facades per neighbor request and as documented in an executed uh community benefits agreement
and these small uh little marks indicate extra bicycle uraps along the public sidewalks
beyond what is required and what is shown internally.
Moving to the upper floors.
Here we see a typical layout for second, third floor.
A mix of large one-bedroom and two-bedroom units.
There are four stories total.
This is on the left is the fourth floor.
And on the right, you can see a landscaped setback roof deck with a 10-foot green roof buffer surrounding the deck to keep it pulled back from the community, residential only.
The proposed unit mix for these residential floors, two, three, and four, 34 one-bedroom units, six two-bedroom, one-bath, seven two-bedroom, two-bath.
The authorization of variance relief will not alter the character of the neighborhood
or district or be detrimental to the public welfare.
The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the Philadelphia City Planning
Commission's indication of proposed CMX2 for the site, which speaks to the granting
of variance relief being of benefit to the public and within the scope and spirit of
the code. There is significant support, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I've taken
the liberty of highlighting some of these letters for the board's ease since these letters were
coming in in the most recent days. Here we have a letter of support from the immediate next door
neighbor along Germantown Avenue. A letter of support from New Bethel Church of Germantown
which is at 6206 Germantown and 6215 Rear, 42 West Washington Lane, Neighbor,
6228 Germantown Avenue, near Neighbor, 6214 Bainton Street, near Neighbor, 62220 as well.
So you see a mix of residential as well as civic and communal uses and neighbors who are coming out
and support within a close area of immediately impacted neighbors. 42 East Washington Lane,
Brand New Life Christian Center also offered its support and encouragement. Johnson House
Historic Site, which I showed you right across the street from the property early on, the site
site of the uh underground railroad stop little einstein daycare another near neighbor
of the Underground Railroad's little Einstein date.
another as well as the concord schoolhouse and upper burring grounds of germantown
which strongly supports the work mentions the community benefits agreement and goes on to
state and i quote the developers have shown a willingness to participate in writing such an
agreement, they're referring to the CBA, and in following it, and we very much hope they can be
encouraged to do so. Sunoco across the street, we have as well, and some additional neighbors.
The Chiffon brothers are very proud of the investment that they're making in the community.
They are looking forward to being a further part of this community. The variance relief that it
would allow for this new structure to be built would be the minimum necessary to afford relief
would represent the least modification possible of the regulations at issue. The grant of variance
relief will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire
or otherwise endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. Based on the condition of the
building presently and what I shared with the board concerning the long period of vacancy
And the difficulty of having this listed for so long without anyone stepping up to redevelop or to actually use the property as permitted within the commercial auto-oriented district, this would be a huge improvement.
There are no environmental issues.
At this moment in time, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I would pause.
We do have Seth Shippon with us, we have Gabrielle Cano, the architect, and I'd like to reserve time, depending on what my esteemed colleague, Mr. Shermer, raises.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bill, you have to unmute yourself.
i do apologize why don't you bring why don't you bring your client on and let him adopt your
testimony uh mr ship on steph ship on would you kindly raise your virtual hand so that you may be
sworn in. Mr. Shippon, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair's instructions.
Please state your name and spell for the court reporter. Seth Shippon, S-E-T-H,
last name S-H-I, P as in Paul, O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Mr. Shippon,
have you been present for the entirety of the presentation
that I've made on your behalf regarding 6237-45
Germantown Avenue?
And would you adopt and affirm the testimony
that I've offered as your own?
Thank you, Mr. Shipon.
Nothing further at this time, Mr. Shipon.
What I want to do is let members of the board,
questions for counsel?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sharma, do you want to respond to anything?
Yes, sir.
One of the most important points, and if I can share a screen.
Let's see if this will work.
Okay. I did want to briefly go through my presentation, which is basically in response
to Mr. Labor. Most importantly, the minimum access accessory of off-street parking, I
believe these are going to be apartments, so it makes perfect sense for L&I to calculate
the number of parking spaces based off the net leaseable space because they are leasing
apartment space as well as commercial space so you shouldn't be doing a double dip in claiming
you have parking for 40 you know so many units of parking when actually you're claiming that
one in one half of the presentation you're claiming that is for the commercial the other
half you're claiming it's for the least least space and it appears that ellen i made the correct
decision figuring that well wait a second you're talking about 47 spaces and you're counting them
double some of these will be needed for the commercial that you talked about putting in
and you're also going to need it for the people who are going to be coming in.
and you're also going to need it for the people who are going to be coming in.
This is not a minimum variance by any stretch of the imagination. When we look at the CA zoning,
This is not a minimum.
they're looking for 20% more than what is allowed. You're talking about 60% maximum area
versus 80. If you talk about 47 units and you followed what the code actually says,
that 47 units would drop to 35 units based on maximum area. Based on the maximum height,
they're going up from 38 feet to 45 feet. If you would apply that, that brings this down to 30
units if you would have a conforming plan. They're going to drop the entire building. There is no
reason you cannot build a conforming building after you have created a vacant loft. I do agree
that the minimum front yard setback does not need to be there because it actually matches what the
other properties in the area have, they have zero front setback. Now I did want to go to the second
part of the notice of refusal, and I did want to quickly go through. There are actually two RCOs
which voted on this, and the vote was to oppose. There's the CNBCR and Chewendell, sorry the CBNC
is one RCO, Chewendell Field is the other RCO, 49th Ward did not attend the meeting.
Now, we had, as Mr. Leaver said, they had a lot of turnout for the second time when the neighbors were finally notified of this.
And I'm not sure why Mr. Leaver is working on a CBA, because of the neighbors who came out, only one said that they would support it with a CBA.
The ones which is up here.
Then you look at one would say they'd support it with provisos.
Otherwise, objection, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
this is not the current uh letter that was submitted to the board this is this is a former
version thank you thank you well i would report i would mention to the board that we had requested
that the rco provide copies of the letter and uh i know people have said that zoning boards are the
last part of trial by ambush we have i have not had any chance to see any of the documents
The RCO would not provide them, and I've never seen the package that Mr. Laver is talking about, which is why we requested a courtesy of a continuance.
But we still have a number of, I don't believe the number of attendees would have changed, and I don't believe that the RCO board re-voted.
So I'm curious how the number of votes for a meeting earlier this month would have changed.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, respectfully, I'd like to make a standing objection.
I object to the testimony that is being offered by Mr. Shermer.
There has been no proffer of aggrieved persons under William Penn. We don't even know who Mr.
Shermer is representing. Well, with regard to that, the proffer under William Penn deals with
after the zoning board has made a decision and we argue about who has standing to appeal. Right now
we're talking about 14303A, sorry, 15A, where the standard is people who are interested.
Any party may be present if they are an interested person. That tracks the language
of the local agency law, people having a direct interest. That is the way the code is written.
We will get to this. I'm right now simply going back against the documents
to response to what Mr. Laver has said,
we're essentially arguing over paper.
We will get to actual people.
Mr. Laver, I understand what you're saying.
And Mr. Shermer, could you move this along, please?
Yes, sir.
I'm Mr. Chair.
I want to know, who is Mr. Shermer representing?
Just all in opposition, all over?
Well, as of right now,
I'm representing the Coalition of Germantown Neighbors.
You should be able to see people on there,
specifically Ian Baker, Carmen Finney,
Laurie Lickman, Dave Todd.
Okay, I don't need older names.
Stephan Vogel.
And I believe most of them
are still here on the line.
One of the other important parts
that Mr. Laver did say
is yes, this property is up
for the possibility of being rezoned.
62, 25 through 27
is an adjacent property,
17,000 square feet.
This one is 19.
uh this property will be the property will be coming up to close sometime in march so we're
going to have a huge block of the last sections which will be redeveloped which will be probably
redeveloped before the planning commission gets around to rezoning it that doesn't make sense
that we have a process that goes through the variances now and we create new code this should
really go in front of city council because we're asking to change the minimum number of lots,
lots the minimum amount of lot coverage the minimum height uh mr sherman i'm not i'm not
the minimum amount of lot coverage, the minimum height.
i'm not sure what relevance that is but i want you to try to move move your presentation i'm
trying because there are people who want it there's are people who want to get in when we we go
i am uh there was no statement by a real estate broker that the property was not available and
was not desirable for sale and this is from the right multiple listing service showing that
When this property was listed by, I believe it was Green Street, they actually did have two offers in August of 2019 and then February of 2020.
So saying that there is no interest in the property, somebody had the time to write up an offer and they had the time to accept it.
Looking through LoopNet, I would also mention the advertising for the property focuses on how the CA1 is a good zoning option and is appropriate for the site.
uh 1900 square feet for this lot and under contract so we're dealing with equitable owners
can be used for shop and warehouse i'm trying to get through i'm moving
uh same thing about the other later discussions also all point out that this is a perfect
location for this sort of work uh tripping along zipping along this is the 2035 plan
which does show this exact property, which should be going from CA1 to CMX.
That is the decision of the Planning Commission.
When it comes to actually figuring out what it should be rezoned at,
the neighbors should be brought in as part of that.
I would note that under CMX2, Mr. Laver is wrong.
This would still require a variance because the 47 units are more than you can get under CMX2.
Look at the table of uses in Note 2 and Note 3.
You would not have 47 units.
is not that is not correct i specifically stated mr chairman and members of the board
that the developer has committed to providing on-site affordable housing that is completely
in line with cmx too right but the number of units that you have would be determined by 480
square feet when you divide 19 000 by 480 you do not get 47. uh the neighbor is also in the rco
letter and is one of the concerns for overtaxing this is the map from the city open maps of all
the areas which have combined sewers those are the sewers that overflow and back up into the
residents basements in this particular case the concern is if you have second floor third floor
and fourth floor as a new construction and then you have neighbors neighbors nearby if you've got
about 50 people in the high rise and about 50 neighbors in the low rise when it comes time for
the super bowl halftime and everybody flushes and the pipes are can't take it the neighbors on the
fourth, third, and second floor win
and the basements of the neighbors nearby lose.
Mr. Sherman,
I understand that, but I think,
let's try to
move it along.
I had enough time to talk.
I'm trying to zip through.
This is from the USGS open file report
showing that the property
which is up here, right by the A
of Germantown, is part
of a filled-in stream network.
This is done by the City of Philadelphia
in concert with the USG logic survey.
trying to figure out how do you deal with all of these combined sewers that are built into filled in areas of overflow of filled in valleys.
So here we are right at Germantown and Washington, and you can see the property drains down.
The sewers drain down. And from here, they drain all the way out into Torresdale, which is why we have problems currently with water and sewer.
What I had mentioned is that under 14-303-12, there's a requirement for notice to all the residents within 250 feet.
Under 14-303-12-B, there is also a requirement that you notify everybody along the primary and secondary frontage of the properties.
That was not done, as you can see, just by looking at Mr. Laver's paperwork.
They left out neighbors who never received proper legal notice.
notice was uh provided to all uh parties required under the philadelphia city code
and reviewed by council for the bone and board of adjustment