a hardship. We would like it built to the code that the ZBA had provided from the very beginning.
that's 23 apartments at 38 feet high we feel that would be best for the neighborhood
thank you and mr chair so and then again as part of as part of the zoning this is cmx2
we would be required to put commercial units as admittedly a resident residential portion of
the north 26th street side that's why we didn't think the commercial component made sense for the
neighborhood. And I would say, again, if you look at the Fairmont Civic Association letter,
there were nearby neighbors. And I'm, you know, there were, at least according to our letter,
there were four nearby neighbors that voted. And they'll make that clear. Yeah. Yeah. Okay,
Chair, we can move on. So
Okay. So what is the height of that building again on the, not the Bambri side, the other side?
to help.
The setback where it is, it's 45 feet.
45 and then the setback is where the other four units are, correct?
It's 45 at the roof line in the front.
In the front.
Yeah. And Kevin, are you still on?
i think it's probably another 10 i don't want to misstate but i believe it's another 10 feet below
on bainbury which is 35 feet kevin you can unmute
alan i was just telling your client he can i mean your witness that he can unmute
i will keep everyone muted but you can unmute yourself yeah kevin can you just answer the
chair's question about the height from the roof line on the north 26th street side as well as the
roof line from the front on the bainbury street side yes so on the 26th street side we're 45 foot
on the streetscape and then on the bainbury side because we dropped the three stories on that side
And we are, give me one second here, I'm pulling that right now, 35-8.
Questions from the board?
Planning commission?
Planning commission?
uh just to clarify i'm trying to find out if we gave a recommendation at the last hearing
but what is the height of the building 45 on the 26th street side and i think he said 35 on
the bainbridge side do we swear her in please oh yeah i'm sorry paula just from below burns
denise knows my name so okay go ahead you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth I do thank you and if I could just state one thing um Paula and chair
um it is our practice to always get the planning commission's recommendation before we schedule
any kind of continuance resumption hearing or the like yeah and and and as an officer of the court
I do remember this one the the planning commission recommended in favor of every variant other than
the unit count and they they kind of punted on that that was that's my recollection we were not
in favor we had no objection to the no objection that's right density be looked at in agreement
the community's position that's right so paula just for my purpose for our board purposes have
has the planning commission looked at the uh revised plan that reduced the number of units
and if so has there been personally have not gotten this but in the recommendation from the
last case on october 14th that our property is indicated for commercial use on the comprehensive
plan we do believe because the property is close to the trolley line and will support the commercial
corridor of gerrard avenue we are okay with commercial not being included so is the support
gerrard avenue um we believe parking is not as necessary because it has access to the trolley
line and we have no objection to the granting of the variances questions from the board
i'm going to recommend that the record be closed and that the board render a decision at the next
tuesday because i think we're off next wednesday is that correct uh tanya yes sure we only hear
the 10th. Yes, Mr. Notkinson. I just would like my client to adopt my testimony. Sure, sure.
Having the client get on. Yeah, Mr. Gravely, can you virtually raise your hand?
no hands mr nokamson all right now and as an officer of court will uh stipulate that your
client would adopt your testimony thank you mr chair thank you so again um
MI 2020-001055-911 North 26th Street.
The record is closed.
The board will render a decision at next Tuesday, is it, Tanya?
Yes, Chair.
November the 10th.
Tuesday, November the 10th at 9.30 a.m.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, I think we have another one for you, Mr. Notkinson.
Okay, I think we have another one for you, Mr. Notkinson.
All right, hopefully it's not as long as the one we just got off of.
MI2020-001280-260-62 Geiger Road.
And you're still on the oath, Mr. Notkinson, just identify yourself.
Yes, Alan Notkinson of Notkinson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600,
Philadelphia PA 19109 and I sincerely apologize for the length of my presentations not not your
problem no problem I think it's paid back for yesterday when I sat for over an hour
um anyway so I'm I'm again this one's pretty straightforward we have an I2 property
my clients are looking to purchase it they they what they do is they they sell they lease
excuse me for the interruption
is this a case that we already heard before
that's right
they sell
they lease
they rent
they maintain and repair
first responder vehicles
so all they're trying to do is purchase this property
in I-2
not change anything in the building structure
and we did meet with the community
I have correspondence
which is exhibit 9
We did meet with them. The community voted 3, 4, and 14 against. Again, it's one of these situations where I think the community just doesn't want anything there.
I mean, but like this, these are first responder vehicles we're trying to, you know, you know, for and bring jobs into the city.
But like, ultimately, this is one where, again, the Planning Commission recommended not to oppose this, the granting and the variance.
And the only thing I would say as to this one is that I would just have a little opposition to I would have opposition to the notice refusal because it doesn't reflect.
um a pre-existing use in the building so there's a medical supply company uh in the property so i
would just ask a proviso that you know if the board does grant uh our zoning appeal a proviso
that all remaining uh uses uh you know all you all other uses remain the same so that's you know
basically our presentation you know again my client's looking to first respond to vehicles
in there could you show some of those photographs again oh yeah yeah so like again myself with yeah
um so here's the property again this is an i2 property this is a 20 000 square foot facility
on 125 square foot lot and there's a parking here and you can see this is the facility right now
we're not making any changes to the facility right now there's a medical supply company in
front part of the facility we're taking a portion of it to house our uh the sale rental maintenance
and repair the vehicles maintenance repair the vehicles will be done inside the facility the
the actual vehicles that they'll be selling and leasing will be in the parking lot as well inside
so again there's already a pre-existing parking lot here
okay see this is an i2 so okay um okay uh have you finished i'm sorry yeah i mean i'm just trying
to be like quick because i know i took a long time with the other one i mean this is really
a straightforward project all right uh any questions from the board no no no one would
like to testify in this case, if so, please raise your hand. Chair, I have unmuted Alice
Udovich. Alice, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in. Good morning, Alice. Please
identify yourself for the record. First and last name. Chairman members of the board, Alice
Udovich, representing Councilman Brian O'Neill's office. We're infirm to tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. And Alice, would you please spell your last
name for the reporter? U-D-O-V-I-C-H. Okay, thank you. Please proceed. Unfortunately, the councilman
will oppose the granting of the variance at this location based on the community
opposing the project. Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Chair, we have Bernard. Bernard, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Hello, can you hear me?
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please identify yourself, sir.
Yes, we can.
Please identify yourself, sir.
Name and address.
Spell your name for the reporter.
Bernard Jadak, J-A-D-A-C-H, 706 Pecan Drive, Philadelphia, PA.
I'm the zoning chair for the RCO.
Just wanted to make sure you got on.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
uh uh i'm the um zoning chair for the rco just wanted to make sure you got a copy of our
letter the 14 opposed and 13 for uh posing the uh zoning variants i just want to make
sure you actually got a copy of it because it was only sent this morning uh sharon did we get that
it's in my packet materials okay thank you thank you thank you thank you anyone else
that's it thank you chair you can proceed thank you uh planning commission
they have should have given a recommendation already yes our this is paula brumblow burns
planning commission i believe our recommendation at the last hearing was no objection okay thank
Thank you. MI 2020-001280-260-62 Geiger Road, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
I believe that is it.
Am I correct, Tanya?
that's all I hear for the add-ons we should be ready to go with the first case number one Frank
yep yes you got it MI 2020-000770-1226 East Shelton Ave
Chair and board members, I have promoted Meredith for you to swear her in.
Good morning, Meredith. Please identify yourself with the records, spell your first and last name, and then we'll swear you in.
Good morning, Meredith Ferlger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
We're confirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Sure do.
Mr. Plotter, do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate its accuracy?
see? I sure do. Great. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, photos and plans five days prior
to this hearing? I did, yes. Thank you. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We do. Thank
you. Please proceed. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Before I get
started, Brad Behrens, if you can hit the raise hand button so we can get you sworn in.
hi this is brad can you hear me yes we can identify yourself your first and last name
bradford barons b as in boy e-h-r-i-n-s i reside at 210 east broadway apartment h1008
New York, New York, 1-0-0-0-2. Thank you. We swear to the firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Please proceed, Ms. Thank you. Good morning,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger of the law firm
Delworth Paxson. I'm here today on behalf of my client, CB Sedara Holdings, represented by Brad
Barron's. Before the board today is a property located at 1226 East Shelton Avenue in the city's
East Germantown neighborhood. The board should have an exhibit packet that I previously submitted with
12 exhibits. This is a very simple request, so I will be brief. I'll start first with the photographs
that I have up on the screen at tab three. As the board can see, this is a charming two-story
attached structure that sits amongst a row of similar two-story residential homes.
And I'll just scroll through briefly so you can get a sense of the residential attached
nature of this particular block.
Here's the complication.
This residential row of homes is zoned CMX2, which as you know requires a ground floor
commercial space.
My client purchased the property about two years ago as a duplex.
my client purchased the property about two years ago as a duplex as he
As he recently discovered, the duplex use is no longer reflected in L&I's system.
It's fairly clear why.
If you refer to the property history that I'm bringing up at tab five, you'll see that
the permit history for this property bounces back and forth between single family and two
family use, dating all the way back to 1948.
So I don't know what the prior owners were doing here, but they pulled a lot of different
permits here going back and forth.
It's unclear why this happened, given structurally the property exists as a duplex.
The two existing units here are 758 square feet and 880 square feet.
It's one unit per floor.
And I have attached some photos of the units also at tab three here.
you can see these are very nice updated units. Now, as you can expect, we did receive one refusal.
The duplex use of the property is permitted. However, because it's zone CMX2, Brad would be
required to put a commercial use somewhere on the ground floor of this structure. As you can see in
the historical permits, there has never been a commercial use here in the last 70 years.
Unfortunately, we're only here due to the lapse in time since L&I last had a permit that reflects
the duplex use. As you could see in the photographs, the block only contains
residential uses here except for a very small church that is right here down the block.
There's a smattering of some commercial uses on the other side of the street,
which you can see does look quite different than the side of the street that this property sits on.
Not only would the character of this residential street make a commercial use not viable,
but it would be a considerable hardship to find a way to convert the ground floor