Let me know when we're in, Tanya.
Okay, Chair, I'll let you know.
Okay, Chair, we have about 13 starting off.
You can begin as you wish.
Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's meetings of the Zoning Board
of Adjustment.
With me is Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit is here, as well as our Attorney, Sherman Toppin.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Before we begin, here is our virtual format.
Bevised, the proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
a video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phillip.gov. For the benefit of
our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before it
testifies. If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your
hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question. And lastly, the question answer box
on the screen is not for testimony or comments. Any comments should be directed towards our
Executive Director Tanya Sunkett. Now, continuances for today. I have listed
number four. Is Mr. Mulvihill here?
Mr. Mulvihill, if you're in the audience, can you please raise your hand?
I see no hands at this time, Chair. Okay, then I'll wait to call that in the list.
Number seven is a withdrawal. MI, let me pull up here. MI 2021-002-652-4225 Viola Street is withdrawn.
Are there any requests, other requests for continuances or withdrawal for the 930 meeting?
Chair, we have Vern Anastasio with his hand up.
Mr. Anastasio, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, sir. Avern Anastasio, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O. That's 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, 19107.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What case, sir?
2601 West Huntington, please.
Okay, it's 2601.
We had a second RCO meeting on Monday. They've requested some engineer plans.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Hillary Emerson, on behalf of Councilwoman Sherelle Parker, H-I-L-A-R-Y-E-M-E-R-S-O-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What case?
I'm not sure what number it is on the list, but 169 West Spencer Street.
It's number one on the list.
Number one.
Okay, the applicant.
I mean, if we could see if someone's here, that would be great.
The applicant has not been in touch with the RCO nor our office to have the meeting scheduled.
Tameka Pearson?
Tameka Pearson?
Chair, I see no one by that name with their hand up at this time.
I believe we also do not have documents for any documents yet for that case.
This is a first listening, so we would just request to continue.
The case is continued.
Thank you.
Any other continuances?
Chair, we have someone with the phone number ending in 3552.
Caller, could you please unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for our court reporter, please?
Yes, my name is Adrienne Fernandez, A-D-R-I-E-N-N-E-F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z, Swamp Little Neighborhood Parkers Association.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
What case?
2601 West Huntington Street.
That case has been continued at the request of the attorney.
Okay, I am requesting that this case be dismissed and not continued, because the attorney stated that the property is being renovated, the property is not being renovated, and there's four illegal conditions at the property that are...
Okay, so ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, here's what I'm going to do. We're going to continue that, and we'll bring all those issues up at the continuance.
Okay, there was already continuance granted?
But this would be like the second continuance or third?
uh well there's been two meetings with the rco from what we understand
um there's no meeting summary forms to evidence okay so ma'am and also no notice was that ma'am
ma'am that case is continued and we'll you'll you'll you'll know when the next hearing is
thank you
any other continuances
here i see no other hands at this time
Okay. I'm going to go to our add-on list. MI 2021-004832-3135-49 Montgomery Avenue.
I vote yes for reconsideration and rehearing. Yes to Thomas Holloman. Yes to reconsideration
and rehearing. James Snell, yes to reconsideration and rehearing. Number two, MI 2021 003231
I vote no. Thomas Howellman, my vote is no. James Snell, my vote is no.
number three mi2022002355201 levick street i vote no thomas holliman my vote is no
james snell my vote is no number four mi20210048994820 chester avenue i vote yes proviso
revised plans one page. Thomas Holliman my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell my vote is yes
with proviso. Number five 10 08 Addison Street MI 2021 003906 I vote yes for reconsideration
and rehearing. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes for reconsideration and rehearing. James Snell,
my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing. MI 2021-004827, 2932 North 27th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Going to the regular list, number two, MI 2021-005-021-1700.
0-0-5-0-2-1-17-168th Avenue.
Attorney Michael Ingenito.
Chair, we have Mr. Anastasio with his hand up.
He's coming back in as a panelist now.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Vern Anastasio representing the applicant in this case. Okay, you've already been sworn. Yes, sir.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Mr. Hauser, H-A-U-S-E-R, and he is the owner and occupant of 1768th Avenue.
Okay, our Thomas Holloman, our board member, has a few questions for you.
thank you good morning counselor do you agree to do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do sir did you email all of the exhibits such as proof
of ownership tax clearance copy of refusal picture or drawings of the property five days in advance
of this hearing and did you meet with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all of that
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, it's Jonathan Hauser.
J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N Hauser.
H-A-U-S-E-R.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Hauser, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
I did.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
And that's assuming that it is true and accurate. Is that correct?
Very good. Let's speak about the first level just briefly. It is currently, and when you purchased it, you came to it as two separate and distinct units. Is that right?
That's correct.
And based on your investigation, in order to unite these two units, you would have to deal with a very large sort of load-bearing wall that separates the two units. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And that would entail some major structural work that is beyond your capacity at this point. Is that correct?
That's also correct.
You're not from Philadelphia, right? This is your first time living here and purchasing a property here?
That's correct. I moved to Philadelphia about three years ago, and this is my first house ever.
Very good. Well, congratulations. And you do occupy the top floor, is that right?
The bottom floor.
The bottom floor. Okay. One of the bottom floors?
Correct.
Okay, very good. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. I think in this particular instance, just to wrap it up,
I think that the evidence and the testimony sort of support that uniting these two units on the lower level would just be beyond his means and capacity at this point.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Hillary Emerson.
Ms. Emerson, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning again, Mr. Chair.
You've already been sworn.
Yes, thank you.
The councilwoman is not opposed to a multifamily use at this property with three provisos.
One, that a certificate of occupancy be obtained in nine months.
Two, that trash be stored in the rear yard and that there be a maximum of three units.
and I'll explain the last proviso. We do understand that the bottom floor is currently
broken into two units and there is a mixed history of one to two businesses there.
Our concern is that the back unit is rather small and that it also has access. It is the sole access
to the sub basement where the mechanicals and laundry are stored. So we're concerned about
that access being within a residential unit. We feel that two units on the bottom would be an
overuse of the property, given that the other two floors only have one unit per floor. And we feel
that four units would be out of character with the neighborhood. Aside from one significantly
larger building of nine units diagonally across the street, I did not see any other buildings that
had multiple units in the basement looking at the corners on the immediate block. I also want to
note, because I did attend the RCO meeting, the vote, the way it broke down was seven in support
of the four units, five opposed, meaning that they wanted to keep it as a single family,
and the three that were listed as non-opposed were in support of three units at the property.
so that's how the vote broke down just to clarify that for the board so again the councilman is not
opposed with a co in nine months trash stored in the rear yard and a maximum of three units
thank you thank you any other comments from the virtual audience
i've seen all the heads at this time chair planning commission good morning chair bergman
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. That's spelled H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do. Proceed. Thank you. Good morning, board members. The comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location. However, the zoning permit
records and the existing physical configuration of the structure support that this building was
used as a two-family dwelling with two separate commercial spaces on the walkout lower level
consistent with this application the city planning commission recommends that the board grant this
variance thank you mr chair just to make note of the smallest unit is 372 square feet so it's
not like it's a tiny micro unit um and again the base because of that that loading um wall that
separates these two units um on the on the lower level it just is it it's a task that would be
herculean in its nature for this particular applicant. Okay. MI 2021-005-021-1768th
Avenue. I vote yes for provisos. CO, was that nine months? Yes, within nine months, yes. CO in nine
months commercial trash pickup three units thank you mr chair thomas holliman my vote is yes with
proviso james snell yes with proviso thank you thank you
MI 2022-000711-1941-East-Pachonk Avenue.
Appeal against L&I.
Chair, Mr. Reuter is coming back in
as a panelist. Thank you
Good morning, Mr. Reuter. Could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter?
or good morning may please the board leonard f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r senior attorney for the city
of philadelphia right do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do could you please proceed uh well this is an appeal against l and i from a uh zoning
violation um i don't know if the appellant is in the audience ellen is christopher ferhar f-e-h-e-r
i don't see anybody by that name there's one phone number
they don't appear here chair
uh is the person dialing in from 267-271-3552 um are you i know i'm i'm sorry and we don't say
i'm sorry that's continued
this one is number five mi 2021-004-986-2428-north-26
leo mulvihill
Mr. Mulvihill?
Mr. Mulvihill, can you please raise your hand?
Chair, I don't know if he's having issues or not.
I see his name, but his hand is not raised.
Mr. Mulvihill, can you please raise your hand?
Okay, let's go on.
If we have to, we'll go back to that, okay?
MI 2021-004-994-541 East Rod Avenue.
Excuse me, Chair. I don't mean to interrupt. Mr. Mulvihill's picture has just popped up on the screen. I believe he's in there.
Okay, thank you. We'll go back to Mr. Mulvihill.
Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry about that. I was having some connectivity issues.
So I have here.
okay 2428
north 26th street
MI 2021
004986
Mr. Movahill
state your name and spell for the court reporter
Mr. Movahill
okay sorry chair i lost you there for a second because i was
state your name and spell for the court reporter please
leo mulvihill that's leo l-e-o last name mulvihill m-u-l-v as in victor i-h-i-l-l
address right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth
i do okay could you identify your client the relationship to the property yes tyrell phillips
is my client he is the principal of tp realty llc the owner of the property and he's on the
line mr holliman has a few questions for you yes good morning counselor do you agree to weigh
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do did you email all of the exhibits
as required such as proof of ownership tax clearance copy of the refusal pictures or drawings
of the property five days in advance of this hearing and did you meet with the rco and do
you have an rco letter yes yes and i'm not sure whether the rco ever sent in a formal letter but
you have an email i believe the board may have been copied on it okay please proceed and share
your screen thank you so good morning chairman members of the board on behalf of mr phillips
the principal of tp realty llc we're here for a property at 24 28 north 26th street it's a corner
property at 26 and haggart and essentially it looks like it was an old store at some point
the entrance actually opens into the corner you can see whether there's a pole it wasn't the pole
and what mr phillips is looking to do based on the fact that this property appears to have used
to offend cmx is legalize it for a two-family use he purchased it believing it was a two-family
did some work in there um and now has come to realize it's not so he wants to get that all
legalized and up to date um so we this was a copy of the letter that we sent out to the community
indicating that we had a community meeting this was first back in january we just had another meeting
uh very recently which is why i don't think we have that community support letter yet but here
of both of my notices of mailing so my client's refusal again this is for two
rsa5 district there you go it's my client's deed
and i'll show you the zoning map of the area as well so like i was saying this property is
indicated on the map here in blue in a largely residential district the mix of rsa5 rsa3 and
And we're located right here on the corner.
this red dot that i'm showing you right now indicates the exact location of the property
itself we have another of um other um properties in the area not all residential we have a couple
churches we have a laundromat and some convenience stores but these are also also in rsa5
sports renovation
down on 26th
Southbound, Haggard Street, and this is the zoning signs itself when I posted on the property.
So you can see the work was done, which included an entire new electric, new plumbing, new
paint, and the property looks in significantly better condition than it did before.
We'll get to the floor plans in a moment, members of the board.
These are just some other properties in the immediate vicinity.
oh i'm zoomed in far too far so as i said members of the board it's a two-unit building more or less
to get into the unit uh you can come in through the side uh entrance that was painted red that's
everybody saw in the corner apartment a is about uh 597 square feet and you have apartment
living area in the front two beds and kitchen and back rear along with some flex space above
Downstairs is apartment B. It's 557 square feet. You'd end up through the side door to get into there.
It comes complete with one bedroom, washer, dryer, bath, and kitchen.
So it's not terribly large, but it does have enough space for someone to live there.
We met with All in the Family RCO. I do believe they did send in a support letter to the zoning board,
but I'm not sure that I ever received a copy because we did have some correspondence going back and forth with All in the Family.
Mr. Phillips, if you wouldn't mind, please raising your hand.
Mr. Phillips, if you're in the audience, please raise your hand.
There are no hands up at this time, Chair.
we're an officer of the court we'll take your testimony questions from the board no mr chairman
questions from the virtual audience or comments
chair we have a glenda tate with her hand up miss tate you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Chair, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Could you state your name, please?
Chair, she can't be muted because the messages say she's using an older version of Zoom.
okay is there any other comments from the virtual audience
chair we have mary jones with her hand up miss jones you can unmute yourself and wait for the
chair good morning miss jones could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes good morning mary jones m-a-r-y-j-o-n-e-s on behalf of council president daryl clark
Do you swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I'm just chiming in because it seems like the RCO is having some difficulty with speaking,
but they did make our office aware of the provisos that they would like to include with this variance.
I believe it included securing a Certificate of Occupancy in 60 days.
And just a moment.
And I believe she did, they also sent in a letter as well, and that was sent to Miss
ton you sunk in it oh okay so and they also
they just they don't want it to ever be a rooming house
uh so no no group living although i did explain that they would have
So no, no group living, although I did explain that they would have to come back for a special exception anyway.
So it was those two things.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Any other comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Adora Moody.
Just off and wait for the chair.
Hello, good morning.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, my name is Dora, D-O-R-A. My last name is Moody, M-O-O-D-Y.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
I am a person who lives in that particular neighborhood in that block. I live at 2613 West Hagar Street, across the street, just down the street.
Ms. Lacey is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
That's spelled M-E-L-A-N-I-E, last name L-A-C-E-Y.
i'm with claire harrison harvey in bransburg 1835 market street street 1400 philadelphia pa
19103 right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do could
you identify your client and the relationship to the property yes i am accompanied by eric
cassoway who is a representative for the owner entity adr 541 east gerard ll and mr holman has
a few questions for you good morning counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy i do did you email all of the exhibits as required such as proof of
ownership tax clearance copy of the refusal pictures or drawings of the property five days
in advance of this hearing did you meet with the rco and do you have the rco letter yes to all the
above thank you please proceed thank you so i represent craftwork in its application to legalize
an existing projecting sign located at 541 eastward avenue as mentioned and some of you may be
familiar with craftwork which is a popular restaurant and bar in fishtown so we're here
because craftwork seeks to as mentioned legalize here's a copy a picture of the sign this projected
sign that's located on the property. Specifically, we are seeking a variance for the distance
that the sign projects from the building facade. So, Kraftwerk received its refusal letter on
November 9th of 2021 due to the fact that the projecting sign extends more than four feet
from the building facade. It actually extends six feet, but we will discuss the dimensions
when I share the architectural plans. Here I've attached a copy of the relevant section
under the zoning code that was repealed and replaced in 2011. This is the version that was
in effect when the sign was installed in 2010. The old code allowed a maximum sign projection of 10
feet when the sign was at least 10 feet above the sidewalk. And in this case, the projection is six
feet, and the sign is located 13 feet above the sidewalk. And the sign has been in place
continuously since it was installed at that time. And therefore, Kraftwerk has
installed what was previously a buy-write sign with continuous use, and we are making a
grandfathering argument. I'll also note that Kraftwerk pulled building permits last year for
some minor renovations, and that's what triggered the sign violation and caused us to go through
this process so we met with the fishtown kensington area business improvement district on january 12th
as well as the fishtown neighbors association on february 8th and both rcos have provided letters
of support which i have here and submitted to the zba in advance of this hearing the property is
zone cmx2 and as you can see the surrounding properties along this portion of gerrard avenue
are predominantly commercial if not exclusively commercial um and there are also two overlay
districts that do not impact our requested relief i think this is freezing
i apologize i'm waiting for
okay here we go
so I have some photos of the property okay here we go I'm having some technical difficulties
so these are properties of excuse me photos of the um surrounding area um on Gerrard Avenue
um the property if i didn't mention it it's the corner of the intersection of east gerrard
avenue and montgomery avenue and if my computer will allow me i will show you here we go
the intersection um and the sign
is located i apologize my okay here we go my computer is having glitches
So here's a sign, if you can see it, it's circled in yellow. It's at the intersection of Girard and Montgomery Avenue, and it's affixed to the brick facade next to the second floor windowsill, right where the side and front building walls join.
so here's a sign if you can see it it's circled in yellow
Now I have some photos of the property at night where you can see the limited sign
at different angles and from a distance, which obviously helps to identify the establishment.
Here's a close-up as well as here.
And finally, these are images of the posted notice and the architectural plans that I mentioned
earlier. So there's quite a few items on this and I will go through a couple of them. So as you can
see, the sign is a warped wrench, which is a play on the restaurant name, Kraftwerk. It's white with
red lettering in the center, and it's right around the corner of the building. The dimensions
are compliant, code compliant. It's six feet by two feet. It's 13 feet above grade.
And the only aspect at issue is that it projects six feet where four feet is permitted by right
currently so eric and his team submitted an application to the art commission last year
and received an approval on september 1st of 2021 which you can see what that has a remark that zba
approval is also required and to further support the application um both the art commission as well
as this one we have a letter from the structural engineer which describes that changing the sign
will take a lot of engineering since new supports will have to be added to the structure and to the
building, and it states that installing a new sign would entail drilling 12 additional bolts
through the brick facade, and he ultimately recommended keeping the sign as built.
We also have a similar letter from the sign company. They recommended keeping the sign to
avoid safety issues that might arise from compromising the facade if the sign is removed
and replaced in a similar light to what the structural engineer described. And to conclude,
I'd just like to reiterate that the sign has been there since 2010, before the zoning code was
amended to stipulate a maximum sign projection distance of four feet. It's a unique sign that
has become a brand identity for Kraftwerk for over a decade. And that summarizes the application.
I'll have my client, Eric Cassaway, adopt my testimony, so if, Eric, you would click the raise hand button, they'll promote you for swearing it.
Is his last name Mr. Cassaway?
Correct. Thank you.
Mr. Cassaway, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Sure. My name is Eric Cassoway, E-R-I-C. Last name is K-A-S-S-O-W-A-Y.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Proceed.
Eric, did you hear my testimony that I provided to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
Do you affirm that my presentation was accurate?
I do, and it was.
and do you adopt the testimony as your own yes i do okay is there anything else that you'd like
to add concerning this application briefly um just on behalf of adre i'd like to thank the zba
for their time and consideration it's sincerely appreciated and just to restate that when the
sign was installed in 2010 it was in full compliance of all codes and ordinances and laws
we're asking the zba to grandfather our sign we request that we keep the signs um iconic
orientation and the identity it holds thank you thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
no no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no other hands at this time chair any commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission board members this proposed signed variance is
minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code we recommend that
Thank you. MI 2021-002-840-5511 Spruce Street, Mr. Mulvihill.
All right, Chairman and Members of the Board. Hello again.
You've already been sworn. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is Alan Borowich, the principal of CityBlock Acquisition 10, which owns the property.
Mr. Hallman has a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
did you email all of the exhibits as required such as proof of ownership tax clearance copy
of refusal pictures or drawings of the property five days in advance of this hearing did you meet
with the rco and do you have a rco letter yes to all three thank you please proceed and share your
screen okay good afternoon good morning again chairman members of the board leo mulvihill on
behalf of city block acquisition 10 this is a proposal for multi-family dwelling at 5511 spruce
which is currently a vacant lot uh this property is in is located in an area that is mixed rsa3
rm1 rsa5 and cmx2 so our request is really not out of line which with what is in the immediate
area in addition we do have full support from uh the community group uh after several after
our community meeting that we held earlier this week so we received refusals from this property
in the rsa3 district for multi-family minimum number of parking spaces and we simply can't put
parking spaces in without taking away one street parking and two really any floor area of the
property so we didn't wish to have any all street parking and the neighbors really weren't that
concerned about that either uh the final refusal is due to side yard with a slight variance of
that to five and that allows for the property that multiple windows and a side uh yard area
uh some more light gets into the units rather than having no light in the units whatsoever
mr mobile hill could you could you put your screen up to show the property
oh is it not currently no you you we just see you that's all all right well i'll fix that
that should be working now it's coming up now there was our refusal
area zoning map showing our property indicating
mr mofahill i'm sorry to interrupt next uh uses in the
mr mobahill your voice has really been here can you turn off your video please mr mobahill
Leo. Is that any better? Leo, can you turn off your video? And then try, because it looks
like you have connectivity problems. And now, now try your voice. Okay, was that working?
Yeah, a little better. Thanks. Okay, I'm sorry about that. I've been having these issues all
morning. So we can see here, this is the property indicated in blue. It's in the middle of three
vacant lots that are currently there on this block of Spruce Street. There's our overhead shot,
and we can see we're indicated here right in the middle, right next to a deli, and there's a number
of stores and child care centers in the area as well. Client's deed, commercial activity license,
Proves that taxes have been paid, pardon me.
This is my community letter that went out and I approve of mail-in.
Here's our letter of support indicating that the participating RCOs and neighbors approve
of our proposal.
Here's some photographs of the lot itself.
that's looking to the west and to the east and here's ultimately the proposal that we're seeking
to build so members of the board we're going to have a three-story structure with a third floor
setback and a street setback to kind of match the properties next door as well going to this
structure and pardon me this diagram we can see that our building is about a similar or slightly
less massing than the other buildings that are already currently on the block.
Decent-sized backyard, decent-sized front yard, and this is that side yard
for which we received a refusal. So overall, it's going to be
three units in total. Luckily, we have these pretty well laid out
Pretty well laid out in different colors.
in different colors. We're going to start in the basement, which is down here off to the right.
We're going to start in the basement, which is down here off to the right, a cyan sort of color.
So the basement is just going to be open for storage or something along those lines.
Then we have unit A, which above grade has 739 square feet, dining room to the front, kitchen to the back, bathroom, and then bedroom.
And the layout of all these other units is really very similar.
Level 2, similar layout, bedroom to the rear, mechanics and bathroom to the middle, living area to the front.
And Unit Z, which is slightly smaller because of that setback, has living, kitchen, bath,
bedroom, and is about 685 square feet.
This is just the elevation of the building, showing both the front and sides, a mix of
brick, fiber, cement, and perhaps a vinyl siding.
We're not going to be any taller than 37 feet from grade, which we're going to have
to do under the zoning code.
Because we have full support of the members of the community and because this variance
is minimal and will not affect city infrastructure or neighboring properties in any way that
is deleterious, I respectfully ask that this board grant our request for a variance to allow
for the multifamily living in this space.
Now Alan Borowitz should be on the line.
I would ask him to raise his hand so he may unmute.
Mr. Borovitch, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, I'm here.
Could you state your name and spell it, please?
Yes, Alan Borovitch, A-L-L-E-N-B-O-R-O-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Mr. Borovitch, you've heard my testimony today.
and anything you'd like to add at this point no
is my testimony true and correct to the best of your understanding knowledge and belief yes
and you adopt my testimony as your own yes all right i have no other questions for you
mr what questions from the board thanks no mr chairman no mr chairman uh mr
malville one question what's the rest of the block look relative to multi-family um there are i believe
very few legal multi-family on the block um but i don't have
the accounting of the entire block okay in summary in front boxes looking at the properties you have
mix of single family all right questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location which has been in
place for decades with respect to the variances for side yard width and for parking the proposed
structure is consistent with adjacent structures on this block. However, with respect to the
proposed use variance for three-family use, the applicant's hardship claim is not supported by
evidence of any unique conditions on this lot. This is a vacant, cleared lot ready for development.
The proposed use is simply not allowed in this zoning district. We will allow that one of the
adjacent properties has a legal non-conforming two-family use, and so our recommendation would
be to grant with a proviso no more than two dwelling units and members of the board the
multi-family use was discussed at length with members of the community and generally speaking
these community members are very uh very supportive of keeping intact single family districts however
with respect to this particular parcel um the issues of affordability for members of the community
to have one of these new units in a multifamily building
versus a new, brand new, single-family structure
was discussed at length.
And members of the community were happy
that the price range of the units as proposed
was much more in line with what could be afforded
within this community itself,
rather than a new structure that would cost over $400,000.
And am I 2021, 0, 0 to 8, 4, 0.
55, 11, Spruce Street, I vote yes, but provides oh, 2 units. Thomas Solomon. My vote is yes. We provide so.
James now, my vote is yes. We provide.
Yeah, we tried to call you earlier, number four, which was 2351 North 31st Street.
You're okay with the continuance, right?
Yes, yes.
MI 2021-002835, 2351 North 31st Street, continued.
Great.
Thank you, Jeremy.
Have a good day, everybody.
Tanya, how are we doing with the L&I issue?
Don't seem like we can get him on. If you can call him again, Chair, to see if he's under another name. If not, we would have to continue.
Okay. Mr. Chair, this is Leonard Reuter for the city.
i don't know again i i don't object to a short contingent you know a continuance here that
that's that's fine um it's it's a this the there were several violations that were issued but only
one of them uh is relevant to this board uh and that involved uh signage it's not the signage
issue before this board is obviously doesn't raise any health welfare safety concerns so i would have
no objection to continuing the matter uh until uh the appellant is oh actually i see him now
mr for her yeah
mr for her can you please raise your hand
i could you state your name and spelled for the court reporter
So you just need to unmute yourself on the bottom left.
Okay. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Christopher Fear. Last name F as in Frank, E-H-E-R.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, sir.
um well we were uh we're the uh tenant um at this uh property uh the first floor commercial
business um the property was issued violation for uh obtaining zoning for illuminated sign
um so that was referred to us rather than the building owner um in speaking with the um the
lni uh inspector uh involved he uh directed us to appeal uh appeal to the zoning board for more time
as obtaining zoning for the sign would take more than the 10 days noted in the violation notice
um in order to avoid any fines so that is what we're doing here uh appealing for time to deal
with this zoning issue mr reuter uh thank you uh members of the board um i i do want to note and
just so uh mr fair is aware and uh it may may be the issue uh other issues would have to be dealt
with by the owner presumably but there were several other violations that were issued uh to
the property uh that that do have some safety uh concerns and that is the property does not have a
current uh certified fire uh alarm and suppression system uh now again it may be mr ferris position
that that's something that has to be dealt with by the owner but i just wanted to make it clear
this appeal does not stay enforcement of those violations um i as far as the signage application
goes it does appear that the uh i i don't know what the existing business is that mr fair is
trying to operate is that the tamale shop that is the tamale shop correct okay so there had been a
previous uh food establishment in that location that did have an awning and sign however uh that
had never been legalized the zoning permit that was issued for the restaurant uh which i can't
i don't even know if that was the previous restaurant it might have been two or three
before that um there have been a number of places in this location over the years uh that permit
explicitly said no signage on that application so they at the time there there had been no um
permit given for any kind of signage and you know certain types of signs like a flat wall sign
could probably be permitted by right but any kind of a uh blade sign especially blade sign
that's illuminated would need a zoning permit in this at this location um i just want to note that
this appeal was filed in January. We're now in April. And as of today, I do not believe that
an application has been filed. So I would not object to the board. Well,
so uh i would not object to the board uh well so what we do with violation cases at the board of
l and i review is we will often ask that the board affirm the violation uh that would be
a decision say would be something like city affirmed and then give a 90-day stay of enforcement
and i would agree to that here so we would ask the board to uh because they're not contesting
the violation but and it has been three months almost three months and there's still no application
we would agree to an additional uh 90 days uh with a state of enforcement um so that is he has
another 90 days to try to get the sign legal uh legalized uh and we will but after that point we
would start to accrue fines. Okay. Okay. So I would vote to affirm 90 days, no enforcement of
fines. Thomas Sullivan, my vote to affirm 90 days. James Snell, my vote is to affirm the 90 days.
Right. And again, just so we're clear, this is just as to the zoning violation. The other
violations are not affected by this absolutely right thank you sir thank you i'm sorry i'm sorry
this is tanya the um mr reuter um so i just need clarification of the vote are we saying this is
denied or granted which is i think the appeal was is denied uh but uh with the understanding
that the city will not uh enforce for 90 days from today thank you mr reuter for that clarification
thank you thank you everyone number okay so mr ferry you have 90 days basically okay to to uh
to apply for zoning for the sign yeah and then once we apply we're okay from there uh i can't
say that you might not need a variance so that's i can't i can't give you that advice now but i would
i would suggest contacting uh that's either a sign company that could try to take care of it for you
or, or an attorney. Yeah, no, I, I can, I can get all the, I can get all the appropriate parties in
order to do that. But, you know, in the event that that takes more than 90 days, are we going
to be fined after that point? Because, you know, that's why, that's why it didn't. If you, if you
get the application in, then we'll talk, but, but you need to get the application in at least.
Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you.
MI 2021 004975 5840 Willows Avenue.
I see no hands at the side chair.
Cases continued, must be tried.
MI 2021 002828 6516 to 20 Uplidge Street.
Edward Quinn is the attorney.
Mr. Quinn, I'll be back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
I can.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Mr. Quinn?
Sir, you need to unmute yourself again.
just along the bottom left of the screen okay good morning chairman bergman good morning board
my name is edward quinn and i'm here with my client today uh tony land concerning 6516 uh upland
street okay um you swear to affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
mr quinn yes i do okay um could could you identify who your client is and the relationship that
of property uh chairman bergman my client is tony lamb uh he is the sole member uh single member
owner of lamb agencies llc uh which is the legal owner for this parcel mr holliman has a few
Agencies LLC, which is the legal owner for this parcel. Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
questions for you good morning counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and
good morning counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to
stipulate to his accuracy yes i do did you email all of the exhibits as required such as proof of
exact accuracy yes i do did you email all of the exhibits as required such as proof of ownership
ownership tax clearance copy of the refusal pictures or drawings of the property five days
tax clearance copy of the refusal pictures or drawings of the property five days in
did you meet with the rco and do you have a rco letter um yes to all the above um with the asterisk
that i did not email my exhibits all the documents until yesterday we were waiting for a final
document the tax clearance certificate but everything was emailed in yesterday and yes
we had a meeting a successful meeting with the community organizations thank you please proceed
i'm sorry tanya i'm sorry this is tanya i know listen wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute
i know that's what i mean my question to you is do we have any documents
no my staff sent the list that i gave you we didn't have the documents mr quinn we need more
than one day with the documents so we're going to have to we're going to have to continue the case
okay we'll be in touch with you get a hold of our office zoning board office and we'll reschedule
the hearing okay we just can't do it in one day understood apologies for the delay no no no we're
fine we're fine thank you okay thank you okay so let's see here all right i think
anyone for the morning schedule whose case hasn't been called
i see no hands at this time chair tanya i think we're done for the morning
sorry sorry about that mr chairman i should have asked you before proceeding no no no no no no you
You were fine.
You don't have to be sorry.
Tanya, we're done?
Tanya?
Sir, it looks like we lost Tanya.
Pardon me?
It looks like we've lost Tanya.
Maybe she might be trying to get back on right now.
Well, wait a minute.
I'll be with you one minute here.
all right okay everyone um miss sunken had a little problem with zoom and uh we're done for
the day see everybody at two o'clock thank everybody so much thank you tom thank you jim
thank you okay all right take care mr chairman
i'm going to start time yes chair my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this
this afternoon zba hearings with me is ismael shaheed our board secretary
here, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman. And James Snell, our board member.
James is there. I see him on the screen. Also with us is our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkit, and our Attorney, Rebecca Cole. Before we start, here's our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings will be recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves
before testifying. If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9
to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question. And last, please note the question
answer box is not for testimony or comments. Any comments have to be directed to our Executive
Director, Tanya Sunken. I'm going to look at continuances for the two o'clock list.
Case number three, 2101 Chelton Avenue, MI 2022.
2101 Chelton Avenue, MI-2022-000404.
Number nine, 4927 West Thompson, MI-2021-001976.
Both these cases will be continued.
Are there any comments in the virtual audience relative to those two cases?
i see no hands chair are there any other requests for continuances
chair we have alan knockamson mr knockamson you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
uh yes good afternoon mr chair members of the board alan a-l-a-n last name knockamson
N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N
123 South Broad Street
Suite 1600
Philadelphia PA
You swear our firm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
What case, sir?
Yes, so I would like to ask for a continuance
for 1424 North 30th Street.
Thank you.
And also
3116 Clifford Street
see what number that is
3116 Clifford Street
MI 2022
000403
that's case number five
I'm screening my screen up here.
Give me a minute, Tom.
I'm working on my screen here a minute here.
Take your time whenever you're ready, Chair.
Here it is.
MI 2020-001-309-109 Pleasant Street.
Chair, Michael Phillips is coming back in as a panelist now.
Michael Phillips, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, with Claire Harrison at 1835 Market Street,
Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA 19103. Here on behalf of CDPHILLC, the owner of Real Property
at 109 Pleasant Street, 121 Pleasant Street, and 106 Meehan Avenue. You swear for him to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Before we start, could you give us a little
summary of where this case has been and where it's because it's back from 2020? So could you
us a little idea what this case is about for us absolutely so uh this case uh proposes uh to
consolidate and then subdivide these three lots um in east mount airy into uh nine separate parcels
we were originally in front of the board back in october of 2020. uh there uh at the time the plan
was a bit different and i will go through this in my presentation um and uh i don't know should i
share this my screen now? Or do you want to know why is it a 2020 case? Yeah, that's all we're
trying to figure out. Yeah. So at that hearing, there were two issues raised. One was the
preservation of a historic house, which is the only structure that is on this in a nearly 12,000
square feet of land, and also relocating a driveway. Two weeks after that hearing, that
house was nominated before the historic commission. My client and I, we worked with the nominator
to preserve the house and that property was designated historic in February of 2021.
As a result, we had to adjust our plan significantly and relocate the lot lines again
so that instead of having eight homes fronting Pleasant and one fronting Meehan,
it's now seven homes fronting Pleasant, two fronting Meehan,
and the preservation of the historic structure.
We remanded the case back to L&I for an amended refusal
after obtaining the newly approved subdivision plan
and newly approved or newly submitted zoning plan.
that refusal was then issued uh in november 2021 uh we uh went back before the community in january
and uh are now here today with uh thank you it was very helpful mr halliman has just a few questions
certainly good afternoon council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I will agree to waive the reading. I will not stipulate to the accuracy of the
refusal, however, because there is one item. There's a refusal indicated for front setbacks,
and I believe that refusal is in error as all of the proposed homes do comply with that
provision of the code, and I'll go into that in my presentation. Okay. Did you email all of the
EXHIBITS AS REQUIRED SUCH AS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP, TAX CLARENCE, COPY OF REFUSAL, PICTURES OR
DRAWINGS OF THE PROPERTY FIVE DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING, DID YOU MEET WITH THE RCO AND DO
So, as I mentioned, here on behalf of CDPHI LLC, Doug Bomar with the developer, Canal Development is on the line as well, as is Scott Woodruff with Design Blends, who is the project architect.
This plan proposes to consolidate these lots, as I had mentioned, and construct eight new single-family homes along Pleasant Street and Meehan.
there would be six homes along Pleasant, two on Mian, and then this right here is the existing
historic parcel. There's a shared driveway that provides access for parking for all of the homes
that's accessed off Pleasant Street. Now, as I mentioned, when we first were before the board
back in October, it was a bit of a different plan, different layout. And I will go through
that as well. So at that time, they were all new construction homes that proposed the demolition
of that historic structure. And then this home, there's only one on Meehan and the shared
driveway came off Meehan. At that October 2020 hearing, the two main issues raised by
the community were the preservation of the historic structure as well as the location
of the shared driveway. There was a lot of support and they wanted it off of Pleasant.
So for two and a half years, my client has worked with the community and neighbors closely to revise
the plans and I'll go through all of the revisions we made and to come up with this new zoning plan
that proposes something that is really contextual
with the neighborhood and the single-family homes.
The refusals that were issued are for the minimum lot width.
This is just for those homes on Meehan.
16 feet is required, and they're between 13 and 14 feet,
and I'll show on the zoning map,
but that's actually in line with the homes that front Meehan
that are all between 13 and 15 feet wide in this RSA 5 section.
Minimum lot area of the homes ranges between a low of 1,130 and 1,208 square feet.
And again, as I'll establish, that is right in line with all of the lot sizes in this area.
And an adjustment has to be made to account for the much larger parcel
that will continue to be located at 121 Pleasant,
and that's where the historic property is,
as well as the shared driveway.
So that's approximately 2,600 square foot parcel.
This is the refusal that we disagree with,
the minimum front step back.
That essentially provides that we can't be any closer
to the street than the closest adjoining building,
and we can't be any farther back
than the building that's farthest back.
and we aren't. The examiner was looking at the existing condition rather than the proposed
condition. And lastly is the minimum side yard width, and this only applies to the historic
parcel with the historic home. And that, as you'll see right here, since we have this
shared driveway that's just to the side of the house, this cannot count as side yard
because it's a shared driveway and easement so therefore as a technicality the code considers
that there is no side yard but functionally there actually isn't you know a 12 foot side yard
whereas five feet are required so now I mentioned that we worked with community for two and a half
years and there is a letter in I believe in your packet from East Mount Airy but you know I don't
want to turn this or focus on anything negative, but this letter does not reflect actually the
vote of the community at the January meeting. It was submitted, and I guess the zoning chair
and another zoning member felt that they opposed the project for their own reasons,
dealing with tree canopies or, you know, standing against the development, and did not mention
in that letter, the results of the vote. And were it not for the fact that my client actually knew
you know all your hard work is paid off we nobody would know what the vote was but here it is we have
57.1 percent in favor based on 28 responses so that's a 15 to 9 with i believe three abstentions
and this was the vote and the community that was there after a very lengthy discussion
supported the project and felt that this was contextual and was a common sense development.
So I will just briefly take you through the plans and then ask Doug Bomar to speak. But
as I mentioned, these are all new construction
with two homes fronting Meehan, and here are six new homes fronting Pleasant, all brick.
We reduced the height, so they're 34 and a half feet. Here is the lot in contact, so we have
Pleasant Street here, this is Musgrave, and this is Meehan. You zoom in, you see all these homes
along me in are either between 15 and 13 feet wide so you know dividing this you know 28 foot
lot in half is exactly what is contextual with the surrounding homes
here is the section so you can see the height and the pilot house roof deck again
we set the homes back three feet and here's the existing home unpleasant which comes right up to
the the property line so we could come up to the property line here's the historic structure
the porch actually does not even count as a part of the building facade but nonetheless
we are no farther back than the existing structure these are some renderings
Again, these are the homes that would front me in, these are the homes that would front
Pleasant, my client agreed to a number of street trees, and to show just the surrounding
lot sizes. So, as I said, we're between, you know, 1,130 and 1,200 square feet. And if you'll see
all of the homes, you know, range 1236, 1028, you know, 1253. These two on the corner are a bit
larger. These are really smaller at 700. And the ones across Pleasant Street are actually,
all smaller lots. So what we're looking to do is well within the range of the surrounding
community, and we're just seeking the same treatment as all of the other homes in the
neighborhood. Again, as I noted at the last hearing, the big issue was the historic
structure, the Joseph Meehan home. This was nominated not on the basis of its architectural
merits, but on the fact that Joseph Meehan, who was the brother of the renowned horticulturist
Thomas Meehan, lived here. And Joseph Meehan was also a horticulturist. Although, you know,
I believe that there were grounds to oppose the nomination on that basis, we decided to
work with the community. And that's what my client has done throughout. We entered into
memorandum of understanding with the nominator. And as part of that memorandum of understanding
where we did not oppose, we noted that we would adjust our development plans to preserve the
existing building. And that's exactly what we did. Here are some of the changes that we made
following our initial RCO meeting with East Mount Airy.
All the houses on Pleasant were moved back three feet,
added grass, we added street trees,
a covered entry, reduced the height,
added detailed cornice,
lightened the metal roofing color.
Every aesthetic or design detail that was raised
by East Mount Airy, we addressed.
We changed the brick facade and the mansard roof to wrap around the front to the drive aisle,
adjusted where the drive aisle was located, and did significant planting as well and added street trees.
So this is the reason why the community ultimately, that was in attendance, supported the plan and the project.
the plan and the project i will just lastly show before i ask mr bomar to come on and adopt my
I will just lastly show before I...
testimony i will show just this is what the homes looked originally with you see that you know that
mansard roof and the community really didn't like that it was brought up right up to the property
line um and so you know in in uh revising those plans you see that you know the homes are a bit
setback now we added the street trees removed that mansard roofing uh you know dropped it down
about a foot um and you know we're really you know looking forward to uh to this development and
again from a density standpoint from a lot with lot area standpoint this is squarely in line with
all the surrounding um buildings and this would take what is essentially a large vacant unused lot
of land and add some homes, which will improve security, add additional funds to the city
in form of taxes, and really will be a benefit to the community.
So without further ado, I'd like to ask Doug Bomar if he could join for a moment.
Mr. Bomar, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Will you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, sir?
Yeah, it's Doug Bomar, D-O-U-G-B-O-M-A-R.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Doug, you heard my testimony and everything I noted a moment ago.
Would you agree that everything I stated is true and correct?
And would you swear that or affirm that that testimony can be adopted as if it were your own?
And I usually leave it at that.
But seeing as you've been working on this project closely with the community for the past two and a half years,
could you briefly just tell the board, I know it's been a while since you were in front of them back in October,
But your interactions and dealings and how you've worked to ultimately obtain, you know, over 60 percent support at that January meeting of East Mount Airy Neighbors.
Yeah, I think, you know, you covered a lot of the of the changes that were made, but I think I would say the process here has has worked sort of as intended.
I mean, we we originally bought the property in 2019. We've been discussing it with the RCO and with the community at large and the near neighbors for, you know, nearly two years.
As you mentioned, we've along the way, multiple RCO meetings, you know, side meetings, zoning board hearings, historic commission.
We've heard feedback and at each step we've considered the feedback and made changes based on that feedback.
And we think truly that the project is better for it.
All the design changes we've made, we think we're in a better place than we were at the beginning.
And so that's why I say I think the process has worked as intended.
At the end of the day, we're ending up with something that I think is better for everyone.
Originally, in your initial plan, you did not intend to preserve this existing structure that has been historically nominated. Is that correct?
That's right.
okay um and are there additional costs that are not going to be involved from a development
standpoint of maintaining uh that property up to the historic standards and rehabilitating it as
opposed to demolishing and building new construction sure i i mean certainly the one
thing that didn't improve is our financial outlook for the project but um but again it's
something that we think is better for the the project itself in the neighborhood and the
preservation of that house, although it may not be architecturally significant, was something that
the neighborhood considered significant. So we were happy to agree to preserve it.
And we're glad that it was, we were glad at the time that it was brought to our attention.
And Doug, you've run ProFormers and economic, you know, financial projections for this
um no no i mean if we if we do if we reduce the unit count it would be it wouldn't be a viable
project and and we don't think it would be a contextual project at that point either if the
houses instead of being 24 or 2500 square feet were you know 3500 square feet or we just don't
think that that would be contextual in terms of size and we don't think it would be contextual in
terms of what we would need to you know what the market uh price would have to be in order for it
to seek financial viability, you know, although I don't think we would get there.
Thank you. I have no further questions. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Question or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair. I think that I swore you a couple minutes ago, right?
Yes, you did.
Okay. Proceed, sir.
Okay. The problem with the numbers that they're banting about, 60% and that type of thing, none of those people were affected neighbors.
And as was pointed out, all of the near neighbors that were in attendance are unanimously opposed to this project.
um if there's something to be said for you know the near neighbors and and and uh actually uh
following what it is that their their rules they've done that rules but they're what they would
like to see as a uh as as something in their community and the councilwoman always supports
the near neighbors so as such she is going to oppose uh the granting of this variance because
of the fact that near neighbors are unanimously uh opposed to this uh project at this point
thank you any other questions or comments from the virtual audience chair we have a nina curlet
ms curlet you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
um yes thank you my name is nina curlet
could you spell it please for the court reporter i'm sorry n-i-n-a-c-u-r-l-e-t-t
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
uh yes proceed um i just would like to reiterate uh what charles richardson
said about the vote count we um we're very careful we have a ballot that we send out
that specifically asks people, did they receive a letter so that they can identify themselves
as near neighbors? They must submit their addresses in the ballots. And we do cross-check
against the city's near neighbor list. I believe that we filled out our meeting summary correctly.
And actually, there were fewer near neighbors at this meeting than there were at the past RCO
meetings for this project there's always been opposition about this project it's very dense
it's very tall and there's a lot of concern about how this will affect the property next door which
is a designated historical community asset it might belong to the current owners being the
applicants right now however it is a significant building for the neighbors of east mount airy
the reason the lot next to it is is open i'm going to call it open not vacant is because that
property was the mehan house mehan who was a essentially a gardener he ran nurseries in the
area and the whole expansive property was indeed his garden as well as many many lots in this area
where there were greenhouses and workers houses who worked the greenhouses so it is very concerning
that although this house has been designated that the applicants are choosing to show plans
that essentially set this house up for demolition by accident to try to build a shared driveway for
so many properties in such a a dense configuration with a shared driveway against and around the bay
window to me is i find it preposterous and insulting especially since at the hearing
at the designation hearing the applicants actually said they planned to demolish the bay
to which the historical commission said um you can't really do that objection
that's fine that's the reality my concern is that that day is at risk that the house is at risk
it is far too dense and there simply is not there there there
It is far too dense, and there simply is not, there has not been demonstrated any type of hardship that would necessitate building in this manner at this location.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling in.
I appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
anyone else in the virtual audience
chair we have susan o miss o you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
susan o s-u-s-a-n-o-h do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. I do. Proceed. Hi, my name is Susan O and today I'm testifying as not only the nearest
neighbor, I live at 108 Meehan, but also the neighbor that's had the most involvement to the
proposed project for the past two years outside of the zoning board volunteers of my RCO and the
countless hours they've poured into this project alone. There's three key points that I'm going to
add and emphasize as to why specifically the 106 Meehan lot bears no hardship to prove that the
applicant must build two properties as opposed to one as originally proposed, along with my
opposition to the variances for 109 Pleasant. Before I go into my points, though, I do want
to say on record myself and make aware to the zoning board that the neighborhood votes that
were taken at the RCO meeting in January be counted as illegitimate due to the fact that
there were persons voting in that room that do not live in the vicinity of this neighborhood,
let alone near neighbors, and have direct conflict of interest with this project. Therefore,
should count those votes as null and void and irrelevant to the decisions in this particular
variance. So my first point, there are 53 homes on the 100 block of Yann Avenue. 68% of the homes
are either two attached rows or semi-attached homes. You add single-family standing homes into
that equation and that percentage rises to 75 percent because of the density of our block it's
even more crucial we keep any breathing space in between the homes as possible in order to maintain
the character of the mehan block while also citing from the zoning variance criteria to avoid
to afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the lot use not to
mention 102 mehan will be having their three windows completely obstructed of sunlight in
the process, even more so with the proposed two homes. Adding two additional homes in one lot
would make for four attached row homes, with the fifth being 102 Meehan, only inches from the
attached four. My second point that is that of utmost concern are the risks and dangers associated
with underpinning. That is well-versed in this room and need not be reiterated. This is why there
are stringent laws and procedures in place to avoid accidents or worse irreversible or catastrophic
damages should only be happening in absolutely necessary hardships where there are no other
viable options to which this project is not and the applicant has yet to show in hard proof my
basement at 108 stands at only five feet tall at my height at five four i cannot stand upright and
must bend down in order to maneuver anywhere in my basement, making the physics of side-by-side
construction even more difficult and problematic. In addition to that, the past couple years till
today, we've been experiencing foundation issues within our home. I have photos of cracks
that we've had to, you know, manage ourselves. This alone has been a huge concern as a homeowner
without the additional burden of having to deal with upheaval, ground-up construction,
agitating the foundation of our home even more. With three young children, in addition to the
obvious property damages that were never even considered by the applicant, the risk-to-reward
ratio cannot be justified and should neither be deemed as necessary to this project.
I'd like to end with a precedential case that was decided in 2012 from the PA Common
Wealth Court from Society Hill Civic Association versus the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment cited, where the asserted hardship amounts to a landowner's desire to increase profitability or maximize developmental potential, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania consistently rejects requests for dimensional variances where proof of hardship is lacking.
The betterment of community is subjective and to each their own. We are entering this hearing with the neighborhood already starting from an environmental and neighborhood character loss standpoint, losing more of our green spaces and mature trees in the name of development.
losing more of our green spaces and mature trees in the name of development.
It's been a long and arduous two years for both sides.
I just want to thank the board and Chair Bergman for your time
and very serious consideration with your decision and the weight it bears for us.
Thank you. Thank you.
I have some questions for Ms. O.
Go ahead.
Ms. O, good afternoon.
you were at the hearing in October 2020. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And at that hearing in October
2020, you were under oath as well, correct? Yes. Okay. And at that hearing, you stated that,
well, at the time, there was only one home that was going to be built, and that would be closer
to uh the 102 million uh property not uh your property correct well the dimensions weren't
laid out i mean it's an open lot you can put it anywhere within the lot well but the plan last
time in october was uh there was only one home that would be built on uh the 106 million lot
and that was only that was only because there was going to also be a proposed driveway on
Meehan. Correct. And you objected at that hearing to having a driveway next to your home and stated
that you would rather have a house next to your home. Isn't that correct? No. Okay. Well, you
understand that that we had the transcript and that is, you know, of record. Um, you've had
conversations with, uh, uh, Mr. Bomar, correct? Yes. Okay. And you've had, uh, you've texted him,
um counsel you you have revised plans right yeah how many pages uh well actually they are not
revised plans because they were submitted as part of an amended refusal so um the the revised plans
uh are not so here so here's here's what i want to do i want to have our all the plans
reviewed by our attorney we will meet in an executive session next week and we will vote
next wednesday morning absolutely thank you thank you i mean i will ensure that uh those two pages
that we have uh are what uh um the uh council chair the board has as well right thank you very
much thank you maybe excuse yes thank you so number two i believe is continued as well as number three
If I'm wrong, just someone correct me, but MI 2022-00456-2227 Bryn Mawr Avenue.
Mr. Orphanides.
Mr. Orphanides, if you're in the audience, can you please raise your hand?
chair i don't see mr orphanetes at this time all right i'm going to move forward in case
he gets on later so i believe number
number five is continued number six mi 2022 000 310 3200
200 Red Line Road.
Chair, Ms. Bezidlow is coming back in as a panelist now.
Give me one second to start my video here.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. Jennifer Bazzidlo, B-A-Z-Y-D-L-O.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And could you identify your client and their relationship with the property?
Sure. Paul Santini, he should be on this call as well.
He is one of the partners in the LLC that is the tenant of the property.
okay mr holliman has a few questions for you please good afternoon counselor do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy it's a referral but yes i agree
thank you did you email all of your exhibits as required such as proof of ownership
proof of ownership tax claims copy of the refusal or referral picture of the
pictures or drawings of the property five days in defense this year did you
meet with the RCO and do you have a RCO letter yes to all of that please
proceed to share your screen great all right hold on sorry I did the wrong
thing i apologize uh there we go
okay there we go all right so as i said my name is jennifer basilow i'm here today representing
um the proposed tenant of 30 of spot number 35b of 3200 red lion road uh paul santini one of the
partners is here with me today and the proposed um business is santini grill which i'll get into a
little bit later in my packet here we have let me just move this so I can
scroll appropriately okay so we have the packet with the referral the lease which
I'm gonna skip past a lot of it because it's a big shopping center corporate
lease tax clearance RCO letter we have a unanimous letter of support from West
Corsdale Morrill Park Civic Association with 86 total votes all in favor letter
that announced the property zoning map photographs
and the interior plans as well as the site.
and the interior plans as well as the site plan for the whole shopping center so um just uh just
to orient everyone here 3200 red lion road is also known as academy plaza which i think some
of you are familiar with um it's in there for a significant amount of time uh this is a ca1
drone shopping center uh it's at the intersection of academy and red lion road and it's right next
to northeast airport um there are several other there's many businesses in the shopping center
including acme right aid and a giant fitness and several other restaurant takeout businesses
including aritas dunkin donuts wendy's a chinese food restaurant and a pizza shop so let me just
go back to here um our proposed use is as a takeout restaurant specializing in italian
specialty sandwiches like meatballs, chicken cutlets, roast pork, as well as some eggplant
parmesan, pasta, etc. These are all created with the Santini's family's recipes. They have extensive
background in the food business as a family. Paul Santini, he was here with me today, himself has
over 20 years of experience running restaurants, both as an owner, manager, banquet manager,
as does many other members of his family who are also partners in this business.
The proposed hours are 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, and those are regulated by the shopping center
themselves, so that would not really change. Let me get to the plans so I can show you them.
All kitchen equipment is going to be ventilated through the roof in the exhaust fan. I know that
that's always good. Trash is stored. There are shared commercial dumpsters managed by the shopping
center that are part of the lease for this restaurant to use. So that's the basic gist of
what's happening here. Let me just get back to, I'll show you this. So like I said, this is a
special exception, which is the standard of will not cause specific detrimental impacts to the
neighborhood beyond which normally might be expected for the proposed use. Here we have a
takeout restaurant, any shopping center, lots of parking, lots of access from major roads, so there
should be no congestion issues. There should be no detriment on conforming properties adjacent to it
because, again, this is exactly the type of business you would expect to be in this area.
um no impact on public safety it's a small business um that's going to have reasonable
operating hours um and for those reasons i think that is why the neighborhood was pretty much
universally in support of having another um food option for themselves and like i said on march
3rd there was 86 people at the west toursdale moral park civic association meeting and they
all unanimously voted to support this special exception. So with that, I wanted to just bring
Paul on to adopt my testimony.
What's your client's name, Ms. Bozidlo?
I'm Paul Santini with an S.
Mr. Santini, if you're in the audience, can you raise your hand, please?
please mr santini please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter my name is paul santini p-a-u-l
s-a-n-t-i-n-i do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do proceed um mr santini did you hear my test county here today and believe it to be truthful
and accurate yes and would you adopt it as your own yes great and then questions from questions
3200 red line road i vote yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
ishmael say my vote is yes sorry that that uh james snell my vote is yes thank you thank you
mi 2022 000 394 3501 island avenue
chair melanie lacy is coming back in as a panelist now
good afternoon again uh mr chairman and members of the board melanie lacy m-e-l-a-n-i-e last name
l-a-c-e-y i'm with claire harrison harvey bransburg 1835 market street suite 1400 philadelphia pu
thank you you've already been sworn today could you identify your client and the relationship
to the property yes i am accompanied by darren russ from giant direct which is a tenant of the
subject property mr holliman has a few questions for you good afternoon counselor do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do did you email all other exhibits
as required such as proof of ownership tax clearance copy of refusal pictures or drawings
of the property five days in advance of this hearing did you meet with the rco and do you
have an rco letter yes to all of the above please proceed and share your screen thank you are you
seeing my screen yes okay great so um once again i am uh representing giant direct uh which is
seeking relief for an accessory flat wall sign located above the second floor windowsill and
the property is located at 3501 island avenue so this is a fairly simple sign application we
received a refusal letter on january 6th because the location of the sign is prohibited in the i2
Zoning District. As mentioned, we did meet with all of the RCOs affected by this application,
five of them to be exact, and the meeting was hosted by the Coordinating RCO, which is the
Ward 40 Republicans. That meeting took place on March 7th to discuss the application, and they
submitted a letter of support to the ZBA yesterday, which I've included here.
As you can see, the establishment is primarily surrounded by other industrially zoned properties, and there aren't any residential properties in the immediate vicinity.
It also falls within the airport hazard control overlay district.
So here are some aerials to help situate the property.
the building is a giant direct corporate headquarters, and it's located near the
Philadelphia International Airport on the east side of Island Avenue, just north of the intersection
with Bartram Avenue. Brewster Avenue is also at the rear of the property. And so this portion of
Island Avenue has four lanes with two going in either direction, and then you have these parallel
theater roads that provide safe ingress and egress to the industrial park which i'm hovering over
here and here's a closer view you might also notice that the building is slightly lower than
the causeway which is another motivation for the height of the sign and the relief that we're
requesting so i'd like to clarify that this is a replacement sign this isn't a new sign
that's being requested, there's an existing zoning permit for a 13 by three foot accessory
flat wall sign in the very same location that was issued in December of 2010.
And I've highlighted it on the accompanying zoning plan, which you can see here.
And we also have the current zoning plan that accompanies the current sign application.
As you can see, the location is identical.
on the 2021 zoning plan, as well as the 2010 zoning plan that was approved previously.
Now, this is, here are the sign drawings. So there are two signs, one on the far left that
has a G Philadelphia headquarters. That is not a sub, not subject of this application. The giant
direct sign that I'm hovering over on the far right-hand corner is a subject of this application
due to the fact, as mentioned, that it's above the second story windowsill.
story windowsill.
So here are the sign dimensions.
The current sign that's being proposed is 15.5 feet by 4.8 feet.
As mentioned, the old sign was 13 by 3, so it's very similar.
And the design of internally illuminated channel letters is similar as well.
and lastly or almost last I have a photo of the building when it was occupied by the previous
tenant prior to the 2010 approval that I referenced earlier as you can see the wall sign is in the
same location as well above the second story windowsill so it's been over a decade and at
least two tenants since the sign has been affixed to the building in this exact location
here we have um photos of the zoning notice that was posted 21 days before this hearing
and compliance with procedures and that summarizes my testimony and the application i'll also mention
that i'm accompanied by mark weaver and ed mccann from inside as well as bob millett from advanced
signs and displays who are available for questions if need be but i will have darren russ from giant
direct adopt my testimony so if you would um promote him um he can be sworn in mr russ please
unmute yourself and wait for the chair could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
please yes darren russ d-a-r-e-n-r-u-s-s you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed thank you darren did you hear the testimony that i provided
to the board this morning or afternoon great do you affirm that my presentation was accurate
i do and do you adopt the testimony as your own i do is there anything else that you would like
to share briefly concerning uh this application yes thank you so you know with giant direct we
do firmly believe and you know as we become a part of a community and serving our communities
with which we operate within as part of that we work to hire within the local community as well
the sign package as proposed would not only ease with the identification of the building
but also the pride our team members feel for both their employer and their work location
so I just wanted to say thank you for your time today as we review this this application
thank you questions from the board no Mr. Chairman no Mr. Chairman questions or comments from the
virtual audience. I see no hands at this time, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan
recommends no change to medium industrial zoning at this location. The proposed sign and its
placement would not impair the use of adjacent properties and is the type of identification sign
that a reasonable person would expect to see in an industrial district.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board approve the signed variants.
Thank you.
MI 2022-000-394-3501-Island Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI-2022-00400-4131 Woodland Avenue.
Chair, Mr. Pollock is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Here we go. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Stephen Pollack, S-T-E-P-H-E-N, P-O-L-L-O-C-K, on behalf of the applicant, Pozell Enterprises.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Could your client, could you tell us the relationship to this property?
My client is the owner of this property.
I have with me the executive vice president, David Hess, who will join us as a witness.
And I also have my associate, Nico Rialbuto, who I would appreciate if he could become a panelist,
Because unlike some of these younger attorneys, I have trouble chewing gum and showing my.
Unlike some of these younger attorneys, I have trouble chewing gum and showing my screen at the same time.
So if you could give me that courtesy, that would be appreciated.
We certainly will.
Mr. Redding, who's coming back in as a panelist now?
And we shall wait, I guess.
So I see he's, here we go.
This is a, this is a.
Hold on one minute, Mr. Park, hold on one minute.
Mr. Holloman has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do, Mr. Holloman.
Did you email all other exhibits as required, such as proof of ownership, tax claims, copy of refusal,
pictures for plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing did you meet with the RCO
and do you have an RCO letter all of the above we have done Mr. Holloman thank you please proceed
okay Mr. Chairman members of the board this is a surface parking lot non-accessory on Woodland
Avenue down from where from the Penn Vet School and right next to the what was the University
of Sciences campus. This lot exists because of two temporary variances granted since 2008.
Stop right there, Nico. 2008 by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. So our last temporary
variance has expired. We came back in front of the Spruce Hill Civic Association.
What happens is we have this big office building up at the corner at 600 Chester Avenue.
and it has this lot was to provide parking for commercial tenants. One of our major
tenants recently was the University of Sciences. The University of Sciences as it retrenched
has withdrawn from that building leaving my client with about a half a building of about
22,000 square feet of vacant space. And the hope is that to have this continue for non-accessory
parking. We met with Spruce Hill Civic. I believe you have the letter from its chair, zoning chair,
Barry Grossbach, where they recognize that we are now at a point negotiating a third
time, restricted variance for a 12-year period is requested by the applicant.
And Barry goes on to say why they didn't want to give it, although he says at the end,
my own sense is, that should things remain in good standing at the end of this 12-year period,
and should Pizelle still be in the property operator and owner, then consideration should
be given to a more permanent change. That's a personal observation, as Barry notes,
and not one discussed with or endorsed by the Spruce Hill Committee.
But on behalf of the Spruce Hill Committee, they supported a 12-year extension of the variance.
So we've lived up to all the conditions.
Can I have Mr. Hess get on for a moment, Mr. Chairman?
David Hess.
Mr. Hess, can you please unmute yourself and wait for the chair?
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
David Hess, D-A-V-I-D-H-E-S-S.
I'm the executive director for Pozell Enterprises.
the history of this property and its continuing hardship since it's been allowed to be used as a parking lot now for about 13 years.
Is that correct? Yes. And do you adopt what I stated also as your testimony today?
Yes. Okay. With that, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, we have our exhibits.
We would ask for them to be admitted into record and we would rest.
Absolutely. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time commission
thank you mr chairman uh members of the board david fecto city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location
the parking lot does exist so we think a reasonable compromise would be to allow the
parking lot to continue to exist under the grant of another temporary variance. And the City Planning
Commission would suggest that that would be reasonable to limit to another six-year variance
and the applicant could come back later if they needed further grant extension. Mr. Chairman,
if we may be heard with regard to the issue of six years, and Mr. Hess, can you explain,
because we went back and forth with the Spruce Hill Civic Association with regard to that.
Can you explain the thinking behind asking for 12 years?
David, are you still on or?
I don't know.
David?
Mr. Hess, can you please unmute yourself?
Can you hear me?
David, did you hear? I wanted to have you discuss how I stated that we went back and forth with the Spruce Hill Civic Association and hit upon the 12 years because of certain economic realities that you face as a landlord in the office market facing this post-COVID world.
Can you describe your thoughts and why Bozell is asking for 12 years?
I'd be happy to yes and Spruce Hill supported the 12 years and I'll explain the background
this parking lot supports the office building that's a few homes down on the same block
and this neighbor what makes this neighborhood unique is there are not on street parking is
very difficult and there are not other parking lots that are open to the public or pay for
lots as you might find on Market Street. And therefore, there are no options even if you do
want to pay for parking. And we have a 50,000 square foot office building. And it's critical
that the office tenants have parking as limited as it may be. And that lot is the difference between
being able to lease this building and not lease this building. We currently have over 20,000
square feet of vacant space there and the feedback that we receive is that um is that from tenants
who who cannot move here because we can't offer enough parking so this lot is absolutely critical
to keeping this building occupied and the reason for the timing was because 10 um a typical deal
with uh an office space of this size and the amount of build out and capital that needs to
go into it paid for either whether it's by the tenant or landlord uh these this caliber of
tenant for large spaces like this don't sign six-year leases the leases they're signing are
upwards from 10 years to 25 years in length and so for us to be able to offer space of this building
we need to be able to offer parking for an amount of time that is equal to or exceeds that
okay um thank you very much mr chairman members of board that would be my
questions for mr hess with regard to the six-year issue okay thank you
mi 2022 000 400 i vote yes temporary variance for 10 years 20 32 may 1st of 2032
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Thank you.
Thank you.
can you hear me
yes sir we can hear you okay yes mr chairman believe i believe
number nine was continued.
Number 10 was
continued.
Here we go.
MI 2021
004521
8430 Ardley Street.
Chair, Mr. Brennan is coming back in as a panelist now.
Mr. Brennan, state your name is spelled for the court reporter, please.
Robert Brennan, R-O-B-E-R-T-B-R-E-N-N-A-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
I'm actually the owner of the property, purchased in June of 2021.
Okay. Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon. Did you email all of the exhibits as required?
such as truth of ownership tax clearance copy of refusal pictures or drawings of the property
five days in advance of this hearing did you meet with the rco and do you have rco letter
yes to all of the above thank you please proceed and share your screen
i'm sorry chair this is tanya may i ask a quick question sure um mr brennan are you the sole
owner of the property? Yes, me and my wife, Elizabeth. And you're listed on the deed alone,
your name and hers? Yes. Thank you very kindly. You may proceed. Thank you.
My name is Robert Brennan. Me and my wife, Elizabeth, purchased the property in June of
2021. It's an existing two-and-a-half-story, four-bedroom, one-bath house of approximately
1,950 square feet. There is a detached one-story, three-bay garage set to the rear of the property
abutting the Chestnut Hill Parking Foundation lot,
entered off of East Highland.
The previous owners had installed a small toilet room
and a forced HVAC unit.
This is the structure we're seeking to use a variance for.
Is it permissible for me to have our architect
offer testimony on our behalf,
or do I need to present?
I think you present,
and if we have questions, we'll go to the architect.
Perfect.
As you can see,
the first floor of the house
is 21 feet, 8 inches wide. It's 43 feet long and 6 inches in length. Essentially, there are four
rooms in a row from the front of the house to the back. There is a living room, a foyer,
a dining room, a kitchen, and a back deck on the first floor. On the second floor, there is one
large bedroom and two small bedrooms, one shared bath, and the third floor is a finished attic
with a low head height as a single space. The house and garage date to approximately 1922
and they are contributing structures on the Chestnut Hill National Historic District inventory.
We are interested in converting the existing detached garage into an accessory dwelling unit
which is not allowed by right in the RSA 3 residential district. We would like to have a
home office and entertaining space with the option for guests to stay there on occasion.
We do have out-of-state family who are older and have mobility issues, and there are no
bedrooms or bathrooms on the first floor of the main house.
The accessory dwelling units are not allowed by right in the detached historical structure.
The accessory dwelling units are not allowed by right in the detached historical structures, but the exception is limited to those structures listed on the Philadelphia Historic Register.
So we are creating more than one principal use and creating more than one dwelling unit and are seeking these two variances.
The lot size and existing building locations, as you can see, based on a 40-foot overall lot width, and there's an 8-foot side yard setback.
It would be difficult to create by right an addition to the house to serve the same purpose as requested for using the existing detached garage.
And any additions, as we'll show, would not be the same size as the garage and still take up a significant portion of the backyard.
As you can see here in red, this is only a third of what the actual garage space would be and would still take over 50% of the backyard.
In addition, equivalent to the footprint of the garage would also require the removal of two
mature trees and significantly reduce the shared open space of the existing rear yards for the
south side of the 8400 block of Ardley. It would also significantly increase the amount of impervious
coverage. The mature trees are this Japanese maple here as well as this cherry tree here.
The public utility of the existing garage is also very limited as it is now.
It is now used primarily for storage.
We can actually not park our car there.
While the garage has three bays of space, the West Bay is completely inaccessible to cars, as you can see here, due to this mature locust tree here.
The middle bay is also very difficult to pull into, again, because of the mature locust tree.
and this bay here actually does not open because the previous owners put in a small powder room
right here so it cannot be used currently for cars. Public benefit of permitting the conversion
of the garage into an accessory dwelling unit allows the retention of the shared open space
of the rear yard, shared common view from backyards and allows the retention of the existing
mature trees and landscaping and keeps the existing impervious coverage of the lot the same size.
For context for the neighborhood, we are surrounded by some single and twin homes. To the north of our house is 84-32, which is a single home, and to the south is two twin homes at 84-26 and 84-24.
The back of the garage abuts the Chestnut Hill Parking Foundation lot, as you can see here.
our plan for the garage would be to convert the garage here at the back of the property the
garage currently is 35 feet four and a half inches wide by 23 feet five inches deep the garage sits
three to four feet off the rear property line and three feet off the west property line and a foot
and a half off the east property line there is sufficient space for the required two off-street
parking spaces on the existing driveway. There is space for one car to turn around within the
existing driveway. There is no change in the building footprint and no proposed expansion
of the existing structure and minimal proposed exterior changes. The vast majority of the work
would be inside of the garage. Proposed materials, the existing, the three doors inside the three
existing garage openings would be removed and the two openings to the right would be
infilled with operable French doors, and the left-hand opium would be infilled with solid
doors that would match the style and proportion of the French doors. The existing sides and rear
of the garage would remain unchanged. The existing sand finish stucco is painted in a warm beige
color. The window trim and windows are painted in olive green. These colors would also remain
the same. The existing spotlight down lights on the face of the garage have been replaced with
Here are the letters of support.
We went through the Chestnut Hill RCO process, meeting with the HDAC, LUPZ, and DRC committees
and getting their recommendations for supporting the variants and unanimous support of their
recommendations, as well as getting unanimous support from the CHCA board at their January
meeting.
There are two provisos as part of the support that we agreed to.
In summary, granting the requested variances will allow the full use of an existing historic structure with minimal changes to its architectural character and defining features, save the existing mature landscaping and save the shared open rear yard space enjoyed by the neighbors, granting the requested variance does not create any new or objectionable uses for the property and has minimal impact on the rear neighbors, near neighbors and the neighborhood.
The closest neighbors all support the approval of the variance request.
Mr. Johnson, could you mention what the provisos were?
The provisos were for one of the properties to be owner-occupied and for no long-term
rentals.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry, Chair.
This is Tanya.
may I ask a question? Sure. Sir did you email the documents that were required
such as your deed lease or agreement of sale? Yes and I have that all those documents are also
in our exhibits which were emailed by our architect Matt Milan and that was also copied
on those emails. Okay can you bring up that a document please? That's the document that I'm
showing here um which has uh the exhibits that were submitted
within this could you just put the the lease agreement of sale up on the screen just for
confirmation yep
Thank you so very kindly.
Thank you.
So I'm sorry, again, Robert Brennan and Elizabeth Brennan.
That's perfect.
Thank you, cause I can't see it in my records.
I appreciate your accommodation.
Nope, thank you.
And if there's anything we need to email over,
just let us know.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience.
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair.
um zoning decisions cannot be based on the form of ownership so these uh provisos would not strictly
speaking be enforceable okay thank you m i 2021 004521 8430 r lee street i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes jane snell my vote is yes
thank you Mr. Brennan thank you so so I'm going to go back one minute here to
2227 Bryn Mawr did Mr. Orphanidis ever contact us
Mr. Orphanidis is coming back in as a panelist okay thank you
M-I-2022-00456-2227, Bryn Mawr.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
David Orphanides, Orphanides & Turner.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Certainly.
Last name is Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
My address is 2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Our clients are the owners of this property.
Give me one second.
Confirm that.
so that's the um the church of the church of god is uh the name of the uh owner in the in behalf of
a number of trustees it's uh denis walton roy watson and lennox smith as trustees for the church
of god and constituting the local board of trustees of the church of god at philadelphia
thank you mr holliman has a few mr holliman has a few questions sir good afternoon council
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and simulate to its accuracy uh i do
did you email all of the exhibits as required such as proof of ownership tax clearance copy of
refusal pictures or drawings of the property five days in advance of this hearing did you meet with
the rco and do you have rco letter we met with the rco and i apologize for not being on at the
beginning of the two o'clock list but i'd like to request that and uh like to request a continuance
of this case uh we did meet with the community group at a properly advertised uh community group
meeting in accordance with 14 303 12 of the zoning code and we received a lot of feedback from the
community so my clients and i particularly my clients and the architect and the engineer
have gone back to the drawing board what they can do to address as many if not all the concerns of
the community group possibly coming back with a buy-right application.
So as such, I'd request a continuance and that I'd be designated as attorney moving party.
That's granted.
Thank you.
And again, I apologize for anybody being on this list sooner.
Is there anyone else in the audience from the two o'clock meeting that the case hasn't
been called?
okay we're going to take a five minute break come back for the 3 30 list
thank you very much okay have a good day all right
here we go let's see what i have here
3.30 minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
As you wish, Chair.
Chair, you're muted.
Ready to start.
you can begin as you wish sir my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this
3 30 meeting of the zoning board of adjustment with me is ismail shaheed
thomas hollman our board member present mr chairman james snell our board member
present mr chairman also our executive director tanya sunkett and our board attorney rebecca kohl
Before we begin, here is our virtual format. Be advised these proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded. A video will be available by
contacting tonyasunkett at phila.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, please note the question and answer box on the screen is not for testimony or comments.
Any comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunker.
Continuances for this afternoon. MI 2021-005-020-1714 Washington Avenue B. That case will be continued. Does anyone have any comments relative to that case?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Are there any other requests for continuances withdrawal for the 330 list?
Chair, we have Charles Richardson with his hand up. Mr. Richardson, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Mr. Richardson. What was that case? I remember you said earlier this morning. What was that case?
It is 4234 Germantown Avenue, MI 2021-005014.
right and we have heard nothing from the applicant since we got the notification from
city planning let me let me let me see if he's in the audience clennon greg clennon c-l-e-n-n-o-n
there's no one with their hand up by their name chair so so we we we have no documents from him
either so this will be continued and must be tried next time thank you mr chair okay
any other caress for continuances
there are no other hands at this time chair okay
i have one add-on 5928 walnuts street mi 2021 002443 i vote yes
Thomas Alleman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Number two on our list for today, MI 2021-005019, 1750 South 60th Street.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Um, we also did not receive the paperwork on this case.
This case will be continued.
Mark must be tried.
And by 2021-005-011.
2021-005-011, 2018 East Ontario Street.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
We have no paperwork on this case submitted.
This will be marked, must be tried.
I'm sorry, Chair, this is Sonia.
May I just respectfully request you say continue? Thank you.
Continued.
MI 2021-005-009-2433 North 10th Street.
Chair, we have Zin Jin. He'll be coming back in as a panelist.
good afternoon how are you sir good state your name and spell for the court reporter please
yes zenjin z h e n last name j i n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard suite 1838 filled lppa
19103 on behalf of the applicant you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Golden Realty. They're the owner of the property and Mr. Shagai Bader should be
available today to testify. Mr. Holloman has several questions for you. Good afternoon,
Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
i do did you email all of the exhibits as required such as proof of ownership tax clearance
copy of the refusal pictures or drawings of the property five days in advance of this hearing
did you meet with the rco and do you have an rco letter yes to all questions please proceed
and share your screen thank you
i will go ahead and share with the board the information relating to this case
this should be coming up on the board's screen at this time we have uh can the board see my exhibit
yes thank you uh we have submitted the refusal support letter from the 37th ward executive
Democratic Committee, photos, plans, and related documentation. The application itself,
based on the refusal, this is a RM1 district, residential multifamily. It actually is across
the street from a RM2 district, which the backside of which of that development is actually facing
our street. Because this is in the overlay area of the NCP North Central Philadelphia overlay
district what would have been a by right three unit is no longer permitted and we're asking the
board to permit the three units despite the normal allowed being two under the overlay in addition
we're asking for a coverage extension of about 10 percent from 744 square foot to 844 square foot
This request is actually supported by the RCO. We met with the RCO and at the meeting, we received unanimous support from the community, partly because the portion of 10th Street this is on is currently underdeveloped in some sense.
And also across the street is actually the back of a multifamily development, RM2 development, but they don't really impact this particular block.
So the one additional unit from a density standpoint would actually have no real negative impact to this particular RM1 area.
And as such, with the smaller unit sizes, which I would show during the plan presentation, the value of the additional unit to the community is that it may actually be more accessible to those who are interested in renting the space.
As such, we received support from the community.
The neighbors and the members of the community support the proposal.
Now, from the standpoint of the design of the property, this is going to be a three-story structure.
uh it is actually going to be built in a way so that it closely resembles and matches in height
and sizing to um what what else is there on as far as new construction is concerned however
it is um within the height limits we are asking for a little bit of additional coverage overall
but even with that um there is a substantial uh rear yard available part of the
There is a substantial rear yard available.
Part of the reason we ran into an issue with the coverage isn't that we're building the building deeper, but rather that we're proposing a second floor outdoor deck.
And that is designed for the purpose of allowing each unit, each residential unit to have their own outdoor trash store space pending actual pickup.
So the way we are managing this is first floor would have the full rear yard, second floor has the rear deck, and then the third floor has a roof deck that they can access.
This gives each unit some outdoor space, which allows them to store potentially some trash that they don't want inside the unit outdoors, although we are making as much effort as possible inside the unit as well by providing a trash room for drier trash or trash that doesn't smell as much so that we minimize any possibility of trash ending up outside prior to pickup.
So the actual building depth, if we don't consider the coverage by the deck, is in fact 75%.
So we're not really taking away the light and air of any neighboring properties with our request for the slight additional space.
So the design is pretty straightforward with each unit taking up one floor, but the first floor unit also having access to the basement area.
As such, while we understand the NCP overlay's purpose is to keep density down from what is normally the RM1 district normally permitted, given the nature of the block, given the area is one of the areas closer to Germantown Avenue where the community is looking for more residents to potentially support those possible future commercial activity,
we ask the board's favorable consideration for this variance to permit three-family dwelling at this location.
I am happy to redirect the board to any portion of the exhibits or any other exhibits the board would like to see.
Is your client here?
Yes, Mr. Shagai Bader should be available. Shagai, could you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
Mr. Bader, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
hi could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
yeah my name is chagai bader c-h-a-g-a-i my last name is bader b-a-d-e-r
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes proceed thank you mr bader um you did you see my presentation and hear my testimony before
the zoning board? Yes. Can you verify what I represented is true and correct and adopt my
testimony as your own? Yes, correct. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman. Counsel, one question. What's the rest of the block look like?
The rest of the block is currently half of the block on our side is currently vacant
with some existing buildings on the other half of the block,
which are also zone RM1 multifamily.
Across the street is actually what looks like a closed development.
Their rear yards face our side of the block.
So we have the rear yards of their properties.
Thank you.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Sharon.
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Our adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location, which permits two units by right only.
based on the overlay no three as proposed uh the the applicant's uh hardship is not supported with
evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent
it from being used in conformity with the code therefore we recommend the request advantage not
I'll be glad.
MI 2021-005-009-2433 North Tenths, I vote no.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2021-004-992, 559 North 63rd Street.
Chair, Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
good afternoon Mr. Chairman how are you on this fine sunny afternoon I'm wonderful could you just
state your name and spell for the court reporter. Absolutely. Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D,
attorney for the applicant, Keith Yantes, Y-A-N-T-E-S. All right. Do you swear or firm
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you talk about your
client's relationship to this property? My client, let me share my screen real quick here.
uh my client is uh keith yansky is doing business lc they are the record owner of the subject
property at 559 north 63rd street mr hallman has a few questions for you good afternoon council do
you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy thank you mr hallman yes
i do did you email all of the exhibits are required such as proof of ownership tax clearance
copy of the refusal picture or drawings of the property five days in advance of this hearing
did you meet with the rco and do you have rco letter yes my exhibit packet had been submitted
to the board we did meet with the rco and i do have a letter thank you please proceed
thank you very much uh mr chairman i've submitted my typical exhibit packet
again i represent keith yantes doing business at free co properties that's f r a ceo for the
reporter uh llc uh with regard to 559 north 63rd street uh in my packet a1 is the notice of refusal
this is an application to legalize your document a permit for a three-family dwelling with an
existing permitted grocery store at the first floor there was one refusal for lot area under
the code 1440 square feet is required versus the 1224 square feet existing accordingly we're
seeking a dimensional variance today um a2 is the zba application of appeal a3 project information
form A4 proof of ownership. A5 is tax clearance. I would note to the board that the 2022 taxes
were paid by check number 10894 on March 25th, 2022. As an officer of the court, I can represent
that I confirmed that with Fracio Properties LLC's controller, but the system has not caught up
to that payment but uh as an officer of the court again i represent that that check has been
submitted uh and we're just waiting for uh the city system to catch up to that a6 are floor plans
a7 are photographs a8 is the rco letter from hmc squared uh a9 if submitted would be the district
council letter and i would ask that it would be marked as a9 uh with a10 is the relevant zoning
history. In 2019, from what we can determine, a zoning permit was filed for a retail grocery
convenience store at the first floor and inadvertently failed to include the three
existing apartments at the second and third floor. It only indicated two. Again, the grocery store
tenant was probably not aware how many apartments were above. 2001 through 19, it was used as check
cashing and three apartments prior to that check cashing one shop and two apartments in 2001 1991
1980 check cashing and two apartments 79 and in pre-79 it was some sort of a store uh and two
apartments uh a11 is proof of zoning of similar properties uh one being 554 north 63rd which is
directly across the street that is a grocery store and three family and the photographic
evidence and permits will will show that it's basically the sibling building uh just a mirror
image of our building located directly across the street another corner property
of our building located directly across the street, another corner property.
And then across Haverford Avenue at 561 North 63rd Street is a takeout restaurant and a two-family.
A12 is the zoning map and A13 already aerial photographs.
So I would point out for the board's information that this is a mixed zone block.
It's mostly RM1 multifamily residential at the far end.
It's some CMX2 commercial residential mixed use and at our end of the block, it is also CMX2.
Multifamily is specifically permitted in the district.
However, there are square footage requirements for the multifamily use.
CMX2 requires 480 square feet per dwelling as opposed to RM1, which is right next door, for all intents and purposes, requires 360 square feet per dwelling.
The CMX2 as owned requires 1,440 square feet for three families.
The existing lot area of 1,224 square feet is 216 feet shy of the required 1,440.
However, I would submit that if it was zoned RM1, we would be compliant for three dwelling units.
So we have the refusal.
Again, it's simply a lot size.
We can't create any more lot size.
That's what it is.
We have 1224 existing, whereas 1440 is required under the code.
We have my application of appeal.
the project information form, a copy of the deed.
Again, all taxes were paid through 2021. 2022 is due and owing. However, again, I represent to
the board that upon confirmation of the controller from Fracio Properties LLC, that check was mailed
on March 25th. And it just has not been cleared and, you know, the system updated. Okay. So,
and then we have floor plans. The first floor is the commercial area where the grocery store is.
There are two apartments on the second floor and one apartment on the third floor.
Again, this is a picture of the property at the corner of 63rd and Haverford.
Again, we have the convenience store or grocery store on the first floor,
two apartments at the second, one apartment at the third. A side view, again, you can see here
is the entrance to the apartments, the grocery store. The rear portion of the second floor
is one unit, and then the front, I would say two-thirds, roughly, would be the other unit,
and the third floor again consists of one residential unit. All three are currently
occupied. Again the side entrance you'll see the three mailboxes. We do have security cameras
on site. This is just an aerial view showing that the property is at the corner of North
63rd Street and Haverford Avenue. The sister building or the sibling building is directly
across the street which is also a grocery store and three apartments.
We did meet with the RCO. Let me blow this up for you. They submitted their summary of the meeting,
whereas they indicate its opposition. However, if you look at the summary of the meeting,
there were four in support, one in non-opposition, which would total five,
and there were five opposed. So I would submit that it was an even vote, opposed and not opposed.
They do submit a letter indicating some background on the property.
They acknowledge that my client purchased it in 2012.
There were already three apartments on the second and third floors and a variety store on the first floor.
However, in their number three paragraph, they have concerns about the maintenance of the property and some issues with the grocery store.
There's no mention whatsoever about three apartments and whether or not they are opposed to the three apartment use.
And then we have the zoning history. Again, a use permit filed in 2019 was for sale of consumer goods on the ground floor with two family.
The applicant obviously did not know that there were three.
property. And then we have the other zoning permits attached to the packet. Again, here
is a Google map of the property. As you can see, we are here with the big red dot. And
and then directly across the street is the other 554 uh this property over here where it says
then directly across the street is the other 554. This property over here, we're
lincoln fried chicken uh is also a uh a restaurant use on the first floor with multiple you know
multiple apartments pardon me um this photo here shows uh you know top and bottom our building on
the top photo and the bottom photo is the uh mirror image building directly across the street as you
see they have the same bow windows in the front they have the same bow windows on the side
and they both have commercial use on the first floor with three apartments above
here's another larger photo of the grocery store across the street
the side view again it would be the mirror image of what our building is
another aerial view and then finally the zoning map and i i feel this is important because you
the four properties at our end of the block are zoned cmx2 one at the other end of the block is
also cmx2 however every other property in between is owned rm1 so this is a um a a multi-family
block in one way or another some have commercial uses on the first floor some don't um i've gotten
some text messages from my client he was having problems logging in um however if you were here
he has reviewed my entire packet he reviewed the packet that was submitted to the RCO
he attended the RCO meeting tried to address their concerns to no avail obviously because
they have concerns about the grocery store but again they mentioned nothing about the three
family use if he were here as an officer of the court I would indicate that he would verify the
truth and veracity of my representations to the board and he would most certainly adopt them as
his own testimony and based upon that we would ask that the board grant this variant questions
from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i've seen no hands at this time training commission
uh ron bednar city planning this property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city
plan or adopted district plan uh the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique
physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used
in conformity with the code one additional unit could have been achieved through the city's mixed
income housing bonus program therefore given the current proposal we recommend the request
for variance be granted not be granted
MI 2021-004992-559 North 63rd Street I vote yes
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes
James Snell my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes
thank you mr chairman okay so is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called
i see no hands at this time chair thanks everyone good day's work
good night good night good night another add-on i guess i'm sorry rebecca
was that one add on from the email i i took care of that okay thank you yeah we did that earlier
this morning she had that rolling it was just the one we did a little while ago thanks all right
sure thanks everybody have a good night all good night good night