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