granular variances.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry about my call.
Thanks for the 50 -bop program.
Thank you.
Calendar number MI2020 -000236.
The address is 8017 Stenton Avenue.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
calendar number mi 2020 000215 the address is 7956 burry road apartment 2
we have alice
alice you've been promoted to panelists regarding burry road
you can unmute your mic and wait to be sworn in. Good morning. Good morning, Alice. Can you put
your name and address on the record, please? Certainly. Alice Hughes, that's A -L -I -C -E Hughes,
H -U -G -H -E -S, and that's an S like Sam. My address is 4 Terry Drive, Suite 3, Newtown, PA,
18940. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. I'm sorry, are you an attorney? I am. Okay, thank you. Have you emailed the exhibit packet
with the required documents, which would be proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
the refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the RCO and if so do you have a letter yes
to both those questions thank you you may proceed thank you I'm gonna share
my screen my name is Alice Hughes and I represent Christopher Shank who is the
current owner of the property. The application before you is for 7956
Marie Road. The refusal appears at page 102 of your exhibit binder
and the request on these circumstances
was to convert a non -conforming use or use with a variance from two apartments
two apartments and a medical office to three apartments. The reason for the denial or the
refusal was because the zoning is RSA3 which is single family residential only and then of course
if there were three units we would have to deal with the parking. Just would like to briefly
recite the ownership. The deed appears at exhibit A which is page two. This property was owned by
Lisa Schenck from 2008 until 2017 when she died. My client Christopher Schenck was the executor of
her estate and is now the trustee of the trust created under her will. In his role as executor
and now trustee, it is his obligation to determine the best use of the value, best use, excuse me,
of the property, generating income for the trust beneficiaries while preserving the value of the
real estate. It's important to note that this part of that function included him obtaining a real
estate appraisal, which appears at exhibit A beginning on page 17 of the exhibit packet. I'm
just going to quickly show you what the property looks like by turning to page 52. This is a three
story building at the corner of Verree Road and Ripley Street in the Fox Chase section of
Philadelphia. The first floor is pretty much above grade. It has a separate entrance from
Ripley Street, and that is the doctor's office as it exists presently. The second and third floor
are two, one, I'm sorry, two, two -bedroom apartments with one bath. That's a two -bedroom
apartment on the second floor and a two -bedroom apartment on the third floor.
So these two pictures show you the front and the rear of the property as they existed on
the date of the appraisal inspection.
As part of the process of that appraisal for mixed -use property, the appraiser was required
to determine the property's highest and best use.
and best use and I'm just going to direct your attention to the highlighted portion of that
And I'm just going to direct your attention to the highlighted portion of that report.
report which states that the highest and best use given the current circumstances, the condition of
the property, and the demands for real estate in the community would be for three apartment units
and that as such that would be in conformity with the predominant land use in the community.
As part of the process and clearing title, we uncovered a number of use and occupancy return violations and had to establish to the benefit or the satisfaction of the city that the property had not been used commercially for a period of time.
Attaches Exhibit F on page 100 is a letter from the rental manager who has handled the property for more than 40 years, indicating that the doctor's office had been empty for approximately 10 years.
Since 2017, in accordance with his responsibilities as executor and now trustee, Mr. Schenck has
determined that there's no interest in this property being leased as a medical office on
the first floor. This is a result of accessibility issues under the American with Disabilities Act,
but it's also a question of how physicians' offices have changed over time, and that is
primarily we don't see physicians in such small spaces as this one with only two exam rooms.
What we're seeing now is the migration to these large multidisciplinary offices that are run by
health systems or hospital systems and urgent cares. So that even if we were able to come to
compliance, come into compliance with the ADA, there would be no demand for this property with
just two exam rooms for a physician's space. With regard to the parking concerns, I just want to
direct your attention quickly to the following photographs. One is Exhibit O that appears on
page 134. This photograph was taken shortly after receipt of our refusal and it shows the parking
area which is accessed from a common driveway on Ripley Street and this shows three vehicles
parked in that parking pad that belongs to the property and then if we look at exhibit o i'm
sorry exhibit n which is on the preceding page you will see that the property has now been striped
the parking lot has been striped and there's actually sufficient room for four vehicles
the traffic and parking required by a medical office would include the physicians the office
staff, the patients coming and going, the delivery of supplies, the outdoor receptacle boxes or
testing services, and the storage and removal of medical waste. By contrast, the parking related
to a third apartment would be one automobile. With regard to the RCO, this is the Fox Chase
Homeowners Association. Their meeting was held on February 12th. The meeting was duly noticed and
that appears in the exhibit packet at Exhibit I. Their report appears as Exhibit J on page 113
and as you can see they voted to oppose the applicant's request for variance. This should
not be a surprise. It was not a surprise to us as the applicant or the owner, because under the
terms of the bylaws of Fox Chase Homeowners Association, they oppose anything that is not
a single -family residence. Their bylaws appear at Exhibit K, and I'm going to point you directly
to the section in question, which is section, I'm sorry, Article 14, with the standing decision
rule contained in the bylaws. Given the present use of the property as constructed, it's not
possible for us to create a single -family dwelling to satisfy the RCO in this case.
Other than a teardown in reconstruction, it's not possible to bring this property into compliance
with the single -family requirements of an RSA 3. Excuse me, this is Sharon Salette. I had one
question. You are also approved as a two -family dwelling. That approval
doesn't go away because the doctor's office is eliminated, so I don't believe
So I don't believe you would be required to go back to a single family.
you would be required to go back to a single family.
Agreed.
I'm about to address that.
The present use of the doctor's office on the first floor has rendered the property one -third useless.
That is, we have three units and can only occupy two.
Excuse me, can you expand one of the units into the prior doctor's office?
I think you can by right.
that is not something we had taken into consideration.
Would you like to go back and speak to the owner and re -meet with the RCO?
Well, the owner is present, and he certainly can answer that question when he's called upon.
But that is not what the highest and best use determination of the appraiser was and the information and research that Mr. Schenck has conducted since becoming the executor and now trustee that owns the property.
the highest and best use isn't a standard applied to zoning variances though that's why i'm asking
if you'd be willing to go back with a different idea and plan to fox chase if not that's okay
it's just something i'm throwing out to you mr shank is available he is he cannot meet himself
and be sworn in if you wish him to speak okay uh miss hart miss hart miss alice hart use would
you like him to speak um i'd like to finish and then let him you may ask him questions after i
bring him on to uh adopt my testimony so far okay great thank you um i left off with the
present use rendering the property one -third useless and the fact that this is an area that's
not desirable to medical professionals or at least the current floor plan is undesirable to
medical professionals and as a vacant property it invites vandalism. The next least offensive use
is residential and if the variance is granted it will not change the essential character of the
neighborhood as the predominant use is residential it will not impair the
adjacent property which is also a duplex and that's the property to the south at
this point i would like to ask the board members if they have any questions of me
and if the board does the board have any questions no no
okay in that case if we could bring on my client that would be great that would be great
miss sunkett yes he's available he just he's needs to unmute himself and wait to be sworn
okay great are you able to do that chris
Chris you can unmute your mic
no response chair
are you having difficulty it's at the lower portion move your cursor to the lower portion of your
screen, Chris? Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Can you put your name and address on the record,
please? Yes, my name is Christopher Schenk, S -C -H -E -N -K. My address is 3234 Stonegate Drive
in Huntington Valley Pennsylvania 19006 thank you and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth I do okay you may proceed Mr. Shank have you heard my presentation
to the board this morning have you been online and listening yes does it what I have said is it
true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes. And do you adopt what I have stated as if
it were your own testimony? I do. Now there's a question that Vice Chair Tenori has asked about
perhaps expanding one of the units so that it would include the lower level or the ground floor.
Is that something that would be possible?
I guess you could possibly do that. Yes, the addresses are, one is on Ripley Street, the doctor's office that is the unit in question.
I guess you could possibly do that, yeah.
And the other one is on Bree Road, up a set of stairs, going into the first, you walk in and there's an immediate middle unit stair there, and then another set of stairs above.
All the units do have separate utilities, heating, plumbing, electric, and whatnot.
but I'm sure anything could be possible.
I guess you would have to convert the middle unit
into the first floor unit somehow with a staircase.
Mr. Schenck, it's clear this is not something that has been
in your envisioning of how to deal with this property
and your role as executor and now trustee is that fair to say yes that's correct so it's hard for
you to assess on the fly whether or not that would be even a possibility um or even make sense or even
marketable because you don't you don't even know what the fair rental might be for that kind of a
unit? I don't. And it would take a bit of engineering and forethought and a lot of
design and engineering. And is it fair to say that as is if that first floor, which is a doctor's
unit, doctor's office, were to be converted to a two -bedroom, one -bathroom apartment,
that would be something that would be easily accomplished and make that unit available
desirable and rented out in a short period of time yes yes that could be done and
quite easily and it's your understanding after talking with the um rental agent that there's
short supply of a part of housing of this cat character in the fox chase community uh yes
there's quite a demand for for uh apartments in the fox chase area right now i have no further
questions okay does the board have any questions no no no
Did we get the position of the RCO on the record?
Yes, Ms. Hart, you said that it's Fox Chase and they they oppose.
I'm sorry, their letter does appear in the exhibit packet at Exhibit J.
okay i'd like to hear from the planning commission
yes brian winnick city planning this property is zoned for single family residential use
um the applicant has not provided um a hardship uh for creating an additional unit out of the
commercial unit therefore we are opposed to the granting of this marriage
calendar number mi 2020 000 215 -7956 burree road apartment 2. my vote is no my vote is no my vote
is no thank you i'm going back to 445 green lane calendar number mi 2020 000 235
is there anyone here on that
no hands are up
they weren't here earlier when we called it um i have a catherine
you can unmute yourself and speak to this case
hello yes catherine are you an attorney i am not okay this is an application
Okay, this is an application for a permit for two off -street parking spaces for a single -family detached dwelling.
for a permit for two off -street
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
My name is Catherine Sikora.
My address is 445 Green Lane, Philadelphia 19128.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed.
okay so I'm gonna start with I we provided sorry I'm sorry one second this
is Sharon's letter before you proceed I don't have your exhibit packet did you
submit it I did I did I found the system somewhat frustrating in that ice and
then I couldn't figure out how to reach out to you folks I submitted last
uh wednesday or thursday okay i will who did you submit to uh the emails that they gave me on the
page all righty do we go forward with this sharon or wait um yes you can go forward with it and i
will in the meantime see if i can locate the exhibits is there a phone number or something
that i can reach out to someone but we do need the exhibit packet right i understand that and
that's apparently a problem ms sunken no there's not a phone number i didn't sharon can look for
the can find the exhibit package um then she can determine if we should go forward okay the only
Anything I've been able to find is a September 3rd email from Ms. Sikora asking about the
link to the tax certification and asking a question about the posting.
I don't have anything after that.
No, I got that and I incorporated it into the package.
And you emailed, you copied me on it.
I don't have it.
that's why i asked where did you send the exhibit package um i can go look on through the pages but
they were given two names um are kozoba and sule ta that's her tanya sule no it's not it's that's
s -u -l -e -t -a -z -b -a yes that's right yeah so i sent everything to those two emails
one of them came back um but the other i went through so it's your call sharon i'm fine with
it okay um why don't we do this if you could present your case and hold the vote for a week
just to confirm that we have the exhibits that we need.
We can do that because here's the other problem.
I've never done the Zoom thing, so it's a new experience.
And what I didn't realize is I was counting on you folks having the documents
since I didn't prepare any to present.
So I could talk about it or we can put it off.
i would like to get it over with frankly
sharon do you think we should continue this
we aren't if if we're only continuing it for a week we aren't going to be able to put the entire
um case on next week it would be a later date is that correct tanya
miss sunkett yes that's correct i might think this should be a fairly short one it's not an
elaborate discussion i know but we do need the exhibit packet right i would be able to email
that to the board once i locate it if um you want to go forward with the with ms okora's presentation
and it wouldn't be um leaving the record open it would be determining that you already have
what's required in the record and then you can vote next week how about this would it be okay to
move this to 2 p .m.? Oh, that's a great idea. Great idea. Mr. Kerr, would that accommodate
your schedule? If we move this to 2 p .m., have you present the first case and as long as we
find your exhibit package? Sure. So, do you want me to try and resend? Yes, that would be wonderful
if we can get the exhibit package and then at 2 p .m., you log on again and we'll hear your case
first. Okay. So to who? You can send it to T -A -N -Y -A. Wait. T -A -N -Y -A. Right.
Wait, T -A -N -Y -A dot S -U -N -K -E -T -T.
And Ms. Sakura, I believe that we have your cell phone number, that it was in your earlier email, so I will call you before 2 o 'clock to confirm.
This is at phil .gov, right?
Correct, Ms. Sakura, correct.
And thank you so much for your understanding.
thank you thank you everyone that concludes the 9 30 hearings does it i don't think so
no one we had to go back to or no you did that one i don't think so okay i think that was green lane
okay sounds good okay i'll see everybody at two o 'clock thank you all
see you too thanks everybody see you then thanks
tanya i'm here we'll wait for you to give us the green light yes thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay chair ready when you are
Thank you Tanya. Good afternoon everyone.
You got to mute yourself Carol. Thank you. Good afternoon. 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 Panieri. Board Secretary Confessor Plaza and board members
Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snow. Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit and
Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance. For those of you who have
yet haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I will go through
some of the basics you can expect. First, we will be administering oaths to
individual participants prior to the testimony. Second, for the benefit of
anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves
prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being
recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, 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 number 267 -270 -5548
and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat that as well. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that said, we will begin, but before Vice Chair Tenere calls our first case, we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or whatever.
We'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal to be heard this
afternoon.
Please raise your hand to be identified if you wish to ask for a continuance or a withdrawal.
Here we have David Orfanides.
Mr. Orphanides, you can unmute yourself to speak to a continuance.
Can everybody hear me?
Please identify yourself.
Okay, great.
Yes, David Orphanides from Orphanides & Toner, 2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
David, can you spell your last name for this?
Orphanides.
Orphanides.
Orphanides.
Orphanides.
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do sir thank you please proceed
sure i have uh three cases that are scheduled for today that i'd like to request a continuance for
um one is 1008 brandywine which is mi 2020 000454 okay give us a second we you know what page that
or what number 12 number 12 yeah that would be helpful that's okay hold on please david do you
want 13 also is that 10 10 yes yes those two are both they're with the 14th democratic ward
executive committee and we um we weren't able to meet with them before today's hearing so
And the other case that you want, and then I'll read them into the record.
Number 13.
12, 13, and?
And then 1121 to 29 North Front, which is MI2020000973.
You might have it as 1123 to something.
Yeah, we actually go by page number now.
Number 14, Chair.
Thank you, Tonya.
Sorry.
All right. So 12, 13, and 14. Okay. All right.
Freeing up your afternoon.
All right. The following cases are going to be continued.
MI -2020 -000454 -1008 Brandywine Street.
MI -2020 -000458 -1010 Brandywine Street.
MI -2020 -000973, 1121 -33 North Front Street.
Those three cases will be continued.
That concludes my business, May.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
Here we have Timothy Lee.
Timothy, you can unmute yourself, wait to be sworn in, and speak to a continuance.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Lee.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
My name is Timothy Lee, 113 North 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107.
Thank you for the applicant.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
You're requesting a continuance?
Yes, I am.
Which case is that?
This would be 941 North 6th Street, MI2020 -001126.
What page are we on?
Can you hear me okay?
I can hear you.
I can. I didn't hear you before that.
Number two, 941 North 6th.
Okay. MI -2020 -001126. 941 North 6th Street is continued.
Do we have a date or do we wait for a date, Mr. Chair?
We will be notified by staff and some people notified.
Okay. Yeah, because we haven't had a chance to meet with the -
Understood that we've been running into that quite often. Thank you.
okay all right any other requests for continuance or withdrawals here we have verne anastasio mr
anastasio you can unmute yourself wait to be sworn in and speak to a continuance thank you
miss sunkett hello again mr chairman members of the board verne anastasio a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o 1315
walnut suite 1006 philadelphia pennsylvania 19107 mr chairman i'm here on calendar number
Mr. Chairman, I'm here on calendar number MI -2020.
M -I -2020.
Just hold on a second.
I'm sorry.
That's okay.
You're still on the oath for him this morning.
Okay, proceed.
I'm here for calendar number MI -2020 -001122.
It's 5328 Vine Street.
We've met with the RCO just recently.
Say it again.
Number five on our list.
Thank you.
We met with the RCO. They've asked us to do some redesign, and therefore I'm asking for a short continuance so that we can bring that redesign to them.
Thank you. MI -2020 -001122. 5328 Vine Street is continued.
Thank you. May I be excused?
Yes, you may. Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Here, if I could put on record, we would be received a request from Augusta O 'Neill
for continuance for 4200 Chester Avenue, number eight on your list.
number eight okay mi -2020 -0001334200 chester avenue 4200 chester avenues continued
anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal or does anyone
believe that we have called a case to be continued in error
Here, if I could put on record, we would receive the continuous request from attorney
Xin Jin for number three on your list, Marshall Street.
MI -2020 -000449 -2218 North Marshall Street is continued.
Any others?
no other hands are up and i don't have anything else either thank you very much carol before you
begin i don't know if you saw that message from uh sharon we're going to hear uh calendar number
39859 445 green lane you can hear that first yes i did okay you can hold that one up thank you
okay calendar number mi -2020 -000235 445 green lane
the appellant is katherine
sycora
she was on earlier tanya
mr core you've been promoted to panelists
ma 'am please spell your full name for the stenographer and give us your address please
okay katherine k -a -t -h -e -r -i -n -e sakura s -y -k -o -r -a
okay do you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do okay you may present your case i know you're here for a permit for
two off street parking spaces for a single family detached dwelling yes and I'm going to talk about
it then I'm going to try and bring a picture up I found that the zoom the one computer I could do
zoom on it has other issues so okay you know that I think we have found the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos plans right you have the plans
RCO and a letter.
So we bought this house about 15 years ago, and to our knowledge, it had parking.
Parking came with the house.
And I had lived down the street in the 1980s, and this area, this particular house had parking.
So we never questioned that it didn't have parking.
um so it has a driveway which comes in at around 12 feet wide and then goes to the back of the
property and widens it's it actually allows for two cars to be parked behind the setback of the
house as it is now and so what we're looking to do is legalize this this particular house
is basically about three parcels wide in terms of it's an old Victorian that we've completely
renovated, and we've heavily landscaped it. So we did talk to the RCO. We had a very well -attended
meeting and it was unanimously supported. I also have communicated with the councilman's office.
I also have communicated with the councilman's office, and they supported the position of the RCO.
So we, to my knowledge, have no opposition to this at this point, but I don't know quite what else to say.
I can try and post a picture.
Oh, you have the pictures?
Let me see it.
see it okay so you can see how the cars are positioned to the back of the driveway so it is
yeah it's a house that we love um we've lived in around this area for the last 40 some years
so i don't know the picture to me sort of tells the story it does thank you
beautiful house, beautiful flowers.
Thank you.
Okay, any questions from the board?
Anyone else wish to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time.
Thank you, David, Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the board,
David Fecteau, F -E -C -T -E -A -U
with the city planning commission yes sir i do thank you for asking thank you please proceed
mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential single
family use on the comprehensive plan we do not believe that this proposal will have any negative
impacts on the block accordingly we have no objection to granting this variance thank you
very much calendar number three nine eight five nine four four five green lane my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you calendar number mi -2020 -000455 842 north broad street
We have Alan Nockamson.
Thank you, Tanya.
Mr. Nockamson, can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Okay, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Yes, Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed an 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 if so is there a letter uh yes there is and yes i did
uh yes uh good afternoon again this is alan knockam sim knockam sim pc i'm here to present
842 north broad street uh attached or in front of you is my typical eight exhibit packet the first
is the deed to the property showing that Efedua Oclo owns the property at 842 North Broad Street.
This property is between Parrish and Poplar on the same block as the Met. Here's the certificate
of tax clearance for the property and here's the notice of refusal. So this is a CMX -4 property
and what we're looking to do is put a seven vehicle parking lot there.
Just a little history about the property.
If you look at the zoning file, this has been a car dealership in the past.
It's been a car wash in the past, and it has preexisting curb cuts.
It goes from North Broad Street to Carlisle, and there's curb cuts on both sides.
The purpose of this request is to provide non -accessory surface parking for the MET.
The MET wants to use this parking lot for their performers. That's why you'll see in the plans we
have two rather large spots for trucks for their equipment, to house their equipment,
as well as additional parking for their performers. We are looking to
There are three refusals as part of this notice of refusal.
there are three refusals as part of this notice of refusal.
First is the use is not allowed of a surface parking space in the CMX 4 district.
First is the use. It's not allowed.
Again, if you look at the history, the history has always had some type of parking component in it.
The second is the width of the drive aisle.
Again, the fact that our lot goes from North Broad to Carlisle, we intend to have it going in one direction.
not in two directions and then the minimum side yard you'll see that there is landscaping
uh a minimal amount of landscaping on both sides um even though we we're not providing a side yard
we are like using the property hat as it has been in the past here's our application for appeal
which we follow the zoning board of adjustment and then here's our zoning map again uh showing
that this is the cmx4 property uh which faces or at least has a legal address of north broad street
and then goes on to Carlisle.
And then you can see this is a commercial corridor,
and then the Met is on the same block,
which this purpose of this lot is from the Met.
And then you'll see photographs of the property.
Right now, we're not using it.
It's fenced in.
And you'll see it from North Broad Street in North Carlisle.
And then you'll see, you know,
the property on North Broad to the left and to the right,
and you'll see the Met here.
And then on Carlisle to the left and the right of the property,
And then you'll see a picture of our zoning poster.
And again, just, you know, so you take a look at this, you know, we'll have van parking for, you know, it could be for the band or the performers or their entourage.
And then you'll see, like, truck parking for their actual equipment.
And then there are several other smaller parking spots.
We are landscaping here to beautify, you know, the parking lot.
So it's just not a cold, paved parking lot.
And then you'll see the turning radius that we have sufficient access on both sides.
And then most importantly, we met with the Francisville Neighborhood Development Corporation
on Monday, and they were unanimously in support of this request. And then you'll see proof of our
sending out the community notice along with the addresses that we sent it to.
to. That's the extent of my presentation. I do have the owner on the line. Mr. Ocalo,
can you virtually raise your hand so they can swear you in and you can affirm my testimony?
Now, I know Mr. Ocalo did have some difficulties early on.
He's not the most technologically savvy person.
I would say as an officer of the court that he would affirm my testimony.
Yes, I have no hands raised.
I do have a question. Was this property in front of the board in the last couple of years on another application? No?
That I'm not aware of. I mean, this is the first time I'm representing this gentleman, so I'm not 100 % sure.
I thought we had this.
What does Atlas say? I didn't see anything on Atlas.
I'm just looking at this. I remember we had an application in front of us for the 800 block of North Broad where the MET was on the same block as the MET. Not that important. I just was curious.
Not that I'm aware of.
All right. Questions from the board?
Anyone else wish to speak on this case? If so, please raise your hand.
I believe this is your client. Is it Okolo?
Oh, yes, it is.
Okay. So you can now speak. Wait to be sworn in.
I can hear. I can hear. Can you hear me? I hear you very well.
Please identify yourself with the record, sir.
Explain your name.
S -Edward Okolo. S -Edward E -S -E -D -U -A Okolo. O -K -O -L -O.
Alan, I'm not sure if the sonographer got that. I had a little problem. Could you spell it for us?
E -F -E -D as in David. U -A. Okolo. O -K -O -L -O.
Okay. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Alan?
All right. Mr. Okolo, you heard everything I stated today.
Yes, I do.
And is it true and correct?
It's correct, yes.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
All right.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Defecto with the City Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for high -density commercial and residential mixed use on the city's comprehensive plan.
We believe that a parking lot fronting a major corridor is out of character with the surrounding area,
and we do not believe that there is a hardship.
Accordingly, we recommend against this variance.
If it wasn't for the Met, I'd say he'd agree with you.
I'm talking to myself a little bit right now.
Yeah, Mr. Chairman, the other thing I would state is actually the neighborhood, they embraced it because I think currently, well, not currently, but if the Met was open, when it was open, they were parking their trucks on North Broad Street, which actually anchored the residents.
I've seen that. That's why I'm in favor of it, though, because of that. It's a challenge when that net is operating for, like you said, staff, but not only staff, but people who are performers coming in with their trucks and buses or whatever.
All right. MI -2020 -000455 -842 -North Broad. My vote is yes.
the performers are here my vote is yes my vote is yes
yes thank you sure calendar number mi -2020 -001114
2275 bridge street number 39.
meredith ferlinger is the attorney i think
have murder you have been promoted to panelists you can share your screen and
unmute yourself i knew she was coming up here we go here's baby again
Listen, you know, again, I have an easy one for you, so I...
All right.
God, he's so cute.
Oh, yeah, he doesn't wake you up at 4 o 'clock in the morning.
I've been there and done that.
Name and address for the record.
Meredith Ferliger, F -E -R -L -E -G -E -R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Thank you.
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Do you also agree to waive and stip?
I sure do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, which are proof of ownership,
tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in
advance of the hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and if so, is there a letter?
I did email a packet five days in advance.
We did meet with the RCO, and there is a letter in the packet.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board i'm meredith ferliger of delworth paxton i'm here
on behalf of the property owner building 39 llc who's represented here today by craig weiser
we're here today with a request for a special exception to expand an already existing use of
the property at 2275 bridge street this is the notable frankfurt arsenal property that sits on
the south side of i -95 along to coney street the property itself is 38 acres and is zoned irmx
which is shown at tab 6 and is up on your screen
The property itself includes a variety of uses such as residential uses, charter schools,
office uses, and other commercial industrial type uses. You can see aerials of the entire
property which are included at tab 7 and also up at the screen. The property itself is separated
into many different condominium units. Today, the building that is known as Building 39 is before
the board. So Building 39 sits right at the intersection here. It's right at the corner of
Bridge Street and Tocconi. And as you can see in the photographs at tab 12, which I will bring up,
So, this is a one -story existing warehouse type of building.
the this is a one -story existing where warehouse type of
So, you can see in the photo here, it's this building here that has the loading bays.
Currently, the building is used as a commissary and catering kitchen slash restaurant.
Now, Craig is looking to expand this further to permit use of the building for banquet use.
Now, if I could, Craig, if you can hit the raise hand button.
i am here craig name and address for the record please my name is craig weiser w -e -i -z -e -r
uh the address of the property is 2275 bridge street building 39
mr chair do you need to swear him in yes do you swear from tell truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, Meredith, please proceed. Craig, can you just give the board a brief
understanding of how you use this building currently and what in a non -COVID world you are
hoping to ultimately do with the building? Sure thing. So just a little bit of history. This will
be our third location. We are primarily in the commissary business for shared kitchens for
food trucks and caterers uh this property came about so that we could provide a space
for the food and caterers to to present their food in the event space so any event that was
going on all the food would come out of that shared kitchen it would be a value add for our
tenants that's how we designed the kitchen and we designed the event space and it is obviously if
see it's fronted by probably 80 or 90 car parking spot parking lot which that was another huge uh
benefit for us thank you now floor plans of the structure are shown at tab five which i'll bring
up briefly so as you can see about half the existing building is used as the commissary
catering kitchen and then the other half is contemplated as the assembly entertainment
banquet hall type of space uh the banquet use will comprise about 2800 square feet
the current hours are monday through saturday 5 a .m to 11 p .m sunday 8 a .m to 9 p .m there's three
full -time employees although the hours and employees may certainly expand once the
holding an actual banquet or event becomes feasible. Trash is stored outside in two
commercial dumpsters and the facility does have approval from the health department. Now with
respect to the application, we received one referral for the proposed assembly and entertainment use.
The commissary catering use and the restaurant use were previously approved. As required by
Section 3037E .1 through .3 of the Zoning Code, the proposed assembly and entertainment use
meets the definition of a use permitted by special exception in the IRMX zoning district.
Furthermore, the use will not cause specific detrimental impacts to the neighborhood.
The proposed use will not cause congestion in the public streets.
As you can see in the photographs, this property is very isolated, given that it is on the south side of I -95.
So this does mitigate any impact to the residential areas on the north side of I -95.
The property is in a heavily industrial area and has a large parking lot to accommodate visitors.
given that the banquet use will generally be focused at night and weekends that further
mitigates any impact to the surrounding area. The proposed use will not cause any overcrowding.
The building itself is over 6 ,300 square feet with ample space to accommodate the existing and
proposed use. The building already has the commissary and catering kitchen and small
restaurant use, so this proposed use is a natural expansion of that and does harmonize with the
very mixed -use character of the Frankfurt Arsenal property. The use will not impair light and air
to adjacent properties as no physical changes to the exterior are proposed. The building is one
story and is lower than most of the surrounding buildings on the property. All of the nearby
residences are shielded by I -95. The use won't burden any public facilities nor will it injure
the use of adjacent properties. The area is zoned IRMX and is specifically contemplated
and is specifically contemplated for mixed industrial commercial residential use.
for mixed industrial commercial residential use.
The infrastructure is capable of supporting the existing and the proposed expanded use.
The proposed use will not endanger the public health or safety, nor is it inconsistent with
the comprehensive plan. The area is zoned IRMX and is specifically contemplated for commercial
and assembly use. The proposed use is in keeping with the impacts that are normally expected and
specifically as contemplated in the IRMX zoning district. We therefore assert we have met all of
the requirements of section 303 .7E .1 through .3 of the code concerning entitlement to a special
exception. We met with the Bridesburg Civic Association earlier this month and they did
issue a letter of support at exhibit 11 specifically noting what a terrific addition
this will be to the arsenal and the community itself uh now craig have you heard all of uh
my testimony here before the board today i have and do you agree that that testimony is true and
accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own i do and with that we would ask that
the board grant our application for special exception any questions
any questions from the board no no no is that a yes or no from the dogs
yes there are a few dogs
anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you uh planning commission mr chairman and members of the board
this property is indicated for industrial and residential mixed use on the comprehensive plan
the application matches the pattern of existing development in the area accordingly we have no
objection to granting this special exception. Thank you. MI -2020 -001114 2275 Bridge Street
number 39. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Thank you everyone. Thank you.
calendar number mi 2020 -00109 452 west washington lane
ron patterson is the attorney
Mr. Patterson, you have been promoted to a panelist.
You can share your screen as you wish, and unmute yourself to be sworn in.
Oh, God, drag around.
Here we go.
Ron, are you there?
Thank you.
I am here.
Thank you.
Can you put your name and address on the record?
Sure. Ronald Patterson, R -O -N -A -L -D -P -A -T -T -E -R -S -O -N of Claire Harrison Law Firm, K -L -E -H -R, 1845 Market Street, floor 14, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Do you also agree to waive and step?
Have you mailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of the above.
Okay. You may proceed.
Great. Thank you.
so as you mentioned good afternoon this application regards 52 -60 west west washington lane
with me is michael stamm s -t -a -m -m he's the owner if you could mike if you could
raise your hand so you could be admitted and unmuted he is with s -d -g -t -c -g washington lane
LLC, which is the owner. In early 2019, we obtained a buy -right permit for the structure.
At this location, I'm showing you these photographs. This is pre -construction or during
construction. Excuse me, Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma 'am. We're still looking inside of your files,
if you can double click. Oh, okay, sure. I thought I did.
Okay, sure. I thought I did.
Let's see.
Can you see it now?
No, it looks like it's trying to open.
So sometimes what works is if you unshare and reshare with the file already open.
Can you see it now?
Yeah, we got the file now.
Yeah, we have it.
Okay, perfect.
We'll get it.
Here's a photograph I was mentioning before the start of construction, Washington Lane.
You'll notice that on either side of this building, there is residential uses and buildings.
This is a more current photograph of the building under construction.
It's a view across Washington Lane, you'll see twin homes further down the street.
so in in 2019 we had it obtained a buy right permit to construct a three -story building
located in CMX2 commercial zoning district having a commercial space on the first floor along the
front as required by the zoning district and floors one through three having 16 residential
dwelling units with two existing curb cuts on the property in the front see right one here and one
here. So at the time, it was designed to provide that commercial space. However, during the
construction, it was determined that they were unable to secure any tenant, despite that it
was marketed all this time to four brokers. And it's really at the stage where we can kind of
redesign and adapt the space into a residential unit which is what we're
asking for today so putting that residential unit in there generates a
use variance we're not providing the commercial space along the front ends of
the ground floor as I mentioned we believe that's one refusal we believe
that use refusal is justified in this case the hardship to comply with the
code for a viable project because of the property's location and the surrounding
uses as you see there's no commercial uses or spaces anywhere on that block it's not in context
nor conducive to this block as i mentioned the marketing has failed and it'd be worse failure if
we kept it vacant any longer once the building is opened we chose not to seek the variance in 2019
at the beginning of the process for the space to not be commercial but instead gave it a try
and we'll get to that in more detail. The second refusal has regards providing
parking spaces within the building and you'll see here, as I've noted, each of
the each of the yellow dots represent a parking space.
Sorry, I'll get to the right one.
I'm going to put in another document here.
Can you see this new document?
if you can enlarge it would be helpful sure you see the photographs no no okay
about now okay good okay so this is the show this regards the second variance we're also refused for
So this is the show.
This regards the second variance.
We're also refused for not providing an ADA parking space when providing these five parking spaces.
As I mentioned, we decided to use those existing curb cuts.
Here is the entrance to the parking area.
And as you drive in, you'll see that this is parallel parking.
Parking space is along here, drive aisle.
Rear the building, make a right -hand turn, come back down to the other side.
you know because of the arrangement of the spaces in the building uh of that drive aisle it creates
a dimensional hardship to put that ada space in there but we felt that the benefit of having
spaces versus no versus no ada space probably outweighs that we did have a virtual meeting
with the west central germantown neighbors association and there is a letter of note
of September 21. They're in opposition, but if you read the opposition letter, there's really
no real reason other than that we should have known at the time at the beginning of this process
that we were going to ask for a variance to not provide the commercial space.
And as I mentioned, we thought we would give it a try because as I've been to the board
previously, and if we would have asked for it at the time, we probably would have heard the
comment that why don't you give it a try it's too early to see you know you're predicting the future
my exhibit package does have three letters from the four dip brokers that we use to market the
property and with that said i'd like to uh swear in mike stamm
sure i'm here ron um michael stomm uh m -i -c -h -a -e -l last name s -t -a -m -m both is in mike
address is 1835 market street suite 625 you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do please proceed ron uh mike uh what is uh your position and and uh
connection with the property? We're the owner and managing member of the LLC that owns the property.
And you've heard my presentation and what I've stated so far, and would you agree that it's true
and accurate and you would adopt it as your own? I would, yes. So let's address the commercial
space first. Could you briefly describe for the board your marketing efforts and what the results
were sure so as ron kind of alluded we purchased the property back in december of 2018
we received a buy right building permit in june of 2019 at that time we actually met with the
west germantown rco just in good faith and one of their kind of registered community organization
meetings we presented ourselves we do some other development in the area we also presented
a mixed -use project outlining the commercial space that was going to be built. We fielded
about an hour long questions. There was no kind of interest at the time relating to the commercial
space or anyone kind of seeking a kind of a business opportunity there for say. In result,
we marketed the property with four prominent brokerages here in Philadelphia, Walker Dunlop,
KW, Compass, Delphi Property Group. All four brokerages, you know, for the better part of a
year since June of 2019 sought a commercial tenant at a very moderate price per square foot in the
area. We had no success. As a matter of fact, we had no letters of intents or tours, four of which
these brokerages work with us. We really predominantly do mixed -use projects throughout
philadelphia you know the feedback was there's no there's no street visibility there's no traffic
there in the area from a foot traffic perspective you know you're 300 yards from a business
thoroughway located at germantown avenue even at the stretches there of germantown avenue west
washington lane uh the commercial spaces in place still are predominantly vacant storefronts you
You know, you couple that with, you know, COVID over the last couple of months, and we literally have no interest in the site.
And, Michael, while you're speaking, I've shown the board the three letters that are part of our package, Exhibit 8, 9, and 10.
And so that's what you have provided.
And is it true to state that there are no commercial spaces on either side of the building or across the street?
Yes, it is.
Okay, and let's move on to the ADA space.
we saw the site plan showing the five spaces. Is it accurate? There are parallel parking spaces
with no room to provide a side five foot wide opening to allow for a van door to open. It is, yes.
opening to allow for a van door to open it is yes and uh do you know as a developer a need to
have parking in that area you do yes which is uh why we we weighed inclusion of five spaces
great thank you i have no further questions
you want to ask your client if he adopted your testimony oh i did thank you you did already
thank you yes i'm sorry uh any questions from the board no no no anyone else wish to testify
in this matter if so please raise your hand here i'm sorry if i could add that if anyone wishes
to testify regarding a case it should be done by raising your hand when prompted by the chair
do not put information in the Q &A for testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Here we have Jennifer.
Jennifer, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Hello. Good afternoon, ma 'am. Please identify yourself for the record. Name and address.
Jennifer Kravinskas, 36 West Pomona Street. Would you spell your last name, please?
K -R -I -V -I -N -S -K -A -S.
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And your address is, where are you in proximity to this application?
I'm on the next side street over, so not a full block on Pomona.
Thank you.
I would like to just mention that there is commercial within one block north of this property.
which is Germantown Avenue.
There is actually a lot of commercial there.
And there is also commercial block west.
I was unaware that they were renting the first floor as commercial.
I saw no advertisement of any kind on the building.
I understand that they used agents for that.
But just as a resident that walks by every day,
I didn't know there was a plan to put commercial on the first floor until the RCO brought this
appeal.
Yeah, so a block down Cherokee there at the next corner is commercial.
That was actually just renovated and opened about a year and a half ago.
And then north on Washington at the corner of Germantown is a gas station, a church,
Comber paper that just closed, and that's for sale as a commercial development.
Also, in regard to the parking, I think they should not have designed the building that way
if they knew that it was going to interfere with the ADA parking spot.
well it's been it's the structure is almost complete and i believe that was in the application
it's actually a retrofit it wasn't designed initially that way right
this is something you were aware of though right
so um questions should be not asked of the attorney
The other thing I will say is that commercial was part of what the original approval had to do with.
So if there wasn't a sign posted about the commercial space for rent, I'm not defending them.
I'm not saying that wasn't necessary because what they were approved that was for two commercial.
And based on their testimony, they had four agents who are pretty, as far as I know, they're pretty popular agents.
in the city and apparently they came up with nothing i mean my guess is that they would like
to have had commercial because they're going to rent the space it's going to get rented either
as residential or commercial uh i don't know what the benefit is to for them to go to residential
versus commercial um i think they probably would have gotten more per square foot as a commercial
if they rented as commercial than they would as residential is that fair to say uh michael yes it
is yeah so there's no actual benefit to them financially is my is the point i'm trying to make
okay chair we do have charles richardson from the council person's office charles you can
unmute yourself and speak to this case good afternoon mr chair and uh members of the board
uh insomuch that the uh rco had a meeting mr richardson could you just pause for a minute
Could you just pause for a minute?
Yep, yep, yep, I forgot.
Yep, yep, yep.
I forgot.
Square me in.
Square me in.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and love you about the truth.
Thank you.
As I was saying, the RCO did have a meeting recently with the developer, and 16 individuals were there.
We're on the Zoom call, eight of which were near neighbors.
they unanimously opposed the granting of the variance so the councilwoman is
supporting the community on their request that the variance be denied
thank you if you could give I would like to ask if the board if they've seen the
letter from the civic group yeah I don't we don't have it if you can if you have
it yeah I do I want to post it up please yeah I'll pull it up sure
this in an email that was sent to the board but here it is
as I mentioned the last paragraph as you read it it's really more towards
bad feelings that this wasn't raised in the initial stage of the application when we got
our by right permit understood yes anyone else yes here we have lori lori you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in lori would you please identify yourself name and address spell your
name for the stenographer hi my name is lori lichman it's l uh l -o -r -i -l -i -t -c -h -m -a -n
my address is 70 west duval street d -u -v -a -l and i would consider myself a near neighbor
though i don't know if that meets the legal definition uh depends how far away either but
anyway do you swear okay do you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yeah sure please proceed um i just want to say that um in opposition to what the
developer is saying that businesses are popping up everywhere in this neighborhood. So a question
that I would want to know is how much they were seeking to charge for rent in this property. This
is a neighborhood that is still up and coming. And so perhaps the reason they didn't get commercial
space or commercial renter was because they were looking for too much money.
A little jacked speculation here. That's not relevant.
i sustain i think yeah no i'm sorry i'm i'm just a citizen so i don't know what i'm allowed to say
and what i'm not allowed to say that's it no problem no problem um and i also can say that
i did not see any commercial signage around there and i have i have a number of people
who are real estate agents who i am friends with and didn't see anything posted on any of their
social media so i just want to say that this this neighbor has not been a good neighbor
to our community we are constantly blocking sidewalks with their construction vehicles
and um mr chairman i mean i think this is going beyond our zoning case okay that's all i wanted
to say thank you thank you thank you ma 'am thank you anyone else wish to testify in this case
have kt kt you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in please identify yourself spell your
full name for the stenographer? Hi, my name is Kelly Traister, K -E -L -L -E -Y -T -R -A -I -S -T -E -R.
And do you swear if I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. And where do you reside, ma 'am? I reside next door at 50 West Washington.
oh okay so um and i just want to offer a point of clarification that the email that was just
shared uh that the attorney just shared was actually an email not from the rco from the
registered community organization but an email from near neighbors on washington lane oh my
West and Cherokee Street offering our support to the position of the RCO so
thank you for that clarification that's all I had received so I assume that was
the official letter but thank you for that I believe the West Central
Germantown neighbors submitted a much more extensive letter detailing the
opposition. And so as near neighbors, we didn't repeat any of that. We just were offering our
support. Let me ask you, ma 'am, since you obviously live there and you're familiar with it, is there any kind of
Let me ask you, ma 'am, since you obviously live there and you're familiar with it,
is there any kind of retail or commercial uses that you think would be beneficial to this community?
I think any kind of coffee shop or small restaurant space, I think it could be used as my neighbor Jen
had said previously uh there is um two blocks away uh a commercial showroom space
is it's vacant no it's um occupied all right again i'm not i don't live in that neck of the
wood yeah but i first from time to time i drive germantown avenue and i do see a lot of vacant
storefront. So that's why I'm asking the question. So I will add that there are
two other developments on the 6300 block of Germantown Avenue. One is I believe complete now.
So there and there is an increase in occupancy of formerly vacant spaces and so
i would imagine and i don't know if this is allowable but that um the vacancy rate of
commercial properties in our neighborhood will decrease well we all hope for the best that that
that does happen can i speak as the owner just kind of you know in defense um you know the space
is just listening to the various uses you have a sunoco a block down the site's not nearly big
enough for a gas station you have a church that's not a permitted use you have a vacant paper store
i can't speak to uh the commercial spaces further up on cherokee i'm not aware of them but quite
frankly you know all of germantown avenue you know up there you know is predominantly vacant
at a thousand square feet uh which is what this space is it's not an overly large space none of
these it's not big enough to have a restaurant that's viable you know in terms of the rent of
what we're asking we're asking a thousand dollars a month you know that's less than a dollar a square
foot a month right you know we're not asking for leaps and bounds here you know i think you hit it
the nail on the head we would do better financially with a commercial space or sorry with a commercial
space rather than a ground floor unit uh on a on a on a busy street if we were putting a restaurant
the community would be pushing back in terms of you know the street and and what what is doing
on kind of a you know a street right there and how we're going to possess kind of people stopping
and such i don't think a coffee shop there's not a coffee shop right there that would do well
there's not enough foot traffic so i i hear you and in terms of kind of the marketing about it
i think we want one step further by by using our relationships with four different brokerages and
the fact that none of them and they're reputable brokers in the city could land any letter of
intent or tours i think that speaks to the market in the area i think it's speculative to say
you know especially in this era with covid and and kind of what you're seeing and see even some
of the nicest areas downtown commercial is doing really poorly you know and especially in an area
like that it's not going to do well you know so i think i would argue that it is extremely not
viable you know in the validity of kind of the different uses in and around the area they're
not realistic in a space like this especially mid block on a unit block off germantown avenue it's
much different than being two blocks north on germantown avenue right on the intersection of
mount airy thank you anyone else anyone else to speak if you do uh please uh raise your hand and
if you can give us something new and different we appreciate that's all we have chair you can
continue thank you um i think i did ask questions any questions from the board planning commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the city's comprehensive plan.
The plan does not recommend commercial development on residential streets away from Germantown Avenue.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting these variances.
Thank you.
MI -2020 -001094 -52 -West Washington Lane. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Good luck.
calendar number mi 2020 -000243 -2813
000 243 2813 Wharton Street Michael Gaskins you've been promoted to a
panelists you can unmute your mic and wait to be sworn in
michael are you there yes hi everyone my name is michael gaskins
sir are you an attorney no okay go ahead name and address for the
record michael gaskins 2813 wharton street
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes
okay this is an application for a permit for a proposed use of a daycare center
on the first floor and a single family household living on second floor
in an existing attached structure you may proceed hello everyone um right now uh we
filed application with the city to make a daycare on the first floor we went
through the RCO we have community support we think that this will help out
the neighborhood because a lot of vacant properties were there so we're gonna
bring new business into the neighborhood the community spoke to the neighbors on
the block and surrounding areas we had no objections from any of the neighbors
around Wharton Street, Newkirk Street, 28th Street, 29th Street. We had no opposition
whatsoever. So we think that this will help the neighborhood. Sir, did you attend an RCO meeting?
Yes, we did. We have support from the RCO. We submitted all our documents in five days prior
to this meeting. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
no no anyone else wish to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
david could you please announce your agency and name oh sorry uh good afternoon david effecto
City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. This property is indicated for
single -family use on the city's comprehensive plan. We do not believe the addition of a daycare
will have a negative impact on the area. Accordingly, we have no objection to granting
this variance. Thank you. Mr. Gaskins, I see you have a photograph poster. Is that you going up
of that three -pointer in the red? All right, just curious. Calendar number MI -2020 -000243 -2813
Wharton Street, my vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote
is yes
good luck calendar number mi -2020
000240 1740 wolf street number two
Mr. Sabatini?
We don't have anyone's hands up for this.
All right, let's hold off until the end. Maybe they're having technical issues.
We do have, I'm sorry, someone's hand just cocked up.
Bernie Verrello, are you here for this case?
Yes, can you hear us?
Are you the applicant?
Donald Sabatini, I'm here, the attorney for the applicant, which is an LLC.
And one of the principals, Bernardino Verrello, is also here.
Wonderful.
You can continue, Chair.
Thank you.
Carol?
have you emailed or have you been sworn in we have not okay name and address for the record
uh donald s sabatini d -o -n -a -l -d s last name s -a -b -a -t -i -n -i 7710 orpheus place
stiladelphia pennsylvania 19153 thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
nothing but the truth.
Bernardino Varello, 2307 South 18th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19145.
And do you also swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in the exhibit packets with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal,
referral photos plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with
the rco and if so do you have a letter uh they were brought in uh with the exception of the plans
which we have here the principal did meet with the rco and they have a letter of no opposition
from gear that was sent to them it was sent in excuse me this is sharon solita i have no record
of receiving the exhibit packet.
Was it emailed to me five days
in advance of this hearing?
It was received January 3rd.
No, it was brought in in person in January.
No, I'm sorry.
You were required to email it in
in advance of the hearing.
We don't have access to the records
that were submitted to the office.
Okay, in that case,
we would ask for a continuance.
calendar number 2020 mi 2020 000 240 1740 wolf street number two this case will be continued
thank you
calendar number mi 2020 -001093 1520 spruce street
The attorney is Ron Patterson.
Ron, can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Name and address for the record, please.
Good afternoon again.
Ronald Patterson, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive and stip?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
which are proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos,
and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing.
Also, have you met with the RCO, and if so, do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, we may proceed.
Thank you.
So this application, as you mentioned, regards 1530 Spruce Street.
It's actually the terrain building.
Can you see my screen?
Yes, I can.
With that round camera circulated again.
And a fancy electronic pen that's hard to write.
Right.
So this is the terrain.
I guess we all know what that is.
Here's a view looking up at the sky.
The terrain was built in around 1910.
It has 15 floors.
There's a residential lobby on the first floor.
Bravo Brothers Cafe over here to the right.
And through floors 1 through 13, there were 133 residential dwelling units.
On floor 14 and 15 was a penthouse that was built in the early 1980s and last occupied 10 years ago.
So I'll show you some pictures of it in a minute.
This is the penthouse we're speaking about. Although it may look nice, it's uninhabitable
and in disrepair. It was structurally built inappropriately. It actually was constructed
sitting on the roof with no bracing on any structural beams or support walls, not tied
into the walls or beams as I mentioned so the application is to demolish this
structure and create a new one and you'll see here are these little trusses
here actually do go on support walls and beams of the building. It's located to
the rear of the building running on Delancey Street. Of course it will be
built better and safer for the reasons that I mentioned. The district they're
for the reasons that I mentioned. The district they're in is an RMX3 zoning district. It's a
in as an RMX3 zone.
residential commercial zoning district. It's an FAR floor area ratio district of 500%. I mentioned
the building was built back in the 1910s because at the time it was built or predated the zoning
code. Recently, the district was remapped to RMX3, which requires 500 % FAR, and RMX3
existing, the way it was built, is 924 % FAR. So it's a pre -existing but legally non -conforming
structure. Thus, any new one square foot of floor area would raise the FAR, even minusculely,
and would require variance, which is why we're here. This replacement penthouse would increase
the FAR from 924 to 930. We believe the variance is justified in this case because the recent
rezoning created a hardship and that it doesn't encompass or reflect the existing conditions yet
as you'll see the replacement addition uh creates otherwise no adverse impacts because it can't be
seen from new carlos we did meet with center city residents association virtually ccra on april 24
2020. with that if you could uh giuliano if you could raise your hand so we could have you sworn
as well as Carl Embarger, please.
I'm here.
Okay, Juliano?
Could you please tell the board your name and address, please?
Juliano Pinotaro, 1520 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102, Suite 101.
G -I -U -L -I -A -N -O. Last name is P as in Paul, I -G -N -A -T as in Tom, A -R -O.
Thank you.
And Juliano, what is your connection with the building?
I am the vice president of Terrain LP, which is the owner of the property.
And you've heard my testimony and presentation.
Would you agree that it's true and accurate and you would adopt it as your own?
I would. I do.
Carl, are you there?
I am here.
Could you tell the board your name and address, please?
My name is Carl Enberger.
The address is 1616 Walnut Street, Suite 101, Philadelphia, PA, 1903.
Would you please spell your last name, Carl?
First and last name.
Yes, it is E as in Edward, M as in Mary, B -E -R -G -E -R.
First name is K or C?
It is a C.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Hi, Carl.
What is your occupation?
I'm a registered architect in the state of Pennsylvania.
I've got to interrupt.
I don't think I swore you in, did I?
Oh, sorry.
I swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you. Please proceed.
And with what firm do you work?
I'm employed by Koshin News Architecture.
And you're familiar with and, in fact, helped design this edition that we're testifying about?
That is true.
So I'm just going to take you through our slides here.
and uh so the slide i'm showing now is the existing condition is that accurate that is
correct and could you describe the existing condition of that penthouse briefly um as you
had noted earlier the uh existing penthouse is in disrepair um it does have several it was um
kind of constructed over many different years the latest part that is the most
visible was in the early 80s also as you noted it does not come down properly on
the the primary building structure so there's some tenuous connections there
that we would obviously like to make make safer in addition to that I will
just say that the um it is a the the penthouse is not in character with the um the the uh building
below um it is a little bit out of place um to say the least for philadelphia in general
um so we would like to make this also a um a a better place for um for um a residence
a better place for for a residence. And Carl, what I'm showing you now is are
the proposed renderings? That is correct, yes. What I'm depicting here are actually
load -supporting beams. Yes, those columns tie down into existing columns
in the building below. And you did mention about fitting into character and
context this building was uh historically certified that is correct and we made the
application to the philadelphia historical commission and they approved this design is that
correct that is correct they approved the design um unanimously uh juliano or carl anything else
you would uh like to add uh before we conclude the case no thank you for your time no and i'm
showing here is our exhibit 13 which is the ccra uh letter of non of non -opposition
thank you sure questions from the board carol looks like you're trying to talk but you're muted
The dog was talking.
I thought you were interested in moving again.
No, I just moved out of that place.
I know you moved up.
All right.
Anyone else?
I have a question.
Is that one penthouse?
Because I know there are several penthouses in there.
Is that one or two?
Juliana, you can answer if you don't mind.
I know the answer.
Juliana, you can unmute yourself.
sorry i was talking to myself um as you know the building there's a penthouse level
yes which is the 13th floor essentially this is actually the 14th and uh potentially the 15th
floor so when you're on the penthouse level of the building there's a um at the end of the
hallway there's a stair and then it would take you up into the um essentially onto the roof
okay thanks anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission good afternoon david effecto city planning
commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential mixed
use on the city's comprehensive plan we do not believe that a new penthouse unit will have an
adverse impact on the block accordingly we have no objection to granting this variance thank you
very much uh mi -2020 -001093 1520 spruce street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Can I be excused for the day?
Yes, you may.
Thank you.
Calendar number MI2020 -000341, 1603 Lombard Street.
Adam Laver is the attorney.
Hi, Mr. Laver, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Good afternoon, Mrs. Tenere, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Adam Laver, L -A -V -E -R, blank Rome, 1 Logan Square.
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mrs. Tenere.
Do you also agree to waive and stiff?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral,
photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And also, have you met with the RCO?
And if so, do you have a letter?
Yes, a full package was submitted for consideration, including a letter of non -opposition from the Center City Residents Association, the coordinating RCO on this matter.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. Are you able to see the aerial photograph that I have up on the screen?
Thank you.
Adam Laver on behalf of Chabad, C -H -A -B -A -D, Chabad Jewish Center for Students of the Arts.
With me is Rabbi Daniel Grodnitsky, G -R -O -D -N -I -T -Z -K -Y.
The subject property, which is up on the screen, is located at 1601 -03 Lombard Street.
The subject property, which is up on the screen, is located in the
It's the northwest corner of 16th and Lombard, running through to the north to Addison.
It's located across from Independence Charter School and just to the south of an Altera apartment building, which was a former garage.
The property is zoned CMX1. We are here because the property is adjacent to RSA5, which is at the rear.
It's a small section of the property which is adjacent to RSA5. I'm going to move, if I may,
to some photographs to put this in context. Here we are looking along Lombard Street.
another photo on Lombard and here is the 16th Street frontage we're here on behalf of the
Chabad Center which is a religious institution a nonprofit that Blank Rome is proud to represent
on a pro bono basis the existing permit of record is properly for a religious
institution but the request before the board is to document two existing
residential apartments on floors two through three I'm moving now to a image
of the refusal once again as a matter of right the Department of licenses and
inspections previously approved a use change for religious assembly and
religious assembly would be throughout the bulk of the property with documentation of existing
one apartment in the rear on the second floor and one apartment in the rear on the third floor.
You may ask why would the religious institution want to have this? The Chabad Center serves local
local art schools, like the University for the Arts, and there are students who become
very active in the group. Possibly an apartment could be for a student, it could be for a
visiting scholar in residence, it may be for Rabbi Grudnitsky for his religious use along
with his family on religious days when transportation is difficult under the traditional Jewish
religion. I would like to note and you can see this in the refusal on the
screen at the bottom that far greater density had previously been approved at
this site. You'll see in the language at the bottom four dwelling units and again
we're only seeking to document the two dwelling units which makes sense for
this particular use as i mentioned at the start of the presentation we met with center city
residents association in a very friendly virtual meeting and the letter is up on the screen i
believe that wade albert council for ccra may be in the virtual room ccra does not oppose this
project they did ask although it's not strictly before the board the religious assembly use
they did ask that we confirm and document commercial trash pickup for the non -residential
portions of the property. Even though that's not before the board, we are agreeable to that.
I will move to the floor plans just so you can take a quick look. The previously approved
religious assembly shows along the ground floor and also the second floor in the upper right hand
corner of the second floor you'll see apartment one and the third floor which is not a full floor
is devoted to the additional apartment the two apartments i believe that this is rather
straightforward and at this time I would ask Rabbi Gronitski to please raise his
virtual hand and Rabbi would you please identify yourself when you get along the
full name and address please hi Rabbi Daniel Gronitski 1432 Catherine Street
philadelphia pa19146 and would you spell your last name rabbi sure it's g -r -o -d -n -i -t
Sure, it's G -R -O -D -N -I -T -Z -K -Y.
Thank you.
Would you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you, Rabbi Grudnitsky.
Have you had the opportunity to hear the full virtual presentation that I've shared with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on your behalf?
Yes, it would be the same as you previously shared with me via email.
yes and and the uh the presentation that i made verbally and visually within the last couple of
minutes yes thank you and would you adopt and affirm the testimony that you've just heard me
make as your own rabbi yes thank you thank you uh questions from the board no no no
anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
here i have wade albert wade you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in mr albert
would you please identify yourself spell your first and last name and give us your address
sure thank you uh first name is wade w -a -d -e last name is albert a -l -b -e -r -t of sobol s -o -b -o -l law
group um 1845 walnut street philadelphia pa 19103 i do thank you thank you uh thank you mr chairman
and members of the board uh i am here as council on behalf of the center city residents association
and just here again to confirm that uh on april 28th of this year uh the applicant came before
ccra ccra voted to not oppose this application provided that all trash generated by the non -residential
portions of the property be stored internally and removed by a private trash holder um the
this proviso was discussed with the applicant um and the applicant has has agreed to that so
therefore i would respectfully uh request that if the zba votes to not oppose that you include
this proviso in the license thank you very much thank you anyone else wish to testify in this case
please raise your hand no other hands chair thank you cleaning commission
good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the
board this property is indicated for commercial and residential mixed use on the city's comprehensive
plan we do not believe that two dwelling units will have an adverse impact on the block
accordingly we have no objection to granting this variance thank you mi -2020 -000341
1603 my vote is yes with proviso commercial trash pickup
my vote is just does it have to be specific though
uh i there's a proviso hold on hold on hold on mr chairman pardon the uh interruption
the uh the agreement with ccra is specific to the religious assembly okay i was sometimes i figure
who's going to know what's true which trash belongs to who but so my provide the proviso
my vote is yes with the proviso commercial trash pickup for the learning institute what was that
again for the commercial portion or the commercial portion of 1603 lombard thank you very much
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso good luck thank you
mr chairman members of the board have a good afternoon you likewise thank you too calendar
number mi 2020 001128 1155 daily street this is an application for a two -family dwelling in an
existing structure it is refused because a two -family dwelling is prohibited in this zoning district
which is rsa5
Will the applicant or his or her attorney, whoever is representing the case, please?
Phuong Ho.
Ms. Ho, please spell your first and last name.
My first name is P -H -U -O -N -G. Last name is Ho.
Correct.
And your address?
It's 1155 Dallas Street.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
For the stenographer, it's Daly, D -A -L -Y Street.
yes 1155 daly street d -a -l -y thank you i got it okay miss ho have you sent in an exhibit packet
Yes, 1155 Daly Street, D -A -L -Y.
with proof of ownership tax compliance um yes i did you sent everything photos plans refusal
is in advance and you've met with the rco and you have a letter
okay miss ho you can now unmute yourself please wait for the questions to be asked
before you provide the answer so the court reporter can get all information so now you can unmute
yourself i can confirm this is sharon saletta i can confirm that all of the required materials
were submitted okay great thank you you may proceed hello yes please yes um yes um i would
like to change my first floor to residential um because that building is commercial and residential
since the building on the first floor has not been used in a long time
and it's been leaving empty.
So I would like to attend to a residential.
It's also helped with my income to help me with my family.
And I also have recently I have a younger brother who lives in Vietnam
just had liver cancer.
So I also need that income that a little bit will help me
to provide income for my family.
So that's all I ask.
I mean, and the people who live in that,
my building, they also would like to stay there.
And I liked the place very much.
Uh, Sharon, do we have a copy of the letter from the RCO?
Yes, I just sent you, I sent it to you by text.
To an opposition, correct?
No, that's before, to an opposition, right?
The reason is, uh, that's one lady came and she said, I, she asked me, uh, if the property is, uh,
room for rent and I told her it's not room for rent, it's our family's rent. That's why the CEO say
it's too many people who live down there but actually it's only four people who live there.
Yeah but it could be more. Do you have any floor plans? Yes I do sir. Can you show us the floor plans?
uh yes sir can you give me a minute because i'm not that good with computer i need help with my
son can you put it on no rush thank you
so she just went out as an attendee and now miss ho you will come back and as a panelist
where you now have authority to share your screen thank you you do it you know how to do it
No, you save it in the folder, right?
Trying to see how they bring up the screen.
Okay, so which one?
It's the blueprint.
Is it clear?
Why not that clear on me?
Yeah. So this is my blueprint. I guess it's not that clear in the computer, but can you see it?
Can you rotate it?
Can you rotate it, please?
No, rotate another side. This is upside down. Rotate again.
Yeah, because it's upside down.
Go one more time.
One more?
Yeah, that's it.
Can you blow it down?
Well, the first floor has three rooms with a kitchen, bathroom.
The second floor also has three rooms, a kitchen, a laundry room, and a bathroom, a full bathroom.
You're showing three bedrooms?
Yes, they can also, it depends on how the the tenant use, they can use that two room
the tenant use they can use that two room in one family uh living room or they can use at
in one family living room or
all three rooms so it's up to the rent to miss ho i'm sorry but could you please allow the
chair to finish his question we want i'm sorry everything is on record so thank you very much
oh thank you okay i'll repeat again okay your floor plan is showing three bedrooms on the first
floor uh yes that's how they drove yes and is that is that three or four bedrooms on the second
floor i can't make it is uh three so it's also three and three bedrooms okay uh that's i think
for me right now it's all the questions any questions from the board not a single one yes
Anyone else who wishes to testify, please raise your hand.
No one at this time.
Was the use of the first floor formally a doctor's office?
No, sir, it's not since I bought it.
It had not been used for anything.
all right i think that's way too many bedrooms but uh calendar number i'm sorry planning commission
good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the
board this property is indicated for single family use on the city's comprehensive plan
this appears to be a pre -existing use we do not believe allowing this to continue will
have a negative impact on the block accordingly we have no objection to granting this variance
mi -2020 -001128 -1155 daily street my vote is no my vote is no my voters no my voters no
thank you
i think that was a no what calendar number mi 2020 dash zero zero one one two five
740 snyder avenue the attorney is kenneth young
young you've been promoted to a panelist you can share your screen and unmute yourself to be sworn
in good afternoon hi mr young can you put your name and address on the record please
kenneth young 1500 walnuts street suite 2000 philadelphia pennsylvania 19102 and also do you
swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do do you agree to wave and stip i do
also finally have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents which would be proof
of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos and or plans of the property five days
in advance of this hearing have you also have you also met with the rco and do you have a letter
Yes, I do, Ms. Denary.
Excuse me, Sharon Saleta.
Mr. Young, did you submit a copy of the refusal?
I'm not seeing it in your exhibit packet.
I'm looking at my exhibits.
I apologize for that.
I could try to.
All of your other documents are there.
If you can just send it to me by the end of the day.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm here today with Mr. Doe Nguyen,
the principal and owner of the property.
The city classifies this as 740 -42 Snyder Avenue.
My client would like to divide the property to two separate lots.
He has owned the properties since 1994.
4, the 742 has three units, two bedroom, two baths, and 740 is a single family property.
And we need to file this as a subdivision to separate the properties to have two separate
deeds.
Mr. Young, do you have any floor plans?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
I will bring those up.
I appreciate it.
Unfortunately, let me try this again, this is, I'm on a learning curve here, Mr. Chairman,
I apologize.
So Mr. Young, double click your actual file that you wish us to view.
Double -click your actual file that you wish us to view.
Once you have that open, then click on the green share screen.
Bear with me.
I just lost everything.
Thank you very much.
The E -Plan is Exhibit D, and I will...
Nothing yet.
So did you click on the share screen at the bottom of Zoom?
Yes, I did.
Let me...
Here we go.
double -click actually on whatever document you want us to view thank you
very much so mr. chairman this has been a one property since the late 50s you
don't have any pictures can we only still have the oh did they come up to
exhibit D, the e -plans? No. Click on the actual document. Yeah. So now, if it's not working,
go back out. How about now? It says sharing. Right, but you're sharing your file list. So go
back out, hit share screen, and then go back in, hit share screen, and actually click on the file
or pictures that you want us to look at.
There we go.
You see them up there?
Slowly opening.
Did you click on the actual document
that you want us to see?
There we go.
Oh, we got it now.
Okay, we have lot lines.
Want me to share the photos, Mr. Chairman?
You could, that would be helpful.
Thank you.
Are they coming up?
yes if you could maximize maximize your screen
perfect thank you
That's 740, and then I could show you 742.
that's the same one
try my best
is that coming up chairman yes
Do you have anything Ken that shows us what the floor plan, I mean currently 740 is
a single family uh no sir mr chairman seven it's one property 740 742 is actually zoned a four
a single family? Uh, no sir, Mr. Chairman.
unit property because there's one unit at 740 and three units at 742 and what he's trying to do is
he's trying to separate the two lots because it's one deed parcel a and b so what we're trying to
do is just make two deeds all right and we did meet with the uh 7th street uh civic association
it's my understanding also i spoke with them this morning and that they informed me that
councilman squilla was uh sending over a letter of non -opposition sharon do we have anything in
the file from councilman squilla i will check but it's going to take a minute okay
or tanya i don't know whoever has if you have it
and we did meet with the community group back in january but i've been in touch with them
um okay i what whatever we do here is not going to change the condition of the building i'd
advise your client that pictures that you showed of 740 very frightening
people shouldn't have to live that way not faulting you by the way it's your client
well he's on the line and uh well he better get his act together that's a horrible situation
have people living there like that this is sharon saletta i checked and i have not received a letter
all right you have the rco letter
i could share that i did submit that as well you have that ken please yes sir
who is the rco uh the seventh street community civic association president bruce baldwin yeah
thanks thank you
Can you scroll down a little bit, it's final position, it just says.
It says final position taken by support.
All right.
let me get your client on this
thank you very much
Mr. Nguyen
Doe Nguyen
well I have to allow him I just need to know
his name or he can
actually
raise his hand
Okay, Mr. Doe, you can unmute yourself to speak.
Mr. Doe, please identify yourself your first and last name and spell your name for us.
Yeah, my first name is Doe, D -O. My last name Nguyen, N -G -U -Y -E -N.
and your address
right now I live on
6314 Dix Avenue
Philadelphia
thank you
you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
you swear to tell the truth
we're going to ask you questions
do you swear to answer them truthfully
yes sir thank you all right let's be on thank you mr chairman uh mr win yes uh did you hear
my representations regarding your proposal to separate the properties to two deeds
yes sir and do you agree and adopt my presentation as your own testimony
yes sir will you also agree to clean up these properties yes there's concerns that
740 doesn't look nice yeah yes okay will you will you take care of these and spend some money and
clean these up yes sir i will we're going to put a condition on that ken yes sir all right thank
you very much thank you anyone else wish to testify in this matter
did i ask the board if that the board had any questions yeah i went how long has he owned this
property him and his wife owned have owned the property since 1994 he had a
Him and his wife have owned the property since 1994.
He had a local grocery store here in the community for several years.
He transferred the deed to his LLC in 2003.
And so it's been in his name and his interest since 1994.
And it's still not cleaned.
Well, you know what, Carol, in this case, if we don't approve it, it'll continue.
we'll put a conditional geo all right and that may make force him not to do what he should have
been doing all along no reflection on you mr young thank you sir all right um you know that ken
good afternoon david effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the
board this property is indicated for single family residential use on the singles on the
city's comprehensive plan this appears to be an existing use we do not believe that the relocation
of the lot lines will have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Accordingly, we have
no objection to granting the variance. Thank you. MI -2020 -001125, 740 Snyder Avenue. My
vote is yes with proviso. CO to be issued within three months. Yes with proviso. Yes
with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso and mr young if you could remember to send me
that refusal please i'm going to email you right now and thank you all i may be excused yes you
may thank you mr young i think that's a wrap frank
it is 24 so we'll take a 15 minute break does that work i have some good news for you it looks
as though only one case on the 3 30 list is ready to go forward uh you want to take the break uh
what hold on which case is that sharon um hold on
Matt on Maddie Monroe's case on 13th Street yes that's it okay let's take a
15 -minute break it's not correct soon can use a break as well all right okay
Thank you.
One more minute to go, 4 .14.
Thank you.
can you hear me i can hear you okay
4 15 is everyone back uh jim yes confessor everybody's here tanya yes tanya's here and
yes everybody's here okay all right we'll begin good afternoon everyone my name is frankie chico
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing with 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 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.
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.
First, we will be administrating
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
I think I'm going to repeat that.
For the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we would like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, 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 sorry the dog is telling you to shh all right let me repeat that finally to enter an
appearance statement call google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address
of the property at issue with that said we can begin but before vice chair tenere calls our
first case we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal to be heard this
afternoon if so please raise your hand identify yourself for the record and wait to be sworn in
and also if you have the page number of your case that would be helpful uh chair they don't they
don't have these they don't have that okay no some folks from the council person's office
Mr. Fulks
Good afternoon Chairman DeChico and the ZBA board
Sloan Fulks
S -L -O -A -N -E
F as on fire or L -K -S
Room 508 City Hall
And you're still under oath Mr. Fulks
Yes sir
I would like to request continuance for appeal number 39848
1383 Sanger Street. The applicant has not milked the RCO and we wish to request
continuous until such time as the applicant meets the RCO. Thank you.
number one on our sheet. MI -2020 -000263 -1383 Sanger Street is continued. If there's anyone
who has a problem with that case being continued, please identify yourself. If not, we'll move
on to the next case.
Chairman, I have a request that came in from Attorney Allen Nockerson to continue number
two on your list.
Thank you.
MI -2020 -0007661512Lindley Avenue is continued.
I have a request, Chair, for a continuance from the attorney that came in for number
four on your list.
Titan Street.
MI -2020 -0006992143, Titan Street is continued.
And I might add, Chair, that that was requested by the RCO as well.
Okay, that case is continued at the request of the attorney and the RCO.
Thank you.
I would also like to state case number five on your list.
A request to continue came in from the attorney, Vern Anastasio.
Thank you. MI -2020 -000745 -212. Robin Street is continued at the request of the attorney.
If I might add, Chair, a continuance request came in by attorney Darlene III for number six on your list.
Thank you. MI 2020 -0002345123 Viola Street is continued at the request of the attorney.
Thank you. MI -2020 -00023.
That's all that I have.
There are two more cases. This is Sharon Saleta. There are two more cases you might want to call
to see if there's anyone here
we haven't received exhibits
for number 7 or number 8.
Okay, now is there
anyone present for
MI -2020
000718
excuse me
Vine Street. If there's anyone
someone should speak on this case, please raise your hand.
hands up at this time thank you so that's a continuance
or is that a continuance or dismissal if i could ask that we could uh continue it
okay all right so mi -2020 -0007186066 vine street is continued
And what about the 2241 North 15th?
Is anyone here for 2241 North 15th?
No Chair, you can proceed, plus Sharon did not receive exhibits timely.
So we have nothing on this case, no exhibits, no requests for continuances?
nothing all right mi -2020 -000233 2241 north 15th my vote is to dismiss dismiss
dismiss
unless this was the second listing i thought that we were going to continue all cases
I apologize yeah you're right I'm so used to not doing it that way all right so let's go back
on the record again MI -2020 -000233 2241 North 15th Street is continued. Thank you. Thank you.
Carol I think we're going to go with Mr. Jin's case first.
Did you get that from Ms. Sharon earlier?
Yes, set calendar number 39325, 4606 Woodland Avenue.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Name and address for the record, Mr. Jin?
Sure. Z -H -E -N -J -I -N, Zin Jin, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
here on behalf of the applicant.
My client is also here with us,
ACES Estate LLC.
The gentleman representing that company
is Vaz Avakayan.
Jen, you're still under oath from earlier today.
Do you agree to wave 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 and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
have you also met with the rco and do you have a letter i do we have submitted the
necessary documentation at least five days ahead we did receive a letter of support from the
community organization as well thank you you may proceed thank you i'm going to go ahead and share
the information with the board. So just to quickly go through the exhibits, we
have provided a notice of hearing, refusal, the support letter from the
community, certificate of tax clearance deed, our application, the PIF, photos,
and with this latest submission, the revised plans as well as the prior
submitted plans. When we first came before the board, this is a second hearing,
when we first came before the board, the application was for a five unit in a CMX2
property. The property has been vacant and was rebuilt. What the proposal is to rebuild it and
use it as a five family. The community actually met with us and supported the proposal. However,
at the first hearing, the board reviewed the plans and there were concerns that these units
were too small and the plans were rather vague when it comes to providing the
providing the details that the board required. As such, we have rescheduled with the board to
details that the board required. As such, we have rescheduled
present the plans before us today. First of all, my client has reduced the unit count from five
to four. One of the units that were originally proposed in the back of floor one is removed
because in order to provide more space storage for the other proposed units, instead of having
a unit in the back where the commercial space exists my client has converted it into a accessory
storage space allowing all the other occupants to have more storage space since their units are
rather small in addition we're keeping the existing commercial space in the front the way this
building is designed there's a center stairwell which splits essentially the building front and
back in half and that's part of the reason we kind of designed the units as front back units.
They are small units but per the board's instruction we have made the plan so that it is clear
how the bathroom, kitchen, and the bedrooms will be specifically laid out in each of the units.
They are mirror image, I'm sorry, they are mirror images of each other on each floor and they have
reduced from a total of five to four. In addition, with the centralized
stairwell, everyone has access to the rear yard
allowing trash storage pending pickup day.
The front commercial space also has its own
entrance which is also existing. The separate entrance for the
residential units would allow the residents to not have to
access at all the commercial space. The basement is for utilities only
so there's no living spaces in the basement all the living spaces that are now located only on
the second and third floor these are small units but I do want to point out part of the reason
the community supported this application is because in our discussion with the community
they really wanted what is essentially lower income or lower cost housing and we negotiated
and discussed with the community that these smaller spaces although they are small would
reduce the cost to individuals who are looking to utilize the space and therefore they actually
approved our original plan of five units although I understand the board's concern with the small
sizes and my client did in fact reduce it by one unit and provide now a shared storage space as
additional space for any occupants in the upper floor so we would ask for the board's favorable
consideration in this request this is a cmx2 property however this building as you can see
from the photograph and I'm going to shrink that down to a easier size to look at. This building
has been vacant for quite a while it was actually an unsafe structure at one point but generally
speaking the interior base structure is usable but it will require extensive renovations to make it
nice and habitable for the proposed uses. The block itself also has mix of commercial
residential use with some apartments being proposed and built nearby as well. So this,
even though the density of this particular proposal is rather high, it is not out of
character with the neighborhood and not out of character with the cost of the area. And again,
that's why the community supported our proposal i'm i'm back on the floor plan here so if the
board wants to reference any specific parts of the plan i'll be happy to zoom into it
thank you any questions from the board
anyone else to testify in this case please raise your name i believe my client is here
vass can you raise your hand please he can unmute himself thank you
this is sharon salette i had one question if the board should vote to approve this
would it be enough to say maximum four units rather than revised plans or are you submitting
revised plans to be stamped i i'll leave that to the discretion of the board um we're certainly
happy if the board wants these plans stamped it's not an issue okay yeah i think we'll get them
stamped there are no other hands up for this particular case i can say we generally don't
don't the board generally does not stamp floor plans because um i mean if you want to move a
the board generally does not stamp floor plans because um i mean if you want
bathroom or do something internal that's minor in the future it could stop you from doing that
post and that a proviso will be put in no more units on the first floor other than commercial
and storage that would essentially match what the plans would be requesting repeat that repeat
it will be a maximum of four units no residential units on the first floor
only commercial space and storage permitted thank you thank you did your
client get on you I I believe I asked him Vaz if you're here please raise your
hand on the zoom app so you can be so you can testify actually I see him yes
Hello? Yeah, this is Boz Avakins.
Sir, please spell your first and last name.
V -A -Z -G -E -N. That's my first name. Last name is A -V -A -K -Y -A -N.
And your address?
1398 Chikupin Road, Southampton, PA, 18966.
Thank you. You swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Could I just ask if we could have the street spelling of his address?
Would you spell the street?
Chikwapin.
C -H -I -N -Q -U -A -P -I -N.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Avakian, you heard my testimony before the board in the last few minutes.
Can you verify that all my testimony is true and correct?
and adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
No one, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
This is Ronald Bednar, R -O -N -A -L -D, B -E -D -N -A -R.
Planning Commission.
And could you swear them in, Chair?
Ron, do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
While this property is currently indicated for neighborhood commercial mixed -use on a city plan,
given the site's character and the location in relation to the block,
we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
Calendar number 39325.
4606 Woodland Avenue.
My vote is yes with the following provisors.
maximum four units first floor restricted to commercial and storage use only my
vote is yes with proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you very much
calendar number mi2020 000975 1543 south 13th street the attorney is matt monroe well i think
yes okay i'm matt hey good afternoon uh uh vice chair tenere how are you great name and address
for the record please uh matt monroe monroe law uh coming to you from the uh monroe law south philly
offices at 2030 pemberton street uh philadelphia pa 19146 do you swear to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do do you also agree to wave and step i do and have you emailed an exhibit
packet with the required documents including proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing have you also met with
the rco and if so do you have a letter yes we um we uh sent the uh documents initially to the
board administrator but we did forward them to uh the correct email so that was a slight
snafu but um uh the documents are in uh and uh we did meet with the rco and we have a letter in the
our board packet. Thank you. You may proceed. Okay. I'm just going to share my screen and
I am here today. Also, I know my client, Vanessa, my client and friend, Vanessa Ginnarelli is
on the call and available to testify. This is a case, I believe we did have a split boat at the
RCA will just address that at the top and we received an opposition letter, but I believe
that the evidence in this case will show that this is really a classic Hertzberg hardship case
and that there are some unique circumstances that really compel the granting of a variance.
There are some unique circumstances that really compel the granting of a variance in this case.
We're simply seeking to legalize a long -time existing duplex. Ms. Giannarelli is a first -time
home buyer. She's not in real estate. She doesn't touch this stuff for money. She works as an
executive with Microsoft. And when she was working as a first -time home buyer, she wanted to purchase
a duplex so she could defray some of the cost of a mortgage by having a rental unit.
Once she purchased the property, she did work with a realtor.
The marketing for the property indicated that it was two separate units.
And more importantly, when she walked through the property, it appeared to be two separate
units.
There's two separate entryways, two separate services, electrical service, water meter
separate.
There are, each unit has its own kitchen. It's a three -story building. Ms. Ginnarelli utilizes the downstairs unit as her, it's an owner -occupied property. It's her home. Upstairs is a second unit that's a rental unit.
currently there is somebody uh living there who she rents to it's an employee that she has but
long term uh she's going to need to legalize this unit for a number of reasons one uh so it can so
she can rent it uh if it's not somebody she's friendly with like uh her current uh occupant
uh she needs to be able to get a rental license because if she has a deadbeat up there she needs
to be able to evict them and under the current rules of landlord tenant court you can't evict
somebody without a proper rental license, which you can't get if she doesn't have a legal duplex
in this case. Her downstairs unit is a split level unit. The upstairs unit is,
well, it's upstairs. And I can show you some of the context photographs.
Here we have new water meters. She put these in herself just because the property was old,
needed some upgrades, actually a lot of upgrades. The ones she put in were purely aesthetic.
She got, you know, I think a new fridge, a new stove, and some new water heaters. It's separately
metered, as I mentioned before, and you can just see some of the, this is sort of the layout of
the space. Over here, where I've got my cursor, is the second, is the entrance of the second unit,
and each unit has its own kitchen, bathroom, etc. There's a strong legal argument. I think in this
case, you know, the Hertzberg case recognizes that while typically, you know, a hardship applies
to the land, but our courts have long recognized that a hardship can apply to a building itself,
specifically when you're looking at trying to retrofit an existing structure to legalize it,
to make something that is already there legally conforming with the code it is already there it
is a duplex and it has been a duplex and i think it's important to note that we have a support
letter from the owner of the adjacent property it's ron donatucci and his son own the next
store property which is a multi -family property before i get to that i just want to note at
exhibit six uh in our submission um we have uh the uh approved permits for both adjacent properties
on either side both of those properties at uh are are multi -families on um on the north side
of miss generale's property at 15 45 south 13th street there is an existing duplex that is legal
and on the south side there is a multi -family property a five -family dwelling on the other
side and then on the other side of that uh uh there's a pizza place um uh it's right there on
south uh 13th street 13th street uh so we do have a support letter and i think it's important to note
that uh mr donatucci uh he pointed out that is as long as he can remember uh miss the property that
is now miss generelli's property was built out used as a duplex um and uh he said so to his
knowledge and submitted this letter. He also acknowledges that for a first -time homeowner
like Ms. Ginnarelli, it would create a substantial hardship to come in and have to basically gut the
building if you wanted to take it back to a single -family home. It would be cost prohibitive,
true undue hardship, and the value of doing something like that would far exceed
um uh what uh probably the value of the property um another important note is uh is just this
Another important note is just this issue of safety. In the long term, if Ms. Ginnarelli has a renter in the upstairs unit, she can't get them out, like I said, if they fail to pay their rent or they just want to squat on the property through legal channels because she first has to have a legal duplex in order to do so.
issue of safety in in the long term
So another issue, it's not just the safety, but this will give L &I the ability to properly regulate this property as a duplex, as it has been used for decades and decades, and as it's currently built out.
And as I said, there is a duplex there, and in order for there not to be a duplex there, you have to do substantial structural work to retrofit the building, and that creates the undue hardship.
And just on a note, we met with the RCO, and I have a lot of respect for the folks who do it.
I sat on the SOSNA zoning committee for a number of years.
I know that it's a lot of tough work.
Nobody thanks you for it.
You don't get paid, and you get beat up a lot.
And so I respect and understand their position.
I've got nothing bad to say about them.
I think one thing I just want to note is that when we were on the Zoom meeting, it appeared
that there was a majority of the community voted in our favor.
In the letter, Ms. Tavani noted that there was a tie, a 3 -3 vote.
I asked her about that, and she said that there was two individuals who voted outside,
who were from outside the area.
I don't have any way to see that, but I think we anticipated that the community vote was
going to be in favor, but I have no reason to believe that Ms. Tavani is not telling
the truth.
I think there's a couple of things in the basis for the opposition that don't really
address the hardship issue.
One is, I think in the highlighted information that I have up here on your screen, Ms. Tavani
in the zoning committee acknowledged that contrary to how this building was marketed
by the previous owner and the realtor, the building was designed, constructed as a single
family home. They're acknowledging that there is a duplex there. And again, the fact that there is
an existing duplex there that would require a structural rework is what our argument is that
there is a hardship. I think that there was some confusion at the hearing. In our context photos,
we showed that there are three, they said there were three doorbells there. Those were there when
Ms. Genarelli bought her property. They were confused because there were three water units
in the basement. There were three water units there before, and Ms. Genarelli replaced them
before her family came to visit last year for Christmas just because she wanted her house to
be fully functional um but those are new but as you can see there's simply uh two uh electrical
meters two water meters what it seems like uh um uh passing square civic association was saying
without saying it a little bit was that yeah we're asking for a duplex but uh it appears that there
was uh there's a triplex there uh ms uh generelli will confirm and i can assure the board there's
absolutely there are two units there there's no desire to um to to backdoor or try to legalize
two units and then sneak in a third nothing like that um we don't know why those three bells are
there uh i don't know why the the three units uh water heaters are there except that it's probably
really great if you want to take a shower there um because you can last uh have hot water as long
as you want. But the final issue is, I believe the Pasadena Square Civic Association, I know
that there's been a lot of changes in the neighborhood, a lot of construction that has
changed things, and density is always an issue. They don't raise parking as an issue as it's
savvy, but I think that parking has always been an argument against density, and Pasadena Square
civic association knows that that's not really a strong argument um ms generelli as a matter of
fact does not own a car has never owned a car she does not drive so uh and she can confirm that um
and i'm not going to interrupt this and summarize it that that could change and i'm i am personally
familiar with this property i knew the fire owner before he passed away mr leonetti understood
I've known him, but he's always used as a duplex.
Understood.
And I'm not trying to preempt anything.
I'm just like, I am familiar with the property.
I understand that you're on into Chico, and I knew those are your stomping grounds, and that's why.
I understand that, Chairman DiCicco, and I knew those are your stomping grounds, and that's why I just wanted to...
Well, I'm also the councilman who put in place the limitation on the number of multifamily units.
So, unfortunately, Mr. Leonetti, I guess, did this prior to that legislation being passed back in the early 90s.
Yeah, I understand that.
And when we looked at the record and we talked with some folks in the area, there was a use permit hold, I think, for doing some work on the interior.
And they listed the property as single -family home.
That was, I think, before the change in the legislation.
Because the property was – and so the work that was done was, it appears, was permitted.
but the um but the list says single family and our best guess is that uh because it was occupied
by i believe a couple and and and their son uh who occupied upstairs they were one family
but the units they were developing were in fact two families and um uh so you know that that's
it's unfortunate but that's that's what the record says um you know and and uh mr chairman
chico i i hear you i understand um i i would say that uh you know if um if if the board is uh you
know i i don't want to preempt anything or or jump to any conclusions but i know that
ms generelli is uh vested in this property in her neighborhood in a community um i guess two things
I do have a legal memorandum sort of in support of our factual arguments that we believe strongly
do set a case for a Hertzberg hardship in this case. That, you know, we do think that the facts
and circumstances here are pretty unique. Ms. Ginarelli, she's not a developer. She doesn't
want to be a developer. She just wants to live in this house and rent out the upstairs unit. I
understand that's not necessarily uh forever and ever but uh that's this current owner and uh and
and and the predicament that she's in um and uh we would just ask that if um if that we would have
an opportunity to email a legal brief in support of our argument uh following this hearing and
that's it um but that's basically my my factual presentation and i know miss uh generelli if you
can uh raise your virtual hand on on zoom so um uh the board administrator are you there
okay uh hey uh miss generelli did you hear my presentation i did maddie thank you sure and
And did the factual statements that I made, were they accurate?
And do you adopt them as your testimony?
I'm sorry.
Would you spell your full name for the record, ma 'am?
Vanessa, V -A -N -E -S -S -A, Generelli, G -E -N -N -A -R -E -L -L -I.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
My apologies. So let's just do that again. Now that you've been sworn in, Ms. Genarelli,
did you hear my presentation? Yes. And the factual statements that I made,
were they accurate? Yes. Do you adopt them as your testimony? I do. Okay. And I guess
with that, that concludes my presentation. We're happy to answer any questions.
and um thank you questions from the board no no anyone else wish to testify on this case if so
please raise your hand here we have andrew andrew you can yourself and wait to be sworn in
sir please says identify yourselves by your name for the record and give us your address
my name is andrew albergo a -n -d -r -e -w albergo a -l -b -e -r -g -o my address is 1226 annon
street philadelphia pa 19147 i'm here to represent the passion on square civic association zoning
committee thank you please proceed your your honor and board the gentleman the
the applicant appeared before our committee back in August and they
explained to us the situation as the attorney has mentioned we had problems
with little confusion over the hot water heaters and the three bells and so
little confusion over the hot water heaters and the three bells and so forth
forth.
the biggest issue really stems from the facts which he stated himself
The biggest issue
that the property was used by the adult son
in the apartment that was what it was used as a rental it wasn't used as a
rental to the general public i understand uh chairman that you have
some experience in the neighborhood and you know this property but that was
presented to us additionally we feel that the cause of
action is with the realtor and with the people who've represented that this was a legal duplex
and that it's not the responsibility of the neighborhood to correct these errors or these
transgressions the zoning committee has a history of voting against legalizing illegal duplexes
especially in the situation where the new buyer claims they were misled by the in the purchase
of the property for those reasons the zoning committee voted nine to o in opposition and
as you can see in the letter the straw poll was three to three thank you very much for hearing me
out thank you and if i may just uh state for the record i and i appreciate the passing square
civic association's participation but i just want to uh state just an objection for the record uh
based on lack of standing for the the committee voting against but that's just a technical matter.
Anyone else wish to testify? That's all Chair.
Planning Commissioner. This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan. Given the
site history's pre -existing configuration we have no objection to the granting the variance provided
two units only. Thank you. Pre -existing. Okay. MI 2020 -0009751543 South 13th Street.
I'm going to give a reluctant yes with a proviso maximum two units.
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
your client we get these kinds of cases quite often where realtors mislead
buyers i think you should have another case lined up
if there is any way that the agreements of sale let us go after these people believe me i would
It was a hard work for me because I did the remapping that made all that stuff single -family
because we don't want to be overrun by multifamilies, but I sympathize with your client.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Do we have any unfinished business, Tanya or Sharon?
Not from me, Chair.
We're all good then?
Not from me either.
okay everyone uh thank you for all your cooperation today uh and everyone please
stay safe let's talk we'll see you next week okay thank you all righty take care
thank you to the court reporter for hanging out to the court reporter
when i say thank you to everyone it means the court reporter
have a good night good night good night