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