It's recording right now.
Thank you.
okay chair i see 24 attendees we can start now good morning everyone my name is frank
de chico i'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating today's hearing
along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary, Professor Plaza, and Board
Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator, Ms. Yvette Benton, and Board Attorney, Ms. Sharon Saleta, are also
in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through
some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and that the recording will be made available to the public on the web or otherwise.
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 enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
And I also would like to remind everyone, please do not attempt to testify in the chat.
Any discussion should be made with our board administrator.
Having said that, we now will go to our first case, which is an add-on.
And before I ask for the vote, I will ask the Planning Commission to weigh in
on its recommendations for MI 2020-001-532-1526 Pecker Avenue.
Planning Commission, if you can identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Chair Chico. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I-A-N-H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Please proceed.
Good morning, sir. With regard to 1526 Packer Avenue, the comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial use.
planning commission believes that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use
will have no more of an impact than might normally be expected for this type of facility
we recommend that the board grant the requested special exception thank you mi 2020-001532
1526 packard avenue my vote is yes my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
Thank you. Hold on one second. Let me get these.
Where's the continuance list? Okay, the following cases have been requested to be continued.
MI 2021-000723, 1142 Watkins Street. Attorney Mr. Raymond Diorizio has asked
for continuance number two on our list mi 2021 that's zero zero zero
Number two on our list, MI 2021, that's 000721, 1240 Rittner Street.
Attorney Mr. Vincent Dufino has requested a continuance.
And if anyone disagrees with the request for those continuances, please raise your hand at this time or others keep your hand down until you're recognized.
i see no hands at this time chair thank you at this time we'll request any uh any requests for
continuances or withdrawals please raise your hand here we have a miss lakeisha graham
miss graham please unmute yourself and you can speak now i'm sorry good morning can you can you
guys hear me yes please identify yourself spell your full name um yes lakisha graham that's l-a-k-e-s-h-i-a
last name is graham g-r-a-h-a-m you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i affirm yes i do please uh you're calling regarding what case um generation of
scholars expanding my family child care to group at 5921 Haverford Avenue.
Hold on, please.
Thank you.
That's number 14.
We have not received any exhibits, ma'am.
Could you explain why we didn't receive any exhibits?
I'm sorry.
Are you asking for a continuance?
yes i am oh okay thank you all right so mi 2021-0 excuse me chair if i could could we call
to see if anyone for the applicant is here i think she is she is the applicant um oh the
applicant is a corporation i believe oh i'm sorry are you um miss are you the owner of the property
No, I'm renting a property.
My landlord gave me permission.
Either way, we'll have to continue it.
MI2021-000889-5921-Hoverford Avenue is continued.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 930 list?
Please raise your hand.
Here we have Sloan Foulkes. Mr. Foulkes, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Mr. Foulkes, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Yvette, you have to unmute him. He hasn't been allowed to speak yet.
good morning chairman de chico uh members of the zba board my name is sloan folks uh representing
the office of councilwoman ria canyona sanchez room 508 city hall where from to tell the truth
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do, sir. Thank you. I am, regarding meeting number
MI2020-0024951652 North 2nd Street, I have neither record of a community meeting
nor has the property owner reached out to our office. I'm just wondering if there's someone
here representing them today. Okay, I'll ask, is there anyone here representing 1652 North
2nd Street? If so, please raise your hand. All other hands, stay down, please.
1652 North 2nd Street. Here, I have two other hands that are up.
okay mr mr barrel yuxel
you can unmute yourself on your side and speak now
yes good morning sir good morning sir how you done this morning
please spell your full name yeah v-a-r-o-l first name
Y-U-K-S-E-L
You swear if I'm to tell the truth
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Sir, have you met with the RCO?
Yeah, we have.
I'm his son.
If it's okay, can I...
Please identify yourself.
Please identify yourself.
Spell your full name.
Sadha Yuxel, S-E-R-H-A-T
Y-U-K-S-E-L
Y-U-K-S-E-L.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our notations indicate that there's no RCO letter in our packet.
Could you shed some light on that?
I'm not sure which one the RCO letter would be, but we did have a meeting with the RCO.
Mr. Fulks, could you set some light? You have not received any indication of a letter from South Kensington?
No, sir. The last two discussions that I've had, South Kensington Community Partnership didn't have a meeting with them.
They are the coordinating RCO, and they had reached out to the property owner.
That's the reason why I'm circling back around to the request.
We're going to need to continue this case. MI 2020-002-495-1652 North 2nd Street is continued.
Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
Chair, we have a Rita Morgan. Ms. Morgan, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
ma'am please identify yourself for the record spell your full name and i'll swear can you hear
me please identify yourself spell your full name and i'll swear you in can you hear me yes hello my
name is rita morgan ma'am please spell your full name and i'll swear you in r-i-t-t-a
M-O-R-G-A-N
You swear if I'm to tell the truth
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. And what case are you talking
about? Pardon me?
What case are you calling about?
Property
Musgrave Street
Philadelphia
13, Frank
Mr. Chair
Exhibits, yes, what is your
request. For zoning. I know what what do you you raised your hand? Are you asking for a continuance?
No, I'm not familiar with zooming. So maybe I did something. We did not. We did no worries. We did
not receive the exhibits five days in advance. Therefore, this case will be continued. Excuse me,
Chair, if we could, the attorney in this is Darlene Threat, if you could call her.
Oh, I missed that.
I'm sorry.
Is Ms. Threat available?
Good morning, Commissioner Darlene Threat on behalf of the applicant.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Darlene, D-A-R-L-E-N-E, Threat, T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-T-T as in Thomas.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do, Commissioner.
Please proceed.
Commissioner, we did not submit the exhibits five days in advance.
I had a problem with my account with the Department of Records.
I was unable to download the deed, and my client had to make a payment agreement with the Department of Revenue.
We have uploaded all the documents, and we are ready to go.
I apologize for any convenience, but I respectfully request that we be allowed to proceed today.
Okay, so noted.
We'll get to you.
Thank you.
Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
Chair, we have Andrew Goodman.
Mr. Goodman, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good morning, Mr. Goodman.
You know the drill.
Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of Third District Council Member
Jamie Gaudier, room 586, City Hall.
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We received a request from the applicant of MI 2021-0007185732, Catherine Street.
The applicant was requesting a continuance.
Noted, and there were no exhibits, so we were going to continue.
All right.
Calendar number MI 2021.
that 0007185732 catherine street is continued thank you any other requests for continuances
or withdrawals on the 9 30 list please raise your hand all others remain with your hand down
i see no hands at this time chair okay i think we can begin with it's number number three calendar
Calendar number MI 2021-000667-1426-44 North 6th Street.
your number MI2021-0000.
The attorney is Jared Klein.
Mr. Klein, are you somewhere out there in the virtual world?
1426 panelists thank you good morning mr chair members of the board sorry took me a moment
good morning mr klein name and address for the record and spell your last name before you get
sworn in absolutely uh jared klein from blank rome it's j-a-r-e-d last name's k-l-e-i-n 130 north
18th Street. Do you swear I 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? I can waive the
reading. I can't stip to the accuracy, but it's an easy fix that I will explain as we get into
the presentation. Okay, great. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance, 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 all of the above.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share my screen, and I'm going to assume everybody can see it,
unless you tell me that you can't. So this is 1426 to 44 North 6th Street. This is an
affordable housing development on behalf of ASE, and the application is seeking to demolish the
existing structures on the lot and to replace them with 55 affordable residential units.
The refusal which you got on the screen in front of you is correct in terms of the refusals that
it lists. So we are seeking a variance for the front setback. We are seeking a variance for
height. The small correction we wanted to make is with respect to the description.
as the description describes as 55 age restricted dwelling units. The more specific description is
that there are 24 regular residential units and 31 senior age restricted units. And we have a
revised plan that we submitted that I'll reference as we proceed of one page that changes the bicycle
COUNT TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO REFUSAL THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THAT STYLE OF HOUSING
CLARIFICATION. BEFORE I GET INTO THE PRESENTATION, I'LL JUST NOTE WE DID MEET WITH ATM
AND THEY TOOK A POSITION OF NO OPINION. IT WAS A VERY SPARSELY ATTENDED MEETING,
BUT THOSE WHO ATTENDED DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS. WE ALSO DID PRESENT THIS PROJECT TO THE CIVIC
design review committee on June 1st. We have not received a letter, but the CDR committee
did vote to conclude the CDR process after the one meeting. I imagine the planning commission
will be able to shed some more light on that. This is the project site here. It's across
from the Cruz playground. And it, as I said, is the site of an existing affordable housing
project for ASEE. This was actually their first low-income housing tax credit site. And so there
are affordable units that already exist at this location. And this proposal is seeking to
replace those with a newer and upgraded product. These are the photos of posting so the board can
see what's there now. This isn't really relevant to what we're doing as these structures are going
be coming down but this is the existing site for context. What the proposal is is in two phases
and it's most easily shown with this site plan and phase one will be demoing this front building
and all the residents that are located there now will be put into other housing units that are
owned by ASEE so no one's going to be displaced from their housing as part of this. That's why
we're doing it in phases so that we can relocate those who need to be while the phase one construction
is done. And then in phase two, the residents for phase one, we move back into the then
completed first portion of the project. We're proposing this to be in two connected structures.
The reason for the variance about the front setback, you can see right here,
What we tried to do was angle the building to create a little open space off of the street frontage here to allow for some outdoor space.
What we tried to do was angle the building to create a little open space off of the street frontage.
There's going to be a community area or a sort of general purpose room here.
And so that's going to flow nicely into this open space.
And there's also going to be a tot lot for the senior housing.
It's going to be located back there so that if those families have grandparents or relatives visiting, there will be a place to accommodate kids as well.
This is just to give you a sense of the phasing. As I said, this is the phase one structure,
phase one and a half, and then phase two will be the rear senior building there.
General overview of our site plan. As I mentioned, there's a community room with kitchen here,
this outdoor plaza, offices, maintenance, storage, and mechanicals. And then we have
15 parking spaces that are going to be accessed off of Marshall Street here.
section drawings just to give the board a sense of the scale of the project once
it's completed we are asking for a height variance as we need the additional elevation to be able to
make these nice size units the 24 regular residential multi-family units are a mix of
one two and three bedrooms and the senior housing is all one bedroom so we needed the additional
height beyond what was there now to accommodate that mix of housing styles
these are general floor plans to give you a sense of how the stacking of the building
will look an elevation to show the context of the various phases
and we have a rendering of what the outside will look like we really felt that the neighborhood
would appreciate a little pop of color with the design and that was appreciated at the RCO level
and at CBR as well. We tried to develop something that would stand out a little bit as a unique
addition to the neighborhood rather than just your standard gray box. The remainder of the
materials that I submitted to the board include the tax clearance and the notifications sent to
neighbors with a certificate of mailing. And at this point, we do have the architect, Darren
Edwards, on the line if the board has any questions. But I will stop there and ask Maria
Gonzalez to virtually raise her hand so she can adopt my testimony.
Good morning, Ms. Gonzalez. Please identify yourself with a record, spell your full name,
and I'll swear you in.
Ms. Gonzalez, you've been unmuted. You can speak now.
Okay, thank you. Maria Gonzalez, M-A-R-I-A-G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z. Good morning.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Maria, did you have a chance to listen to my presentation this morning?
Yes, I did.
Was there anything that I said that you would like to correct?
No, you weren't.
Okay, then it's fair to say you adopt my statements as true in your own testimony.
Correct, I do.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chair, I don't have anything for it.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions.
What's the trash plan?
And are there any units below grade?
so the number one the trash plan is um we're going to design trash chutes like we do in our
other developments so we're going to handle the trash that comes from every floor there will be
a trash room at every level and then there will be a trash compactor at the at the bottom that's
going to capture all the trash and we will have private hauling that will take the trash um and
we'll have pick up either once or twice a week depending on the amount of trash that the residents
generate. Right now, we have private hauling there as well. So it's something that we institute in
all our properties. And to answer your second question, Mr. Holloman, no, there will not be
any units below grade. That is good. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Any other questions
from the board? No. No. Anyone else like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Only those who would like to testify in this case, raise your hand at this time.
Chair, we have a Bart Levy.
Mr. Levy, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good morning, Mr. Levy.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
I'm Bart Levy for 5301 Euclid Street.
Your last name is spelled L-E-V-Y.
B-A-R-T-L-E-V-Y.
Pennsylvania ID number 204800.
This is Sharon. That is number 11 on your list. Euclid Street. It's not this case.
Euclid Street. It's not this case. All right, sir, we'll be back to you. Anyone would like to
testify in this case, 1426-44 North 6th Street. Raise your hand. All others, please keep your
hand down until we acknowledge you. I see no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning
Commission. Good morning Mr. Chairman Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multi-family
zoning at this location. The proposed redevelopment is supported by the affordable housing
goals of the comprehensive plan. This case was heard by the Civic Design Review Committee but
the committee did not identify any design issues with the variance refusals and so the City Planning
Commission recommends that the board grant the variance. Thank you. Mr. Kleiner, two revised
pages? One. Okay, thank you. MI 2021-000667, 1426-44 North 6th Street. My vote is yes with the
proviso. Revised plan one page approved today. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you all very much enjoy the rest of your day
you too calendar number mi 2021 000717 2135-37 south 17th street the attorney is jack verman
I see no hands at this time, Madam Vice Chair.
Mr. Furman, is there anyone here for 2135-37 South 17th Street?
Chair, I have someone by the name of Shakira Barrett with her hand up.
Thank you.
Ms. Barrett, please identify yourself, spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Shakira Barrett, S-H-A-K-E-E-R-A-H, Barrett, B-A-R-R-E-T-T.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed. You're here on this case, 17th Street?
i'm the tenant here and i was proposing for it to be a daycare center um no more than 24 hours
consecutive hours um with serving of food um for the building excuse the interruption but who is
mr jack verman that's probably someone from the owner that's probably like his lawyer but
today the purpose of me coming because this is my um zoning is for the daycare usage
I don't know if he got the same date
because I'm the tenant in the building right now.
Ma'am, are you operating a business LLC?
You need an attorney.
You're a nonprofit or an LLC.
You're required to have an attorney.
So we're going to need to continue your case, ma'am.
I have to have an attorney?
MI 2021-000717, 2135-37 South 17th Street is continued.
Calendar number MI 2021-000727, 2212 North 58th Street.
Lamont Rogers is listed as the person of interest.
that doesn't sound right
rogers
mr chair there are also no exhibits and it's the first listing
all right mi 2021-000727
2212 north 58th street is continued
seven and eight go together carol thank you calendar number
MI-2021-001284, 2815 Graysbury Avenue, and calendar number MI-2021-001239, 2815 Graysbury Avenue.
The attorney is Brett Feldman for both of these cases.
Mr. Feldman's coming back in as a panelist.
Still on the roof.
Thank you, Mr. Feldman.
Name and address, please, and spell your last name.
Yes, good morning.
I'm Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.
I represent the applicant McDonald's in these two related cases,
is 2815 Grace Ferry Avenue at the Grace Ferry Shopping Center.
I misspoke. He has to be sworn in. I didn't swear him in, really. I'm sorry.
Okay. 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?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, 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 all. Okay. Thank you. We may proceed. Okay. Again, good
morning. Brad Feldman. I represent McDonald's. With me today, we have two witnesses, Jonathan
Basque, who is the McDonald's area construction manager, and Mary Bockert, who is our project
engineer from Boulder Engineering. We passed up exhibits one through 11, which I believe you see
on your screen. Those were our exhibits. And just to orient the board, there's two cases here.
This is for an existing McDonald's in the shopping center that we're looking tired and in need of
renovation. We are demolishing the restaurant and we're rebuilding another restaurant at the
exact location. LNI now needs you to file applications for the building and the site
improvements on one application and signs on another application. So that's why there's two
cases here that you'll see in front of you, but we've consolidated the exhibits so that it's all
as one. So I'd ask Exhibits 1 through 11 to be incorporated into the record. You'll see at
Exhibit Tab 9 is our letter of support from the Tasker Morris Neighborhood Association. So let me
just go through these pretty quickly those are the exhibits list of witnesses
interestingly the the main refusal here is that here here's the building
this shopping center is still zoned industrial so here here's the greatest very shopping center
there's a fresh grocer over here a number of other tenants in this large shopping center
The McDonald's is on a pad site to the right.
The property is still an industrial, even though it's a shopping center.
So once we demolish the existing restaurant, we have to get a variance to rebuild a new
restaurant at the same location.
That is the main refusal.
There's also a refusal for signs.
You can only have two menu boards.
We are one of the main features of this application is we're creating a side-by-side tandem drive-through
option to make it to make this mcdonald's operate better but each each drive-through needs to have
two menu boards on itself so that's the location this is the mcdonald's if you've driven past uh
it used to be a roy rogers um it's really antiquated um mcdonald's has wanted to for a
number of years of rebuild the location that's what it looks like that's what it looks like
just a bunch of pictures here take it through that here there's a posting
and here is the layout now the proposed McDonald's
Mary Walker do you want to just briefly just explain in one minute just the the
the new layout of the McDonald's and how we're seeking to upgrade in all
respects of this restaurant.
I think it could be a very brief description.
Absolutely. Good morning. Can you hear me?
Yeah, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Mary Bockert, M-A-R-Y-B-A-C-H-E-R-T with Bowler Engineering.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
So if we take a look at the layout here that we're looking at the page, everything in gray
is our lease area within the overall shopping center, which will be getting a new coat of
pavement. And then we are tearing down the existing building, which is in the same layout
as proposed. So generally the same position and configuration with respect to orientation
towards Grace Ferry. New side-by-side drive-through. So currently there's just one stacking lane to
new side-by-side drive-through. So currently there's just one stacking lane to one order
point and then they merge and pick up at the building. Now we will have two stacking lanes,
two order points, and then they will merge for pickup. This does speed up the efficiency
of the drive-through and cuts down on stacking both internal and external to the site.
And then a new trash enclosure demolishing the derelict one in the rear and that will
have a matching facade as the building so really no changes to circulation uh or orientation of
the building just a brand new building with a brand new signage package uh and nice new menu
boards and just real quick i think this is this really brings it alive that's that's the proposed
that's what this would look like when it's done and and and just just so the board sees
what mcdonald's has been doing throughout the city as far as new designs this is a location
on Busselton Avenue that was just completed I mean in the last couple months complete you know
just something that is much more representative of the image that McDonald's wants to convey in
2021 and this would be very much like what we'll see a great story if the approval is granted and
we are proceed so I just want to take real proud of some of the new prototypes that we're doing
um and and and that really is is what we're looking to do here we we met with the uh task
morris neighborhood association um we uh we have a relatively new operator at this location we're
able to introduce the operator to the community and i think that'll be a good relationship going
forward they had a nice letter of support which is which is attached to the exhibit tab uh nine
We do have revised plans for both cases to reflect some site configuration changes
that we made that we would ask that those proviso plans be approved for both cases.
Jonathan Bask, do you want to just introduce yourself, provide your address, and then
adopt my testimony if Jonathan is available, Mr. Jonathan Bask?
Greg, while we're waiting, how many, on the revised plans, how many pages for each application?
Okay, for the calendar number case, that 001284, there are three plans.
Revised plans, okay.
And then for the one, two, three, nine case, there are one, two, three plans for that case.
That's where our notation's at. I want to make sure we're correct.
Yes. Mary, you still on the line?
I am. I'm here.
I know you provided testimony. You also heard my testimony, correct?
Yes. Can you hear me?
Yes, Jonathan. Let me just finish it, Mary, and I'll come right back to you.
Mary, can you just, you heard my testimony.
Can you adopt it as true and accurate as your own?
I can and I will.
Thank you.
Mr. Baske, good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Baske.
Please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Absolutely.
Good morning, everybody.
My name is Jonathan Baske.
Last name B-A-S-K-E, 64 Harbor Drive, Hamilton, New Jersey, 08037.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Feldman?
And Mr. Bask, you heard my testimony concerning the goals and objectives from your files in this application, correct?
Yes, I did.
And do you adopt it as true and accurate as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
only those who would like to testify in this case, raise your hand at this time.
There are no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good morning, Chair Ochico. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Mr. Ochico, members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends a change to
CA1 zoning at this location. The proposed use for takeout restaurant is consistent with
both this proposed zoning and the existing use. And in addition, the appellant has demonstrated
hardship with respect to the proposed use variance for menu signs as they're integral to the function
of the layout. Our issue is that the appellant has not demonstrated a hardship supporting a
variance from the parking lot landscaping requirements. The applicants fail to present
evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would require
that would require them to sidestep the landscaping requirements and so our recommendation from the
them to sidestep the landscaping requirements. And so our recommendation
planning commission would be that the board grant the use variants to permit a takeout restaurant
and the accessory menu board signs but deny the requested variants for parking lot landscaping
i mean what was that deny landscaping yeah hold on brett yeah sure sure so
So, you know, the challenge here at this location, and we could certainly discuss this more,
is it's a very – McDonald's, it's a massive shopping center.
But McDonald's only has this small – Mary showed the lease area, this small area here.
We don't have access to a much larger shopping center.
So currently right now, you know, what we try to do is really, you know, come up with the best we could
as far as landscaping.
We have added some areas of landscaping here,
but to have the dual drive-throughs,
we're simply unable to provide the full buffer
that is required in the code here.
And we could certainly get more into it.
We've tried, we looked at this,
and part of the delay on this was to try to figure out
how this could be best set up,
but there simply isn't enough space within our lease area here to provide you know the parking
that's required the drive-thrus that are required there aren't any residential neighbors you know
right behind us I think it's the trash plant so you know that was really kind of the trade-off
here and you know we had this discussion with the community and the upgrading of the way this
building looks and feels was something that they certainly thought would justify you know the
current uh landscaping plan we could certainly get into that more detail uh if you will um but
to deny that the landscaping means to deny the application thank you all right um
anyone i'm sorry did ask that am i i'm going to call these off separately carol mi 2021-001
284. 2815 Grace Ferry Avenue. My vote is yes with the proviso. Revised plan, three pages approved
today. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Hi, 2021-001239, 2815 Grays Ferry Avenue. My vote is yes with proviso. Three pages,
revised plan, three pages approved today. My vote is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with
proviso. Yes with proviso. Thank you. We go to number nine and as you call it off, there's a
letter of support from the brewery town
Sharswood
and NAC.
Thank you.
Calendar number
MI 2021
dash 000
2729 dash 31
Jefferson Street.
Jack Hubbard
is the attorney.
Mr. Hubbard
is coming back in as a panelist.
Good morning, members of the board. I'm Jack Hubbard. I'm the attorney for the owner and the applicant.
Thank you. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
First name Jack, J-A-C-K, last name Hubbard, H-U-B-B-E-R-T, address 1601 Market Street, 19th floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear a firm 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?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met
with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
The letter was emailed to the board by the RCO earlier this week.
And we do have it.
You may proceed.
Okay, good.
So, there are two refusals that we're here to try to get variances for.
The first one is the size of the lot.
So, this is a subdivision.
This is the property right here.
These two garages are going to come down, and what's going to be constructed is something almost identical to the two houses next door.
so there'll be four units right across here that look virtually identical. So we have the,
I'll just take you through just a couple of the pictures of the current situation first. There's
i'll just take you through just a couple of the pictures of the current situation
first there is our postings currently the situation
our postings.
this is what's going to go there this is the uh the rendering uh of the two houses so
the problem we came into is when we subdivide the property into two we come up three and a half uh
square feet short in each property from the required number and also the other
variants we're looking for is the access to the parking garage that will be on
the property there is no parking on this side of the street there's already
existing curb cuts you know at this location so it's single-family home
which is exactly what's required in the RSA zoning with regard to the dimensions of the property
itself it's the shape of the lot that sort of causes this this issue we have we're actually
better than required on coverage requirements and better than required on rear yard setbacks
were lower than the height restriction the only thing we're short on on the dimensions is that
we have 1436 and a half square feet versus 1440. so those are our two requests for the board for
the variance based on the size of the the the configuration of the lot it creates an extremely
big backyard, but we ended up just, you know, a little short on what we needed under the RSA 5
zoning. So at this time, I'd like to have Marina Feudel raise her hand and comment if she's here.
If not, the architect Logan Dry can also weigh in and help answer any questions the board might have.
name again or either than how about andrew friedman
chair logan dry has his hand up okay good logan's the architect and needed and allowed to speak
please identify yourself sir i swear you in sure logan dry l-o-g-a-n-d-r-y uh kca design
associates 6525 tulip street philadelphia pa 19135 architect of record so the whole truth
nothing about the truth i do mr dry you you heard my testimony for the board am i correct
yes do you have anything you wish to add or correct to my explanation of our request uh
No, pretty straightforward.
Again, just slightly under with the lot sizes and just trying to build two single-family homes
that are, quite frankly, very much in context with, you know, ones that are right next door.
Would you adopt my testimony as true and accurate?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand.
Only on this case, raise your hand.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Chico.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Chair Chico, members of the board, in 2014, this area was remapped from RM1 to RSA5 in
accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
The proposed lot dimension variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning codes.
We have no objection to that granting of that variance.
However, the applicant has failed to establish a hardship requiring a variance for front-loaded parking.
Front-loaded parking eliminates on-street parking, precludes planting of street trees, and is dangerous for pedestrians.
City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variance for lot size but deny the variance for motor vehicle parking standards.
already mr halbert there are already curb cuts for those two existing garages correct
there are curb cuts and the neighboring the two neighboring properties you know on the uh
both of these uh i think logan was involved in i guess the property right here in that
that one has uh you know front-loaded parking in it so we're doing you know exactly what is
next door and there are curb cuts and there's no parking on that side of the street
understood thank you mi 2021-000724-2729-31 jefferson street my vote is yes
2729-31 jefferson street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
calendar calendar number mi-2021-000-662-3626 helen street jennifer visitlo is the attorney
And we have a letter of support, Mr. Chair, from Harrogate Civic Association and Councilman Squill for non-opposition.
Morning, Jennifer. Please identify yourself.
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 Word Street, Suite D202, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19124.
You swear for I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Carol?
Do you agree to waive the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership,
tax compliance, refusal, referral, a copy of, strike that, photos and our plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes to all of that thank you you may proceed okay i'm going to share my screen give you one second
here uh here we go all right and then i need to just move this so i can scroll all right um so
like i said my name is jennifer bezidlow i'm here representing um julio lopez um who is the owner
of 3626 Helen Street and also a long-term resident of that area. I have here a packet
with the refusal, deed, proof of tax payment, a letter of unanimous support from Harrogate
Civic Association. Sorry, this is scrolling really slowly. Let me just help myself here.
The community notification letters, aerial views of the property, zoning archives from your properties, photographs and plans.
Let me just get to my photographs here real quick. We'll scroll through.
Here we go. All right, so 3626 Helen Street is a large double wide 2,414 square foot parcel
with this existing two-story cinder block structure on it. Part of the application is to
legalize that second-story addition that was added prior to my client owning the property.
This parcel was previously used as garages, which is what most of this block is, which I'll talk
about later. Helen Street is a small dead-end street, accessed off of Venango between Jasper
an emerald in the Harrogate neighborhood um here's some photos of the block um so my client
purchased this in April 2020 in the condition that you see here and our proposal let's get to
the plans is to complete the renovation of that existing structure and to use the property as
three two-story single-family row house style units but they're all on one parcel so it's
considered multi-family. Each unit would be one bedroom and one full bath with the kitchen living
and living area on the first floor and the bedroom and the full bath located on the second floor.
The trash is going to be stored in a locked trash area on the property and taken out on trash day.
There's a very similar project to this already across the street at 3619 Helen.
So these three units that you see right here, our project will be very, very similar to that, not including this back unit.
And the zoning board approved this project back in 1999.
The only refusal we received is for multifamily dwelling because it is RSA 5.
But like I said, that's why we think that this is an interesting thing, because we are doing
these single-family style homes, not necessarily an apartment complex. And because this is a double
wide lot, where in theory you could build a couple of single-family homes, we're really probably at
a lower density with three one-bedrooms, as opposed to two, three, or four-bedroom units on this
property. Let me just switch to the aerial view of the block.
the aerial view of the block.
All right, so this block, in addition to kind of being closer in conformance with
the residential zoning than the prior garage block, this block is zoned, this entire block here
is zoned RSA 5 for single-family residential use. However, that is not primarily how this block is
used um it is mostly small um garages um there are 38 parcels on this block there's only four
single family homes that one multi-family current unit one vacant lot four backs of properties from
emerald street and 28 garages which are either standalone properties or garages for properties
on emerald and jasper street and we believe that converting these former garages on this property
to a residential use would not only be more in line with the current residential zoning,
but would also benefit this block greatly because it would get more eyes on the street,
people interacting with the block, and help prevent some of the problems which you can see
in some of the photos of dumping and there's some also some other illegal activity that tends to
happen when you have these back blocks that are neglected and don't have people interacting with
them. So we met with Harrogate Civic. Sorry, one second, technical issues here. We met with
Harrogate Civic, and I don't know if Sharon is on the board, is on this call, but she actually
has one of the properties that backs up to the spot as well, the president of Harrogate Civic.
So we had, I mean, it was Harrogate Civic. It was fairly well attended. There was 14 people there,
and they unanimously supported the project. They did ask for a couple provisos, which were
installing additional lighting security cameras, making sure the property is kept clean, exploring
green energy and other greening options. I'm not so sure these are enforceable, but my client does
all agree to them as these benefit him as well as the community and just aren't a big problem.
So at this point, I would like to ask Julio if Julio Lopez is on the call to raise his hand so
I can have him adopt my testimony I see no one with that name hold on chair he just raised his
hand okay thank you good morning sir please identify yourself spell your full name and I'll
swear you in uh Ullo Luis Lopez J-U-L-I-L-L-U-I-S-L-O-P-E-Z you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you jennifer please proceed so julio did
you hear my test county here today and believe it to be truthful and accurate yes and do you adopt
it as your own yes thank you thank you questions from the board no no no anyone else would like
to testify in this case please raise your hand only on 36 26 helen street please raise your hand
Only if you wish to testify in this case.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good morning, Chair Chico, members of the Planning Commission, sorry, zoning board,
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the board, in 2017, this area was remapped from RM1 to RSA5 in accord with
recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
however the proposed use and dimensions are consistent with what would be allowed under
RSA 5 including the unit density so the city planning commission has no objection to this
variance thank you very much MI 2021-000662 3626 Helen Street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
thank you
before we have to go back to case number three
I think I failed to put a proviso in
so MI 2021-000667
1426-44 North 6th Street
my vote is yes with the proviso
revised plan
two pages approved today
my vote is yes with proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso sorry about that
jim you're not coming through right um okay on to number 11 calendar number mi 2021-000720
5301 euclid street the attorney is bart levy
good morning again mr levy please identify yourself for the record i think i should
Good morning again, Mr. Levy. Please identify yourself for the record. I think I swore you went earlier, so you're still under oath.
Mr. Levy?
Yes, sir.
Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Bart Levy. That's B-A-R-T-L-E-V-Y. I'm attorney for Elam Associates, LLC.
sir do you do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
hello yes uh we didn't hear your response yes my answer is we have met with them and we do have a
letter okay great you may proceed thanks all right so i'm i'm not i'm sure why i'm not getting any
video. Can you guys see me? Can I have, oh, start my video, okay. How's that? We see you now.
So, in other words, just to get right to it, 5301 Euclid Street, even though I don't have control of the exhibits at the moment.
Mr. Levy, pardon the interruption, are you able to share any of your exhibits?
I have a file now, and I can share all of them.
I just don't know how to load them up.
Well, Ms. Sunkit will walk you through it.
Do you have the actual documents open on your desktop computer?
And do you have a regular file that it's literally open with your documents visible?
If so, you can go to the bottom of the screen on your Zoom application and hit share.
once you hit share
then you're going to hit the documents
that you wish to share with us
so you say it's at the bottom of the screen
you should see a green button that says share
you're on a desktop computer right
okay it's coming up
share them um but your documents aren't open it's showing your files
did that come up
first document come up no we only see your files a list of your files
well i've got them all opened at the top of my screen
um do you see the deed now no we don't so when you want to share you had to click on the actual file
it says i'm screen sharing you are but you're not sharing the documents it's just your
file listing? Could I possibly ask my client who's an officer from the LLC to join us,
Mr. Elam, if you could raise his hand? Yes.
If I may address the board on this matter then, without the exhibits for the moment.
So 5301 Euclid was purchased by my client, which is Elam, in October of 2020.
When we found it, or when we purchased it, the property is essentially two separate units with two separate addresses, two separate kitchens, two separate sleeping quarters.
And for that reason, the property has never been lawfully rented out, has never been lawfully used as either a one-family unit or a two-family unit.
What we're asking for the board to consider is allowing us to operate this as a two-family dwelling.
Now, when we met with the RCO, their concerns surrounded the fact that the property had not been properly.
Their concerns surrounded the fact that the property had not been properly used, at least in their memory.
There were trash problems.
There were building appearance problems.
My client, once we can get the exhibits up, has undertaken to completely restore and remodel both units.
The idea of the place being unused right now is part of the point.
I'm sorry. Mr. Levy, may I interrupt for a moment?
Who would be sharing the screen with the presentation?
Mr. Rodney Elam.
Okay, so we're going to promote him, Yvette, to panelists so he can set up and share his screen.
Mr. Levy, if you could select the green share button and bring your file down, and then we'll allow him to share his screen.
I should stop sharing?
Correct.
Very well.
Sorry.
I believe he's in.
good morning good morning mr elam please identify yourself through the record spell your first and
last name rodney elam r-o-d-n-e-y last name is e-l-a-m you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr levy yes sir yes sir and mr elam if you
could share your uh screen some of the documents that would be helpful sure i guess i might have
the same problem that uh mr levy was having is this basically a legalization mr levy it is
essentially the property is not being has two separate homes in it or two separate home
structures but was never brought before this board for for lawful approval of that use for
that reason the property fell into disuse and and what that caused was a blight of of this property
and and just about everything else a true eyesore the neighbors concerns were whether we in our
project would include such safety things as cameras and really attention to the property
Well, I think, pardon the interruption, we do have some, we see, I guess, the front of the building in question here.
Which is ours, the one with the cone on it?
Actually, the one all the way to the right with the fence around the deck.
That's actually the picture of what it used to look like when we, that's what it looked like when we purchased it.
Can you share any other documents, exterior, interior?
Yes, I'm actually trying to pull that up now.
For whatever reason, okay, so I know I'm supposed to hit the share screen button, but it's just
bringing my right okay all right here we are okay so the exterior of the property as now we have
or a bunch of umbrellas that oh okay now we got it go ahead okay that's the exterior of the property
as it is now uh this is uh as of last week uh completely uh restuck out on the outside of the
property there's the interior which was completely uh it was just completely destroyed uh
upstairs basically uh is a three bedroom one and a half building uh one and a half bath unit
and the bottom uh would be a one bedroom unit
uh hvac system uh like i said completely uh remodeled would would be completely remodeled
with everything there's enough the view of the front of the property uh as mr levy was stating
that that's the rear of the property the place had a lot of problem with weeds uh debris on the
outside that's actually the side of the building with an egress and entrance to the basement unit
uh i'm sorry there's another picture of what it used to look like
um essentially like i said we would just like to get a zoning to make it a multi-family unit
um and to me improve uh what was definitely a blight to this uh entire uh neighborhood and
street okay thank you there is a letter of non-opposition from winfield residence
um questions from the board no no no no anyone else would like
no no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand only for
5301 euclid street here we have a miss brenda williams miss williams you can unmute yourself
and speak good morning miss williams please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
good morning miss williams good morning please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
brenda b-r-e-n-d-a williams w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes please proceed uh my main concern as they did mention that it was
blight on that corner um i've lived on this block for 45 years and i've seen it good and i've seen
it very bad uh so the main concern that our neighbors have are the maintaining of the building
or of the property in itself it has constantly been allowed to grow weeds as high as I don't
know what and that's on both the property on the front and alongside um presently he did show some
pictures but I don't recognize that as of today um there's a hole on the side of the building
where the door is and i feel that that is a safety problem also there were um debris excuse
the interruption but apparently the renovations haven't been completed he's in the process of
renovating the building okay now where were you showing the door where that that wood on the
bottom on the ground is not there it's a hole there and then they have buckets of debris in
the back of the building which will not be picked up by the city because of it being uh bricks and
stuff so we just have a problem with the maintenance of the building and the safety
may i may i address that uh briefly the board which you see right there is there right now
that's this photo was taken this morning uh as there was a uh complaint about the hole
so we did have it covered um the debris uh that you mentioned with the buckets that's right now
this is as of this morning they're gone okay all right i haven't been out this morning all right
thank you and mr mr elam just uh try to do your best to maintain it while you're going through
construction we understand it's part of the construction you know leaves behind some debris
but do your best, please, to maintain it while you're doing the renovations.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
I see no other hands as of now, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Chico. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no zoning change for this area.
however the proposed use of two dwelling units is similar with the previous use as one dwelling
unit and one commercial unit so the city planning commission would recommend that the board grant
the variance thank you mi 2021 that's 0007205301 euclid street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes you calendar number mi 2021 thank you welcome
dash zero zero zero six six four fifty six forty three musgrave street the attorney is
darlene threatt and she's still under oath from earlier this morning right
hi miss three that's coming back in as a panelist okay
Good morning, Commissioners. Darlene Threatt on behalf of the applicant.
Good morning, Commissioners.
Darlene Threat on behalf of the applicant.
Good morning, Ms. Threatt. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Good morning, Ms. Threat.
Can you put your name in?
Darlene Threatt, D-A-R-L-E-N-E, Threatt, T-H-T as in Thomas, H-R-E-A-T-T, 45 East City Avenue, number 496, Ballack-Hinwood, P-A-19004.
I think the chair square you in earlier. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet? Yes, you did. The exhibits were submitted Sunday afternoon. And can you again explain why?
Commissioners, my deed account with the city of Philadelphia didn't work. And you'll see in my original package that I have a really fuzzy deed in there because I couldn't print it.
Additionally, my client had an outstanding tax account with the Department of Revenue,
which we had to enter into an agreement, which I have sent to the board.
I apologize for that delay, and I respectfully request that we be allowed to proceed today.
Mr. Chair?
I think we did agree earlier to proceed, yes.
May I share my screen?
Yes, you may proceed.
Are you able to see it?
Commissioner, as I presented a package here today, which contains a number of exhibits, which I won't go through all of them.
I'll just name them.
I've submitted the zoning permit application or refusal appeal, the deed information, property information, zoning history, plans, pictures, community flyers, and a certificate of mailing.
Commissioners, under a separate submission, which is not contained here,
and I submitted the new deed, the tax agreement, as well as a letter from the RCO.
Commissioners, Mrs. Morgan has owned this property since 2004.
We recently applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to renovate this property into a two-family dwelling.
Commissioners, I have several exhibits. I won't go through all of them. I'll skip to the refusal.
We were refused because this is a RSA 5. The RSA 5 doesn't allow for a multifamily dwelling.
We're not asking for much of a variance. We're just asking for an additional dwelling.
I'm just trying to get to the plans here.
Commissioner, I did put some property information in here.
I'd like to show you that the development we're requesting is consistent with
development on Musgrave Street. 5629 Musgrave Street, we lost most of your testimony.
You said you wanted to show where it's something like it's consistent
with the rest of the block and then we lost you. Okay can you hear me now sir? Yes. Okay I just
wanted to show you that there are currently duplexes on Musgrave Street. This is from the
Zoning Archive 5629 Musgrave is currently a duplex in use as well as 5623 Musgrave is also
currently being used as a duplex on this block. Commissioners I have a copy of the plans for you
I'm just going to rotate them a bit here.
This is the site plan and the dimensions for 5643 Musgrave.
And my second sheet here will show you the layout of 5623 Musgrave.
Let me spin that around for you.
Basically it's a very simple use.
We don't plan to use the basement for anything.
The tenants will have access to the laundry here.
You can access it.
The first floor can access it from going down to the stairs in the basement.
There's also a rear access to the property which the laundry can be accessed.
The first floor, we intend to just put a one-bedroom apartment.
Basically, there's one bedroom here.
There's a dining room kitchen, and there's a living room area.
The approximate size of this one-bedroom apartment is 650 square feet.
The second floor is a two-bedroom apartment with pretty much the same makeup.
There's a bedroom in the front, living, kitchen room, dining area here, and a bedroom in the rear.
living kitchen and dining area here and a bedroom in the rear and this apartment is approximately
And this apartment is approximately...
750 square feet i have submitted several pictures for your viewing
here this is the posting and the signage and this is the property in question here
this is a better look we are the second house in currently this property here is
under renovation for a duplex as well, and this property is currently under renovation also.
We did have the opportunity to discuss the project with the tenants on the left who had
no objection and the tenant on the right also. This is a look. I just wanted to be able to show
you the length of the property. It's a fairly sizable property conducive to our development.
This is the rear of the property. There's an alley in the property and there's an alleyway here.
Most of the properties have rear parking in the back and there are several properties here that
actually has doors on the front and some of them which you really can't see have a little balcony
off the side. That's just another look down the property going north towards East Shelton.
that's an entire look at the musgrave street you'll see there's a dollar store on the corner
and there's a huge church on this other side of the property which takes up the whole entire block
there it's just a better look at the street going down musgrave there's the church on one side
There's a dollar store on the end, and the houses start right there.
Another look at the enormity of this property across the street.
That's the side street there, which is Woodland Street.
That's another view of Woodland Street going west.
That's the corner out on Shelton Avenue, which is the block that Musgrave is in between.
Again, this is at the end of the block, a picture on Shelton Avenue, the property's there.
Commissioners, we actually had two meetings with the Community Association.
I flyed the neighborhood personally one time, and I submitted them through the mail the second time.
Here's the proof of the mailing for our flyers that we sent out.
So we met with the community.
We do have a letter of support.
I can show it to you.
It's in a separate exhibit.
It will just give me a minute.
And they actually had no objections to our development of this property into a two-family dwelling.
With that, I'm willing to answer any questions that the...
Do you have a client that you'd like to adopt your testimony?
Yes, Ms. Morgan, are you on the line this afternoon?
i see no hands at this time chair so we'll stipulate you being an officer of court that
your client would have adopted your testimony any questions from the board no anyone else to testify
in this case please raise your hand and all others remain with your hand down here we have
mr charles richardson with his hand up you good morning mr richardson good morning mr chair
Please identify yourself and I'll swear you win.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, Room 312, City Hall.
You swear for I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Councilwoman has no opposition to granting this variance.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
thank you chair chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
members of the board comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing
single family zoning in this area we really just don't think the applicant
has supported a hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions
of the property of this location. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the
variance. MI-2021.
MI 2021-000718
I'm sorry, I read the wrong number
MI 2021-0006645643
Musgrave Street
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
My vote is yes
I believe that concludes the 930
listeners or have we missed anyone is there anyone who there was not acknowledged that should have
been i see no head at this time chair thank you thank you everyone talk to you at two o'clock
be back thank you thank you very much take care thank you where
you are live thank you uh and tanya uh or is yvette still going to be the administrator
yes chair yes chair we'll wait to hear from you when we're ready to go
we are ready to go you good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair of the
zoning board of adjustment i'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair
Ms. Carlton Airy, 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. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and to also understand that the recording will be made available to the public
on the web or otherwise. For anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise
your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat for anyone
participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star nine
and then star six to unmute yourself finally to enter an appearance statement call google
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
i'll repeat that to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue i would also like to remind everyone please do not
attempt to testify in the chat any conversations you'd like to have should be addressed to our
court administrator miss event benton uh having said that i will read a list of requests for
continue continuances on the two o'clock list number six mi 2021-001198 3601 north 5th street
and i believe uh we now have had a third party who has expressed an interest i believe it's
Councilman Jones, his office is requesting a continuance for MI 2021-000-336-4401 Ridge Avenue.
At this time, I would ask anyone, oh, I missed a couple, I'm sorry.
Number nine on our list, MI 2021-000319, 6134-46 Wayne Avenue, and number 12 on our list, MI 2021-001, 224-708 Sansom Street.
If anyone disagrees with the request for those continuance, please raise your hand at this time or others keep your hand down.
This is only for those who may have a disagreement with a request for continuance on the cases I just read.
Here we have Sean Whelan with his hand up.
Mr. Whelan, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good afternoon, Mr. Whelan.
Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
uh yes this is sean whalen i don't see um any way to authorize my video right now
but uh sean whalen from vintage law uh 6 colter avenue
uh ardmore pa suite 1000 ardmore pa 19003 i am here please spell your full name and i yes
oh oh three i am here please spell your full name uh yes sean s-e-a-n last name whalen w-h-a-l-e-n
you swear i'm firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed all right i i am here representing the applicant for
4401 ridge avenue mi 2021 000336 this matter was i think your chairman you just mentioned that this
had a requested continuance from councilman jones
um i believe that this follows up on a call that the councilman's office had
sort of moderated for the the councilman's office pha pha is the current owner of the property under
an agreement of sale with my client the equitable owner um excuse me this is sharon could we also
call mr bonnie so that he could participate in this yeah and i'd like to if anyone from
the councilman's office is on as well uh would you like me to hold until mr bonnie and the
yes please okay
mr bonnie you can unmute yourself and speak now please identify yourself spell your full name and
i'll swear you in good morning my name is paul bonnie p-a-u-l-b-o-n-i and my address is 325
chestnut street suite 1109 philadelphia 19106 we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed i'm sorry chair i did um unmute joshua
cohen as well okay mr cohen well let's hear from mr bonnie then we'll go to mr cohen
well first of all i'm trying to get my video on but uh i guess as long as no one has no one has
access to videos only audio at this time okay thank you yeah uh chairman just as a matter of
point do you want me to complete my objection to the continuance or do you want to go to mr
yeah yeah i guess you can you can do that and then we'll go to mr bonnie and mr cohen
okay so it is my understanding that um you know the uh as i was saying the equitable owner of
this property uh atapco and pha the owner the current owner of the property and the councilman's
office and certain members of the RCO, which I now understand Mr. Bonney represents, and he can
testify to his own client's desires or wishes. We, moderated by the councilman, I guess maybe
two weeks ago, held a call sort of in follow-up. We've been dealing with this case for over a year
and had multiple meetings and really concluded the RCO process, but we had a final call to see
if we could reach agreement. On that call, my client was pressed to agree to a continuance
and to agree to a final meeting with the full community, all the RCOs, the Development Corporation,
and anyone from the neighborhood who would appear. We agreed to have that meeting. That meeting is
currently scheduled for June 22nd. And my understanding is Mr. Bonney can provide
testimony to this, but my understanding is that's being notified by his client to all the participants.
Unfortunately, the other condition that we placed upon because we didn't know, and obviously we're
under an agreement of sale, a written contract for the property, is at the time of the call,
we couldn't agree to a continuance of this hearing in full without, you know, our attorneys
and PHA's attorneys agreeing to some kind of purchase agreement amendment with PHA to contractually
address the continuance and what that would do to the existing purchase agreement. As of this date,
we do not have anything approved from PHA's counsel. And so therefore, you know, contractually
we have to proceed and would object to any continuance on the basis that, again, this
project's been going for over a year. We've had six public meetings, three of them with the RCO
that Mr. Bonney represents, one of them with a separate RCO in the neighborhood, and two of them
with a development corporation. And, you know, at this time, you know, we will proceed and work
in good faith with the community on the 22nd
to see if we can, you know,
resolve any of the outstanding issues that are around.
But the final contingency of that agreement
to consider and a continuance for today
was the provision from,
was the provision from there's been some miscommunication from both sides, then
there's been some miscommunication from both sides
and there was an agreement.
there was an agreement that the RCO would present us with an itemized list in priority fashion of
what they wanted answered. And, you know, there's an understanding from the RCO that
its concerns were not being met, although we continued to have meetings. So based on that,
we agreed that if they provided us that, we would answer, you know, whatever questions and concerns
they had very specifically, number one, number two, number three. At this point in time, just a
couple days ago, they stated that they are refusing to provide that list. So at this time, the
concerns presented to us have nothing to do with the refusal. There's a single refusal remaining
for this project. It's a steep slope issue. And there's no question that none of the questions
or concerns raised over the last year have been related to steep slope and we would respectfully
request that we be able to proceed in line with our contractual agreement with PHA and at least
be able to present our case today. Mr. Bonney. Thank you. So first of all, I was just retained
this morning. Well, I've had a few days to talk to the client before this morning as I was
evaluating the case and whether I wanted to take it or not I was just retained this morning and I
do not have you know sufficient understanding of the case and the issues and the meeting on
later this month that Mr. Whelan alluded to is necessary because the first meeting with the RCO
though, we believe that the letter notification was not sufficient, that it did not reach
everybody within 250 feet. And we have a witness and an exhibit who can testify to that if
necessary. So we really would dispute that the RCO process has concluded. We also believe that
the property has not been posted adequately for purposes of today's hearing. My understanding is
the client that the RCO emailed Ms. Sunkit and Ms. Suleta maybe yesterday I don't know if they
got that or asking that an inspector be sent out to confirm the lack of posting but we do have
a number of photos all along the frontages of this property and it's pretty clear that the
posting is woefully insufficient so I think on that basis of loan the case has to be
I don't really, you know, I think the case has to be postponed due to lack of posting.
My understanding is that while the applicant has provided the exhibits five days in advance,
that it has not provided the witness list five days in advance, which I think is another,
you know, violation of the rules and warrants continuance.
um and you know i i could go on and on and i i will if i need to but i i really feel that this
is you know for all those reasons some of which are i think pretty mandatory according to the
rules that you know public notice and witness list you know okay you know i just think that
this case should be postponed um i i'd like to you know i can get into more detail about some
these things and I'd like to show the exhibits the photographs of the lack of posting because
I think that alone should should resolve this issue. Well let's let's hear from Mr. Cohen.
I don't want to get into all the details because then we're hearing the case and
we haven't the board hasn't made a decision yet on yeah no he's referring to the posting yeah I
do have one question though for you uh you've been retained by is it the coordinating RCO?
Yes, it's the East Falls Community Council. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen, please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Josh Cohen on behalf of Councilmember Curtis Jones Jr.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, our office, Councilman Jones, is requesting a continuance
for this hearing, not only for the reasons that the East Falls Community Council's attorneys
have just outlaid, but because we believe that the East Falls Community Council
is not prepared to move forward with the case today. I know I've been in touch with both the
East Falls Community Council, the attorney for the applicant, as well as PHA. We did meet
the attorney for the applicant, as well as PHA.
We did meet two weeks ago.
We had a pretty robust meeting.
Everybody agreed to the community meeting.
We were hopeful that this case could happen after that community meeting.
I don't believe it's fair that the applicant should be able to put on their testimony today
and not the East Falls Community Council
or any other neighbor or interested party
who wish to testify.
So I think one of the concerns was that
if this case was continued,
the next available continued date
wouldn't be till November.
So we're hoping maybe we can get an expedited
continued date for after that community meeting
and maybe July or August.
And then the applicant and PHA
would still be in agreement
with their uh there would be no uh uh issue with their uh sale of agreement
yeah i i i know we had a uh off line conversation about uh potentially uh or the request to have a
more uh hearing scheduled more closely to this date than november uh i don't think that is doable
and I don't want to put the onus
on Ms. Sunkit
but since there is going to be
a proposal
to have a meeting on June
would you
suggest
and I know we said we're getting
away from resumption hearing but maybe
to do a resumption hearing
Chairman this is Sean Whalen again
we would be willing
to do a resumption hearing and present our full case and allow all the so there are two letters
of support also to allow the support and you know whatever position efcc and the councilman's office
take uh following the june 22nd meeting um to the extent that we could present all of that at once
that would be fine if we could do that we would certainly agree to that at any point in time in
july um but as i think you can understand we can't agree to a to accept a november date and just as
far as um you know mr bonnie raised some very serious issues um i think frankly they're a little
incredible here and i i understand why let's not let's not debate that at the moment right i'm
trying to see if we can figure out a way in which we could uh do our best to accommodate all parties
here. Hi, Chair. This is Tanya. Yes. I could put this on August 17th at 930 if we would wish to
continue it or do a resumption. It's your call. When does that date again? August? It would be
Tuesday, August 17th at 930 a.m. All right. It's not July, but it's not November. So I think we
can agree, the board would agree that we can resume this case on August the 17th at 9 30 a.m.
Chair, excuse me, this is Sharon. If Ms. Sunkett is willing to put this on as either a resumption
or a continuance, and since the RCO would prefer that it be heard together, maybe a continuance
instead, if that would be acceptable to the board. Either way, it works, correct, Tanya?
August 17th?
Yes, Chair.
Yes, Chair.
All right. MI 2021-000336 4401 Ridge Avenue is continued to August 17th at 9.30 a.m.
Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman.
All right.
Anyone else have any concern about continuance cases that have been read into the record?
If not, I will ask at this time, is there anyone who would like to request a continuance or withdrawal?
Please raise your hand.
Only if you are asking for a continuance or withdrawal.
Chair, I have Ronald Patterson with his hand up.
Mr. Patterson, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Patterson, are you here about 708 Sansom?
I am, Mr. Chairman.
You have it down.
You may not have heard, but you already continued that.
No, I did.
I wanted to clarify my request.
Okay, now put your name and I'll swear you in there.
Ronald Patterson, Claire Harrison, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, EPA, 19103.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
So this application regards the Jewelers Road Project.
Correct.
And the refusal pertained to an ADA van accessible space that we were approved for on site that
that we were approved for on site that we wish to remove and that was the subject of the variance.
we wished to remove.
And that was the subject of the van.
After meeting with Wash West Civic Association and understanding the implications of it in terms
of the building code and accessibility issues we came up with we believe an alternative which was
to provide the parking space which is very hard to do because of the van height at an off-site
location which we're allowed to do up to a thousand feet but this one's about 1200 so
So it would eliminate the ADA refusal, but cause a refusal for greater than 1,000 feet.
So we were hoping that we could get leave to ask Al and I to revise the refusal and come back on this appeal when it was rescheduled.
Do you have any comments about that, Sharon?
No, you would just submit the letter to Ms. Sunkett detailing the change and asking her to
give you an authorization letter to submit an amended application. Okay, I believe it's included
in my letter, but I'll send it. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone
else requesting a continuance or withdrawal on the two o'clock list, please raise your hand.
here we have someone from the strawberry mansion community organization with their hand up
thank you whoever that person is please can you hear me yes please identify yourself
hello first and last name spell your last name i'll swear you in my name is bonita cummings
Director, Strawberry Mansion Community Concern. My last name is spelled C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
What case are you testifying on?
2535 West Lehigh. There's not clarity as to whether or not this location really is even
on this calendar. We were told today there was a hearing, but on the appeals calendar,
we were not able to find this. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's not on our list today. Correct,
Tanya? Yes. It's because it's a resumption hearing. It's number one on the add-ons.
Resumption meaning from something that started, which we never had a hearing on this at all. So
I'm not sure how resumption is being used. Sorry, I missed that. What street is this?
36.01? 2535 West Lehigh Avenue. Perhaps we could call Mr.
Nockamson. I have that it was originally heard on April 28th.
Am I missing something Sharon? I don't see it on the add-on. It's the two o'clock add-on number one.
good afternoon members of the board my name is alan knockamson pc
yeah you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do now i'm pleased by your last name for the record i'll do both first name alan a l a n
Last name, Nockamson, and it's Anansi, O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
And I apologize, I had the wrong sheet in front of me, so please proceed.
As Ms. Saletta stated, we did have a hearing previously on this matter, and we agreed to have a resumption hearing because the community meeting did not take place at the time of the original hearing, and we did have the community meeting.
and we're prepared to proceed forward.
Okay, we will hear that case.
Just let me get through the withdrawal request
and then we'll come back to you.
All right, thank you.
Anyone requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
Chair, we have a call-in user.
Call-in user, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Will the call-in user please identify yourself?
Anyone else?
Yvette?
Hello?
Hello?
technical hello can you hear me okay yes we can you please give us your name and i'll swear you
in okay this is adrian fernandez swamp little neighborhood process association rco
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
You're here regarding what case?
2535 West Lehigh Avenue.
We're going to go forward with that case.
I said we're going to call that as soon as we're done with the continuance list.
I just, I did want to state also that the property was never posted.
We'll get into that.
With all due respect, Agent, we'll get into that when we call the case up.
There are no other heads up at this time, Chair.
All right.
Carol, correct me if I'm wrong.
I think that's the first case, right?
MI 2020-003159, 2535 West Lehigh Avenue.
Mr. Notkinson.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
so this case was resumed on uh from april 28th till today and i believe the board was uh
did a resumption hearing only to hear feedback from the rco
is that accurate mr notkinson that is correct uh mr chair please proceed
Yes, again, my name is Alan Ockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
We did have a...
Alan, I'm going to swear you in only because it's a new date.
You swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
May I share my screen?
so as I indicated we previously had a hearing on this matter the board heard the merits of
the appeal and actually the city planning commission recommended the approving of the
approval of the variance request and I'll just quickly go through the material so you'll get
familiar again with you know what we're trying to do here we're 2535 Wesley High Street so
So in my packet of materials, it's the deed to the property, certificate of tax clearance,
notice refusal, application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the property and
the surrounding area, plans and drawings, and we do not have correspondence from Strawberry
Mansion Community Concern, but we did meet with them.
D to the property, showing that All A's Investments LLC owns the property, showing that we owe
no money as to the property.
The notice of refusal, we're a CMX1 property.
All we're trying to do is keep the existing barbershop on the first floor and to have
two residential units above.
Again, this is a CMX1 property.
essentially we're asking for one additional residential unit. It's not uncommon for most
of these properties on a 2500 block to have multiple residential units as you can see from
2500, 06, 28, 32, 34, 40, 41, 42, 46, and 48. Here's our application for appeal. One with the
project information form. Maps of the area. Again, we're on a commercial corridor. We're
trying to appropriately increase the density to help support that commercial corridor.
Pictures of the property. Again, you see it's a pre-existing structure. To the right of
the property, to the left of the property, and then plans and drawings. Let's go. Reduce
size a little bit. Again, as you know, there is no like basement living here because obviously
you have the commercial component on the first floor and then the residential on the second
and third floors, which each unit having its own floor. And again, we did meet with the
Strawberry Mansion organization. We met with them a few days ago. My understanding, and Clementa
Amazon's on the line as well, but she's the one to make the presentation. They had no concerns
about the proposed usage. The only concern that they had was non-zoning related matters, like
what the facade may look like and if there would be any improvements, which my client plans to do.
And just during the construction or the renovation of the upper floors, which needs substantial renovation because it's going to be a gut job, like just about structural integrity and things like that.
like just about structural integrity and things like that and we stated obviously
And we stated obviously that.
that's the next phase of the process where assuming we do get a zoning permit we would
have to apply for a building permit and there would be certain requirements of LNI and otherwise
so with that being said I would feel free to take any questions from the board
thank you any questions from the board for mr knockinson no no
oh one thing and the reason why we didn't post is because we didn't get any orange posters
because this was a reception hearing
anyone would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
only if you're testifying on 2535 West Allegheny here we have somebody from the
Strawberry Mansion community with their hand up you representative from Strawberry Mansion
please identify yourself Bonita Cummings director Strawberry Mansion hello hello can you hear me
now I can please identify yourself spell your first and last name is Bonita B-O-N-I-T-A
cummings c-u-m-m-i-n-g-s okay i swore you in earlier yes please proceed
this this property was i'm not really sure how we got to a resumption hearing to my knowledge
there was a request for continuance we were told that the continuance um was for um june the 9th
which is today from the attorney and then it never made the calendar so I'm not I'm not really
understanding how we got to a resumption here we were on the call on the 28th that decision was
made on the 28th yeah but I'm not I don't remember being I don't remember that but either way the
property was we have been out to this property as store-based mansion community concerned
on several visits one being uh tuesday and then the other one being prior to even the 28th where
the property has really never been posted for the uh for the zoning matter so our visit on tuesday
um was concerning what we thought was an excessive use um of trying to put a second and third floor
use in that property. So the use is excessive. You would have to create a pathway for the
third floor resident, which would decrease the space for the second floor resident. And
it's just an overuse of the property. I believe it's a buy right that's being proposed. If
anybody has any disagreement with that please speak up. Well it's multi-family RSA to my
understanding. This is a CMX1 property. This is not an RSA5. The first floor may have that use
but the multi-family use is for the second and third floor. We understand that ma'am but again
And it's a by right, meaning it's not an RSA 5, which would be single family.
Zoning classification allows for what is being proposed.
I mean, multifamily is what I meant.
You're right.
They're trying to utilize multifamily.
And what we're saying is that the multifamily aspect of this property is for a second floor and a third floor.
And that use would be excessive for that property.
If they wanted to use it as a one apartment, maybe with a bi-level for that second floor unit, that is more useful than trying to put two families on top of each other in that space.
Bi-level would probably provide the same number of bedrooms that you would have if you just did one apartment on the second and one on the third.
But you have to make way for the families to get to the third floor.
Well, that's up to the owner of the property.
We'll have to make those interior improvements to allow that to happen.
Again, it is a buy right for multifamily.
Anyone else would like to testify?
Please raise your hand.
Here, we have Clemente Amazon.
Ms. Amazon, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good afternoon, Ms. Amazon.
Please spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board. Clementa Amazon. First name is C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A. Last name Amazon, A-M-A-Z-A-N. And the address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600.
I'm sorry.
The address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
I would just like to highlight that I did present this project during the community meeting,
and based off of my conversation with Ms. Cummings, her concern was primarily with the
facade of the building and the renovations that would be done. It was not my understanding as
she had concerns regarding the use. I would also like to point out that the third floor
is a studio unit and it is shorter than the rest of the property so we are using it responsibly.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Here we have a call-in user with their hand up. Caller please unmute yourself and speak now.
hello hello can you hear me yes we can adrian yes we can okay you've been sworn in so please
proceed okay i'll put my name on the record it's adrian fernandez f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z
you're breaking up you're breaking up
Adrian's having some technical issues is there anyone else
there are no other hands at this time chair
we'll just give Adrian one more shot and see if we can get her on
If not, we'll have to move on.
Adrienne, are you there?
Okay, sure, you can continue.
Yes, thank you.
Planning Commissioner.
good afternoon mr chairman david fecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do mr chairman members of the board i believe we already did give our testimony but
we will give it again. So the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential
multifamily use. We recommend that the board support the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-0031592535 West Allegheny Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Excuse me. It is, I believe, Lehigh Avenue.
What did I say?
it's two o'clock all right mi2020-0031592535 west lehigh avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes also my vote is my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you
Thank you. MI 2021-000-592-900 Greenwood Street. This is a resumption hearing.
Councilman Squilla remains strongly opposed. However, if there is a vote of yes,
with proviso, maximum six units. I'm only putting that on the record. And there's also a letter of
opposition from passing square civic association excuse me chair i'm sorry to interrupt but after
you have heard this case there is an additional add-on that is not on your list i will send that
okay mr pertell he's coming back in as a panelist chair
good afternoon mr chair members of the board how are you this afternoon
Well, please identify yourself, and I'll square you in.
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L,
Claire Harrison, Harvey in Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street,
Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you very much. I'll just start sharing my screen.
Okay, as was stated, my name is Steve Bertil. I'm here on behalf of the owners and applicants
of 900 Greenwich Avenue. This is a resumption hearing just to
This is a resumption hearing, just to refresh the board's memory, I'll give a brief procedural
background. We appeared before the board on April 21st. Prior to that, we had a community
meeting with Pass Young Civic on March 9th. At that meeting, the opposition that we heard
to the property the overwhelming concern um was the amount of density we were proposing um and
then the issues the sort of uh branch issues offer that which is traffic trash um and parking that
sort of comes along with any concern with density um at that time um we believed and we were
proposing to the group and then subsequently to the board that although um we are seeking to
increase the density that we believe that the buy right option on the property was actually a higher
impact than the proposed variance of the eight units. Originally, we were seeking a variance
for eight units to remove the commercial space on the existing structure and to house within that
envelope and the two-story addition. But this on the screen here, as you can see, this is the
existing building. It's currently an auto body shop, one story, or I guess one and a half stories
auto body shop. And we were seeking to put a two-story addition on there and to reuse the
first floor as residential in conjunction with the residential that would be in the additional
stores. At that time, when we reached the board, we made that presentation. As expected, the community
group voiced their opposition regarding their density, and there was a discussion regarding
alternative schemes, and essentially the community group didn't agree with our perception of the
type of impact that would have versus the by right use. So at that time, the board agreed to
allow us to go back and see if we can change the scheme of our proposed plan in conjunction with
the fact that the Planning Commission did testify at that time that they didn't have a problem with
removing the commercial space on the ground floor, but they did have think that the eight units was
too much. So we went back to the drone board and we were able to come up with a scheme that reduced
the proposed units by 25% to six units and also include interior trash storage, which we would
agree to do both as provisos today as a maximum of six units and to maintain interior trash storage
space, designated interior trash storage space. And we believe that this scheme addresses
the issues that were, at least at the time, were told to us was the most important issue,
which was density. So in addition to those two changes, there was another change that was made
to the zoning code that actually changed our buy-write amount from three units above the
garage to four units. So the zoning bill 2100, I guess I should say 21007-A, which was passed
at the end of April, changed section 146024A2, which determines the calculation restrictions
for the density on CMX2 lots, essentially simplifying it to 480 square feet per unit.
In this designation, Mr. Chair, as I'm sure you're aware, on the proposed bills, anything
within the curve brackets is being deleted. Just for those who might not be aware, anything
within the curve brackets are being deleted, is being deleted, and everything that's italicized
is being added. So per the change of the code, the new language of the section states in the CMX2
district, and you have to jump down to the other side of the bracket, a minimum of 480 square feet
of lot area is required per dwelling unit, provided that whenever the calculation of a
permitted number of dwelling units results in a fraction, you round down, basically. So in our case,
our property is 1,954.88 square feet.
um square feet if you apply this um this this new calculation under the code or by right
If you apply this new calculation.
um unit count is four units um above the in above the existing auto body garage now um
we in conjunction with this and in conjunction with the reduction of our density
actually let me so you can see the the calculation was made in the zoning plan before that law change
You can see here in our zoning plan, this is the calculation I just stated, 1,954 square
feet, 0.88, but round down to just 1,954.
In conjunction with this new allowable by right density and our reduction to six units,
essentially what we're asking the board at this time is to allow us to swap out the ground floor
commercial garage for two one-bedroom units on the ground floor. As you can see, this is the new
sort of floor plan that we put together for the six units, where it's essentially two units per
floor. The second and third floor are by right, and really the variance that we're only seeking
here is for the ground floor. The presentation that we made to the board back in April,
we highlighted that we felt like removing that double-wide garage puts two parking spots back
on the street. Removing the traffic, that daily customer traffic that comes with the auto body
shop is a positive. We believe all those things are still in existence and they're in fact heightened
by the fact that we're reducing the density from eight units to six units and we could have four
by right. So we're talking about a two-unit variance on the ground floor where the commercial
space is. Now, considering all this, we were optimistic that going back into the community
group that they would see the, you know, we took a serious look at their concerns regarding
density and tried to address that in a way that was a good compromise. We, after the
after the hearing on April 21st, our meeting, our resumption hearing was originally scheduled for
June 2nd. And at that time, when we were trying to get the revised floor plans put together,
and in my constant communication with the RCO, Ms. Suzanne Trevani, we realized that their
June meeting date wasn't until June 8th, and therefore we couldn't meet on June 2nd. So
this board graciously agreed to let us move it back a week so we can attend that meeting
that was last night. To our surprise, once we went back to the meeting and I was presenting
our changes, the very first question that I received from the board was, well, why didn't
you use the affordable housing bonus to get the density. Now, as you would imagine, this
surprised me because at the last meeting, you know, we thought a reduction of density
was, you know, the most important thing. But last night, you know, I was constantly being
asked, why aren't you trying to achieve this density a different way instead of achieving
it through the variance? Now, there's some clear answers to that. One, we would still
need a variance even if we donated to the affordable housing fund to get additional
density because we were proposing the removal of the commercial space. That doesn't get
solved by submitting, by paying into the affordable housing trust fund for the city. In addition
to that, donating to that fund doesn't directly impact this neighborhood where we feel as
the changes that we made from our original proposal to this new proposal does in a positive
way. I followed up those questions with a question of my own, which was, well, if we
were achieving this density with the affordable housing bonus, would you support this project?
And I received one of two answers, one of which was, I'm not saying, we're not saying that.
And the other one was, you know, just frankly, and I appreciate the frank answer, was no from some attendees.
And so, you know, I believe that's sort of a red herring.
At this point, I do believe we took a serious look and seriously considered their density concerns and addressed it.
We took a look at their trash concerns and agreed to a proviso of maintaining interior trash storage.
Last night, there was a comment regarding having bike storage, and we agreed last night that we would even agree to it as a proviso.
that we would even agree to it as a proviso. I don't know if the board would agree that they
I don't know if the board would agree that they can...
can enforce that, but if the board does, we would agree to it for maintaining interior bike storage
as well. And because of that, we believe that we've addressed, we tried to address the density,
the variance is de minimis in nature, and we are frankly removing a commercial space that's just
just not within the context of the neighborhood. If the board remembers, let me go back to
most of the commercial spaces are on the corner and most of the CMX2 or CMX1 designations
are on the corner. And here, we just believe ground floor residential just makes more sense.
There was some talk at the last meeting, if you remember, Mr. Chair, about possibly doing parking on the first floor instead of residential.
We did look into that. We did talk to L&I about that.
And that's not something that we can do without having to start the process over because that would create a new variant, excuse me, a new refusal.
And so therefore, that was an option.
we would essentially have to start from scratch to even look at that option.
So we believe that, and we thought this was a good compromise, the reduction of the units
and addressing the trash, but, you know, that didn't seem to be something that was really a
consideration. The two, the bulk of the meeting was essentially why we didn't use affordable
housing to attain this bonus and disputing whether we could actually get four units by right.
I informed them that I talked to LNI before we came to that meeting that I wouldn't just make
that statement, you know, just on my own accord. I talked to LNI after the bill was passed and
asked them to assess whether this would be four units by right and they confirmed. So it's not
my interpretation. It's the department's interpretation that this does provide us
with four units by right. But, you know, that wasn't something that attendees was willing to
accept. That aside, even if we were still stuck with the three units by right, I do believe
that the six units that we're proposing, adding an additional 200 square feet to each of the
individual units, I'm sorry, we're adding an additional 200 square feet to each of the units
with an average of about 600 square feet per unit,
where prior to there were about 400 square feet,
addresses some concerns about the size,
addresses concerns about the density,
and addresses concerns about the traffic and the trash.
So as such, because the rest of the comments
that we received either weren't zoning issues
or it was something that was just a confusion,
For example, the existing site, the existing property run covers 100 square feet of the property.
There was questions regarding the rear, actually this will show it better, regarding the addition
and whether that would also cover 100% of the lot area and the way that affects the neighboring yards,
whether that is in fact not the case.
we're actually set back 12 feet from the rear property line and set back six feet from the
adjacent property line of the single family homes. And so therefore we're meeting the open area
requirement and we're meeting the setback requirements to the rear of the property,
even though this is an addition on top of the business structure. And as such,
we certainly believe that this plan that we're proposing now with the changes that address the
the concerns that were prevalent at our initial meeting um and prevalent at the board um and from
the planning commission we we respectfully ask for this board to um approve the variance with
the provisos that will keep it um at six units um that we will maintain interior trash and bike
storage mr bertel could you would show i can't see it on the on your diagram here the drawings
rather where's the trash to be stored i'm sorry let me zoom in
so this rear space is about can you can you see this i'm not can you see the
this rear space here which was originally um mechanic just designated for mechanical or wasn't
all the way there in the first place um we this space here is for uh trash storage
that outside is that covered the trash no that's that's inside the building
Is that outside? Or is that covered, the trash?
No, that's inside the building.
Okay. How does, where do people, how does everyone access that?
How would everyone?
This is the hallway. This is the first floor here.
Actually, just to clarify, only the first floor goes all the way back to 100% of the lot area.
This is the roof. This is the first floor roof. And this is the first floor roof.
So everything you see here is inside, inside on the first floor.
And so this is the ramp from the front of the building, so this is the main entrance, and it would just be accessed by the hallway.
So the upper floors would have access to that trash area?
That's the main entrance where you're showing now, and those stairs that you're showing, they would take you up to the upper units?
That's correct.
This is the stairwell that goes up to the second and third floor.
How big is that trash area?
What's the size?
So the entire, so this is set back about 12 feet.
And from, let me see.
This is about 30 feet from, oh, here it is, 27 feet and nine inches and full length.
So we're talking about 18 feet width when you go in and about a six foot depth.
So 18 feet by 6 feet?
Or 18 and a half feet by 6 feet?
And one other thing, unless I missed that, I was confused.
When we first had this hearing, by right was originally 8 units, you said?
No, no.
If it, by right was 3 units originally.
Then we went, you went to 8, and that was unacceptable, right?
we were we were originally seeking eight for the variance because by so by right was three units
above when we maintained the uh the garage on the first level we could put three units above it by
right um we were seeking eight units um to remove the garage put two units on the first floor and
then three units on the second and three units on the third we revised that um instead of seeking
eight we're seeking six and we're taking off a unit on each floor but but i thought i heard you
maybe i misunderstood i thought i heard you identify those six units as and then four units
as by right so four units so since the law changed in april we no longer only get three
units by right we get four units by right per the calculation under cmx it's so total for the
building correct no four units on top of the garage top and then the other two units that
brings you to six will be on the ground floor where the garage currently is that's correct
so the buy right scheme would be the garage on the ground floor two units on the second floor
two units on the third floor okay or however they decide to configure it they can get four units
on the top so it's a buy right of four units uh and the first floor would be the bonus of two
units if if the board were to approve okay that's correct all right just wanted to make sure i heard
that correctly all right um do you need to have your rep client adopt your testimony uh yes with
me i have um representatives from the vicarial family fred and steve fred or steve if one of
can raise your hands and adopt my testimony um that would be great and what i like to reserve
time you know to answer any questions that the board may have or we're sure i'm sure
fred could you raise your hand
mr bakari you've been unmuted and you can speak now
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name. I'll swear you in.
Fred Vicario, F-R-E-D, V like Victor, I-C-A-R-I-O.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Mr. Bertil.
Fred, did you hear the testimony that I just provided to the board this afternoon?
would you affirm the truth of the testimony and um adopt it as your own absolutely
thank you very much questions from the board no no i do have a question for mr vicaro how many
vehicles are you able to uh store in that garage currently um what you know when i was operating
Um, what, you know, when I was operating body shop, we probably had one, two, three, maybe six, something like that.
body shop.
And was the configuration of the parking, did you have to jockey the cars or was it, could you pull in four cars as an example and not have to pull, take any cars out to, to.
Yeah, well, you always had to do some jockeying.
With six cars.
yeah because depending on where they were and what's around there's you know yeah well yeah
you you had you had mechanical equipment and right right okay so you always had a jockey
all right all right uh anyone else would like to testify in this case 900 greenwich if so please
raise your hand only those who want to testify in this case all others please put your hand down
until the appropriate time. Here we have Suzanne Tavani. Ms. Tavani you can unmute yourself and speak.
Thank you Yvette. Hi again Ms. Tavani good afternoon. Please spell your full name and I'll
swear you in. Thank you Suzanne S-U-Z-A-N-N-E Tavani T-A-V-A-N-I. Do you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you please proceed. Thank you Mr. Chairman
Thank you, Board. The Passion Square Civic Association remains in opposition to this project
for obviously all the reasons we previously stated having to do with density and massing of the
property. Some of these comments were shared last night by other neighbors, including the Board of
the Zoning Committee, the Civic Association. And I'd like to address Mr. Vertil's, I guess,
uh, query as to why some members of the zoning committee were inquiring about why not just
take advantage of the, um, the bonus to get, to get the number of units that they want.
That would provide a benefit to the area in the form of affordable housing, which is greatly
lacking and I feel that those members of the zoning committee last night were almost like
it was almost like a gimme like okay here are the answers to the test you could pass it but
no one was was really hearing that having said that this is a building that we don't believe
is appropriate for that very residential block in an increasingly residential neighborhood
and adjacent to a property that also already has multiple units. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, if I could just clarify one thing. The donation into the affordable housing fund
would not benefit this neighborhood specifically. That's not how the donations into the
um affordable housing trust fund works um it goes into a pot that's earmarked for the entire city
and then the you know planning department in conjunction with their various partners um decides
how to allocate it it could it could be it could be utilized anywhere um and so there that would
not increase affordable housing in this neighborhood that's that's just not how it works
thank you anyone else to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon david fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
you previously sent a recommendation of opposed uh to for this project and we're going to recommend
based on the density that you oppose the proposal. Again, and I will note for the record with the
mixed income housing bonus, an applicant does have the ability to provide those units on site. They
don't have to pay into the trust fund and have that money migrate to other areas. Thank you.
Thank you for that clarity. MI 2021-000592900 Greenwich Street. My vote is yes with a proviso.
My vote is no. My vote is yes with proviso.
My vote is yes with proviso.
do we now go on to the regular list um chair excuse me before you move on to the next case
um chair excuse me before you move on to the next case um what was the second proviso it was maximum
um what was the second provider
six units inside and i texted you the mi number and address for the third add-on yep i'm going
to call that up now. MI2021-00114748 West Upsall Street. And I'm looking at my notes. It was
scheduled last week. So we're calling that up now, correct? Yes, I just promoted Connor to panelists.
so that's not listed on our list right it was a uh it was an error and it wasn't put on the
add-on it isn't it's it's an add-on okay been all over anyone here for 48 west upsell
Connor are you there
let's see
there's a Timothy Nipper with his hand raised
there's Connor McInerney who I think is there and Timothy Nipper
okay so who is the um owner of the property good afternoon everyone my name is tim nipper
i'll spell that out t-i-n last name k-n-i-p-p-e-r i'm the owner of 48 west upsell street
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So we hear about a fence and I'm looking for a variance.
I'd like to defer to my design consultant and project manager to sort of walk through the
documentation. If you'd like to switch back over to have Connor McIntyre share his screen and speak.
Mr. Nipper, was this a resumption hearing based on we didn't have enough drawings or whatever of the property?
Excuse me, this is Sharon. It's not a resumption hearing.
It's actually a continuance.
Tanya rescheduled it for this week because we mistakenly believed that exhibits had not been submitted.
They actually just went to the wrong address.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Thank you.
Okay, who will be testifying? Mr. Nipper?
i'd like to pass it over to connor if that's possible and he's got any specific questions
for me well you're the you're the owner you're the applicant you need to testify if we need
any other information we can go to connor okay you have any exhibits you can share with us
sure um i can show you uh let's see is there and excuse pardon the interruption carol
I think you need to ask him the questions, right?
And we'll go from there.
You're muted, Carol.
The dog is barking.
Could your name and address on the record
that's by your last name, please?
Last name is K-N-I-P-P-E-R.
It's Timothy Nipper for 48 West Upsall Street.
Do you swear for him 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?
He did.
Yes, he's been sworn.
I'm not hearing him.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Thank you.
You may proceed.
I have a picture of a before and after here.
um not uh share screen let's see
do you uh let's see i'm i'm just oh it's apologies for the uh i'm not it's not letting me share my
screen. So do you have the exhibits that I've sent to you? Because we provided a before and
after picture. I don't know that it's not as involved as the other cases I've been listening
to. It's a matter of offense. It was not 50% opaque. We met with the community, registered
community organization they provided their uh anonymous rather unanimous support
they provided their uh anonymous rather unanimous support of it um so there was any if anything
there was just a lack of clarity of what necessarily triggered it um the the violation
in the first place so um hey tim this is connor i i can pull up the documents and present my
screen if you'd like i know that would be helpful yes thank you okay yeah
Sorry, okay, just give me a second, all right, just give me a second, all right,
Okay, can everyone see my screen?
So yeah, we started this project.
I'm sorry, who's speaking please?
This is Connor McInerney.
I'm a design professional working with a client, Kim Nipper.
nippers needs to testify and you can just scroll down as he describes what he's asking
so yeah we we started this project about a year ago you know kind of during the
no sir mr the other person needs to testify
mr nipper sure yeah okay sorry i took an admit
Connor could scroll down as you speak.
Thank you.
Perfect.
Thank you so much.
We don't need to be difficult, but those are the rules and regulations you have to find.
Fair enough.
And thank you for your patience.
This is our first time at the ZBA meeting.
So we're just, thanks for educating us.
If you want to scroll down, Connor, for the reason of refusal, this just shows that
maybe maybe connor's having uh trouble uh um but you know just you know what to do uh
just tell us what the refusal was and then if you could just show us some uh
imagery yeah thank you because i don't think it says um should i read it uh no we're looking at
now no more than 50 percent shall be no more than four feet in height etc okay uh the board
have any questions about that refusal no we'll get into what he's proposing thank you let's go down
to what it is you're you're proposing i'm going to share the plan that went in front of the zoning
board and that'll be that'll be good thank you and and if you can make that a little bit larger that
would be helpful. Thank you, Connor. So as you can see from the pictures in the above,
it's, um, you enlarge those pictures, Connor. Yes. Uh, four foot masonry wall, uh, about
eight feet back from the sidewalk. So we had it approved with the streets. We just didn't
realize that the wall, the way that we built it, was in violation of this code when we
ran it through the RCO, as I mentioned, even their zoning experts and various lawyers on
the board were not sure that this should have triggered this violation, and that it could
be argued either way, that it wasn't clear the way that it's written, the code itself.
um so we are applying for this variance to to um make this uh acceptable
are there any questions i'll pull up the site imagery quickly just so you can do that that
would be helpful uh what was there before was just very overgrown vegetation and uh we've kind
of transformed it into this beautiful ornamental wall to match the house it's not a retained wall
or anything that's strictly ornamental that's what you're being we're asked being asked to approve
that correct looking at it on the right hand side correct yes okay thank you any questions from the
Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board?
board no
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
Here, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson. You're still under oath, but please identify yourself.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, Room 312 City Hall.
Councilwoman has no opposition to the granting of this variance for this nice wall.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Where is...
Hold on one second, sir.
Carol, do you have that?
I lost the...
Calendar number?
Oh, Planning Commission?
Oh, I have it.
I got it.
Am I...
Planning Commission, please.
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
comprehensive plan recommends this property for single-family residential use.
This is a de minimis variance that will have no impact on the block. We recommend that the
board grant a requested variance. Thank you. MI 2021-00114748 West Upsall Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Now we're moving to the regular list, Mr. Chair.
Calendar number MI 2021-000994-1201 West Gerrard Avenue.
This is an appeal against LNI.
both miss jones and mr reuter have been promoted to panelists
good afternoon mr reuter please identify yourself spell your name and i'll swear you in
uh thank you may please the board leonard f reuter uh senior attorney for the city of philadelphia
that's uh last l-e-o-n-a-r-d last name is r-e-u-t-e-r i'm here for the city of philadelphia
um i also have we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
i'm also joined by co-counsel uh maggie white who is in the waiting room i think she has her hand
raised now uh does she need to be promoted yes miss white is coming back in as a panelist now
And we have one witness who is here, essentially a standby for rebuttal, and we'll see if her presence will be necessary throughout the hearing.
And that is Anna Gindhart. She has her hand raised.
Okay, we'll unmute her at this time, and if necessary, we'll open her mic.
Okay, great. Thank you.
has been unmuted
please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
they mean you anna you have to unmute yourself okay anna gindhart a-n-a-g-i-n-d-h-a-r-t
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you um who else do we need
please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
yes mary jones um for council president daryl clark city hall room 494
where we're firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do and i believe we have mr whalen who's was sworn in earlier but please identify yourself
again no we don't have chair i um we didn't did we do maggie white no okay so we have maggie white
and then council president daryl clark is available as well mr fye bush is also had his hand up
members of the board if i may uh my understanding from a message i received
from sean whalen is that uh his client who uh is ostensibly mr five bush uh will be appearing here
is essentially is the owner of the property um but he is appearing here uh without representation
Excuse me, I'm sorry, but Mr. Feibusch cannot appear without representation. He is not the owner in his individual capacity.
Correct. Yes.
So unless he is represented by council, he will not be able to speak on behalf of the property owner.
I don't disagree.
i don't disagree let me ask the question sean whalen here oh there's sean okay sorry i was
Let me ask the question.
being elevated so uh i am representing don sean relax for a second please identify yourself you've
already been sworn in spell your name sean s-e-a-n last name whalen w-h-a-l-e-n
Vintage Law, 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Chairman, I'm actually not presenting this case. It's not my appeal.
Mr. Feibusch, on behalf of the owners, simply an interested party,
this is an appeal against L&I and its issuance of a by-right permit.
so I will be representing Mr. Feibusch only in the event that he needs to rebut something
thank you so Sharon we're okay to go forward
yes sure okay all right who's up first Mr. Royer I believe
well if members of the board if I may I think that's one of the first things that needs to
be addressed here and this has been an issue that's come up several times recently which has
to do with the order of presentation in these types of appeals against L&I. It's the city's
position and always has been that an appeal against L&I the burden lies with the person
the party that filed the appeal and that they they have to go forth first to establish the case.
That being said, we did, again, and it was the city's position that our case is essentially all rebuttal, but because we believe this particular appeal is essentially entirely legal argument, or maybe not even that, a question about policy.
So that being said, we did learn earlier that Ms. Jones wanted to review copies of some of the zoning documents, so we sent her copies of the plans, a copy of the letter, a recommendation letter from the design review committee, and also, and that's basically, you know, this is a by-right permit.
So what was provided to her were the plans, and the plans were the thing that got approved.
So she has-
Can I say that I agree with Mr. Reuter that Ms. Jones should go first.
She has the appellant has the burden of proof.
Thank you.
Let's go.
Just to finish up, I mean, she has kindly stipulated to the authenticity and accuracy of those documents
that those are that that part of me that was the plan that was approved uh in order to issue the
use and the new construction permit at this location so um it it seems to me it won't be
necessary to have any testimony from the plans examiner since we've stipulated to the plans
however ms gintard is here uh in case she we there's any need for her to testify to rebut
you know, whatever is going to be presented by the appellant here.
Let's begin with Ms. Jones. Any objection to that, Mr. Whelan?
Sorry, I was on mute. None.
Ms. Jones?
Yes, good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
I will also be calling some witnesses. I don't know if they need to all be called now,
or can we just wait till we get to them um i'll just start yeah you start and then we'll see if
we need you okay uh pursuant to section 14-303 15 a1 council president daryl clark initiated this
appeal of permit zp 2020-002668 for the demolition and construction of 166 bedroom units and excuse
me one bedroom units and 31 parking spaces at 1201 West Gerard Avenue. Today we'll argue that L&I
aired in granting this permit which was issued on January 14, 2021 as it violates the central
tenants of the zoning code and even if it did not air the permit is now void based on recent L&I
guidance because a subsequent permit was pulled for this site for demolition only. As the testimony
would bear out today. Yorktown is one of Philadelphia's first planned neighborhoods.
It was intentionally created to be a single-family suburban-style neighborhood. The Girard Avenue
site was a Rite Aid that served a neighboring community for nearly 30 years. However, the
However, the permit in question eliminates commercial use and brings unnecessary density
permit in question and then eliminates commercial use and
to a low-density area and does nothing to preserve the historical nature of this community.
Further, the long-standing commercial use of this site should have controlled."
So my first witness is the Council President, Darryl Clark.
you uh is the councilman there good afternoon council president please identify yourself
with a record spell your first and last name and i'll swear you in councilman you can unmute
yourself you got me yeah yeah good afternoon good afternoon please let's spell your first
and last name council president and i'll swear you and this is uh council president daryl clark
councilman fifth district d-a-r-r-e-l-l-l-a-r-k-e you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i absolutely do swear thank you mr please proceed
Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Zoning Board and all
members present. Ms. Jones will be laying out the technical nature of the whole issue of the
granting of this permit. This permit was clearly granted. As we said in ERA, this is a long
established residential community. There was actually some issues with respect to the CDR
where it referenced only one particular property
that was in proximity that was residential on that corridor
as if that was the predominant level of activity on Gerard Avenue.
Anybody that knows anything about Gerard Avenue in that particular area
knows this is clearly commercial related.
This whole issue with respect to the density,
the issue with respect to the granting of remit,
And I believe that, Mr. Chair, as you were the architect, chief architect of the Zoning
Code Commission years ago, and it was passed, and the premise of that was to rezone, remap
the city of Philadelphia.
And clearly, if that particular area had been remapped, and I'm still not clear as to why
it was not by the Planning Commission, it would have been remapped as a commercial activity.
So the whole premise that that should have the ability to be a residential site was clearly
not necessarily only within the spirit of the code, but clearly an error that happened on behalf
of the City Planning Commission for not officially remapping that area, although it was commercial
use for 30 years. This particular community will clearly be impacted in an extremely negative way.
During the course of the CDR meeting, they have raised multiple concerns about its impact
of a building that, in all due respect to the property owner, don't frankly think it was a
relatively attractive building at all. It was essentially a brick wall placed directly across
the street from two-story low-density properties. The historical nature of it,
Yorktown in itself was actually way beyond just that simple community. It was actually
a dream of Reverend Sullivan, the great Reverend Leon Sullivan, when it was understood that
the investment in the community should be done by individuals of color at that time,
an investment that grew out of his mission and his need to create self-sufficiency,
his need to create investment in our people. And it was a cornerstone of that neighborhood
and the cornerstone of a movement. It was clearly intended to continue to be such a
a low-density type of neighborhood. This particular building is not only out of character,
it defeats the purpose of the long-standing belief that this section of Yorktown
continues to have such a historical character. The issuance of this permit was clearly
technically questionable and then the subsequent withdrawal and the subsequent permit issued by
for demolition tells me that I well it tells me that there's
tells me that there should be some levels of concern about the issuance of this permit.
During the course of the conversation with the design review committee,
the reference of possibly having commercial on the first floor was essentially swept aside
to make some level of consistency as it relates to the commercial nature of the block.
So I think that this is clearly a wrong-minded, an affront, frankly speaking, not only on
this community.
I don't think that the developer in this case, frankly speaking, really cared about the benefits
of this local neighborhood and the long-standing history of this neighborhood.
So this granting of this permit should never have happened. A whole lot of balls were dropped.
And if in some way, shape or form that I was one of those balls that was dropped, then
I stand guilty. But it is clear that I nor anybody else in that neighborhood knew that
that was not a commercial location, which it had been for 30 years. So I just think that this is
clearly not the appropriate place to put such a structure. It clearly has impacted that local
community in a significant way. I know this may not necessarily have anything to do with the
zoning, but the reality is that with the closing of that Rite Aid and the subsequent closing of
the CBS two blocks away has basically taken away any access to pharmaceuticals and that immediate
a need for those people in that community and all the other things that come along with
these types of stores in retail in a community, a community that was already underserved by
commercial and business activity. So there's a lot of issues. And so, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully
request that we deny and rule in favor of the appeal and deny and permit to build this
overwhelmingly large wall walling off our Yorktown community in the heart of this historical area
of North Philadelphia and the 5th Council of Matic District. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just for clarification, correct me if I'm wrong, it's sound to me,
And again, I may be wrong that had there been some discussion about a mixed use, meaning some commercial component, that that might have been something that would have allowed this conversation to move in a different direction.
Am I accurate?
Did I hear you correctly or not?
No, I'm not getting into the design and how many units or anything.
That was a question that was brought up by the members of the CDR.
The community was opposed to the construction of this residence of development, period,
because of the size and the nature of it.
They wanted to maintain a solely commercial.
So I didn't want that to be construed as to there was an attempt at a compromise by the community.
I thought I heard that, but I wanted to be clear on it.
No, no, that was a question that was brought up because the facade when asked by, I'm not
sure who exactly asked that question on that committee, because it appeared to be some
commercial space, but that was just a lobby for the residents.
And so there was a whole lot of issues surrounding that, but this is not something that community
supported in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Whalen do you have any questions for the council president
no I do not chairman thank you all right and and I know council president you got a lot of stuff on
your plate and I'm not going to hold you here all afternoon so I'm going to ask the board if they
have any questions but uh of the council president uh regarding his testimony no no they're not um
i would also note the city has no questions thank you thank you thank you council president thank
you thank you very much mr chairman thank you members of the board thank you thank you
um miss jones yes i know that was your one of your witnesses do you have anyone else
i i do i just have um a couple of people from the community that desire to speak um
Excuse me, this is Sharon. I'm not sure that those witnesses are relevant. This is not a variance case. It's really only the legal issues that the board is considering today.
I understand that, but my argument, our argument was based on the section 14-101, section one of the code to demonstrate how this property basically,
I understand that, but my argument
basically how it does nothing to preserve or enhance the realm, it adds unneeded density,
so I just wanted to...
I'm sorry, Ms. Jones, but that, for a buy-right permit, those really aren't considerations.
If I might, and to respond to that also, the general provisions in the zoning code, in
the 100 section of the zoning code are essentially the rationale for why the zoning code exists it
simply says this is what we're doing with the zoning code we're creating these restrictions and
it is the rest of the code and the specific provisions in the code that lay out how the city
is going to comply or comport with those initial provisions so when city council passes all these
other provisions they're basically like so and for instance the provisions that allow this to
be a by right use in rm1 that city council by passing you know those use tables and those
dimensional requirements that apply to rm properties says that they by definition that
the existence of that code provision is saying that city council believes that it is uh in full
conformity with the purposes of the zoning code in other words it's in full conformity with the
purposes of 103 what we're talking about here is a disagreement about whether this project should
be by right at in uh in this zoning classification or in this particular neighborhood or whether
this property should have been remapped but both of those things are arguments about legislation
that are for city council to address there's no legal argument here about why this permit
application didn't meet the requirements of the code they're simply saying this shouldn't have
happened and i'm not disagreeing that i have no idea whether it should have happened or not i
don't live in the neighborhood and i you know we have full respect for council president clark's
position and his interest in his constituents and we have full respect for the people that
live in the neighborhood nevertheless this is an rm1 property and the code allows this
and the belief that maybe that provision shouldn't apply to this property
or this should have been remapped so that this wouldn't have been allowed,
that's not an argument that could possibly be successful
in order to invalidate the permit.
It's simply an argument to maybe as a policy matter
to not let it happen again by remapping other locations
where you may be worried that this would happen or something like that and again i'm not saying
that because i have any position whatsoever on the on the project itself el and i and the city
are taking no position on whether this is a good project whether the building's pretty or whether
you know the fact but the fact is is that there's it there's no legal argument here that i've been
able to discern at least not on the notice of appeal as to what what was actually wrong with
the issuance of this permit other okay i don't i think the count miss jones well i think the
councilman laid out what we would probably be hearing from uh the folks in the neighborhood
i can't imagine them with all due respect offering anything new and different and if i'm wrong
correct me. I just don't want to burden the record and delay this, have this hearing go on
longer than we would normally care to have it go on. Again, I'm not dismissing anyone. We
appreciate the fact that they're calling in and the patients, but unless you really think it's
absolutely necessary I'd like to move on uh that I mean that's that's fine I do believe that the
the neighbors would have been um the neighbors would have been able to give it a more specific
experience with this project, but however, if the question was if LNI bases any of their
The question was, if L&I bases any of their decisions off of this portion of the code.
decisions off of this.
And if they don't, then I just want to move to the second part of my argument.
And, you know, the city will go ahead and stipulate that if the neighbors were allowed to testify,
that they would testify that uh the project would have adverse impacts on their neighborhood
that's that's again that that's what they would test we're not stipulating that would in fact have
that uh impact but so we'll just we'll accept for the sake of argument that they would have
made that testimony that's where i'm getting at thank you all right so so miss johns we can
proceed from there all right okay um i did get just get a message if um if you'll allow it chair
the council president is is back um can he please just raise his hand
again council president you've been unmuted you can speak now just identify yourself council
President, you've already been sworn in, just to identify yourself. Thank you, thank you. So
I was trying to be respectful in my earlier testimony, but the reference to
the board and all the participants being burdened by having the community
speak, frankly speaking, having taken time out of their day, again, I think is a continued affront.
Now, this whole issue with respect to the steamrolling of these local communities, because somebody, and I'll call it like it is, and I know it's on the record, because somebody screwed up and didn't adequately remap that area of the city, frankly speaking, is just so, so, you know, disconcerning to me.
this issue about the law department, who I thought, frankly speaking, represented the
city council of Philadelphia. And I've always said on the record, councilman, when you were
a council person, that the law department is clearly in conflict. Here they are, an attorney,
the legal representation for the city council of Philadelphia. But yet they're in here defending
and taking a position on behalf of L&I.
It is clearly a conflict.
That should not even be a part of the record,
and they should not be a part of this particular case in this instance.
So I'm just, you know, this whole issue with respect to how the zoning board
is dealing with these communities, right,
and just allowing these developers to come through utilizing technicalities
whenever possible and just changing the whole character
of neighborhoods across the city with no sense of respect, no sense of caring, and I'm trying
not to bring this whole race issue into it, but you know, I continue to see this affront on these
neighborhoods, particularly in these neighborhoods that frankly have had a traditional minority
community. So I cannot just sit here without saying that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, you and I
have been friends for a long, long time, but this whole notion, first, that you won't let the
community people speak because it's a burden for people to have to listen to that. It's just so
insulting. And then this issue with respect to law department, you know, representing clearly
in conflict of the representation of this council office. And then this whole notion of how people
are treating these neighborhoods without any regard for what they care about because of simple
technology so technicality so i just had to get that i apologize if i came across as trying to
insult people it's you know we have mr chair you know i mean i have to find as a burden
well a burden is so far as we have about 13 14 more cases this is the two then maybe you know
all the respect when people sign on for the job you know we had 80 people testify no 108 people
testify in the city council the day before yesterday right public comment that's the job
that i signed on for and we sat there and listened to those people i'm familiar with that i was i was
there i listened to it and sometimes we just the board just would like to have some folks come on
and give us something new and different uh to hear the same uh argument over and over again it just
well that's a part of what we do yeah well all right i respect what you're saying i appreciate
You know, if you don't think that we hear a public comment, that's repetitive.
that's repetitive. I know. I know you do. I listen to you guys more on Thursdays.
I know, I know you do.
I listen to you guys more on Thursdays.
That's a part of the job. So if the community people want to speak, then they should be allowed
to speak. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Jones. Yes. I think we left off. You have some
witnesses? I do. The first person we have is Ms. Renee Drayton. If she could please raise her hand
and so she can be promoted.
She's been unmuted.
Ms. Drayton yes yes good afternoon I believe I swear you in hi Ms. Drayton can you put
your name and address on the record please and I'll swear you in where are you Mary
did we lose her i don't know it's here she was promoted to panelists in era she's been
sent back to an attendee she gonna mute herself to speak thanks uh miss sunken
miss tonera can you hear me yes i can hi can you put your name and address on the record
and please spell your last name i can my name is renee drayton last name spelled diaz and david
R-A-Y, T like Tom, O-N as in Nancy, resident is 1321, Patrick Henry Place, Yorktown, Philadelphia, 19122.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Okay. First of all, thank you. I wanted to say hello to the chairman.
I see that Sean Whelan is on this call as well.
Thank you, Ms. Jones, for giving me the opportunity.
First, I'd just like to say that I represent a couple of hats.
I am the president of the Yorktown Community Development Corporation.
Our interim director is Ms. Priscilla Woods.
I'm not sure if she's on this call.
Also, I work out of the office of State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta.
I am a constituent service advisor. So I just wanted to say I have been a resident of Yorktown
for 58 years. You know, it is a historical area. And again, President Darrell Clark laid out
the situation here in our community. Yes, he did a fine job with that. So
just to back up a little bit, meeting Mr. Whelan, we did have a conversation during the meetings.
Initially, the RSEO was assigned to the 14th Ward on the other side of your town.
but later on having a few meetings we decided that that meeting should be held
with the 14th Ward for the Yorktown community and again as you know this is
a community that's been here for 58 years we have been inundated with
parking in general in our cul-de-sacs problems with students unnecessary trash
parking where we are unable to get into and out of our driveways and this has
been an ongoing issue in this community we just wanted to be very transparent and
honest in saying that this is a project that we were totally against I did make
Mr. Whelan aware of that in our first meeting back in October this is also a
project that Representative Kenyatta was against as well. As Councilman said, we have lost the
Rite Aid. We have lost the CVS. So in my conversations with Mr. Whaling, he did say
that unfortunately, the way the law works, anyone can petition anything. But since this is by right,
And if you meet all of the code requirements, it's really no way to stop the project from going forward.
Going forward. He did inform our community of that. But again, we are expecting to have all of these problems reoccur with the unit that wants to be put there for 166 apartment units.
He did inform our community of.
I don't remember how many parking spaces they said that they were allowing for, and also there are supposed to be spaces for bikes along that unit.
So again, this is problematic, and it's going to really affect our community, to adversely affect our community with this building being there.
My understanding and from the conversation I had with Mr. Whaling is that it was reported that that Rite Aid was an underperforming store.
I find that hard to believe with all of the seniors, all of the people just in Yorktown alone that were there purchasing medications and just supporting the store on what they needed.
i found that information just not to be accurate for it to be an an under underperforming store
um i'm sorry again from uh you mentioned the redistricting so from what i understand
and having that conversation with mr whaling that when city council remaps
a district to make these designations different. They do not actually have to provide notice
to every individual homeowner. So there are times when property owners think that they
own one thing and they go to sell or build or do something and then they find out that
they have a different set of code that requires them to do something else I'm sorry I'm going to
have to object to this to testimony continuing we're we're talking about a remapping process
that has nothing to do with this case there was no remapping we don't know when this became
rm1 the law is very clear on how uh if you disagree with a mapping ordinance how that's
to be challenged um i you know again i'm not i mean that's but that's not the issue in this case
you cannot the the zoning board of adjustment has no authority to address any challenges to mapping
or remapping so this i mean again we're we're not trying to say that their concerns aren't valid
but this isn't the right place you know wrong church wrong pew this is not a zoning board issue
okay we would object on grounds of relevance
all right but again i was just going back uh just reviewing some notes and again i just wanted to
to explain uh how this project is going to adversely affect uh the yorktonians there
mr bichinko yes ma'am i should thank you okay
well again the city would accept an offer of proof that the testimony would
were to continue that the testimony would be that the project uh that the buy right uses of the
project will have an adverse impact on the community and i think those are very valid
concerns that they would need to raise perhaps with city planning perhaps with city council and
maybe look in ways of like you know again for another property at another time or perhaps even
for this property you know in the off you know depending on you know again projects maybe never
happen for various reasons so but i think that argument it's something it's an it's it's an
argument that should be made to city planning not here not here at the zoning board not this is
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms. Drayton, are you, you're finished?
Yes, Ms. James.
Thank you, Ms. Drayton.
Thank you.
I just, I did just want to have one more near neighbor speak.
it's mr. Eric Hall here he just raised his hand and he'll
You can just raise his hand and they'll allow you to speak, Mr. Hall, if you're here.
Ms. Jones, it's either Mr. Hull is having technical problems or
Yvette, can you unmute him?
Okay, Mr. Hall, please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name.
My name is Eric Hall, E-R-I-C, last name Hall, H-A-L-L.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Hall. Please proceed.
I don't have a lot to add that Councilman Clark and Ms. Frayton communicated to you.
It sounded like there was a mapping issue that got overlooked, but we as residents feel that
a hundred unit apartment complex is excessive. And as Mr. Clark stated, that adds a number of
negatives to the neighborhood. We do miss the Rite Aid and we'd like to see something that
would bonus the neighborhood put there. Another Rite Aid or something that we could use in that
vein would be great as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a lot to add to what's already been
said, but I do echo their sentiments. Thank you very much. Thank you for taking the time.
Ms. Jones do you have any other witnesses? I ask you because I figure you had a list that's why I'm
asking. Absolutely I have one last person Ms. Alexis Becton if she is here if she has something
to add please. Hello can you guys hear me? Ms. Becton please spell your first and last name
then I'll swear you in. Absolutely. Alexis Becton, A-L-E-X-I-S, Becton, B-E-C-K-T-O-N.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed. All right. So I understand that this is a zoning board meeting. I do want
to just share a couple of things. First being that, you know, the community was always in
opposition with this project. However, Ori presented himself as the owner of this property.
And so we were in, you know, in the beginning, constant communication with him. There were
things that he promised us, such as, you know, humidifiers for when demolition would start,
parking permits, things of that nature that just have not come to fruition.
um besides the fact that I think the last time um you know we've heard from Mr. Ori was in February
and that's also concerning right like on an ethical level I know that this is not the board
of ethics it's the board of zoning but besides the fact that this project would greatly change
the way this community looks, feels, it interferes with, you know, our parking, the
characteristics of our neighborhood, just in general, is also not ethical. Because at this
point, there is potentially a four-story apartment building being built across the street from my
house, and I don't even know who the actual owner is. When they started demolition, I live in
Valley Forge Place, which is a cul-de-sac connected to Flora Street, which is across
from the property, you cannot access, get into, or leave out of my block without coming on Flora
Street. And when they started demolition, they only gave papers saying when demolition would
start to the people who lived on Flora Street. So like just even in terms of ethics of how this
project has been moving forward, I would say that this largely has been inappropriate. When we were
first presented with this and we started having meetings, you know, Ori let us know that this
property would be such an asset to the neighborhood. And at this point, there is
only a vacant lot across the street. So we've lost a pharmacy, you know, at the very least,
at the very least, Rite Aid, soul, milk, bread, butter, very like basic needs that kind of helped
right. So milk, bread, butter, very like basic.
build up or fill in the gap of some other food insecurity issues that we have in this neighborhood.
And now we have nothing. And we have nothing to show for it because the neighborhood cannot even
get into contact with Mr. Ori. So I just, you know, there are just very real issues that we
have as a community first of all we feel like we are being steamrolled by some of these uh you know
more legal aspects about whether something should have been zoned but it didn't and you know in the
words of whoever that was wrong church wrong whatever regardless of if it's right wrong or
indifferent please know that this neighborhood is going to tell whoever will listen that not only do
we want do we not want this property but that is inappropriate how all of this is continuing to
happen. Testimony? Any other witnesses? That's all, Sharon. Thank you, Mary. Who's up next? Mr. Whelan?
We may have to resume this hearing, but let's hear it. Actually, as of right now,
there has been a stipulation as to the permit and plans that were submitted for this
project and that the permit obviously the permit was issued it's the city's position that
there there is no case that has been made here as to why the permit could not have should not
have been issued by Wright. Again, as I said, we've just heard arguments about why it shouldn't
have been by Wright. In other words, why, you know, maybe the code shouldn't have allowed this or why
the district or the property or that strip of Girard shouldn't have been remapped. I do want
to indicate I did receive information while the testimony was occurring that this actually has
been residential multi-use since 1971. So in fact the Rite Aid is obviously either predates that or
it's by variance after 1971 and there have been in fact a few attempts over the years as recently
as 2020 to remap this location but that has and city planning has in fact actually did study it
did suggest it, but no bill was introduced. So with respect to that, I'm sorry, would you repeat
that last part of that? It's my understanding that, again, the remapping, this location has
been the RM1 or the equivalent of RM1 since 1971. And that there have been attempts and
that i'm sorry that that people have looked at it being um remapped and there's been a number of
you know uh different people who've looked at it but that you know in fact it hasn't been so again
the the the rite aid itself is either a non-conformity that predates 1971 and again i
don't know what it was prior to 1971 or it is that self thereby variance um so
So a multifamily property could have been built here at any time over the last 50 years.
That being the case, we would also say that at this point, there has been no argument raised that would allow or that indicates in any kind of specifics why this permit couldn't have been issued.
And so we therefore think that the appellant has not met their burden.
and I have nothing to present unless the board wants to ask Ms. Ginhardt a question just about
the plans that were submitted or anything like that. But other than that, we are just going to
simply rest on argument. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for Ms. Ginhardt?
No. Okay, Mr. Whelan. Yes, thank you, Chairman. And I know that the time is getting nice, so
I will call, I will second Mr. Reuter's argument so I can truncate my own. And I guess I've never
done it as an attorney, but I will adopt his testimony as my own. And I will call Ori Fibush
on behalf of the owner and developer for a maximum of two minutes. And then we will be done.
Mr. Fibush, please identify yourself for the record, spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Here, I do not see Mr. Fybush with his hand up.
Here I do not see Mr. Fibush with his hand up.
Was there earlier.
Yeah, he was there earlier.
Let me call him.
If not, Mr. Will, we can see if you can reach him.
If not, we'll stipulate that he would adopt your testimony.
That you stipulated.
or he is saying his hand is up
yes his hand is up now okay thank you i wish you can unmute yourself and speak now
mr fly bush i don't know if you heard me please spell your full name and i'll swear you
sure or a five bush first name o-r-i last name f as in frank e-i-b-u-s-h
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
All right.
Thank you.
And Sean, forgive me.
I believe that Sean would be on a different case at this time here, so I attempted to represent myself.
I apologize for that.
No worries.
All right.
Just very quickly here, just want to make a couple points here.
As Ms. Alexis had mentioned, I was in constant communication with her and with her RCO subsequent to receiving our zoning permit here.
That communication ceased when the appeal was issued, but I'm very eager to get back to those conversations.
I very much believe that RCO is working in good faith and very much believe that there's opportunities to collaborate and create as little impact as possible on your neighbors here.
I do just want to share to the board the stakes for my organization here.
We received confirmation that our zoning permit would, in fact, be issued and was valid on August 17th of 20.
Two weeks later, on September 2nd, we purchased the property.
We've completed all of our efforts here.
We've demolished the existing Rite Aid, which left to consolidate their interests because they weren't doing well here and wanted to consolidate to the location they have three blocks away.
But we've also committed to a million dollars at the Affordable Housing Trust.
And we're now in a position here where we relied on the underlying zoning and have full ready to submit building permits here and would be at an enormous disadvantage here through no fault of our own.
if the underlying zoning was changed here
in the middle of our efforts here.
And so while I certainly hate hearing
a lot of the discourse here
and I'm uncomfortable being in the middle,
I very much at all times here acted in good faith
and submitted what I believe to be a buy-right application,
clearly continue to believe that to be the case
and have purchased the property
under that clear understanding
and with assurances from license and inspection
that in fact it was buy-right.
And I am obviously disappointed
that we are where we are here, but I very much do hope that the Zoning Board will affirm
the underlying zoning permits here and allow us to proceed with our plans here. Thank you for your
time. Thank you. I do have a final statement before you end everything shared. Sure. Please proceed.
Okay. So as we tried to show in our testimony today, this permit was issued an error because it violates the basic principles of the zoning code that interfere with light and air of the surrounding neighbors and eliminates much needed public amenity.
And even if this board does not find that the permit was issued in error, this permit is now, we're arguing that this permit is now void.
The applicant applied for a second demolition only permit in March of 2021, and then acted upon it, thus we're arguing voided the previous permit.
based on L&I guidance from September of last year regarding concurrent zoning approvals.
So even if we do not find that it was an error, we do argue that it is void.
Thank you. Anything else, Ms. Jones? One minute, Sean. Okay, all right, Mr. Whelan.
Chair, if I may, I believe what Ms. Jones is referring to, and I'll keep it very brief about this, is zoning permit ZP2020-002668 was issued for this property in January of this year.
was issued for this property in January of this year. The very first line of that states for the
complete demolition of all structures on the lot. The next lines refer to the actual
approvals that are subject to the appeal today. There is a second demolition permit only
uh from march of this year from 2021 002026 uh if anything that's issued in error because there
was already a pending permit for uh demolition so there should have just been a building permit
issued on that uh frankly i i think that you know it's an attempt by miss jones to make a
you know a technicality or a mountain out of a molehill you know at worst this ties back and
relates to the originally issued zoning permit again which already said for the complete
demolition of all structures that was already there there was no abandonment of the permit
there was no indication from L&I to my client or my client to L&I or anyone else in the city that
it was abandoning the duly issued permit and as such that permit is valid and continues and
obviously the building was demolished and it would have been demolished pursuant to the original
approvals that Mr. Reuter has already testified to and that Ms. Ginhart would testify to if the
board has any questions. Thank you. Excuse me chair if we could also get Mr. Reuter's position
on the argument that the subsequent permit
avoided the earlier.
Yes, thank you.
Yeah, thank you.
We agree again that Mr. Whelan in this case,
in this instance,
because the second demolition permit
doesn't void the first.
What happens is that under the building code
and the administrative code in Title IV,
uh this these are all things that came out of the um collapse at 22nd and market the city revamped
its entire demolition permit uh process and so what happens is that um in order to get the permits
the contractors go out and they get uh they have to get a site safety plan they have to show that
they're OSHA certified they have to get all these things and they also have to get the zoning permit
And many times contractors are made responsible for getting the permits and all. And it's actually pretty common that you have a situation like this where there's already a zoning permit that authorizes construction, but the contractor just goes and applies for it just to make sure that there's something in that person's name, in the contractor's name.
And then they go and then they just walk that over.
Well, you don't walk anything over now, but any clits.
But then they would get the demo permit itself, which is technically a building permit, even though you're knocking something down.
So we don't believe that this invalidates the earlier permit.
Zoning permits are good for three years.
Zoning permits for new construction are good for three years at least.
so uh they can be they can be occasionally extended uh by the board if it wants
thank you any of any unfinished business uh miss jones
uh that believe that's it thank you mr whalen uh no that's it thank you very much for your time
Thank you. Any questions from the board? No sir. No. I'm going to suggest that MI 2021-000994
1201 West Gerrard Avenue that the record be closed. The board will be discussing
this case at next week's executive session.
thank you thank you uh thank you that concludes my business may be excused yes you may leonard
thank you thank you calendar number mi 2021-001225 1523 swain street rachel pritzker is the attorney
Ms. Pritzker is coming back in as a panelist thank you good afternoon good afternoon name
and address um please and spell your last name sure rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 do you swear for him to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate
do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed
to its accuracy yes have you
the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos under plans
of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do
you have a letter yes okay you may proceed okay thank you sure
chairman members of the board this is 1523 swain street um just going to go through the
refusal quickly this was an application for the partial demolition and erection of an addition
including a deck accessed by a rear second floor and a roof deck above third story accessed from
a pilot house and closing access doors only to an existing attached structure size and location as
for plans for use as three multifamily dwelling units. The refusal that our application generated
was under section 146023A11. Essentially, we need an extra amount of square footage to be able to
have the third unit. The code requires a lot area of 1080 in order to have three units.
We have a lot area of 976. So we're looking for a de minimis variance to be able to add that
additional third unit. As the board can see from our application, the property is already zoned
RM1. We're in tax, we're tax compliant. We have the deed. Properties RM1, it's situated next to
many other properties that are duplexes and triplexes. And so we were looking to just be
able to obtain an additional unit so that we can have one unit per floor in this existing structure.
Again, the code requires 1080. We're at 976. So just the slight de minimis variance insofar as
law area would be concerned to get that extra unit. We met with the coordinating RCO which was the
United Francis bill I believe and they submitted a letter of support as the board can see on the
screen 15 in support for an opposition so they took a position of support for application
We have that letter included and have my client Donovan West here as well who went around
and got signatures from the near neighbors as the board was provided for in their packet.
I don't want to belabor this any longer and would like to see if Donovan West is on to
adopt my testimony.
Again, our hardship is that we just need a very small amount of square footage to get
that to that 1080.
So that's what we're here in front of the board for.
You see a Donovan West on the call.
If he could raise his hand.
Okay, we have him.
Mr. West has been unmuted.
Mr. West, please identify yourself on the record and I'll swear you in, spell your full name.
Good afternoon. My name is Donovan West. D as in David, O, N as in Nancy, A as in Apple, V as in Victor, A as in Apple, N as in Nancy, Donovan, S as in Sam, West, like East.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Pritzker, please proceed.
Donovan, have you heard my testimony today in front of the board, and do you adopt it as your own?
Is it true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
I've heard your testimony, and it is 100% accurate.
You adopted it.
And I adopted it.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
Only on this case.
Raise your hand, please.
I see no heads at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board,
Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for residential multifamily use.
The applicant is allowed two units by right.
A third unit is not necessary to ensure viable economic use of the property.
We recommend that the Board deny the requested variance.
mi 2021-001-225-1523 swain swan street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
carol we're going to skip the case number eight mr wheelin has another engagement and he's asking
the courtesy to move yes number 11 calendar number mi 2021
Thanks, I just got my green light from my house.
Woo-hoo!
Pardon me?
there's a donovan west would you please mute yourself thank you okay okay calendar number mi
Mrs. Donovan West, would you please mute yourself?
Thank you.
2021 dash 001223 623 shawman avenue the attorney is sean whalen sean you're still under oath
mr whalen is coming back in as a panelist thank you mr whalen put your name and address on the
record please inspire your last name certainly sean s-e-a-n last name whalen w-h-a-l-e-n uh just
so that the board knows i did uh i told everyone uh the two adjacent neighbors that i would give
them 15 minute notice and i just sent out the text to them saying that they would come everything
is agreed to here uh this is a project at 623 shawmont avenue uh it is i represent the owner
it is a large uh can you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy first yes i do thank you okay and you gotta keep me in line i'm i'm moving here um
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photo center plans to the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Okay, you may proceed.
Okay, and I will share my screen, of course, try to keep this short for you.
I am happy to say that I finally have a nice easy one in front of the board.
Here is the letter.
You can't be any happier than us.
Here is the letter of no opposition from the RCO.
Very quickly, this is Shaman Avenue.
We own this property right here.
It is zoned for attached single family.
And we have refusals because this property line right here actually angles in slightly.
So we get hit with a number of refusals.
A Ms. Barbara Hack owns the property at 621, and a Ms. Susan Wright owns the property at 627.
I don't know if the administrator, if either of them have jumped on yet, but both of them are in support of the project.
And what we are doing, you can see it here, we have two twins on one side of us, two twins on the other side of us.
We are demolishing this sort of underutilized vacant house that's been there for a while.
And we are going to put a set of twins right in there.
We are actually, I will just jump to it, going to, well, here's the zoning.
You can see how this angles over, causing the hardship that we have.
We're putting in two kind of short houses to recognize the impact to the neighbors.
That way, we're only going up to about half of the neighbors.
and we are setting by agreement you have um proviso plan one page that we are set offsetting
from the existing uh boundary line by one foot which was the agreement with uh miss right who
owns this property um so with that i would just show uh this in essence is what we are proposing
So, again, I only have Angelina Djokovic is the project architect, and I would just call her to adopt my testimony.
Good afternoon, ma'am. Please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Ms. Djokovic, could you raise your hand, please?
Ms. Djokovic, you've been unmuted. You can unmute yourself on your side and speak.
Please spell your full name. Angelina Djokovic, BBC Studios.
Please spell your full name. A-N-G-E-L-I-N-A-J-O-C-K-O-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I swear. Please proceed.
Yes, Ms. Djokovic, you are familiar with the project, yes?
You're actually the architect for the project, correct?
Yes, designer architect for the project.
And did you hear all of the testimony that I presented?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own?
Okay, thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No. Chairman, I would just let you know that Ms. Hack, the owner of 621 Chamont, is gone.
Chairman, I would just let you know that-
She, again, is in favor, but she says if she needs to speak, she can.
Have her raise her hand, please.
All right.
Ms. Hack, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good afternoon, Ms. Hack. Please identify yourself with the records by your full name.
Good afternoon.
My name is Barbara Hack, B-A-R-B-A-R-A, Hack, H-A-C-K.
Worker for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I just want to let you folks know that I am not opposed to this bill, so I'm good with everything.
Thank you for your time.
okay anyone else who wishes to testify in this case please raise your hand
only those who wish to testify in this case there we have a michael phillips
mr phillips you can unmute yourself and speak
my guess is that's a mistake that he might be next yeah i think he is right he's an attorney
susan wright would be the only other person who would be appearing she owns the uh stipulate that
she would be adopting your testimony. Any planning commission? Good afternoon, David Fecto, City
Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Comprehensive plan recommends no change
from the existing single-family zoning of this property. There is an existing home on the
property. This is a 6,775 square foot lot. The size of the lot does not prevent the applicant
from complying with the dimensional requirements of the code. We recommend that the board deny the
request experiences. MI 2021-001223, 623 Charmont Avenue. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote
is yes. My vote is yes. All right, we'll go back to the regular list, Carol. Number. That's number
three calendar number mi 2020-001115 2504 east york street the attorney is michael phillips
mr phillips is coming back in as a panelist thank you
hi mr phillips can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name please
Good afternoon. Michael Phillips, PHILLIPS, Clare Harrison, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Do you swear to the firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I'm sorry.
I forgot. Yes, I do.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading, but cannot stipulate to its accuracy.
We have made actually some revisions that have eliminated some refusals, and there's
one refusal that is a bit off that I'll get into in detail.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral,
voters under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met
with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
yes you all thank you you may proceed thank you again uh again i'm here on behalf of high top
real estate development the equitable owner of 2504 and 2506 to 08 east york street uh i have
with me here today david lanskroner who's a principal with high top real estate and development
as well as herb schultz who's the design professional on the project uh we are proposing
a unity of use of these two lots to eventually they will be consolidated and this will be
a joint project. But we're proposing one building. And the reason that I'm about to share my screen
that I couldn't stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal is because we have made some significant
changes as a result of over a year of negotiations with the neighborhood.
So the original plan that we were proposing, and I'll just show a quick photo of it first,
and then we'll show the refusal, but we were proposing a five-story mixed-use building
with ground floor commercial and 24 residential units above.
We have now revised that significantly,
and after numerous discussions with community and near neighbors,
and after numerous discussions with community and near neighbors, we're down to a three-story
building that's only 30 feet tall with 18 residential units, two of which will be
affordable. So with that backdrop, I'll quickly get into the refusal and then
describe the surrounding area and the project. As you'll note on the refusal, we are in the RSA
5 zoning district however we're on a commercial corridor of york street where no other property
on this particular block has been developed in accordance with the rsa 5 standards
and furthermore as you head north along york street the next 53 properties are all either
RM1, CMX2, or ICMX. Where we are now is designing this so from a use standpoint it complies with
CMX2 or RM1 standards. It actually, if we look at the refusal that we received,
one was for multi-family, that is still there. We did originally receive a refusal for the proposed
commercial space, however that's been eliminated as this is solely a residential project.
Open area required 20 percent. We're at 14 percent. Rear yard depth is at nine feet.
This is where the refusal was off. It says five feet, but we're now proposing a rear yard,
which is consistent with the other properties on the block. And height required 38 feet. Initially,
we were at 59. The additional 10 feet was because the pilot house was
larger than permitted, so we triggered a refusal for 69 feet. However, that has been eliminated
as we're at 30 feet now. Take it to the surrounding area. This is a view of the property. I will
enlarge my screen. It is a corner lot founded with York and with frontage on York and Belgrade.
To zoom out a bit there's Green Eggs Cafe right next to us and then these are 24 East York.
the uh they're both industrial and commercial uh offices and lofts uh that and that is a i believe
a 55 foot building and that initially was the guide for why we were seeking the additional
height at first um and the uh the larger density with the commercial component on the ground floor
to zoom out a bit more this will give you even more context of the width of york street so it's
100 feet. Here's Green Eggs. Behind us is a multifamily condominium townhome project
that was developed a few years back. Again, this is zoned RSA 5. They did receive variants for
the multifamily use and for not having a rear yard. And then here's 2424 East York.
As you even zoom out a bit more, this will give you a bit more context of the commercial use on
this side of York Street, and then here's Aramingo Ave. So this really is a connector,
and we feel that the location can absolutely support the density that we're seeking.
Give me one more view. Here's Planet Fitness, there's commercial properties here,
and then as you go north. To take a look at the zoning maps,
here is the property is down here. Zoned RSA 5. Next to us, green exit zone CMX 2. As I mentioned,
this is the neighboring condominium townhome development. As you head north, we have ICMX,
RM1, CMX2, and even pulling this out further, CMX2, RM1, RM1, RM1. So of those 56 lots,
you have 35 zoned RM1, 20 zoned CMX2, and this one large piece zoned ICMX.
And so the relief we're seeking is for that multifamily use predominantly.
So, this project started back in November of 2019 is when we had our first meeting with
the community.
And the plans that we were presenting were for this larger 59-foot tall five-story building
with the ground floor commercial and 24 units above.
We received feedback from the community and particularly the neighboring HOA had strong
had strong opinions on the height insofar as they argued it would block their views.
opinions on the height and so far as they argued it would block their views.
They also did not like the ground floor commercial component and wanted this to
remain fully residential. And there was an issue with density, but we saw the
ground floor commercial use and the height as their largest concerns. So we sat down,
had some discussions with the neighboring HOA and their attorney about ways that we could modify
this plan to address their concerns. And then the pandemic happened. So we were kind of on pause
for a while. Fast forward then, about a year after our initial meeting, we were ready to come back
of the drawing board meet with the community again and at this point we presented a revised
plan that eliminated the commercial component altogether and at this point we were proposing
work live units on the first floor because of those work live loft type units we still were
maintaining a 50-foot height, so reduced from the 59 feet, but nonetheless had changed that
commercial component. The residential count actually increased from 24 to 25 to account for
the work-live space. We met with the community, and again, there was this time pushback on the
work-live aspect and of that ground floor use. There was a bit of a difference in opinions of
members of Fishtown Neighbors Association, as reflected in their letter, would like to see
commercial on the ground floor. I believe that the commercial corridor can absolutely support it,
but members of the HOA were adamant that, as the near neighbors, they did not want that ground floor
commercial. They wanted this to be a purely residential project. So two months later,
we came back with something very similar to what we're proposing now and completely addressed
two of their concerns. One with height, we dropped it down to 30 feet. So we're eight feet lower than
And we could be, by right, totally eliminating any concerns about any sight lines or views.
Secondly, we made this completely residential.
So it's a three-story building where we're proposing 21 units.
And to also address some of the concerns that the community had brought up about the availability of affordable housing,
especially in Fishtown, where there's such a dearth of affordable housing.
We also agreed to provide two affordable housing units at the development.
There were questions brought up about where the main entry would be.
We agreed to move the entrance off of the side street and to keep everything orienting towards York.
after the community meeting, there were still concerns about the 21 units and the density.
So what we are proposing now in the proviso plans that have submitted, reduce that further to 18
units, six units per floor. We would still maintain two units at affordable levels. And we also
will have a green root component. Now, this is important because if you were to analyze this
under either CMX2 or RM1 standard, and we had those bonuses available to us, under CMX2,
we'd be able to utilize bonuses and do 18 units by right and provide the affordable units as
we're proposing. Under RM1, that number would be increased to actually 19 units. So we're well in
line with what would be permitted had this property in this block been zoned just like
all of the other properties on the north side of York Street or like the other properties
on this specific block.
Just to take you through some floor plans.
Basement level, we have a fitness center.
I'll zoom in a bit.
We're proposing 33 places of bicycle storage.
We're really promoting this as a bicycle-friendly development.
So there's some at the basement level,
but also some along this accessible route
uh some along this accessible route where you walk right in and then you have the uh bicycle
where you walk right in and then you have the, uh,
storage here most of the units are uh two bedroom there are studios as well these two that are
shaded in blue would be the affordable units that we're proposing and then as you uh as you head up
To the second floor, then, we have the additional units, and we also have this green roof element
that we're proposing as part of the project.
Here's just the elevations again.
We're at 30 feet, 10 foot high ceilings for each floor.
So we've taken considerable effort over the past year to listen to the community's concerns and really address the issues with height and the ground floor use.
While we can't please everybody when it comes to the ground floor use, whereas the FNA wanted to see commercial space along the ground floor and the neighbors wanted to see residential, we feel that this does fit within the context of York Street and would enhance the commercial corridor.
In terms of density, as you head north, as I mentioned before, and you look at the zoning maps, and we have, you know, ICMX in these RM1 projects, the MX2, 0.1 miles away, there's a project at 2636 East York Street.
that was approved for a variant very recently. And let me just change one thing here so I
could do a continuous scroll. So this is a 10,000 square foot lot, and it was approved
by variants for 42 dwelling units. And again, this is 0.1 miles away at 2636. From a density
standpoint we're actually less dense than network 5 000 square feet approximately and we're proposing
18 units so half the size um and 21 would be half the unit so we're below that um again consistent
there's other examples i can give as well if you look at 24. i think you can summarize mr phillips
pardon the interruption that would be helpful thank you yeah absolutely i know it's been a long day
So, again, we've worked hard to come up with a project that conforms to CMX2 or RM1 standards.
The proviso plans have been provided to show the reduction in the height, significant reduction in height, significant reduction in density, and that we have addressed the concerns of the neighborhood.
neighborhood. I would like to just point out in FNA's letter, which they did submit in
opposition, they did note their support of our plan to include affordable units and moving
the main entrance from Belgrade to York. And if you look at the elements that they took
objection with, they felt that it was too dense for an RSA five zone lot. But as I've
noted, we've developed this and designed it along CMX2 RM1 standards. They note the lack
commercial space which I had mentioned that we had eliminated as a result of the HOA's concerns
and they also mentioned lack of type A accessible units which I was a bit confused about because
as Herb Schultz the architect is here and can testify to we have an ADA accessible unit on the
first floor and I believe you know and that is type A and then there will be five other units
now with a reduced scheme that are type B units so this is a very accessible project that complies
with the ADA in all regards.
So with that, I would like to call
David Lanskroner on
the equitable owner
and just ask that he adopt my testimony.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify
yourself. Spell your full name and I'll swear
you, Lynn.
What's the name of the person you're
looking for, Mr. Phillips?
David Lanskroner.
Mr. Lance Croner you can unmute yourself and speak now
Hi please identify yourself
Spell your full name
David Lance Croner
L-A-N-D-S-K-R-O-N-E-R
You swear or affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth nothing but the truth
Thank you Mr. Phillips
David you heard my testimony a moment ago
Okay and
Do you agree that everything that I stated is true and accurate?
Do you agree that everything that I stated is true and accurate?
And do you agree to adopt my testimony as your own?
Questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Only on this case, if you'd like to testify.
There we have a Kenneth Wood.
Mr. Wood, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Woods.
Please identify yourself, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon.
Kenneth Wood, K-E-N-N-E-T-H, W-O-O-D, 2516 East Boston Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19125.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you, sir.
Please proceed.
Yes, this is an RSA 5 lot, and the proposals for the 21 units, which with the density, would be far out there.
That's why I oppose this project under 14-303.
It's a specific detrimental impact on the neighborhood would be congestion to the public streets and transportation system.
Yes, the streets are already fully backed up, and the Route 89 bus routes along York Street there, that would severely impact that.
Overcrowding the land, yes, 21 units when it's zoned for RSA 5, which would be about five to six homes, is a big difference, and single family.
uh the burden of the sewer system 20 more 21 units would be uh quite a bit of people living
in that project which would be more in the sewer system and the flooding that's been going on
lately is is is just crazy and the impairment to to the confirming properties would be the foot
traffic would be unbelievable trying to get across that york street there uh f endangering the public
safety and fire means, the traffic congestion, that's an emergency route for the police department
and the fire department for years. They've been going up York Street there. And with all the
traffic and congestion, it's going to severely impact the response times of those services,
city services. Plus the noise pollution from the vehicles, radios, door car alarms, and horns
blaring all day long seven days a week with traffic people sitting at that corner right now
before this project is just unbelievable it's increased over the years i've been here for 54
years uh and it does uh go against the city plan i believe the comprehensive plan i think nobody
would want to create a more dense neighborhood in the city and unlivable if they could possibly do
it and it would be in the and the disharmony of the spirit of the zoning code it would increase
like i said congestion and uh everything else with the general criteria and as far as the project
goes he pointed out that in the 2600 block of york street they just did a uh a project with
all those units that was a buy right project there's nothing there could be done and that's
not as populated down there at that intersection as it is up here as far as the community goes.
And this would just completely alter, continue to alter the neighborhood from RS5 single family
residential homes, which has been in place for 200 years, 200 years of history of this. And now
we're being dumped on with all these high rise, severely dense projects, which just brings so
many more people in this area and as far as everybody pointing out that yeah we got a bike
rack here that'll hold 25 bikes i'm 50 58 years old with serious health problems and all of us
elderly people in this community feel that we're being forced out and it's discriminatory because
our bike riding days are over with we rely on getting the medical appointments by transportation
by vehicles we can't drive in this area anymore because of the density we can't park anymore in
this area because of the density and and that we believe is discriminatory against the elderly
disabled people in this area how city the city you've got his own boards are letting all this
happen in these neighborhoods where you're just coming in and steamrolling over top of us
elderly people it's wrong
I'm finished
thank you
did we ever get the letter
from the RCO Mr. Phillips
yes it's in the packet my notation said no but do we have it jaron they just i think they just sent
it's in the packet
my notation said no but
it late uh yesterday um we may but it wasn't included at the point that we did the summary
so i'll look for it now anyone else to testify in this case please first please identify yourself
chair we have a mr monroe mr monroe you can unmute yourself and speak
Good afternoon, Mr. Monroe. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco, Matt Monroe. I'm appearing on behalf of the Residents at Gaul Civic Association. I'm sorry, Homeowners Association.
What is the name of that?
It's the Residents at Gaul Owners Association.
G-A-U-L?
G-A-U-L, yes.
Oh, okay.
As in Gaul Street.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
please proceed uh chairman to chico members of board i know it's been a long day so i'll just
try to cut to the chase i do have a legal memo that i've submitted on behalf of the um uh of the
uh uh residents at golf uh uh owners association uh but just briefly uh mr phillips is correct
we've been uh talking with him in the residents at gall they are the uh townhomes that are
immediately to the rear of this property.
Just wanna go over some of the primary code-based issues
that I think where we differ from the applicant
and believe that the density that's requested
is like the Fishtown Civics,
or Fishtown Neighborhood Association.
We agree that the density in this case
that is sought is excessive.
The building, the RSA private property,
if you took these two lots and consolidated them, there's enough square footage that you could have
three single family row homes as of right. We understand that sometimes variants are requested,
required. And in fact, the, the homeowners association that we're talking about
did obtain some variances as Mr. Phillips noted for rear yard. And they're also adding some,
parking. But in this case, even crediting the argument that the property should be zoned as
some sort of multifamily like RM1 or CMX2, we disagree with the representation that you could
build 18 units as of right there. Based on the square footage of the lot area, you have less than
5,000 square feet. We have not seen a requested site plan, so we don't know the exact square
footage, but we know that it's probably in the neighborhood of about 4,900 square feet or
something like that. But all told, the maximum number of units that you could get there without
any bonuses is probably going to be 9 or 10 units, and 18 is above that. Because the parcel
uh the combined parcels are less than 5 000 square feet um under the code you couldn't get a green
roof bonus uh because you have to have uh 5 000 square feet of earth disturbance area in order to
qualify for the bonus before you could get the green roof bonus um and in any event the green
proof the green roof that was proposed at the last fishtown neighborhood association meeting that we
saw uh was uh provided for a 20 green roof uh and if you're if you're asking for the green roof bonus
uh you have to provide a minimum of a 60 green roof so that that's uh significantly less um and
then similarly for the uh affordable units uh the the proposals is laudable however it's it's
unenforceable as proposed. I think that the applicant had previously proposed doing the
affordable units by community benefits agreement. A CBA would be enforceable only by the Fishtown
Neighborhood Association. So if there wasn't, if they didn't do what they said they were going to
do, they'd have to have somebody standing withstanding to sue them. If they were going to
do something like this uh you know it would need to be uh reduced to a recordable instrument uh
that the planning commission an agreement with the planning commission uh that could be recorded
like a deed containing specific conditions uh that the city can enforce against the development and
that's under section 147027b of the code um i do have uh two of uh my clients here one is mike
Two of my clients here, one is Mike Baruch, who is an owner in the Homeowners Association,
Baruch, who is an owner and the homeowner.
and then Mike Gilpatrick is the president of the Homeowners Association. I'm not sure if he's able
to make the call. He's a military pilot and has been traveling. He's in the Air Force. He was
getting back from a trip earlier today. I'm not sure if he's on, but I do have Mike Baruch on the
call but uh just want to quickly summarize a lot of the the changes that were um made absolutely
the height was was was an issue um the the the commercial on the ground floor my clients weren't
completely opposed to commercial on the ground floor uh they they did have concerns about the
entranceway being on belgrade because it's a it's a narrow street that bottlenecks uh right there at
York, especially in the morning. So they had concerns about that. But with the increased
density, they have concerns that especially now when everybody's ordering everything online and
constantly getting deliveries from Grubhub and Amazon and DoorDash or whatever, in order to
access the building, you're effectively creating a traffic loop down Gall Street and then around
and then up to Belgrade so now with the entrance on York that might reduce some of that additional
bottleneck but with with 25 units you know which will have multiple inhabitants and then their
visitors this is simply too dense for this parcel. I think my client had proposed making an offer to
grant an easement to the developer to use their drive aisle so they could develop single-family
row homes, single-family townhomes. They would have even, as I noted before, RSA 5, you could
get three here as of right. And my client said they would support an application for
an additional unit for four if they wanted to just build as of right. But with that,
there there does not seem to be a uh a hardship imposed by the code uh on the on the property
and um and if uh mike baruch is on the call i would simply ask him to to raise his hand
electronically and um so he can state his name for the record and uh adopt any of the factual
statements that i've made available
Are you there, Mike?
Baruch?
Baruch?
Mr. Baruch, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Michael Baruch, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-B-O-R-U-C-H.
Mr. Baruch, you're breaking up.
Did you spell your last name again?
B-O-R-U-C-H.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Monroe.
All right, Mr. Baruch, can you just tell me, what is your address?
It is 2123 Gall Street.
And are you part of the Homeowners Association?
And what is that Homeowners Association?
It is the residences at Gall.
And how long have you lived there?
Going on two years.
And were you present at some of the Fishtown Neighborhood Association meetings that were referenced?
And did you hear the factual statements that I made on the record?
Were they accurate?
Pardon the interruption.
Carol, I'll be back in three minutes.
um and do you adopt them as your testimony i do uh and uh mr bruce i guess is there is
there anything else that uh that i um that i didn't cover that you would like to add
to the record um no you you covered everything very well okay and is uh is mike gilpatrick
uh on the line matt uh i just wanted to clarify uh i said my address backwards it's two three two
one gulf street not 21 got it thank you thank you before we get to uh whether mr gilpatrick
uh is online it is available i have some questions for mr baruch on cross
and excuse me this is sharon can i interrupt for just one minute to say that i
I've looked through both the original and the revised exhibit packet and
looked through both the original and the revised exhibit packet and couldn't find the RCO letter
they may have submitted it to the board and just not copied me they often don't
I can uh I can email that to you right now okay thank you
and Matt if you'll just indulge me for one moment while I just email it to uh Sharon
mr phillips that's the fishtown neighbors association yeah okay are there any more
witnesses um i will have questions uh on cross for uh uh mr baruch okay great
all right all right sorry about that excuse the interruption uh i did not hear sharon's
testimony about the rco letter uh we're we're waiting for michael i just started it okay okay
thank you sorry it looks like they just sent it to rco zba um and nobody else so thank you
welcome that often happens and they sent it to my uh former email address though i didn't get it
until this morning as well um so are they supportive no they uh were in opposition but
if you know as i said their opposition was also based on the fact that there was no commercial
ground floor um usage they mentioned the uh type lack of type a accessible unit um but they were
uh in favor of the affordable components and uh um our decrease in height um so there were some
positive elements as well if you look closely at the letter thank you
so i just have some brief cross uh examination for mr baruch um mr baruch are you still there
yes i am okay uh as you talked earlier you were at uh the uh fna uh meeting earlier this year
where this project was discussed.
Is that right?
And you were
Mr. Phillips, we're getting
Mr. Phillips, we're getting feedback.
I'm not sure if it's from you or
Mr. Baruch.
There's an echo.
All right.
Phillips, try speaking
again.
A little bit more than that.
uh you're still getting the feedback when i'm speaking right now yes can i ask that everyone
else mute themselves while mr phillip and mr baruch talk you sure can
i'm making myself unmuted just in case i need to uh pipe in
okay uh hopefully that addressed it um mr at the at the fna meeting you noted uh your concern
about what a project like this would do to your property values is that correct yes
okay uh you noted you said you had paid six hundred thousand dollars for your home
objection this uh this is outside of the scope of the direct testimony
it goes to his feelings and sentiments
that he's expressed at public community meetings,
which you had already noted that he was at those meetings.
So I think it's worthwhile to place on the record.
We'll stipulate that in his opinion,
he thinks he's now, there's a lot of feedback still.
We'll stipulate that Mr. Baruch has belief
that he can sell his house for a certain number it's all speculation at this time um i'll move
on to the next uh mr bruce you stated that uh you were concerned with the size of the units that we
were proposing right yes i felt that they were uh all one bedroom units in your last submitted
proposal uh and that they were exceedingly small mr barouche mr barouche do you have any other
devices i do not i just have my laptop and okay we're getting feedback i'm just trying to figure
out where it's coming from i'll move my phone i'll move my phone away from the uh
all right it's the two o'clock i think that was witching
all right it's the two o'clock i think that was which yeah i'll i'll make it quick i have just
a couple more questions uh mr bruce you i believe i have you as quoted as calling uh development
like this with renters uh at a dormitory or flop objection this is the meeting objection this is
outside of the scope of of our presentation which was just related to the zoning issues
sustained okay uh you had objected to the affordable component of this did you not
objection again this is outside of the scope of our presentation
your presentation referenced that his attendance at the meetings his testimony at in in representations
at those meetings about the basis for his opposition is relevant it was it but we didn't
go into we didn't adopt your testimony we but we did not go into any of the facts underlying those
meetings it was simply to establish that he was there excuse me this is sharon again the formal
rules of evidence do not apply in this proceeding all right gentlemen i'll quickly summarize the
basis of what i'm asking mr baruch's uh opposition uh is grounded in the fact that he believes that
an affordable that a multi-family building that has an affordable component will impact negatively
impact his property values whereas Fishtown Neighbor Association has noted the affordable
component is a positive to this development it's something sorely needed within the Fishtown
community I'll also I need to address some of the other points that were made by Mr. Monroe
So with respect to the green roof, we will stipulate as a provisor for providing a green roof in compliance, a 60% green roof in compliance with the Philadelphia Code.
The square foot of the lot size is 4,957 square feet.
However, the Code provides 5,000 square feet of earth disturbance.
Earth disturbance also includes the sidewalks and the surrounding area.
So it's common that projects that are even smaller than this meet that 5,000 square foot requirement.
Clearly, this project would, as it is a corner parcel with frontage on both Belgrade and York Street.
So to do the calculation, as a base level, we would be at 10 units.
We would get two additional units for the green roof to bring to 12.
and then adding the two affordable units would bring this project up to 18. Under an RM1 standard,
that gets increased by ones who are at 19. So issues about and questions regarding density
and whether this is appropriate are unfounded because if this were zoned CMX2 or RM1,
we would be permitted to develop 18 or 19 units, depending on the classification, by right.
Every other property on this block, which is the CMX2 property right here that my cursor is over, that is where Green Egg is, as well as the townhomes, which I'm circling here, are developed under a multifamily standard.
What Mr. Monroe neglected to note is that the townhomes also received a variance to permit multifamily use.
And then as you head north, ICMX, RM1, CMX2, all of the properties are multifamily on this side of York Street, as can be supported by the commercial corridor.
So this is no other home has on this block, nor on the north side going up for five blocks, need to conform to an RSA 5 standard.
We are providing something that the city has placed a benefit and importance on, which is the affordable housing component.
We have stipulated to provide two affordable units within this development, and we address the concerns of height by dropping it to 30 feet and of the commercial usage.
We've compromised at every level and every step of the way, and believe that this is a project that is squarely in line with the neighboring development.
Chairman Tachiko, if I may, just two points.
One is the Fishtown Neighborhood Association letter, just to focus on the key point where we're all in agreement.
uh they say quote um this is too dense for rsa 5 zone lots agreed density is needed but proposals
were excessive uh and uh with respect to the the multi-family use of the townhome development
And with respect to the multifamily use of the townhome development, there are eight units there.
We're talking about the applicant has a proposal on a much smaller parcel that's proposing much more than eight units.
I think it was 18 now. And then finally, with respect to affordable housing or affordable units, there's been no distinction.
the code makes a distinction between low-income units and moderate-income units. There's a
distinction because you get an increase in bonus for moderate-income units versus low-income units.
There's been no distinctions, just affordable. And then again, it would be completely unenforceable
if it was just done by proviso or by a community benefits agreement. The code provides that in
order to do that uh under section 147027b um you have to enter an agreement with the planning
commission have specific conditions and then record that uh agreement like you would indeed so uh so
it's an agreement that runs with the land thank you um one more thing just to point out is uh
Just because I neglected to mention it, it was stated that this 2620, which is right up here, 2636 York Street, I believe someone mentioned it was by right.
It was not.
This was a variant.
There was no affordable component there, and that was 42 units on 10,000 square feet.
Again, we're 5,000 square feet at 18 units, and we are offering to provide the two affordable units.
We have offered this to the community.
we said we would enter into a community benefits agreement to memorialize that, and there was no
response. Also, subsequent to the letter, the letter was reflective of our 21-unit plan. We
have further decreased that to 18 units, so now we are in line with CMX2 or RM1, which again,
if you look up the block, everything's RM1 or CMX2 except for this ICMX.
again I stepped away Sharon I apologize what was the position of the RCO
the RCO Mr. Phillips has said is opposed but let me see if the yes the letter has come in
I will forward you the letter if you'd like or and and the letter is I just put it up on the screen
And again, it notes, agreed density is needed, lack of commercial space and lack of type A
accessible units, which I've addressed that there are type A accessible units that conform
the commercial spacers at the request of the HOA, and they agree density is needed.
The proposals before FNA were for 24 and 21.
We came back with subsequent to that meeting to agree to 18, so we fall in line with the
CMXU standard.
So the RCO did not take a position, correct me if I'm wrong, on the number of units that would be acceptable to them.
Is that correct?
Correct.
That is correct.
And this was based on 21.
You'll also note that they said that we would ask if they would support a fourth version, but we did not provide plans for, and the plans are the same.
We just agreed to reduce the density.
Understood.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
No. No. Planning Commission. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission staff worked on these zoning maps with the Fishtown Neighbors Association over three years. The maps date to 2015.
Comprehensive plan recommends these properties for residential single-family use.
Proposed multifamily units are not the minimum required to enable viable use of these properties.
For a proposal that deviates so drastically from the underlying zoning, the correct remedy is a zoning change, not a zoning variance.
We recommend denial of the requested variances.
Thank you. MI 2020-001115, 2504 East York Street. My vote is no.
my vote is yes my vote is yes
can we take it on the advisory can we take can we discuss this can we take it on the advisory
mr chairman okay the record will be closed uh we'll discuss it at our next executive session
next Wednesday. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go any further, I do have, we have to go back to
number 11. Mr. Whalen forgot to ask us, there is a revision. So MI 2021-001223,
623 Shawmont Avenue. My vote is yes with the
623 Shawmont Avenue my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan two pages approved today
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
hold on I'm sorry before you go before you go
I need to ask if the court reporter needs a break yes I do okay we'll see you back here
in 10 minutes thank you sir thank you i know it's long but he needs a break
please i remind you always uh remind me or one of us please all right uh i think carol we're
up to number four yes we are calendar number mi 2021 001226 3023 west harper street the attorney
is Rachel Pritzker. I'm still under oath from earlier. Yep. There's also a letter of non-opposition
from Fairmont Civic Association. That's correct. She's coming back in as a panelist. Thank you.
Ms. Pritzker can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA-191 of the three.
You're still under oath, but do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, 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?
Thank you. You may proceed.
and there's a letter of non-opposition from the rco yes chairman members of the board this is
3023 west harper street as you can see in front of you the application is for the erection of a
rear addition and an addition above to an existing attached structure not to exceed 38 feet in height
with a roof deck access from a roof deck access structure for a single family house the only
refusal we have here today is for the eight-foot setback. As the board is well aware, when you have
single family or you have any properties that are directly adjacent to structures, you are
required to do the eight-foot setback. In this proposal, we are proposing for
a flush structure instead on the third floor. There are other properties on the block that have
the same third story flush and the community and those who reside and live on the block believe
that our proposal for a flush third floor instead of the eight-foot setback was more in character
with what's already being provided and is more historically in character with this block and
other three-story structures nearby. We're going to hold the cornice line and also make sure that
um you know the materials that we're using for the structure are in line with what's on the property
this is the zoning map it's rsa5 on west harper street
and this is the property it's currently going to be renovated as a single family home
exterior photos of the property very unattractive picture of the rear of the property
um interior photos so all this will be redone um we met with the fairmount civic association
um back in april um and we have letter of non-opposition from them as well um so again
um we're just asking to not provide the uh eight foot setback and to do flush as per the plans that
we provided i'm happy to go through the plans if the um board would like or um take any questions
and have my uh client um jeff cohen um on here as well to adopt my testimony just give us a
brief description if you could all right yeah sure let me just pull them up if you don't mind
here we go
you see that chairman uh we only see the large print uh anyway you got abbreviations yeah we
could see that now so as you can see we're just proposing this is the existing two-story structure
we're just proposing a flush third story with an addition that mimics the existing, you know,
property lines that we have and just adding on a roof deck and roof deck access structure.
It just allows for a more modern look, again, holding the cornice line
and keeping in character with the other three-story properties on the block.
and keeping in character with the other three story properties on the block.
Very good. Thank you.
You want to get your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes, please.
Do you see a Jeff Cohen?
There's no one with that name that has their hand up.
We'll stipulate that you being an officer of court,
your client would have adopted your testimony.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good evening, members of the Board.
David Repto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change from the existing single-family zoning at this location.
This block face contains almost all two-story row homes.
Granting the variance by allowing a third story that is not set back would break that uniformity.
we recommend that the board deny the requested variance just want to comment to the planning
commission that if you look on google maps there's actually a bunch of properties that are three
stories that are flush or provide a mansard roof and not the setback that's correct but i would
note that the majority of the block is two-story homes without setbacks with setbacks right okay
All right. MI 2021-001-226-3023 West Harper Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Calendar number. You're welcome. Calendar number MI 2021-000379-3338 North Reese Street. The attorney is Alan Nockamson.
And we have a letter of opposition from Hache.
He's coming back in as a panelist, Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name.
Yes, good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair, members of the Board, Alan Nockamson of Nockamson,
PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19109.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we do. Thank you. You may proceed. I'm going to share my screen. Thank you.
All right. So I'm here for 3338 North Street. Whenever a client comes to me with a zoning variance, we talk first about, does it make sense? And my philosophy is this. If you walk by the property built or used as proposed, and it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, then that's obviously the beginning of a conversation.
And this is the beginning of the conversation for 3338 North 3th Street.
As you see the property, the front page of our materials, it's a corner property.
It's a regular shape.
If you looked at it just generally, and by the way, it has a sign.
A church was previously on the first floor.
And on the second floor is residential.
This speaks as a CMX, you know, one or two property.
Unfortunately, it's RM1.
So, you know, that's why we're here today. So in my presentation materials, you'll see a table of contents. There's the deeds of property showing that my client, Syed LLC, owns the property. Second exhibit is the certificate of tax clearance showing that they are a good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
A third exhibit is the notice of refusal, and we'll go over the permits or the history of this property. We're looking to put essentially the quintessential corner store. No on-premises cooking, no, but the grocery store that you can go and get whatever you need the last second.
And you'll see from the permit or the permits that this has a history of commercial usage on the first floor, even though it's a RM1 property.
And we'll go through it as well to show that in 1960, this was a corner store as well.
Fourth exhibit, you'll see our application appeal to the ZBA.
Fifth, you'll see the maps of the area.
And you'll see a mixture in the zoning map between RM1 and CMX2.
We are on Rees Street, which has a lot of commercial designations, but regardless,
it's multi-unit in nature. Exhibit 6 will be photographs of the property in the surrounding
area. Exhibit 7, you'll see the floor plans. Exhibit 8, you'll see correspondence from
Hache CDC, but you'll also see pages of support for this project.
So, first thing is, you'll see the deed to the property, you'll see that it's owned
So first thing is, you'll see the deed to the property.
by Zaid LLC.
You'll then see our certificate of tax clearance showing that we're in good standing.
This is an RM1 property, it's multi-unit.
We're not trying to increase the amount of units, and to be honest, this is over 1124.
We could squeeze in another residential unit. It's going to be owner occupied completely. First floor, you know, run a business owned by the owner. And second floor, he will be living there as well. So we're not trying to overuse this property in any respect. We can actually have three units, two residential or three residential. We just want one commercial, owner occupied, one residential above, owner occupied.
All right. So we'll go through now the different permits that we saw of record.
Again, in 1960, this was retail, grocery, and delicatessen.
Pardon the interruption. Could you enlarge those?
Yeah, sure. Is that better, Mr. Chair?
Okay. So again, you'll see in 1960, retail, grocery, and delicatessen, one family dwelling.
That's as though that's what's in front of us today.
That was the property in 1960. If you look in 1955, this was a beer distributor and one family dwelling. And if you go in 1998, this was a barbershop in a single family.
And then I didn't find any use permit for the church, but its last use was as a church. So at
no point ever in this history has the property ever been used on the first floor other than,
at least according to the history, a commercial component, non-residential.
So here's our application for appeal that we filed to the ZBA along with the notice
refusal in the project information form here's the zoning map again a mixture between cmx2 and
rm1 but you see the shape of this of this property this would you know this screams that this would
be a cmx1 or cmx2 and we're only trying to use it as cmx1 not cmx2 if this was a cmx2 property
though food beverage and groceries would be allowed as a right so this would be as a right
project and it's not typical you see an RM1 property with this type of shape it's more of a
of a mixed-use type of property uh again you know we're on the corner of Glenwood and uh Reese
Street right here on Fifth Street and Sixth in the Harrogate section of Philadelphia
um photographs of the property you'll see it from you know the front of the property
you see the right of property on North Reese to left of the property on North Reese you can see
commercial across the street to the right of the property on Glenwood because we're in the corner
of Glenwood and Reese to the left of the property on Glenwood and then our plans I definitely need
to enlarge these but you know there's a separate entrance for the residential component here's the
commercial component again the corner like again you have those jagged edge corners you see a lot
of those in South Philly as well where this is typical you walk in you walk in there's the you
know cash register you have the whole retail area where there is you know the food and and whatever
again no on-site cooking it's merely a corner store like a deli that was in 1960 how this
property was being used. And then we have the letter. Now, we had two meetings with Hase.
So, you know, as part of the project, you know, they have a pre-community meeting,
and they always ask, well, can you get nearby neighbors to, you know, sign a petition if
possible, which we did prepare. Now, this is a heavily Latino or Spanish-speaking population.
So when we first did the petition, we only had it in English. There was an allegation that some people signed the petition not knowing what they were signing. So I asked for a second meeting, and then we had the petition also done in English and in Spanish. So there would be no issue.
We also had them review the petition beforehand the second time to make sure we translated it correctly and there was no issue with regards to that.
So, you know, again, you know, we embrace the fact that, you know, the people at the community who showed up, the seven individuals are against the project, but there was nothing really zoning related.
But there was nothing really zoning-related.
We try to work with the...
We tried to work with the individuals in the community who were against it, who stated they just were against it.
They're like, these type of convenience stores are nuisances to the neighborhood.
We're going to be there all hours of the night.
And we indicated to them, and we would agree these form of proviso, first of all, commercial pickup.
Secondly, the hours of operation would be seven days a week, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
and we would be willing to see if that's acceptable to the board. We would put cameras,
and this is not a zoning-related thing, but we would put cameras and appropriate lighting to
make sure that this does not become a nuisance area. And again, indicated that the owner is going
to live there and is going to work there so i know that zoney runs with the land but you know
that's you know what he wants to do in terms of his profession and investment so what again is
his intention with the commercial space it's just a corner store it's well food beverages
food beverages and groceries you know that's that's all with no cooking on premises and again
in 1960 that was what this property was permitted for. 1955 it was a beer distributor. 1998 it was
a barbershop and most recently it was a church. But all he wants to go is refer back to the 1960s
where this was food, beverages, and groceries. So as you can see this was the second form of
the petition but you can see it's in English and in Spanish. And the other thing that was
really important to the group was to get nearby neighbors so this is on north 5th street it's on
reese it's on glenwood these are all signatures within the block radius so here's the first page
the second page then here's additional signatures because of different parts of you know of that we
got in english as well from the first time but there's like you know almost over 50 signatures
60 signatures of people nearby um i can't speak to the people who were there uh you know who
attended the community meeting but we really did try to work with reasonable provisors
especially given the history of the property and the intended use just here's um our letter that
we sent to the community and again we had two separate meetings so you can summarize mr yeah
that's it that's it i mean so the point the point is is that we're i think this is a responsible
use. We are agreed to grant her reasonable provisos. The bottom floor has never been used
as a residential in its history. And the use that we're requesting, the property has been
used that way in the 1960s. I have my client, Ayd Syed, who hopefully is still on the line.
I'm not sure. It's been a pretty long list. But if he's not, as an officer of the court,
i would you know state that everything i state is true and correct noted any questions from the board
no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so i see your client now i do too as well
you can get on and spell your full name and i'll swear you in
yes good evening how are you guys my name is yad saeed do you hear me yes please spell your name
e-y-a-d s-a-y-d-e thank you you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth or nothing but the
truth yes i do thank you mr knockinson yeah and before i have him adopt my testimony one other
thing when he when mr saeed purchased the property it was represented to him this was a multi-unit
structure he he was he didn't understand that zoning requires certain uh there are certain
limitations in zoning so what's multi-unit doesn't mean that you can put anything in that unit
so his understanding was that given the especially configuration of and the the signage and the
history of the property that he can put the the the his his grocery store in there so anyway with
That being said, Mr. Saeed, you heard everything I stated today.
Yes, I did.
And is it true and correct?
Is it true and correct?
We're having technical difficulties.
I'll go back to what I said.
We'll stipulate you being an officer in court, he would adopt your testimony.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Here we have Mr. Foulkes. Mr. Foulkes, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Here we have Mr. Folk. Mr. Folk, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Mr. Foulkes, good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco, members of the ZBA board. My name is Sloan Foulkes, representing the Office of Councilman Maria King on the Sanchez Room 508 City Hall.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
So, yes, sir. The applicant has met with the coordinating RCO and received a letter of opposition, actually.
At the community meeting, the residents and neighbors that were present expressed concerns, which included parking, trash, loitering, and other quality of life issues.
Our office shares those concerns. Therefore, we are not in support of this variance request. Thank you.
Mr. Folks, was your office aware of the petition that the applicant submitted?
Actually, I was at the community meeting, Chairman DiCicco, and that was a basic point
of contention um i i uh miss amazon was the um representative uh from the mr knockamson's office
there one of the issues that came up came up and um i'm sure that um uh mr um noxin's not
knockamson's uh client would agree was that uh at the time of this meeting with hasse
uh there were neighbors near neighbors across the street who had concerns about um not speaking or
or the actual applicant not reaching out to them.
I'm not going to speculate on whether he did or didn't,
but that was a point of concern with neighbors
that were directly across the street at the time.
As Mr. Nackamson said, yes, seven of your neighbors opposed it,
but there were 33 neighbors that were at the meeting.
And as Mr. Nackamson has a position of 50 people,
this is a small block,
so i'm pretty sure 50 people don't live on those blocks um 33 people they were you know strong
opposition from the 33 people that were there so yes our office is aware of it uh we did take that
the councilman did take that in consideration um when uh she uh formulated her opinion um
i'm i'm able to answer any other questions sir yeah so i don't know where when mr folks was
because there were two meetings so again there was some issue with the first meeting because
our petition was only in English. That's why we asked for the second meeting to have an
opportunity to put a petition in English and in Spanish. And this property technically really
intersects three streets, Glenwood, Reese, and Fifth Street. And that's where we got all of
our signatures. Originally, there was an issue because we didn't, I don't remember if it was
Glenwood or Reese, we didn't get signatures. So when we had a second bite of the apple with the
multilingual petition um that's when we actually got names on of the other streets i think we just
got reese street and we didn't get glenwood and then they asked for that and i had the letter in
front of me and it's online right here in front of the board we only there were only seven people
opposed there were 30 33 people in the meeting but only 20 only seven voted and in the letter
they indicated they have no issue with commercial use they just don't want a grocery store in there
So, again, that's Mr. Saeed's profession.
And in terms of trash and loitering, again, we'll agree to reasonable provisos.
Understood.
Again, I just want to make sure Mr. Fulks was aware of the petition, which basically counters what the RCO was putting out there.
All right.
Anyone else to testify?
i see no that he is at this time too thank you planning commission good evening david
fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends this property for for commercial mixed use there is documented history of commercial use
of this property dating to 1955 we recommended the board grant requested variants thank you
MI 2021-000379-3338 North, Reese Street, excuse me.
My vote is yes with the following proviso.
Commercial trash pickup, hours of operation, Monday through Sunday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you.
You're welcome. Are we going on to number eight, calendar number MI 2021-001-229-4340
Bybury Road. The attorney is Zachary Berger, and we have a letter of support from Franklin Mills.
And we have a letter of support from Franklin Mills Advisory Council and also from Councilman Brian O'Neill.
I don't see an attorney by that name, Madam Vice Chair.
You can do Carrie Nace Post. It might be her.
Okay. He's coming back in as a panelist. Thank you, Tanya.
hi carrie can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name
hi good evening at this point uh carrie nace paust c-a-r-r-i-e-n-a-s-e-p-o-u-s-t attorney with
the law firm of fox rothschild 2700 kelly road suite 300 warrington pa do you swear a firm 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. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof
of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in
advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, I do.
Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. Can I share my screen? Sure, you may.
Okay, you can see that here, great.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
I know this has been a very long hearing, so I will try to be brief to the point, but
address all of the pertinent information here.
I represent the applicant for this project at SafeStore Byberry LLC.
On the line with me today is also John Williams, who is a principal of the applicant, as well as Dan Mattson, who is the civil engineer.
Safe Store Byberry LLC has this property under agreement.
I did include a letter of authorization as Exhibit 5 in your packet.
I do also have here this afternoon the first page of the agreement of sale, as well as the signature page, which I'd like to mark as Exhibit 5A, and I will submit to Sharon Saleta and the board following the hearing here.
But we do have a letter of authorization that was submitted from the property owner confirming that the applicant has the right to file this application.
the property that's before you this this afternoon is 4340 Byberry Road as well as
4301 Woodhaven Road pull up a copy of the aerial plan
this property is uh total it's comprised of two parcels the total area is 12 and a half acres
approximately. It is zoned RSA 1. It's located along Byberry Road. You have Woodhaven Road to
the south. Up in the northwest area is the Philadelphia Mills Shopping Center, and then
it's bordered to the east by the Pequessing Creek. 4340 Byberry is actually improved with an existing
house as well as an outbuilding, both of which are vacant and are being proposed to be demolished.
4301 Woodhaven Road is back here. It is all vacant and contains natural resources.
The applicant is proposing to develop this property with a three-story building that will
be used for self-storage facility. Due to the zoning of this property, which is RSA1,
it is not permitted within the zoning district, so we are requesting a variance for the use
as well as the number of parking spaces in front of you here is the refusal so we do have a variance
for the use parking spaces 105 are required 25 are proposed loading spaces five are required and
four are proposed we did submit a zoning site plan i'm sorry which is here you can see the building
we're proposing approximately 105,000 total square feet, the 25 parking spaces. We do have
two points of access on Byberry Road. We did meet with the Franklin Mills Advisory Council as well
as the RCO. Also, given the size of the project, it did require us to go through the CDR review
process. We did meet with that committee last week. We received comments both from LNI as well as
We received comments both from L&I as well as, in terms of our zoning review, as well as the CDR.
They did recommend the project, but had a few recommendations, which we took into consideration.
And I will show you, we have a revised plan.
Let me just get that here.
Apologies, let me make it a little smaller so we can actually see it.
I actually submitted another revised plan here.
So based on the comments that we received from the CDR, we included a street light along
the frontage.
We also included some sidewalk along the frontage along Byberry.
I'm actually going to pull up the rendered site plan, which is easier to see.
Here we go.
So this sidewalk here along the frontage of Byberry, that was added at the request of CDR.
As I said, there's one additional street light here, which we added.
We also designated one of the parking spaces for a green or share car parking space, and they also asked for bike rack, which we added here.
During the meeting, they also made mention of the number of trees that were being removed, so we did agree to add some more landscaping in this area for reforestation references.
So, if the Board does choose to grant the variances that are being requested, we would ask that there be a proviso that they accept the revised zoning plan, which was submitted to Ms. Aletta yesterday afternoon.
How many pages, Ms. Pels?
There are two. There's a zoning plan and a landscape plan.
On the revisions?
Two pages. Okay. Thank you.
in front of you here is a rendering of what the building will look like this is one of the side
angles this is just a rendering of what it would look like at night just to show the lighting that
it would take place and then this is the other side of the building yeah i think if you can
summarize i would appreciate that yep so uh due to the unique um conditions of this property both
the location of it the size the natural features we believe that um it is not suitable for the
the uses that are permitted by right under the rsa1 zoning district we do believe that the use
that is being proposed is a low impact use that would allow a reasonable use of the property
and is still consistent with the surrounding area. Due to this type of facility, again,
it's a low impact. We have very little traffic that comes in and out every day.
The number of parking spaces of 105 is excessive for this use. We believe that the reduced parking
not only preserves some of the natural area, reduces impervious, and provides a better site
design but is more typical for this type of use and would request the variances that are being
requested. Do you have a client to adopt your testimony? We do. I do. Mr. John Williams is on
the line. Good afternoon, Mr. Williams. Please identify yourself with a record and I'll swear
you in? Or should I say good evening? Mr. Williams, you can unmute yourself and speak
now. Mr. Williams, please identify yourself with the record, spell your full name, and
I'll swear you in. John Williams, J-O-N-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. You swear for him to tell the truth, the
whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Williams, were you here
this evening during the presentation that I just gave? Yes, I was. And do you believe that the
statements that I made are true and accurate? I do. And had you provided testimony yourself,
would you accept the statements as your own? I do. Great. I have no further questions for Mr.
Williams. I would mention, and I think you pointed out, we do have correspondence both
from the Franklin Mills Advisory Council confirming the meeting that we had with the RCO and
acknowledging their support for the design and the variances being requested as well.
acknowledging their support for the design and the and the variance is being requested as well
as correspondence from Councilman O'Neill's office. Thank you. Questions from the board? No.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
There we have Alice Udovich. Ms. Udovich, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good evening, Alice. Please identify yourself with the records. Play your name and I'll swear you in.
Good evening, Chairman. Members of the Board, Alice Udovich, U-D-O-V-I-C-H, City Hall 562, Zip Code 19107.
You swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Chairman, the Councilman believes that this is an appropriate use at this location.
It abuts Franklin Mills Mall as well as Woodhaven Road.
the councilman is supportive of the granting of the variance.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this case?
I see no other hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good evening. David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
The comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential single-family use.
We estimate that the applicant could create 54 house slots by right.
There is no unique characteristic of the lock that would prevent it from being used in compliance with the code.
For such a drastic change of use, the correct remedy is a zoning change, not a zoning variance.
We recommend that the Board deny the requested variances.
2021-001229, 4340 by Berry Road.
My vote is yes with the proviso revised plan, two pages approved today.
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
for 10 great thank you thank you thank you calendar number um strike that calendar number
MI-2021-001228, 6227 Catherine Street.
6227 Catherine Street.
Mr. Squiroff.
I see no one with that name with their hand raised here.
Is there anyone representing 6227 Catherine Street?
okay he was just there he disappeared
who was there
Neil Sklaroff there he is he had disappeared the first time
he's coming back as he's coming back in as a panelist chair
thank you good evening Mr. Sklaroff
Mr. Sklaroff, can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name, please?
Neil Sklaroff, N-E-I-L-S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F,
with the law firm Dilworth Paxson,
with an address of 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
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?
Yes, there are two notices of refusal.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, 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, I have.
I've sent the letter just came this morning and we forwarded that to your council.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thanks.
Can I share my screen, please?
Yes, you may.
We'd love screens.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Board.
I am pleased to represent this evening the Church of Christian Compassion.
their project, a development of 38 affordable senior dwellings.
I normally wouldn't talk much about the applicant, but this calls for some mentions.
The Church of Christian Compassion is not only the property owner,
but the co-developer of this affordable housing.
but the co-developer of this affordable housing building.
It will continue to be the owner of the property and will continue to be the co-developer until its co-developer transfers all title to the church.
The church is a vigorous community actor.
It operates an extensive outreach program, admired not just for the sheer number of programs it supports, but more importantly, for its effect on the community and the maintenance and progress of the community.
A robust series of 165 ministries serve Cobbs Creek and the Philadelphia community.
Not a small portion of those ministries emphasize the health and wellness of the community.
During the pandemic, the church distributed more than one million pounds of food, was a center for COVID prevention, engaged in anti-violence task force with the district attorney, and has numerous senior programs and youth programs.
And one of those efforts is this development of 38 affordable housing units.
It would be hard to live in this city and not know of the critical need for affordable housing, especially when it comes for housing for our seniors.
This development alone will not satisfy the need for senior affordable housing, but it will provide 38 attractive, affordable, and safe dwelling units.
Hopefully for those who have lived in the community for most of their lives and who want to remain in the community when they no longer can maintain or afford their homes.
Joining, hopefully they're still with us tonight, is Senior Pastor Lonnie Herndon, Ava Goldman, an executive with Gardner Capital, the co-developer here.
Gardner Capital has experienced with developing 90 or 40 affordable developments in 13 states.
We're also joined by Blaine Stoddard, president of BFW, the church's consultant, and a dynamic
member of the church's development team. He's a don't-take-no-for-an-answer individual and has
extraordinary energy keeping this project going. We also have Kurt Raymond, the architect on the
development, and Cornelius Brown and Kevin Tatlow, a bowler engineer, the civil engineers. Let's go to
the exhibits. First of all, we have a list of exhibits. Exhibit one is our certificate of tax
clearance Exhibit 2 are two deeds to the property. Seems to have gotten out of order here.
There are two parcels that will be combined for the purposes of this project.
These are the photographs of the posted notices. You'll notice the two orange bases
plus the copy of the notice of refusal. This is 623 to 625 Catherine Street. To the right is 6227
Catherine Street and that building will be removed. Another photograph looking down the block
showing the Catherine Street posting. Again, the Catherine Street posting. This is the Felton
Street posting. The property is the corner of Felton Street and Catherine Street.
This next exhibit shows the context of the site. It's an L-shaped property, the longest part being
on Felton, and the shortest part being on Catherine, only a block from Cobbs Creek Park.
The Planning Commission has agreed with us that the frontage, the primary frontage,
is on Catherine Street. This is a view going north on Catherine Street,
and this is a view going on Catherine Street going, I'm sorry, did I say Catherine Street?
that was going up Felton Street. This is going west on Catherine Street toward the park.
This is east on Catherine Street. In the center is the existing building that will be demolished.
This is a view of the furthest most part on Felton Street.
The green area is part of this L-shaped problem.
The green area is part of this L-shaped property.
To the right are single-family homes that have a shared driveway.
As will be shown later, that driveway is for those homes that are abutting it, but we have no right to use that driveway.
Again, looking north on Felton.
this is the original application and the zoning site plan the property measures about 13 000
square feet and what you see here is the ground floor of a four-story building
where the ground level was not attributed at this point i'll explain that we have been
working with the streets department to come up with access to the property. It will have a totally
green roof. And here is the first refusal that we received. As you can tell from this,
Ellen and I determined that given our 13,000-square-foot lot, the code allows us to provide 26 affordable units.
This is not a mixed-use project, but a totally affordable project, 38 units, 15 of which will be subsidized.
But we need 38 units, and we need four floors to make this pencil out.
The economics of this in today's world requires us to have 38 units.
We also exceed the height.
The height for this CMX2 district is 38 feet.
We ask for 43 feet 2 inches in order to get our four floors in.
We think that's a minor adjustment upwards.
This is our application project information form.
that included the refusal. But we wanted to add parking in a driveway and we requested and
received permission to amend the original application. And this is the application
that was amended. And what we have here are 10 parking spaces under the building,
including one accessible space. To access that we have a driveway 18 feet in width. Again we have
the green roof and this has 38 units. Along with that application was the architect's letter
stating what the changes were. I'm going to skip over this for a moment. This new application
and site plan, generated two additional refusals. The first is an unusual refusal.
L&I considers this, because our side yard is on a property line, to be an attached building.
As far as we know, it won't be attached to anything. It will border some single-family homes.
but in a CMX2 district, they don't allow accessory parking.
We could go into what the history of that is, but we don't have a common shared driveway
and therefore our 10 spaces, which we think are essential for this and for the residents,
is accessory parking is something that we ought to be able to do.
And it's a very unusual set of circumstances that we don't have the right to do that.
The second refusal here, it was at the time of the original application, the minimum driveway width was 24 feet.
And therefore, since we were providing a driveway, drive aisle width of 18 feet, we received a refusal.
However, if we go back to the new code or the current code, there was an amendment earlier this year that allows the access driveway, drive aisle, to be 18 feet in width.
But it's still generated, even though it complies with the current code, it's still generated a refusal.
So those are the four refusals.
This is a rendering of the project.
And the exact architecture is still being worked on by the architect and the church.
But in this vision of it, we're replicating the rhythm of the adjacent row homes.
You'll notice that there are doorways and balconies.
You'll notice that there are doorways and balconies that could be enjoyed, and the rhythm is replicated down Felton Street.
When we get to the floor plans, I'll explain where the affordable units have been put.
This is a straight-on view of the exterior, again, showing 43 feet, 2 inches.
Here's the floor plan.
To the bottom, you'll see a community center.
The church will work with any community group to give them access and to plan activities.
There's a multi-purpose room here.
There's a library.
There's a laundry area.
And there are two residential units. And you'll notice on the right, if you can see it, that the next slide has floors two, three, and four. Each of them have 12 residential units. All of them are one bedroom.
They are accessed by an elevator as well as the stairways and laundry area.
As you'll notice on the right, the 29 one-bedroom units measure more than 500 square feet.
The fully accessible units, of which there are nine, measure more than 700 square feet,
which I think compared to what you've been seeing is maybe it would be too generous to call it
a generous square footage, but more than you sometimes see.
This slide shows why this particular site is an attractive, affordable living project.
There are many, many services in the immediate area.
The park is nearby. There are places of worship nearby, places of commercial activity nearby.
And so affordable living will allow our seniors to access those services.
This was our letter to the neighbors in advance of the RCO.
I'm sorry I put these notices, proofs of mailing.
in, but there were some, I remember it was 125 or so.
And lastly, the project was shown to Eleanor Sharp, the Executive Director of the Planning
Commission, and this letter dated February 5 may not relate exactly to this zoning hearing,
but you'll see it was the opinion of the staff that this met the requirements and the purpose
and intent of the comprehensive plan.
If there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer those.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board for Mr. Sklaroff?
Thank you.
Mr. Sklaroff, do you have someone that you would like to adopt?
I should have said this in the beginning, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to rely on Section 303.14F,
which if there's no objection to any parties from any parties the statements I've made
can be seen as on behalf of those of the applicant and can be used to create findings
of facts and conclusions of law. So noted thank you. Before we go any further I would like
we have a letter from Councilwoman Gaultier. I'd like to read into the record.
uh councilwoman gaultier is in support of the variance request being presented here today
this is not meant in any way to prejudge or discredit the concerns that we know have been
expressed by near neighbors we understand these concerns and believe that compassion
will work to minimize disruptions to near neighbors because they are a near neighbor
themselves as they have as they have other properties on the same block it is rare that we
have excuse me it is rare that we see before this board a proposal for 100 fully government mandated
affordable housing for seniors as well as a property owner with the depth of history and
commitment to the neighborhood that compassion has we believe they will work diligently to be a
thoughtful steward of this property and for that reason we are in support of this application this
afternoon. Thank you as always. This was actually submitted on behalf of Councilwoman Gautier by her
This was actually submitted on behalf of Councilwoman Gautier by her chief of staff, Mr. Andrew Goodman.
Chief of Staff.
So with that, do you have anyone who you need?
You already did that on the adoption stuff, right?
I think we've taken quite enough time.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Would anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
i see no hands at this time chair very much planning commission good evening david effecto
city planning commission mr chairman members of the board this is a low-income housing tax credit
proposal for which the commission staff wrote a letter for their funding application stating that
the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan we recommend that the board approves the
requested variances. Mr. Squiroff, did you have revised plans? Excuse me, Chair. There was an
amended application. If you would just reference the amended application number that I gave you.
Yeah. Do we need to have revision revised plans or does that cover it? I don't believe so. They
were reviewed by L&I. Is that correct, Mr. Yes. They were reviewed by the zoning examiner.
She issued that second refusal that I was part of the exhibits submitted.
Okay. MI 2021-001-228-66, excuse me, 6227, Catherine Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Application as amended.
Refusal for application number Z as in zebra, P as in Paul, 2020-010174.
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso okay thank you all that completes
the two o'clock list great does anyone need a five-minute break court reporter
i do mr chair okay let's take a five-minute break folks and we'll come back thank you
she went home or he went home we're ready to roll yes sir i am roll that's what we all signed
up for kanya yvette we ready yes here yeah i'll have a comment i'll have a comment on that later
about what we signed up for.
And I think we talked about this a while ago.
And maybe we should initiate what we originally said.
When the council president, and he was correct,
he probably had 100 and something people testify today,
they are all limited to two minutes.
There's a light that goes off.
You're saying that we're live.
Pardon me?
We're live.
Yeah, I know.
I'm just saying.
I think that's something you might want to take into consideration.
Limiting testimony to two minutes.
because that's the only way we can get it done.
That works for me.
That works for me, Chair.
I will be keeping the time if you wish.
We're going to talk about that.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing
along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere,
Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza,
and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman
and Mr. James Snell,
Board Administrator Ms. Yvette Benton and our Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings,
I'll go through some of the basics of what we can expect. First, we will be administering
oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone
that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded and to understand that the recording will be made available to the public
on the web or otherwise. 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 enter an appearance statement, call Google,
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
I'll repeat to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue and I would also remind everyone please do not attempt
to testify in the chat all comments and questions should be directed to our board administrator
thank you very much with that I will there are no continuance or withdrawals that have been
With that, there are no continuance or withdrawals that have been made known to us, but I will ask the question now.
Are there any requests for continuances or withdrawals on the 330 list?
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Okay, so with that, we'll begin with the first add-on, MI 2020-001567.
5108 Haverford Avenue. This is a resumption hearing. And there are letters of opposition
from Councilwoman Gautier, West Philly Together, Parkside Association, and the 44th Ward
all have submitted letters of opposition. Mr. Jinn? Excuse me, Chair, could we move this back
one or two hearings yep okay we've got a list number one on the list okay calendar number mi
2020-002668 1331 north 17th street the attorney is leo malvahill and we have a letter of support
from map holistic cdc mr mobile hill is coming back in as a panelist now thank you
mr malvahill name and address on the record please and spell your last name
certainly leo mulvihill that's m as in michael u l d as in victor i h i l l address is 213
green street first floor philadelphia 19125 do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do you also agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy i do have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos on our plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter i have the rco letter was submitted a little later but it's
all been submitted okay you may proceed you have a great tie thank you so members of the board i'll
make this quick this is a proposal for uh a three dwelling unit building that we're proposing to be
condos my client stephen kravitz may be on the line he just had surgery uh hip replacement is
recovering from that so i hope he's still with us today members of the board for the record i have
the refusal appeal and project information form of page one area zoning maps at six deed at eight
commercial activity license for my client skira holdings llc at 11 tax clearance at 12 zoning
notification and proof of mailing at 13 rco letter is included in the packet although there were
asterisks when i originally prepared the packet photos of the property were at 16 and plans were
at 30. so members of the board this is currently a vacant lot of approximately 1700 square feet
It sits directly north of a recently approved project that is eight units on one lot.
They're more or less with a common drive and parking, single-family dwelling style, but nevertheless multifamily.
And this property is catty-cornered to a recently approved four-dwelling unit building at Ingersoll Street at 17th.
What my client is proposing to do is have three residential units.
Here's our area zoning map.
This property that I'm indicating now with my cursor is a car garage.
They have a lot of classic cars out on the block on the sidewalk here to the west and also in front of the property itself.
This, which I'm indicating with my cursor, this large lot, this is our vacant lot.
This here, which was previously a vacant lot, is now the new construction that was approved by the zoning board previously.
this that i'm indicating on the corner of 17th and ingersoll that's that four family dwelling
that this board approved as well we are zoned rsa 5 in this lot going to page 7 of my packet
uh but we're in a mixed rm1 zoning district and i note that with the square footage of this lot
where it's zoned rm1 we'd be looking at essentially a buy rate proposal it's my client's deed
commercial activity license just to purchase the record at 11.
Acts clearance, 12.
Here's our zoning notification letter.
The coordinating RCO in this matter was MAP Holistic CDC.
That's M as in Mary, AP as in Paul, Holistic CDC.
We held a community meeting on May 27th at 6 p.m.
There's our notice of mailing at page 15.
This is a letter dated June 4th from MAP Holistic CDC,
indicating that MAP, CDC, and Friends of 47th Ward
are in support of this project.
We are looking to have, again, three units on this property.
It's going to be condos,
so we're looking towards homeownership
because I understand that's very important
for the members of this community.
I'll get to the plans in a moment.
i'll get to the plans in a moment i have photographs of the property you have to
I have photographs of the property.
You have to forgive how they had to be posted.
forgive how they had to be posted but due to the neighboring construction with that recently
approved unit uh there's a fence that gets moved all the time so i had to attach these
zoning signs to this portable bathroom that was parked in the middle of my client's spot
they are still on the property as well i did check this is looking northbound this is that
you uh classic car garage i was speaking of with the cars parked on the sidewalk
and across the street. This is our lot itself. To the left, that's a garage. To the right,
that's that multifamily dwelling that I was discussing. It's basically set up as a PUD,
as far as I can discern from the current records, or perhaps as a condo association. I'm not
entirely sure at this point, but that's what it appears to be based on city records.
And that was overall eight residential units was proposed as the common driveway,
four to the north and four to the south. This is looking southbound on 17th.
This is directly across the street. This is that Cady Corp multifamily building
that I discussed earlier. It's an empty lot across the street. Then this is looking
northwest, back northbound. Here's the proposal for my client's structure. The
building itself is three stories with mezzanines. It does not exceed 38 feet.
has a roof deck and pilot house that are set back in the street. This is the entryway to the front.
This is a pass room for access and exit from the rear. The units are laid out a little uniquely
and I'll get into that in a moment. So unit one comprises the front of the building and then
downstairs in the basement. There is a full set of access stairs to come out of the rear into a rear
yard area and then get out those stairs and then you have a ground level yard area well
unit two has access to outdoor space in this roof deck space indicated to the rear of the property
unit three also has outdoor space via this roof deck indicated to the front
total unit of the total size of each of the units as follows unit one's about 1730 square feet
Unit 2, 1,743 square feet, and Unit 3, 1,643 square feet.
So they are pretty sizable.
Unit 1 is two bed, two bath.
Unit 2, three bed, two bath.
There's rooftop access for the outdoor space.
And Unit 3 is two bed, one and a half bath, and again, has rooftop access space.
As indicated, here's that pass-through that I was discussing that I showed at the front of the plant.
This depressed courtyard is for access by the downstairs unit number one.
and that allows for exit to the rear yard.
These are the floor plans.
Again, for unit one, the lower level,
we do have those bedrooms downstairs in the basement.
However, there is a full set of stairs
for access to the rear yard.
First floor itself, we have living and dining
for the front for unit one.
Unit two goes from the first floor,
second floor, and third floor.
We have living and dining on the ground story
along with the kitchen,
a bedroom on a mezzanine on the second story.
third story we have an interim unit with bath space and a bedroom number two along with an
office closet space for that office and then finally we have the bedroom and debt on the
mezzanine level for uh the third floor and that just has to do with building code issues there's
a bathroom indicated here as well unit number three has it is on the second floor and the
mezzanine level as well. So we have living and dining to the front. We have bedroom in the
mezzanine area, the one with HVAC, and then bedroom on mezzanine level for Unit 3 as well
with a den area, large walk-in closet, and bathroom space. Moving to the roof, here's our
roof deck to the front set back from the street as required by code. That's for Unit 3. And for
unit two we have that to the rear again it's set back and the pilot house is located per code
so we are within the height and other guidelines for this zoning district
refusals ultimately like i said for multi-family dwelling and we do have rco support
uh mr kravitz if you're still with us today would you please raise your hand
so they can unmute you and i can ask you a few questions
that's k-r-a-v-e-t-s
Mr. Kravitz can you raise your hand please
here I'm not seeing anyone at this time with their hand up Mr. Kravitz like I said he just
had surgery I believe on Monday hip replacement so he's still recovering I think he has to hang
on but those are i would assert that he would adopt my testimony as his own today for purposes
He would have got my testimony as his own today for purposes of this zoning hearing.
of this zoning hearing as an officer
As an officer, the court will stipulate your client would have adopted your testimony.
Having said that, any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
uh ron bednar city planning first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r
thank you ron do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
i do please proceed this property is indicated for single family residential use on the city plan
we believe the applicant is not demonstrating necessary hardship regarding requirements of
the code the application is inappropriate overuse not consistent with our adopted district plan
we are commending a request for banished opportunity and members of the board just in
response loading page um seven of my zoning packet which i'm zooming in which for purposes of the
record is the area zoning map what i'm indicating here in the cursor those are those eight units
were approved by this zoning board and you can see that each of those units is uh substantially
smaller than the lot upon which my client proposes to build um there's precedent for this
in the area there's substantial multi-family in the area as well and it's a large lot that's
about 1700 square feet thank you mi 2020-002668 1331 north 17th street my vote is yes my vote is
yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you members of the board have a good evening
you too. Likewise, thank you. Excuse me, if you could, the case that is on the add-on list has
been withdrawn, if you could announce it. Okay, I'll announce that right now. MI 2020-001-567-5108
Haverford Avenue is withdrawn. Thank you. Calendar number MI 2021-000725-1435 West
venango street the attorney is sharon harvey esq there's a letter of opposition from the 13th
ward rco this harvey's coming back in as a panelist now thank you
good afternoon
good afternoon can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name please
yes sharon harvey h-a-r-v-e-y attorney with harper and paul at 140 west maplewood avenue
philadelphia 1-9-1-4-4 i represent you not go ahead i represent the non-profit uh zion
1435 venango llc okay do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i agree to waive the reading of the refusal uh there's some discrepancy with the uh stipulating
for the uh entire okay and you can explain that to us have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos under plans of this property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes the rco poses uh the request okay well you may proceed yeah and may i share my screen okay
there it is okay so good evening mr chair and members of the board again my name is sharon
harvey and i represent the applicant uh zion non-profit 1435 llc finango llc the refusal
states that we intend to demolish the entire structure when in fact the applicant uh intends
to renovate the interior of this structure so the uh permit says it's a demolition but it's not
the uh the entire structure we're just demolishing the interior uh for rehab rehabilitation of a
three of three two bedroom apartments which is prohibited uh in this rsa5 district the applicant
is requesting a use variance to rehab the property. The hardship caused by the physical
condition to convert this property back to a single family dwelling or RSA 5 dwelling,
or RSA 5 dwelling, the authorization of which we would need a variance is necessary to enable
the authorization
a viable economic use of the property. This is our table of exhibits. We have posted the
The property, there's a copy of the deed, the history of the property, internal, external pictures, surrounding pictures, the floor plans, the building plans.
We've discussed parking and security, aerial view, the community letter, the RCO letter is in a side of our packet, our response to their concerns and a petition for support.
and the refusal and the tax certification is also posted.
As you can see, we've posted the property on May 19th, 2021.
We ended up having to repost the property on May 20th, 2021
because it was removed overnight.
A copy of the deed is included.
i'm trying to okay there it goes fine i'm sorry my my pin was not uh working a copy of the d
the variance um if the variance is granted uh the central character of the property would not change
or the neighborhood would not change um because there has already been uh variances granted for
two and three uh apartment buildings in this particular block the refusal uh well i'm sorry
the property received a variance back in 1935 for a six family dwelling unit
then they a little history then they they applied in 1930 in 1958 for eight families
um and it's unclear as to whether or not the eight families were was branded but the property was
used uh with for five families families and because of the deterioration currently of the
property um we've had uh estimates of rehabbing the property in excess of 300 000 and my client
is proposing to uh provide central air and heating in all three units the rear of the property
is uh in a bad condition also and my client is proposing to extend the third floor as you can
see um so that it meets the second floor uh so that each unit each of the three units if the
variance is granted uh would be two bedroom apartments
again this is another view of the rear
i'm sorry there all right so you as you can see our our unit is this particular uh unit
these properties are are all occupied this probably is occupied and this property is vacant
And then from here to the corner towards 15th Street is also occupied.
This is just a close close up of what I just said across the street, directly across the street.
This is a club which is utilized.
And then these two properties are occupied. And these two properties are, in fact, again, vacant.
And if you the view from our property to the corner, you can see our property at 1435 to the corner.
All these properties are vacant and they are multiple use, multiple family dwellings.
this is zion baptist church which uh this non-profit is affiliated with the church
um and then this angle is from our property to the corner and these except for this property
which is 1439 and our property are all developed and occupied
it's a it's unsafe to go into the property currently and that's why initially in 2017
And that's why initially in 2017, there was a demolition permit granted for the property in order to to clear out the interior of the property.
And I would like to ask that the architect, Mr. Johnson, be admitted so he can discuss the the floor plans in the building plan.
If that's possible.
Is Mr. Johnson there?
Mr. Johnson, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good evening, Mr. Johnson.
Please identify yourself with the record, spell your first and last name, and I'll
where you want. Mr. Johnson are you available to speak? It sounds like it's technical problems
chair. Yes. Ms. Harvey. I will continue and I'll do the best I can knowing that I'm not an architect.
So the diagram shows that our property is the property there with the yellow dot along the north side of Venango Street.
And we are proposing that this is the existing view.
The church is here and the eight or nine houses are here.
The elevation
Can you hear me?
Mr. Johnson?
Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?
Okay, yes, I can hear you now.
Please identify yourself.
Spell your full name.
Kenneth Johnson, K-E-N-N-E-T-H
Johnson, J-O-H-N-S-O-N
Architect
3401 Great Ferry Avenue
Philadelphia, PA
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Ms. Harvey?
Yes, Mr. Johnson, can you tell the board about number four, the elevation, and number five, the elevation of the proposed changes to the property?
Number four, we're going to keep the existing facade.
We're going to refurbish the existing bay, keep the masonry wall.
We're going to keep the porch.
Pretty much the first facade will blend in with the rest of the block.
so uh so we're keeping the front facade and refurbishing it the side number five we're going
to um the exposed sides that are exposed we're going to pick um vinyl siding on and as you can
see we square up the back of the of the building um the existing building it steps back down uh
to two stories when it gets to the rear but we're going to expand it and go straight up from the
back and we're going to keep within the standards of the zoning code to do that and in the back as
you can see on rear elevation number six we're just going to go straight up and windows and doors
access to the rear yard and there's a window in the basement but there's no living spaces in the
basement. Will the upper floors have access to the rear yard? No. Were they proposed to store trash
Each unit will have many trash compactors and extra cabinetry to store trash in the unit.
Ms. Harvey, you want to continue?
Yes, thank you. Would you tell us about the floor plan for each apartment?
can you get it all in one screen because I'm it's half just have to
all right yes that's all right so the first floor number two you walk in there's a entry hall
common entry hall you go to your to your left and you come into the first unit and the first
unit has a bedroom in the front uh if you come down a little bit the screen can come down a
little bit so you can see the back of the house okay okay dang yes so and if you there's a bedroom
in the back there's a kitchen in on the side and there's a access to the yard and then there's
stairs to the basement and if you go down to the basement it's just utility and rec area
and I got a powder room in the closet and if you go back to the first floor you
come in you go upstairs in the common hallway on the second floor you come into
In the common hallway, on the second floor, you come into the door, you got your bathroom, a powder room, you got your utility room, a kitchen, a bedroom on both sides from in the front and the back.
the door
And each bedroom will have their own bathroom.
And you continue upstairs to the third floor.
Again, you have your bedroom in the front and the back, and each one has their own private bathroom.
you have a powder room a kitchen utility room and laundry and there's no roof deck
okay thank you let me turn this back around before i all right
do it again sorry i have to turn it and turn it again
I see. Thank you. We discussed the parking. This is on-street parking. And the parking
or the building is a minute from the Broad and Venango bus stop, which carries the C or 16 bus.
And then about four or five minutes away, it's at Broad and Erie, which has the subway and other buses on that route.
There's just another view of the property, which currently, you know, just needs to be rehabbed.
The owners proposed to provide security lighting and camera so that you can see and be protected from for egress.
The snow removal currently and the snow removal and grass cutting is currently handled by Zion Baptist Church.
And they will continue to do that until the property is rehabbed and there will be a rental company that will be handling the rental and they will make sure that the property is continued to be cleared, either through the rental company or through the church.
Ms. Harvey, will this property be owned and maintained by the congregation?
So the property is owned by an affiliate organization of the congregation.
So its board of directors are, in fact, members of Zion Church.
so it's it is owned by a zion non-profit corporation which is the owner of um zion gardens
at uh 10th and 11th on gerard avenue but the makeup of zion non-profit is in fact the members
of the church there it's required that they're members of the church has the church taken has
Has the church taken any position on this application?
I have two witnesses, one of which is the president of the board of trustees for the church.
And the other person is a deacon in the church.
And their position is they are in favor of continuing to develop the property.
We'll hear from them.
Do you have a client that you would ask to accept your, adopt your testimony?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I would call on Ronald Harper.
Good evening, sir.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Harper?
Mr. Harper, you can unmute yourself
and speak now.
Good evening.
Mr. Harper, please spell your full name.
Hi, Ronald J. Harper.
R-O-N-A-L-D-J
middle name. Harper.
H-A-R-P-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do swear.
your affiliation with this property yes good evening i am the chairman of the board of
trustees of zion baptist church which had formed a corporation zion non-profit corporation
which owns the properties on gerard avenue which properties are affording the rehabilitation of
this property but you know various uh legal reasons we put it under uh
For various legal reasons, we put it under a separate corporation with the name of the church leading that particular name.
So the church is very much involved, very much for some time wanting to help the development of this block, which needs serious attention and has needed serious attention for some time.
But, yes, to answer your previous question, the church is very supportive and, in fact, is the sponsor through the various corporations of this effort.
Thank you very much.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
i see no hands at this time chair you planning commission uh ron bednar city planning
property is indicated for residential use on the city plan the application is consistent with our
adopted district plan remapping proposal we recommend a quest for variance began thank you
MI 2021-0007251435 West Van Angle Street my vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
good luck thank you very much thank you good luck sure calendar number mi2021000659
1601 south 17th street the attorney is vincent dofino and there's a letter from east point
Bree's Neighbors. It's a letter of support.
Mr. DeFino is coming back in as a panelist now.
Okay, Mr. DeFino, can you put your name and address on the record please and
spell your last name if you can hear me?
Here I am. Okay. Hi Vince, can you put your name and address on the record and
by your last name? Sure. It's Vincent Anthony DeFino, D-E, capital F, as in Frank, I-N-O,
with DeFino Law Associates, 2541 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Thank you. 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?
Yes, I do. 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 have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes i do and yes you may proceed
okay i'm trying to share my screen right now so there we go i think i'm sharing it
i'm trying to get my package up over here here it is
all right so exhibit a zoning refusal b plans and rendering c pictures of property
deed tax clearance ed and letter from the rco which is not in the package but was later provided
basically i represent um heather cox who's the owner and her husband cosimo
tricorico who is the uh he's actually the owner of um valentino's in south philly
the proposal this is a cmx1 property and basically you rotate the picture i'm sorry yeah i'm gonna
rotate it right now thanks and this is the property here as you can see it's an existing
two apartments two garage and one commercial space and basically it has a commercial space
And basically, it has a commercial space in the front of the property, which has been up for rent since they owned the property about four years ago.
in the front of the property which has been up for
And they are having a difficult time renting it for office space.
And Cosimo, the husband, is in the business of basically restaurant business, cafe-type business.
You can see the garages in the back.
And you can see the side of the building here.
And up here, it gives you a good view.
The venting, any restaurant venting would come out underneath the garages and go up and it wouldn't be seen from the street.
So it would be nice and clean.
CMX1, as you know, allows for many uses, but it doesn't allow for prepared food and for sit down restaurants and cooking.
But this is a view of the neighborhood across the street, George Child School.
This property here, which is owned by Heather Cox and Cosimo, is the southeast corner of 17th and Tasker.
This is directly across the street.
This is the George Child School, which is now apartments, which would be great because to take out food, you go right across the street with it.
There's plenty of residents there.
This is Caddy Corner.
it's a vacant lot on the corner and this is where the reverend from the neighborhood resides and
has his small church here's the posting and here's more of a posting so i want to get out of this
and i want to go back up and i want to show you the renderings we actually have a virtual on this
But I could just give you the images rather than – I know you guys have been through a lot today.
So I don't want to take any more time than I have to.
We signed up for this.
I signed up for it too.
Cafe La Bocche Vita.
There's our little Italian code words.
You go down.
This is going to be the seating.
it's going to be about 14 seats that's all all we're looking for in fact the proviso letter
calls for uh under 20 and then this will be the kitchen so it'll be like a bistro you know a
little cappuccino a little panini a little pizza linsalata i didn't eat i didn't eat yet enough
with the food we're really hungry if you if you can summarize sir we'd appreciate it okay and and
and that so that's your rendering okay so let's get out of that let's go down to um
let's try to get to uh the letter from the neighborhood with the provisos in it
and um hold on one second i'll get you there and then based on that you know you can render your
decision though and uh i did speak with the councilman's office and france pierre he might
be here he said he was going to testify but i know how long it's running so i don't know if he's here
but basically you can see the letter of support uh eight eight nothing on the board um six two
in the neighborhood uh 24-2 overall in favor so here's the provisos down here i'll blow them up
for you so you can see them uh seating limited to under 20 hours operation 7 a.m to 10 p.m
commercial trash pickup no outside seating no 30 minutes slow down slow down vince slow down
i'm sorry hours of operation 7 a.m to 10 p.m 10 p.m how many days seven days a week seven days
seven days a week
seating would have to be done a separate way
anyhow
what was the other one
commercial trash pickup
commercial pickup
no outside seating
that would have to be done by way of
legislation anyway
no 30 minute parking outside
that's a separate
it's not for us
do you have your client
to adopt your testimony or not?
Yes, I have Cosimo here with me.
Cosimo.
I'm trying to get back in.
Cosimo, please spell your full name
and I'll swear you in.
My name is Cosimo Tricarico.
C-O-S-I-M-O-T-R-I-C-A-R-I-C-O.
You swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. DeFino.
Cosmo, you heard my testimony here today?
And do you adopt it as your own?
yes thank you uh questions from the board no no
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
here we have france pierre mr pierre you can unmute yourself and speak now mr pierre
good evening everyone france pierre council member johnson's office
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I certainly do.
Do me a favor for the court reporter, please spell your name.
Yes, first name Franz, that's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E, legislative assistant, Council Member Johnson's office.
Thank you, Franz. Please proceed.
Yes, good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
council member johnson's office does support the community and the registered rco and their support
of the appeal today thank you planning commission ron bednar city planning properties indicated for
commercial mixed juice on the city plan given the documented site history we recommend that
Requests for variance be granted.
MI 2021-000659-1601 South 17th Street.
My vote is yes with the following proviso.
Commercial trash pickup.
Hours of operation Monday through Sunday, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
My vote is...
I'm sorry.
Cosimo.
Valentino.
No more.
No more.
You're closed.
It's going to be
Actually, it's going to be
Alright, good enough
Aroma resa, yes
It's going to be
Do we get to vote
My vote is yes with proviso
Yes with proviso
Yes with proviso
Thank you
Calendar number
MI 2020
002490
2637 East
Clearfield Street. The owners are
I can't read
that properly so I don't want
to mangle it.
The last name is Domi
D-O-M-I
Domi and the RCO
Southport Richmond Civic Association
and Councilman Squill
both oppose this.
Jakub Domi is being promoted
to a panelist now.
hi um jackop can you put your name address on the record and spell your last name
okay actually my name is spelled jacob domie
do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Do you also strike that?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents consisting of proof of ownership, 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 do you have a letter?
You may proceed.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board member of the board.
My name is Jacob Domi.
I've been living in the Port Richmond area for about 20 years since I came from Albania,
like an immigrant, working really hard, making some money on the side.
And I started investing since 2006, 2008 in the Port Richmond area, buying some properties.
And recently, I bought this 2637 East Clearfield Street.
It was used like a CMX1 and I'm trying to get a like residential permit for the first
floor.
Second floor is already rented.
It's an apartment.
I'm sorry, Mr. Domi.
Do you have any exhibits to present to us all?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, let me get to it.
Okay, so this is the location is like East Thompson Street and East Clearfield. It's a corner building.
this is the looking from outside the first floor issues like commercial used to be like
It's just like commercial.
It used to be like...
it was the democratic headquarters
It was the Democratic headquarters.
Exactly, yes.
And the second floor is an apartment, one-bedroom apartment.
So this is how it looks from inside.
And this is like an old office open area.
There's another picture here.
this is a back of the building it's a bedroom with a bathroom on it
this is the bathroom
okay so my plan is to convert this to like a apartment
even one bedroom or two bedrooms depend like one the architect size or like
uh philly code or living area i've been meeting with the community and with the neighbors i've
been talking to the neighbors a lot they are so happy to hear that i'm doing this change
this this used to be like like you said like uh mr chairman you said for a democratic party
and uh to tell the truth since i bought a building it's been like lettering outside and
graffiti on the walls and actually it was like trash everywhere since i took over i go and i
maintain so so nice so neighbors are really really pleased to have me going and do like
keep the property up to date so and the remodeling i'm going to do and having somebody there
will make easy for neighbors to have like a quiet uh streets so nobody will stay hang out on the
steps of the building, etc.
Mr. Domi, do you have any petitions in support?
Because the Port of Richmond, according to the letters we have,
unless we're mistaken here, are not supporting this application.
Yeah, actually, I didn't, Mr. Chairman, this was my first time actually doing this,
and I didn't really know all this stuff.
but I'm telling
like all the
neighbors I've been talking
to them and even one day I was
paying the railing outside from the step
these guys come like
the neighbors. They're so happy to
see something change and make it
place nice, beautiful.
Questions for Mr. Domi?
What else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time chair. Thank you planning commission.
Property is indicated for run Bednar city planning. Property is indicated for commercial
mixed use on the comprehensive plan. The application matches the pattern of existing
development on the corner of the block in the area. We recommend the quest for variance
and special exceptions. Chair? Yes? We have a Mr. Caruso with his hand up now.
Caruso, please identify yourself with the record and I'll square you in.
Mr. Caruso, please identify yourself and I'll square you in.
Yes, it's Michael Caruso, 2947 16th Street.
Hold on a second.
What's your address?
2947 16th.
South 16th Street?
You're here on this case, on Clearfield?
No, I'm here for 300, 301 16th Street case.
We didn't get to that yet.
We have no problem.
Just hang in there.
We'll get to you.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
I'm confused.
I see letters of opposition.
I don't understand.
I'd like to say the record's closed on this.
The board will make a decision
at next Wednesday's executive session.
Mr. Domi, the board will have a conversation
about this case and will make a decision
for you by next Wednesday.
next Wednesday okay okay thank you very much Mr. Thomas thank you calendar number
MI 2021 000634 3017 West Harper Street the attorney is Vern Anastasio
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist now thank you
good evening madam chairwoman
Good evening, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Board, Verna Anastasio, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, OutSuite 1006.
Thank you. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Two minutes.
Do you agree to wait through reading the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or 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 that.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
I'm going to share my screen.
Sharing my screen right now.
this is a 3017 West Harper Street. It's pretty straightforward. The application was for a rear
addition and addition above the second floor. So there's a new third floor on an existing structure.
We have two refusals. One is because our proposal does not have the eight foot setback on the third
floor. The second refusal is the open air requirement. We've got just under 18 percent
where required is 25%. And I want to show you the plants here
and existing conditions. It's a two-story building, but there are several properties on the block
that already have gotten zoning relief for three-story structures without the third-story
setback so we will be uh there's several of them actually and i have photos of that as well
uh here's one right here there's another right there there's two more on this on the same side
of the block we have interior photos as well we um the third floor setback wasn't an issue
for the neighbors when we met with the community organization. There were several folks on the
block that actually secured third floor additions without setbacks and everyone seemed to be
pretty okay with that. The open air requirement is the only other refusal. We still propose a 10
foot backyard, which, you know, meets the backyard requirement. There wasn't, RCO leadership had an
issue with closing up this section here. You can see my, where I'm putting my cursor. The RCO
leadership thinks, seems to think that this section, the side yard area is a breezeway.
It is not. It's not accessible by anyone else but my client who occupies the property. She would just like to have a larger home with additional bedrooms so she can stay there. And that seems to be the only concern for the RCO leadership.
And when I say the RCO leadership, I mean that explicitly because we met with the community group, as is required, and near neighbors supported our appeal, eight in favor, five against, and one neutral.
So the near neighbors were completely in support of our, you know, the request for the variants.
the third floor would not be something unusual for the block. There's other third floors that
have not been set back. And most of the new construction don't even have side yards. So
that wasn't much of an issue either, nor would it impact lighter air for any of the immediate
neighbors. However, that being said, despite the fact that the near neighbors voted to support our
variance, our appeal. The RCO sent a letter of opposition. Not quite sure why.
I've said this before in these cases. I believe that when an RCO leadership issues a letter that's
counter to the immediate neighbor's vote, it basically throws out all good reason for why we
rewrote the zoning code in 2012, and we spent a whole lot of time doing that.
We, you know, we mailed to everybody, folks came out, and again, the majority of the folks
were in favor of supporting the variants. It's a minimal, dimensional variants for a side yard.
minimal dimensional variance for a side yard that doesn't really impact anyone's lighter air
or anybody else's quality of life. And as such, because the third floor addition as presented
is consistent with other third floor additions on the block, because we proposed an addition that
meets rear yard requirements, and because the build out on the side has no negative impact
on immediate neighbors based on the majority of the of the votes at the community meeting that
we attended we ask that this board approve and then grant this variance thank you and with that
I'm going to ask my my client Bernice Thompson to raise her hand so she can be recognized and
we can get our score in. Bernice are you there? Hi I'm present. Thank you Bernice. Thank you.
Ma'am would you please identify yourself spell your first and last name and I'll score you in.
of course sir i'm bernice helena thomas and um my first name is b-e-r-n-i-c-e and my last name is
t-h-o-m-a-s you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes mr anastasio thank you mr chairman miss thomas do you uh did you understand and hear
my presentation to the board this evening yes i did sir okay and was it true and accurate to
best of your knowledge absolutely and would you adopt it as your own testimony i would okay and
were you present at the rco meeting where they voted in favor of approving the variance yes i
was quite remiss to see the letter today thank you stating that yep thank you questions from the
board no no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand i'll be quick 25th
ward the democrat uh building where the ward headquarters used to be you guys are opposed to
that conversion do you know about that all right i held it until next week just it didn't seem
but frank do you want to be online for this he's offline what what's
he may want to go mute on this right he was mute on that call
Yeah, I'm sorry.
I was just thinking about you, sir.
I just want to make sure that you're mute if you need to be.
I took care of him.
What was it?
I'm sorry I left off.
Anyone else?
There's someone with their hand up by the name of Heath.
Heath, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Hi, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
My name is Heath Myers, and I am a neighbor in Fairmount here and also a member of the Fairmount Civic Association.
Do I need to say anything to get affirmed or something like that?
Madam Vice Chair, could you have him to put his name on record and swear him in, please?
Yes, sir. Please put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, and then I will swear you in.
My name is Heath Myers, M-E-Y-E-R-S. I'm at 848 North 21st Street.
And can you spell your last name?
M-E-Y-E-R-S.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm.
Okay. You may proceed.
Yeah. I decided to attend today because while I didn't oppose the project at the RCO meeting,
After a careful review of the plans, I no longer think it might benefit the neighborhood, so I'm bringing three concerns to the ZBA.
The development, as proposed, requires entering neighbors' land for construction and maintenance.
Two, the applicant proposes building combustible walls with only a one-hour fire rating on or abutting the property line versus existing non-combustible brick.
Third, the applicant proposes a wall abutting a side lot over 25 feet in height without any required facade articulation.
for these reasons and because the project fails to meet the zoning code i oppose the development
thank you for your consideration
as it relates to the fire code issue i think that's something that would have to meet code
whether it's brick or uh what's the sheetrock i can't think of the title well it has to meet the
board of building standards for us to get a co up could i ask the uh the protestant sir can i have
your name again, please? Keith Myers. Mr. Myers, is your address 848 North?
Keith Myers. Mr. Myers, is your address 848 North 21st Street? Correct. Okay. And is that
not one mile from the property in question? Well, you had brought up the fact that eight people
voted in favor. Sir, that's a yes or no answer. Please answer the question. Do you live one mile
from the subject property? Right. Thank you, sir. I have nothing else. Do you own a property
adjacent to this no it's just i was one that you know i was just one of the people in favor in that
vote and and you know since then you know i don't feel that way anymore and that's why i decided
you're you're you're entitled to change your mind i just didn't know if you had a a no mr chairman
as you know we're going to be subject to the building code uh you know nothing's going to
happen until we uh zoning is not the end all and be all we have to get to the uh you know the
building code and the board of standards and all of that. Anyone else who wishes to testify?
Here we have someone by the name of Teresa Hauberg or Holberg. Miss Holberg, you can
unmute yourself and speak now. Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and
last name. I'll swear to you all. My name is Teresa Holberg. T-E-R-E-S-A-H-O-B-E-R-G.
where for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed i am
uh the zoning co-chair i wrote the uh letter of uh to the rco a couple of points that i disagree
with mr anastasio um first of all there were no near neighbors on that vote these votes were not
from any near neighbors um so that is simply a misconception i object there's nothing that's
been presented that says that there's no addresses presented. So I object to that testimony.
I'm sorry, say that again?
I object to that testimony. It's very clear that there were eight voted in favor,
and that's the majority of the vote.
There were no near neighbors, right? They were general neighbors.
Ma'am, ma'am.
Please continue with your testimony. Please do not argue with the attorney. Continue with your
testimony all right that's just a clarification and we stated that in the letter um and so what
happened was that in fact while eight were in favor we realized later that someone had voted twice
and that member recognized that so where there are five against seven in favor one neutral and
then at the board meeting um one neutral reversed his position and one in favor reversed his position
so in point of fact we had seven against five in favor um and and that's how that worked out
now in terms of the requirement for the um the breezeway that's not really the issue the issue
was always the lack of uh the open space requirement and miss thomas's assertion that
she had to build overbuild the site because that was the only way to get a functional floor plate
We indicated to her in her initial meeting in March, and she also attended the meeting in April when 3023 Harper Street, which presented earlier in this meeting, presented their plans, she indicated that she was amenable to retaining the breezeway.
we thought that's what was going to happen which would not only do away with that concern
that it would impact the light and air on the adjoining neighbors which it does but it also
would eliminate the need for variance for open space whether they put a breezeway in or not
we still oppose the variance for open space because we don't see that the applicant has
demonstrated a need for hardship because there are numerous projects on that block that have
been able to create a functional floor plate without exceeding the open space. And that's
our position, and we are fully entitled to that. Thank you. Mr. Anastasio, could you move that
last sentence that says the FCA board has, I can't read all of it, has voted to? To take a position
of opposition and that's typically no it says specifically with respect to and i can't to the
open space oh the open space okay and by the way we're offering a 10 foot rear yard uh as i showed
you this the side yard was necessary in order to to build buildable space so this family could stay
in this home and again the vote was the vote it was eight in favor and that's and that's the
majority now if an rco and we've done very rarely but we've we've seen this before if rco leadership
who lives a mile away decides to go against what the vote is at the community meeting that's
decides to go against what the vote is at the community meeting that flies in the face of
everything we did in 2012 in rewriting this code and you know that of course the board knows that
and my client would like to speak to this because she never said that she would be willing to
by the way it's not a breezeway it's a side yard and it's her side yard and even once we build
onto the side yard we still have a 10 foot rear yard which meets that rear yard requirement so
i'm not quite sure and by the way uh building on that side space doesn't impact any immediate
neighbor not their light not their air if they were they would have voted against it but they
didn't okay is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this case please raise your hand
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Ron, are you here for the Planning Commission?
Who's Ron?
um i'm back up for the uh please have greg identify yourself spell your first and latest
name i'll swear you in hi my name is uh greg waldman um uh spelled uh gregory waldman uh g-r-e-g-o-r-y
last name waldman w-a-l-d-m-a-n you swear from planning commission correct in the city
plan. You swear if I'm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please
proceed. This property is indicated for single family residential use on the city plan. The
applicant has not demonstrated unnecessary hardship regarding the dimensional requirements
of the code. The application is not consistent with the enacted setback or open space standards.
We recommend that the requested variance not be granted. Thanks, Greg. I just want to make a
point of note for the record that the setback on the third floor was resoundingly embraced
by the community because several houses already have it and all immediate neighbors support
the the bill now that's where i am i 2021.000634 3017 west harper street my my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is yes
my vote is no
calendar number
thank you
calendar number MI
000633
3001 South 16th Street
the attorney is Rich DeMarco
Mr. DeMarco is coming
back in as a panelist
Have we gotten a letter yet
from the Georgia State Area residents?
Yes, I have it.
You have it.
No, I'm asking that we have it.
Oh, I did send it.
It was this morning, though.
Why so late?
Jody was very slow to react on this one.
She took a long time.
I stayed on top of it
and we finally got her from her.
She's busy.
I mean, I know Joe.
The 3,000 block of South 16th
is part of Girardot State residence?
Yeah, Pollock.
I guess that's a good point.
I guess they run this I-76, I suppose.
I guess so.
Okay, please proceed.
Please put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name, Rich.
Yeah, I waive and stipulate.
It's Richard DeMarco, D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
2005 Market Street
16th floor Philadelphia PA
Do you swear our firm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Yes.
And you've already waived the reading of the refusal
and stipulated to its accuracy. Have you
emailed the exhibit packet with proof
of ownership, tax, compliance, refusal
referral, photos under plans
of the property five days in advance
of this hearing and have you met with the
RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, we sent all that
Again, the RCO letter came in today, which I did.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
I'll share my screen. I'll show you the RCO letter.
Here's Jody's RCO letter.
We had a 7-0 vote in favor of the project at the RCO meeting, which was held last week.
Again, it came together quickly, so that's why the RCO letter wasn't ready for today.
This is a proposal for an accessory parking space along the side.
I'll be in the site plan.
I'll show you the site plan.
Here's the refusal.
We have, because it's accessed along the side and not the rear, it's a refusal.
Our parking stall is a little bit short.
I'll show you the plan.
Again, we've got full support.
My client's on the call, though he said he's feeling a little bit punchy at the late hour.
He's on the call if you need to hear from him.
Rich, you fade in and out. We can't hear you.
Sorry. I turned my head away. That's why.
I just want to tell you my client's on the call.
He circulated a petition.
You'll be able to see the site plan.
Here's the accessory parking space.
I'll show you the petition.
He got over 60 signatures.
I got to rotate it back.
We can't hear you, Rich. You keep turning it away.
I'm sorry. I'm trying to rotate the screen.
Let me get to the photos so you can see the photos.
There are a number of curb cuts along Pollock Street, Mr. Chairman.
Pollock has a number of curb cuts along the side for a lot of the corner properties.
This is actually consistent.
You see the petition I'm scrolling through now?
Let me just show you these photos, and I'll put my client on to adopt my testimony.
There's a number.
There's a curb cut there.
There's like four or five curb cuts immediately on that block within that area.
And that individual who went on earlier, he was for my case.
He's one of the neighbors in favor.
My client took the time to circulate the petition for curb cuts.
Let me put him on.
He can adopt my testimony.
I'm not aware of any opposition, although there was a few people that didn't sign the petition.
But I don't think you have any oppositions.
Let me have my client.
His name would be James Pizzo.
He could be authorized.
Good evening, sir. Please identify yourself with the record, spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Pisano, you can unmute yourself and speak.
James Pisano, J-A-M-E-S-P-I-S-A-N-O.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. DeMarco?
James, did you hear my testimony? Is it true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
yes you circulated that petition and you got over 60 signatures from the neighbors right
yes you have a few neighbors on this call right now who are willing to testify and support is
that right if you see a salvatore piccolo or caruso them two should be on the call caruso
was on earlier mr chairman he was uh authorized earlier yes i understand all right all right
with all due respect everybody's been waiting a long time is there anyone who is a
opposed to this application, who's on the phone, or on Zoom, please raise your hand
if you are opposed to this application.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for residential use on the city
plan. Recommended the request of variance be granted.
thank you so to mr caruso and mr piccolo thank you for your time but we're going to move forward
mi 2021 dash 000633 3001 south 16th street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes uh did we leave anyone out is there anyone thank you feels that they've been
uh haven't been recognized please raise your hand no i think it's just about does it
doesn't appear to be any hands up at this time chair okay uh any unfinished business
well i i would like to just state on the record that i know you guys signed up for this
but you work hard you provide development in the city and we appreciate all you do
even though we've been beat up pretty bad the last couple weeks i appreciate you all and so does
a lot of people who enjoy the development that philadelphia is now getting appreciate that on
behalf of the board just to say that i think that some people don't under really understand what it
is we do uh anyway it is what it is and i was not being facetious when i said about the two minute
time I bought this a couple of years ago when we first talked about it yeah I know and I think
we're going to be putting it to use I agree chair I'm all for whatever you decide anyone ever gets
an opportunity to watch city council I'm sure you got better things to do on a Thursday morning
but when when all the cases and when all the legislation is read the public has an opportunity
The public has an opportunity to speak on those pieces of legislation.
to speak on those people.
There is a timing device that they're standing in front of a podium.
They're given two minutes to speak.
There's a red light and a green light.
The difference is that you don't have that same luxury in all cases because you are a quasi-judicial board, not a legislative board.
And the people who appear before city council to give their opinions don't have due process rights involved.
So you actually have a much more difficult role.
I just want to state that any of the witnesses that are waiting and waiting and waiting are not a burden.
We don't steamroll anything through.
We did sign up for the job.
And if you don't want to get into race, don't bring it up.
all right thank you again especially to folks behind the scenes thank you frank
thank you everyone have a good night bye bye have a great night bye frank
all have a good night i'm sorry um bill thank you so much for your behind the scenes work i
appreciate you no problem tanya and sharon thank you so much you're welcome good night
Our pleasure. Thank you. Good night.