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."